<%BANNER%>

Intergenerational Solidarity as a Way of Understanding Grandtravel

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110218_AAAAEC INGEST_TIME 2011-02-18T23:10:27Z PACKAGE UFE0013406_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6635 DFID F20110218_AACPWE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH palmieri_c_Page_005.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
216e5028a65a04afbbd8a5bb156a1ec6
SHA-1
e201cd853cfacb645d290b0a13c72f47f8fa6534
72993 F20110218_AACQAW palmieri_c_Page_086.jpg
690142b624ca78dcd4a679c544e131ca
156ce9cc3a3744909f262ebb6cedafe725ebd1ec
32370 F20110218_AACPVQ palmieri_c_Page_106.pro
e7bd6a389bd5db731ad2cc5f6f7d3cbf
a7025dc241dd82c3777a18780427941cb6f2e8df
24560 F20110218_AACQBK palmieri_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
8c3c2e08409e56999cd9425e429f9b58
cc882b5387622d87dadb3c293712cd99db09d2c5
12678 F20110218_AACPWF palmieri_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
de24740dd1828e608a949b56c20048d7
0970e6c4767ea37350f18bd6fdca022e98769df2
22470 F20110218_AACQAX palmieri_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
a178dc9ebd9b35cf92e99fc2ff07fb4a
41a7edcd6561ceb9fe59e49a809697b1f6cd96eb
25221 F20110218_AACPVR palmieri_c_Page_108.pro
6e2fa0ab2844204b3416b3824cdda486
629ff399eb5daf23848a2c24515585b335b9485d
47140 F20110218_AACQCA palmieri_c_Page_107.jpg
7856023b2ff813712ed07d35c88b6a50
f2623e1b2115265f476e0f9607f6b298334609c2
81334 F20110218_AACQBL palmieri_c_Page_096.jpg
a7fecbf97a0b442629265ce494d67a29
aa6a5ee50f868325e651babf2c5136671773ddb2
96317 F20110218_AACPWG palmieri_c_Page_007.jpg
ca3ca29f6f464ae9d6fe2b04e93d43da
4ca9dc38e8b99d35638849fe29af4a3ffee71584
76524 F20110218_AACQAY palmieri_c_Page_087.jpg
378d234a0bc56d7942edbb1ee92f4594
53989dbd15c9ddc0794b306ce695d54985816366
12702 F20110218_AACPVS palmieri_c_Page_111.pro
f7fd51d6cb57f816fb53b684136eb7fd
2d35def48ea45c43d9ff9b2a216ad0d51555fea0
49617 F20110218_AACQCB palmieri_c_Page_108.jpg
85bbceca81d6b0e2110a35eb5eb4e691
23bcbb4ff6cb042e4e5c620ce47f2e11521880ef
25147 F20110218_AACQBM palmieri_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
d06a0b428b8cb1584178f70d2935fe02
63418b7519b83a62bac0d63ac6970911924d8170
16007 F20110218_AACPWH palmieri_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
9aa7014e7ea34e6f5f6991c0d7d4a669
7e1786d253fc9342532cadd90f49a685b407f447
24168 F20110218_AACQAZ palmieri_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
2c23a07a9e4fca33e28f2a373c2de47b
70e95fba26bf16b32dd36c6abb97f56a2613b525
49285 F20110218_AACPVT palmieri_c_Page_118.pro
803f277222d7aa507ae703d768cf3e86
b2e9ca14f0f8ca1565d8105808e4ef8e474be80d
81665 F20110218_AACQBN palmieri_c_Page_097.jpg
ac8618444f9cd49941fd900342e96cb5
68dae38d57bef74b49ff864d586e5eb8e852fbba
78492 F20110218_AACPWI palmieri_c_Page_010.jpg
9cdea8a5fe5d64303c03b44134321fce
15c187e25aef2abf7147ad99a78381fe436c3ab6
33151 F20110218_AACPVU palmieri_c_Page_119.pro
11e069e5e4eb82e105a169335581010d
a9fb12a90f0136fbd9793e28ca5990b9565b6007
16269 F20110218_AACQCC palmieri_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
9dcfcde7c5e567fa3cd071f7bfcc73bf
9a48c92014bc89f690c72a906cd4a0bffc50a920
26141 F20110218_AACQBO palmieri_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
7877d89607a8f8aa969c0ed41857ef87
673b88e153c6b993e0b4a97ad0e5ffc67caea346
21026 F20110218_AACPWJ palmieri_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
9fdfe77e340544b5e7a42e49b06f0510
38ee37a4b3062ccd92aff47303787c359b1576a0
46935 F20110218_AACPVV palmieri_c_Page_120.pro
4a0c9743b36cfd4da58770ea161db9a3
04ff7b74e583e99041f518ea23e4c5a41fa4d7bc
19145 F20110218_AACQCD palmieri_c_Page_109.jpg
bd6efb3a2c798cc433b7e506d3ffcae2
8250b268ff6e7dc448b3f7213147d7511fe4b35f
26662 F20110218_AACQBP palmieri_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
1580241f0ecb0e591a60049f31c2f997
28e5ace587d2b6a34bbc347351317737cc8572c9
19848 F20110218_AACPWK palmieri_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
a2381d701f8919ca47b0f37ee92971ea
e2b44e13407584bf938e219cb2670815f181917f
5109 F20110218_AACQCE palmieri_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
e8d1d7d27835c01fa1ef287846520d2c
dead2375297704a2fc1d7a990ffbfeee2d202275
84448 F20110218_AACQBQ palmieri_c_Page_099.jpg
222313c4e5183d8c5784219ff503b9d2
e84e6f1e634717fec1ba95e8982ec48e56e3ebaa
26372 F20110218_AACPWL palmieri_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
a73cd34f38144bed8586ae412e69e331
37af392eb4150ecb10adbf5f45892e48f603712b
59316 F20110218_AACPVW palmieri_c_Page_121.pro
1ef8a446a0e50eb8368f40ef5078f21d
b754ff08c16724c321ccbb0b7d25f2d90909524e
32840 F20110218_AACQCF palmieri_c_Page_110.jpg
46d3bc2d22c6d60b1c7543e5e8e4aa05
ab3ce16f96a674aca57b13262754c5f8c333222e
26087 F20110218_AACQBR palmieri_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
7d88cd4babd53697c92000a869124d3b
488d29e4267acd56bb952e9af82592aed08b5561
70643 F20110218_AACPWM palmieri_c_Page_013.jpg
1972fdd1f25e4dbe2dc5861d5ad75565
a0b09c8b6df1e122fdfba84f3465595c0a55ef3e
58661 F20110218_AACPVX palmieri_c_Page_122.pro
cc0354aa5dfe02ddc604b55faa5020d3
3077967f6677e2ff68eff38c1873ff0bdf449b29
31063 F20110218_AACQCG palmieri_c_Page_111.jpg
c19b11f44288a74efe46fbc6ef8c6dbe
c426f62e7c8cfb9152b6486ab1819957ed83056e
79953 F20110218_AACPXA palmieri_c_Page_022.jpg
9e96ac2f68a48b5ff0eafe4e28ef0eca
5262c6a031a4bab16cbb8fa21707b4b638d2419c
83638 F20110218_AACQBS palmieri_c_Page_100.jpg
33ea31cb5066d63cd8fe74464d6063df
2cc27f61aa3b8477ebe4e6f3b4258629fec1f015
21860 F20110218_AACPWN palmieri_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
4238ae58fd63513317c2af8d4b47c883
67ae1fda2b72203c1febfe219498005cb7672a24
11536 F20110218_AACPVY palmieri_c_Page_124.pro
ccfe390eadf620a2ef0058326f602496
ef6ae2d812c91ad76b4459972084a62be885e8b2
10366 F20110218_AACQCH palmieri_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
3657b60a1aa9dfeb961edb49ee5c24ab
d984aff5d090542eedddc2872a014eafd9329cc2
24646 F20110218_AACPXB palmieri_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
c1423aee3f4c5b2a8e3d57bf666562a5
0839a9c5789d3a8cc80b629986bc4f63a1a1bdc5
25885 F20110218_AACQBT palmieri_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
1e35f44fb47392c87ed93f5f2a6de06c
f1cd59a1de0e34f6df15d9ca520e5180ac0bface
83642 F20110218_AACPWO palmieri_c_Page_014.jpg
98280e09346612c0bc2ef28a39388416
417b74f79c5652a93aa423691afe5c820cc0241b
18466 F20110218_AACPVZ palmieri_c_Page_125.pro
57616730b2216fbc23c0564d1227c5d8
a77c8ce3edcc6a6849434deb149e77840338bb02
29343 F20110218_AACQCI palmieri_c_Page_112.jpg
2b4f986296c91a91c6345ce92ff04567
97ab888230705575cddce6860761556e22a6bcf4
12922 F20110218_AACPXC palmieri_c_Page_023.jpg
bef3637f2569bde98d468acac0ce4afc
d7a891916b73f6ca59f794072f291b2f555fd107
75301 F20110218_AACQBU palmieri_c_Page_101.jpg
ffc1b1f6c98794c0c5aab5f5dbda6c04
ce4da1cd909bc18d9f9d0ca3fbf621d9b1dc423f
10146 F20110218_AACQCJ palmieri_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
4f6eb53588195f813825f5380b062a18
949de0f48f90113a4f0a9b627390e3a591a83e13
4512 F20110218_AACPXD palmieri_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
7a536650c0042cb9bf57a844a6bae6c8
daa25f13cc763bc5ee3243e0a5506c88b3dd036c
23591 F20110218_AACQBV palmieri_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
64cd495e4c9850516a302dbd017c1a79
dfe5f489264ddf34c7e7a3fab1b5811636040d03
26366 F20110218_AACPWP palmieri_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
abd1582eead1e67243e96b6ed07acf50
2e76cb48cdd873e3a64607314f4f617c80efce12
23694 F20110218_AACQCK palmieri_c_Page_113.jpg
9a28f32cf64f918c73df07e5353768ee
fbb69eb2bd4370fc91713051d59ed8305a55e5ae
20728 F20110218_AACPXE palmieri_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
07906970a259c6098d93888fd22d9338
e9309d53f591012faadd1c58d41504d0b5cba823
20549 F20110218_AACQBW palmieri_c_Page_102.jpg
c83c1f392f4a43ebde862107f13b0fd3
c18dd8a61f9e098fa10fad80128d92ac9fe9dc62
24850 F20110218_AACPWQ palmieri_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
d2f93c6f7663df8267e95a52b7078637
7a7b4d6078dd5d4d4cef67708f371947691947e6
25977 F20110218_AACQDA palmieri_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
fcac84ad1663c9bccd19f6f4afc8e007
20aa1766ec1c8279155a6da840e7c80eb68be5c6
15813 F20110218_AACQCL palmieri_c_Page_114.jpg
670f775a02da42aeae0791b1bd12cf7e
4fb0cc2508ff2738dd52cac4f7be775af40f1dec
83066 F20110218_AACPXF palmieri_c_Page_025.jpg
092fffeef7125f6e57fe91fa3d934dfe
4d85dd99e40c735a2939b8ea93f321c41c7fcfc3
6466 F20110218_AACQBX palmieri_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
b727b4370348afc26d2cb3ca962a95bf
c2c8a2fbe2379dd06494e60fce84fb8e00669ff9
24930 F20110218_AACPWR palmieri_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
41b0b47ccc57b5d8733848c902b62121
229731839a279868f22b66b2bf2deb54ddbab71b
26483 F20110218_AACQDB palmieri_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
3aa5442bf2f6803eb3f711696de35f04
f3ea4be91f09d70f8e97294d416970e87dabac98
5366 F20110218_AACQCM palmieri_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
d37437b783b94f20726cc019c8a5756f
7f09782b2945ad400e998674e4a53afce57f2ad4
26107 F20110218_AACPXG palmieri_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
5e8d0a15ac8ea78b2cc138d5fb7f27a3
4b63e4c5133394fa3adaf7c4dd69d87489731e35
17673 F20110218_AACQBY palmieri_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
e018d6390a726ce18064acb7a2fd8ed8
19c399747f8230b8efc5fdfe266ac74f9671d9f5
25131 F20110218_AACPWS palmieri_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
37eae2ba5d25e9265173e534b4649110
ce034da8e4d42e02973251453aefbfdf04f1cbf3
6507 F20110218_AACQDC palmieri_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
1f5723778138257c3aa54f0429ad2863
bea29fb3600a2439e9fbe4b4347cf53ccd163b22
74229 F20110218_AACQCN palmieri_c_Page_115.jpg
422ea057003f5facdfe97767e8e63ca9
44f5d17a05c0934059970d6b5c6eec86a871d7c7
81554 F20110218_AACPXH palmieri_c_Page_026.jpg
91b7a0f5e9adf767dff8dbec8aa16c2c
0c11d19707e2b0c6c76e17abf43c68332ad72228
58127 F20110218_AACQBZ palmieri_c_Page_106.jpg
cede222850f0419efcfb07d0181430e4
3cf6a7c4dc4dc4f165c9715b098a950a8809340a
82940 F20110218_AACPWT palmieri_c_Page_018.jpg
893c777b6da2c8acf5fb84a0951a49f1
6b2bc4623a1ea7c1eaa63088afcb143626a885c2
22845 F20110218_AACQCO palmieri_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
2e700c2f8975314ca64193fd96f6caed
18fa15979081927ea1aa9c00eff511ccc5221db0
25368 F20110218_AACPXI palmieri_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
ef5d9b94a01e22918e97360af3b6a6df
51ed0a0d0f93221614b8b62e2cbd4cb38c4a279c
83875 F20110218_AACPWU palmieri_c_Page_019.jpg
de3c23ad7b48b18a445f0b4783d15570
e49d9947a078c57c664fb1f66a2cbf1e91c67ffe
34408 F20110218_AACQDD palmieri_c_Page_125.jpg
a09397207d0216bfcd77f63a0ede5abc
d5d2d35166aa74257275742f0f1b69eabf229366
85446 F20110218_AACQCP palmieri_c_Page_116.jpg
c4600ec436bcc2829920183fae6e5610
ce0116146152da9439dc8139a2ca044bf0cb48db
81844 F20110218_AACPXJ palmieri_c_Page_027.jpg
0891addbf97787010c608f9b317ac143
20ebb3ceb30c3bb8b199c0b2e58108c8358cf2ae
26279 F20110218_AACPWV palmieri_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
e50c1088bcafa606bc85c9b273eca5c9
1c4cfac52941f0b47a798b25e59fa30600ffe95e
10759 F20110218_AACQDE palmieri_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
16959ab4d695394a63613fd8b6e8b508
7de9844b11dd6612998e8b8ff0ad79449e8e2fd5
26423 F20110218_AACQCQ palmieri_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
249b4629a48ebbb6788cdedb004dc77c
b186b9aed539549ba3cc03f53b6edf5094f0fd66
25703 F20110218_AACPXK palmieri_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
92d6d58780b4a1ad9ac3389963505cdc
092281218bb00e2f9dbc74d886dc7c4412c13bbf
74648 F20110218_AACPWW palmieri_c_Page_020.jpg
289f3ba01f9bd99e1420a4978b011bed
6db04f17a8be89005243caa925a03355e1603783
226474 F20110218_AACQDF palmieri_c_Page_001.jp2
f080c266c7b36d2ba90987fdcbf2562b
27de024d7b25f325343ef4466073ce6fea1df2e9
78842 F20110218_AACQCR palmieri_c_Page_117.jpg
4eb9a03f75437f19e4ba59357a6f9a2b
1b62dab45c6b7c149001ee760bf670681a70f5a1
80955 F20110218_AACPXL palmieri_c_Page_028.jpg
49998f91be7d5a79905b5f064b4c70a5
da66f1eb5a19034fd6d1ed060069071f11fad839
30326 F20110218_AACQDG palmieri_c_Page_002.jp2
3c7ee8683bf854d48093f7831380f5e6
8c4fa21735e9f824e7be811aae28b9101a82140c
79516 F20110218_AACPYA palmieri_c_Page_039.jpg
23dc814a03a631d481b6a00d813cbc87
6db6fd04b14f2b08be4044e84d5f75c72d053168
24259 F20110218_AACQCS palmieri_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
ef618f1d9334f6d59c5976915b0641ca
51412828b0f3943ad240840d1e4629522964b7d1
83485 F20110218_AACPXM palmieri_c_Page_029.jpg
5a57524a02ecf86073e03e5867b01c94
38f97aca42a28c6dd9860fedcb77cb1ed6945110
23763 F20110218_AACPWX palmieri_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
2d93ad9562ef4b07488b8fb43826aedb
8a75eb74931e9dffb98651440c5bfee8161c0c35
230550 F20110218_AACQDH palmieri_c_Page_003.jp2
a9f7c1d922e9827e45d32c8dc8e5ef43
4d8cecb704edbe245583a22da3a8f064eb1c1445
24104 F20110218_AACPYB palmieri_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
2da19379bac75be0721635df6c585a37
f6145a09cbe7ea7800f124cae1aaf629e6463f01
25148 F20110218_AACQCT palmieri_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
c8aedf300ff8e8ac2bb44bf41ad4d40e
d2fdfed2fd028177b66d14819c384bea2768e969
26074 F20110218_AACPXN palmieri_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
393a3de7aaeb23597dadf92fd411a8cf
0f849b3a1895efb19a31608f4d7bfb44c18da4bd
70463 F20110218_AACPWY palmieri_c_Page_021.jpg
ef237a51d4bcb3500213cf1daa8b09fa
eea9ee27805f9d02c1e02a80c59ba93f33995d32
920929 F20110218_AACQDI palmieri_c_Page_004.jp2
22486729e1f0ba7daf95786c96607068
ef067239c001cedfe295a8af897b807c5ebd4366
82497 F20110218_AACPYC palmieri_c_Page_040.jpg
c11f1bece612e9b42e682c0cb47bf90c
a65ffcc2a40d050110c258f60b9d6f45b1bb22bc
55876 F20110218_AACQCU palmieri_c_Page_119.jpg
b029846082e9cbfbfd77b44ec9ea44a0
b46ab4294b460351ee29138a221b438544adab7c
80137 F20110218_AACPXO palmieri_c_Page_030.jpg
42746efa362d2410f9a2aca236c7aef4
274413b195a43c211cd64c72408a4161fb76f678
21743 F20110218_AACPWZ palmieri_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
769ca466fbac0acfcf795f72a0f98f7c
fe8547c564bc7690a27bd300913384c98644b12b
757799 F20110218_AACQDJ palmieri_c_Page_006.jp2
021fb7d2524ba3d6dd695484c7438a51
5e6580473a278704a8f01d2c7fffb9f6fd444809
25569 F20110218_AACPYD palmieri_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
9e01a8df2d8467d431395277c346617a
18ed872200b1d2078fafb77162af7f5101014ff5
17589 F20110218_AACQCV palmieri_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
6c761babab214d5ce29b6b7697539038
9957a2b08755a2f2671a0380bd7cd273caa7432e
79544 F20110218_AACPXP palmieri_c_Page_032.jpg
d1ba012084958579052a7df0ff7e9de0
72e83bbdbf000efb34fb8bde0c72f25778fcf048
1051972 F20110218_AACQDK palmieri_c_Page_007.jp2
b966cb98fd78dbc3882c571a27274e2c
c42d0570a92dae39f31c4348337e81a7c311caa9
78267 F20110218_AACPYE palmieri_c_Page_042.jpg
70758cd29d9145efa7e78a5b5b547bd7
4435181f1bece08d91ab7a588bdaf912ecb31b55
76692 F20110218_AACQCW palmieri_c_Page_120.jpg
ad83f892291e5dc6aba4d41668bdd612
bb8a4f65a38ca586869fbfa3d8f830adc1303df6
24574 F20110218_AACPXQ palmieri_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
40712b44ed52f7ccc1ccb25afbead1ee
5400c72d3ddc82adff89676b3071c169f19bcc0e
771796 F20110218_AACQDL palmieri_c_Page_009.jp2
f3af6e2582b002264d4668519ffacd7a
62c1bc443f715d78281cc8f61ef5e4943838538d
23764 F20110218_AACPYF palmieri_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
2ed7f444f79a5e563a1ad5f73b11f90a
8e178c135ef5f84b73112f3f2580b761825afd65
22064 F20110218_AACQCX palmieri_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
83f3585f5285e39143b4829d74966561
ad01c1f4962297cec90ed5c92c092968dd69515e
25540 F20110218_AACPXR palmieri_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
323ef6503932e86dc0f2c920a6f44614
eaf09bc39f9fc445f7f0428f4059287b8161f040
1051986 F20110218_AACQEA palmieri_c_Page_032.jp2
12c3c7f5d0c9f4e61f6c9ebb4b225e2c
3687fd7a961ce7447311d2637e7f87e7ba5ce7d3
54675 F20110218_AACPYG palmieri_c_Page_044.jpg
868bc5bd8a0a9220329a9087ff7185a7
8af0b1796e262ec1bc125fa17c3318623f139ce6
97927 F20110218_AACQCY palmieri_c_Page_121.jpg
2fd3827087182c34de18d27c76645d1e
5da89288e3f7044cf7655fe84a8ead0c095cfb13
83052 F20110218_AACPXS palmieri_c_Page_034.jpg
044eb3b9a78f972e04fb52f64b3dc8c2
c13a356d544acd0d00e3093eea01634a8f4d48e4
1051947 F20110218_AACQEB palmieri_c_Page_034.jp2
0fba58c0a3da21bf308b4986d8f308dc
2226bd5487fb965469bad6c1ef949c4b3a64edb6
881127 F20110218_AACQDM palmieri_c_Page_011.jp2
ae6411677beccb9bd1cf8d7f171bc5a4
3d0f18e882afba7b2cc1851329a019921e7171e9
17218 F20110218_AACPYH palmieri_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
476734e9b697de1ade94472a1350856d
b71d69baca2b5b3ca0b54182f616eac4ac36524d
92578 F20110218_AACQCZ palmieri_c_Page_122.jpg
24fc4e4f1f00a741da0aa3d2f888e660
199f2ea98979b0512eebb7204c6c42a11bd277f6
25923 F20110218_AACPXT palmieri_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
9798403a67efe3f370ce26723b775c67
7f244f753a973845b67c79c81dcd7e354c330f4c
1051946 F20110218_AACQEC palmieri_c_Page_035.jp2
4d16db55bf729590696903edf1481691
ce391a5bc759d70b8b694f84ae104d17cbc4da66
923441 F20110218_AACQDN palmieri_c_Page_013.jp2
d3b78163f1fcbf98c671dfbf14b0a437
348f8a3805f14c3129f26648477e3f0f676bd273
48076 F20110218_AACPYI palmieri_c_Page_045.jpg
c15fd5efdf7adf9c1b8d97716d396618
c3c788f10a7325fb9aba89d34ce5da50586d8b44
26036 F20110218_AACPXU palmieri_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
e4e5dc5cf76651ddb2cd42d1c0bc02ae
c4b709366c6b60864b1655de3375af84b86de0a5
1051960 F20110218_AACQED palmieri_c_Page_038.jp2
88a42bdf813ec8717b364dc41f5da3e7
eabb2eb8289d4be0c8d299d1e9bb7df6fee6d16b
1051975 F20110218_AACQDO palmieri_c_Page_015.jp2
6bec898336052a5821a7f70b32e720b9
130d02a58125578457126342d30d6ee9445382d8
75923 F20110218_AACPYJ palmieri_c_Page_046.jpg
56f22461f5fd530dbcfdfcb5c2266599
be7b2211a50ba54106a6799beb0cfdca1000f5df
78478 F20110218_AACPXV palmieri_c_Page_036.jpg
1de22d70a173c1c9555e9e2f8e6c4c88
684954d9191f601c601b1f9846040993c6cf9eec
1042074 F20110218_AACQDP palmieri_c_Page_016.jp2
ce3bf886af4768f8db9f167d4627faac
aef863c8a97ce93ce0222b98ba899a2ce5fec67c
23718 F20110218_AACPYK palmieri_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
1b75b7fab3234d3832b736bc83518a56
591af5ad24806ae957e72dff32f38a3a3c2a9ea3
24162 F20110218_AACPXW palmieri_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
6cccbc8bc107f6f1f71d74d0b2427b32
9f2efb834aca009cde58b5651a36fae6e7e569de
1051962 F20110218_AACQEE palmieri_c_Page_040.jp2
d7b15e963a9e2f062334c5c2c0443f2c
23dcd4d9a8ccca6cfa114143d51e26bfe7593ca2
F20110218_AACQDQ palmieri_c_Page_017.jp2
b6058ff5b4d4731f695ceb77d62ae1b9
48c8cf0d24576bffe691e16dc366fba7d9b1b93e
24312 F20110218_AACPYL palmieri_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
8c0884a41e11c2ae0f8b7b8c271fd45b
73e6a3df042c25966e81ee78fe3e412942dcfb1d
82023 F20110218_AACPXX palmieri_c_Page_037.jpg
239f73039173026591531a255b84756c
76f1469d1cfed1e1559c6f495fc8b8bc98c7cd94
F20110218_AACQEF palmieri_c_Page_041.jp2
c366cbe0a3512c71a356c49c19164e18
7f040aa14975c0df8e7a13cfe3fa2f340ec2e109
F20110218_AACQDR palmieri_c_Page_018.jp2
7c27a45234c05c5b1a7323ac4d52ba59
3104b433b54d94d50cd1c28ac1b214cbeee2a9ef
76480 F20110218_AACPYM palmieri_c_Page_048.jpg
e9d143df3f78c528619172cda057ef0f
6fd5450b373b703b9f56eccb4a5c4c81a8f74b43
1050936 F20110218_AACQEG palmieri_c_Page_042.jp2
0360aaaab5098645470b882072704811
dffe887195fc4ac8ed2b023401ea22ee2d7abf6d
22434 F20110218_AACPZA palmieri_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
501e330734b96a22ef998ee5a3b778ff
b24e058ba7ae05b95cd2eaf5553b5cb8c1507f0d
987312 F20110218_AACQDS palmieri_c_Page_020.jp2
a61a172342e58a2c0fdf13358e2374e7
f029907cb8ea55bea8b5a826c022d295eb003e0a
23866 F20110218_AACPYN palmieri_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
d41400f4b79b0ea276b84bf025b3f69d
69495885a65c4801b9ab288a6b0d0f9f29876884
84219 F20110218_AACPXY palmieri_c_Page_038.jpg
b49be6ec21f2ae35aff596636d2654da
e8bb62a2b4d4ef7f115dd00010249b759f491513
1036538 F20110218_AACQEH palmieri_c_Page_043.jp2
0da37455ffae571155c236bdc0aaaa23
8a543eba0a3d61b65490232fdf955776849ecd36
24494 F20110218_AACPZB palmieri_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
8335793559a044c9e86843dbed1dddcb
a471af3e9d23e5c243d2781bc9de0afc1f70dc0e
959833 F20110218_AACQDT palmieri_c_Page_021.jp2
4040476cdf40f91398ae10961bac8644
5a34d264ccd6f127556e2b0636b65cfd911fbfbd
70210 F20110218_AACPYO palmieri_c_Page_049.jpg
19a871c7a16a593281c000d8b8aa06d4
6471897204f97c5d197f3cbd4546b24dd56e2554
25997 F20110218_AACPXZ palmieri_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
7e233f6373fe00c7486262bf8fc9b213
b804dead472dd3984a760261de5692ada8780fc0
718107 F20110218_AACQEI palmieri_c_Page_044.jp2
bba1b9431df1bace9040ab7aaf3e9651
ec67a3adf6475e053b02500464775fe9c62b7f62
68934 F20110218_AACPZC palmieri_c_Page_057.jpg
1f2c936bd169268e937316f5dcc5d756
bb877edc61c8da7a6ecb5a4d7b1fb011de91b941
1051952 F20110218_AACQDU palmieri_c_Page_022.jp2
d74c385ea0bb59cf98a9684d6d49a075
cd9b58a83b1a37887097828633fffaf17e312679
22258 F20110218_AACPYP palmieri_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
137033bfeef14d7ba253fb6b8b0c7aef
b1062f4826da871c1b055beec0cac0b09d6da885
584841 F20110218_AACQEJ palmieri_c_Page_045.jp2
cd715e5c2cfbdb06ebd79e143ea69b32
728dd1584ec0ec761663cb9964266cc33200b529
61532 F20110218_AACPZD palmieri_c_Page_058.jpg
f8ece177cab83beeaf8bd8de8c8908f4
466c0e0cd553c71abd6fdb6c4331ad20131131f2
136613 F20110218_AACQDV palmieri_c_Page_023.jp2
72c9e94ff7d799d1068c8d34d9f26fbc
cb55df734c7322a920c91dbc6ca7bcc67852b6e3
64504 F20110218_AACPYQ palmieri_c_Page_050.jpg
a167b94c8fed95e23e19639ab14dda2a
6f0f94390a035c36568ba56749c774248784cab2
993720 F20110218_AACQEK palmieri_c_Page_046.jp2
56a5c883b4c652c6862d1d8b79943072
92ccb60721c87611a5e6d0f5d537fdb8b0dab3ba
19189 F20110218_AACPZE palmieri_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
488c3b9f703cdb2eff9cd5ebf14143c5
f2c6524952e7d5ecd00d4d0296b517a5e41344ee
F20110218_AACQDW palmieri_c_Page_026.jp2
f93077a5ea91b1ceb5d64a41c305cb32
b3dcb7977b7bff3f9b6f16bab846fad4e87ef83d
19142 F20110218_AACPYR palmieri_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
4ed859ab0f878e9a00c3487746b6a563
ccb5859e44bb23e32147af3b9373251501542140
930004 F20110218_AACQFA palmieri_c_Page_071.jp2
91a551989bb27c87736d8ec248a79412
340f32bc921876d750555830e9d0ee3650074a7b
932237 F20110218_AACQEL palmieri_c_Page_049.jp2
52d21944be6358644e71af7ea431b100
7234969b18930ab83f8d461d70eb365a25f866ad
70236 F20110218_AACPZF palmieri_c_Page_059.jpg
c49d56fc1477b9f671f9be11a1c0cf0c
cf151ff2d2bfb2a5efa7a7cd2e61f757c4603da0
1051957 F20110218_AACQDX palmieri_c_Page_028.jp2
f80070219239cfe1e37f49568a1899eb
aacbc9f621bf80734670ea92139a1643a52f4f08
83701 F20110218_AACPYS palmieri_c_Page_051.jpg
92d01da8164f5a562cdc1161a6693a9b
1da2c9a5b4c44e1e204e5df5deb70cdfaa3374a0
614920 F20110218_AACQFB palmieri_c_Page_072.jp2
16847884b26c748c08df3efd576fd3e9
92a224b3134185d071152c59a519f9f82afe5d39
820734 F20110218_AACQEM palmieri_c_Page_050.jp2
69a00209e0593ef90a27f6f978d280d1
b887057d7393c07d40eb8cb24184c3fbcd77abbc
46303 F20110218_AACPZG palmieri_c_Page_060.jpg
4cdbfaea5b32dc547ed0aedc22fc5eb2
d3e5451cca885dea89b46f193b036bd443d78c38
1051903 F20110218_AACQDY palmieri_c_Page_029.jp2
45537c8e57b7ff86d8f59aa48ee81419
40685553515d095574bf97a2dc8f6136235d133f
26475 F20110218_AACPYT palmieri_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
fec009a4062172c62a11a67ed206edb8
e143ceb00c8b3ae3901faa25f49119daa1ea384e
473355 F20110218_AACQFC palmieri_c_Page_073.jp2
8a7c1d563bf192d7085d33f5f0e16cd4
c5d6b1fcf0d129c29eacdd968d32252dafd5ebf4
1051954 F20110218_AACQEN palmieri_c_Page_051.jp2
a6bc4c2b421fcc492dcbbf524b6455ea
10ea2eaf6a3283b5b6f097708d173ca2d59730f4
15029 F20110218_AACPZH palmieri_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
23460bb0097043c82ac53fa34ebacb5a
9fd06afded32bee7928b1486e326240f3ea51a5c
F20110218_AACQDZ palmieri_c_Page_031.jp2
4887273b8b0ce04fc00ed6fff5d523b9
ab1b4c225756e09ff1260bf978ba5ecb591f89f1
24868 F20110218_AACPYU palmieri_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
4c05393211bd246eece4733809746aef
d38500aca67f17a16ace98f02c7aeeeead829327
961008 F20110218_AACQFD palmieri_c_Page_074.jp2
d1a93a8f6b572eef8ca87a11667a5782
06c792cd3f50e16607af23b4783cefedd5ac7c38
519394 F20110218_AACQEO palmieri_c_Page_054.jp2
39577a15cec5589981732aa598e8227e
774d06c703f8c062a0b1c1bbb6495c34e9f08453
59891 F20110218_AACPZI palmieri_c_Page_061.jpg
995b7bb30cd20ce7597ed5160332fd83
2647a725d92d0aa22b9ab5380a2ea279820e55a1
84031 F20110218_AACPYV palmieri_c_Page_053.jpg
1d0f431afa762c4b248e8783362cb03f
a655ad201c0456d124a0ae548ab9f1a74b3e0473
564831 F20110218_AACQFE palmieri_c_Page_075.jp2
1fb06d2845e07aa428aaa939cffb1b37
d9768c2ab85af2c40b81646cd578c9f583ee0efb
926011 F20110218_AACQEP palmieri_c_Page_057.jp2
94abd2601acd2af7038ebbf1148e3839
b98a479acd3fd047aba8546feab952c059e0f212
70998 F20110218_AACPZJ palmieri_c_Page_062.jpg
a5335add021d126bc818204541844172
6ce3f0d8f7ee3931715b377cfa4b627c7d8c55fc
26582 F20110218_AACPYW palmieri_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
6e72f7c95b0446681d25a3c8cb7601b0
76ed6345d37317fb54755107d74e27b30afcefc7
793693 F20110218_AACQEQ palmieri_c_Page_058.jp2
19389bdea3aa328afc5b707cfaa68df6
5fb69650f9e0ad58450f573d9b7bb945ed11d118
22742 F20110218_AACPZK palmieri_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
861fce7a7f32cef39a3af4ca2e748b16
01314ad14c32e473ddd62101d147c28938e3a139
42342 F20110218_AACPYX palmieri_c_Page_054.jpg
d07f2335acb1f4ff2bd191462ad78723
c141d1ae865014d149f21e7ba9cf684670d37a91
988297 F20110218_AACQFF palmieri_c_Page_076.jp2
b486a94ca407e5cc7801db88a576fff0
3f47686787a1480608b324c1fde3d0436d63c50a
903170 F20110218_AACQER palmieri_c_Page_059.jp2
87075b93de4e1630c5751bc1d1441cf4
a0b7c9470cc194697700f948a0b58337aacc0aa9
63619 F20110218_AACPZL palmieri_c_Page_063.jpg
d05e8a8b524805394abba89f9d79f321
287cf8d39a8b1f3755ba81ab834fc55c47fe0fe3
13676 F20110218_AACPYY palmieri_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
8a8caa1b3d2a0659aec1f0fd5e3e70d4
436ba80f0beeabe3298b642272f857a26afaf937
8423998 F20110218_AACPCE palmieri_c_Page_089.tif
f2698e0f2c5ab5fa41713424f36e4def
2ce7de27ce30fb10135bf61ab241631c3b9902c3
622706 F20110218_AACQFG palmieri_c_Page_077.jp2
115902b7cc2f392cb36cc3ea5257cf93
7cf95af2ae3534deea2af0b620bd9be1f4796fd0
558676 F20110218_AACQES palmieri_c_Page_060.jp2
e64eb9ed51dbcca5627977aabb6ac5e9
940c5c62c58541d5d54c2ad4b3fb0a507f936cf1
58729 F20110218_AACPZM palmieri_c_Page_064.jpg
e4f7d6478a01987f734e2b62d28700c3
257af07d7fc83c0dc5f70a9a661ae6529ff5b542
1957 F20110218_AACPCF palmieri_c_Page_022.txt
0cd3b98b6ec76f7776a92993989d071a
c8a3b03b13970333d5f4abb9a8baaa45bf129902
931577 F20110218_AACQFH palmieri_c_Page_078.jp2
f488f0d0de6600f7ff4e1940633f7b5f
55f6e862ff5d5e6e28b0e62719ec78a33259fe0e
722709 F20110218_AACQET palmieri_c_Page_061.jp2
190a5ab924d4109d383f357d355ae862
b80e41acbdead176382c60bf0b696ff728cfd271
19014 F20110218_AACPZN palmieri_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
1f116455d1dbd41eba5acbf6616b5614
5e35ba2acb5174abb6eb3c2e3f5bb9e4ca5ba479
69541 F20110218_AACPYZ palmieri_c_Page_055.jpg
92127d80b5773de1e7aba0f4f8138dac
3243eef1a57e011268fc6caca7c8b75c4d3cfc1b
70055 F20110218_AACPCG palmieri_c_Page_071.jpg
a12a082397ae3ebd67cdf2e47f8b7831
47a0a26b34b78b7bde5cb8c8f439089bb370c596
770386 F20110218_AACQFI palmieri_c_Page_080.jp2
c2a1393b176b824bea7ec69472dedc28
394f3931c6f12121aedb811fd1ba87bc17f4f22e
898442 F20110218_AACQEU palmieri_c_Page_062.jp2
729f118178a41b5a906e0ebdf8908e0b
4efa81c5622800c995c163b102d9c625769dcc67
51277 F20110218_AACPZO palmieri_c_Page_065.jpg
0beaf6b58725e5c9461568f1abec43b1
36dc53b06300127c50004185a48ca0ced94e7218
46608 F20110218_AACPCH palmieri_c_Page_087.pro
fbfa41e8b8f5aa08ae00440cf443248d
c046de165b5cf869c8dced0732567f302eb7a487
776924 F20110218_AACQFJ palmieri_c_Page_082.jp2
a7f1c63c2b7c0ba238c527eab0ef27ff
9bdec72dcc5e0e2047a94cbb0d989d7d2e819563
785720 F20110218_AACQEV palmieri_c_Page_063.jp2
33f143c5666bd2e58dcbc678b8292e3e
e48c714ba3c2d60ae736faf2fb51a3bce82ca9cb
17049 F20110218_AACPZP palmieri_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
c2c2390fbd9d136beffe40d2f65cf549
14ff396ab49f6c4c4f6edd85bde4aa17df3b13d4
F20110218_AACPCI palmieri_c_Page_080.tif
10f622f3806a423559ad6ee480da1370
2292a7e5759b2b1e8a4bb550483a7edf112b89c8
776269 F20110218_AACQFK palmieri_c_Page_083.jp2
45e4cdf08e9e1ec63570afbf6d994465
c3eb19328151264e2fb2b54193fa482c2e168519
714033 F20110218_AACQEW palmieri_c_Page_064.jp2
590e93e82d5e69bd721bf5393efd019a
6608ebc80292d36cb9716d40bf23b4c23ff7c9bf
79226 F20110218_AACPZQ palmieri_c_Page_066.jpg
bbd5ddbe2597d57569e3972575deb9e5
6be3bd8f65521a1b5cf55b982d9785eca50773a2
F20110218_AACPCJ palmieri_c_Page_118.tif
702512976fff0011cb7bdd996e464cf4
8b7ea7c436414b4a5956316f472e6a488a2cdf19
805867 F20110218_AACQFL palmieri_c_Page_084.jp2
cfbd86f47d7bf018607a2ca11db85fff
6898bc13eb5fdfc0280adf49f89ecc907f2214d8
656794 F20110218_AACQEX palmieri_c_Page_065.jp2
2378552cc4e29eedb1c7ce3168d45857
dfa35958f6d1af804cc028ec5d4e9e2e834d2dd2
24599 F20110218_AACPZR palmieri_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
d7def6bd408835cb5312ab7d5a152d0e
522f721579b9e23a6739e65ef03466da01da6987
930789 F20110218_AACQGA palmieri_c_Page_103.jp2
100321dfcecd1723b8b3a0aec885e913
846660ac95ead5b598074828bf2658f68b4ffbb3
242 F20110218_AACPCK palmieri_c_Page_114.txt
6c77b71ff7f40f379462b92fca8f5d38
b63880db9f02854669b4bddbbea49d7be55d712f
666884 F20110218_AACQFM palmieri_c_Page_085.jp2
a3254704543d8afda172e59ff15ff752
39aa7f939b6b2a3557396104c927dd8997a0bafd
762574 F20110218_AACQEY palmieri_c_Page_069.jp2
a5129ff70cb18e76002b39beb51292b1
e4c33c01495e7a43f93fb87fe397ba0d25d870bc
69448 F20110218_AACPZS palmieri_c_Page_067.jpg
6571623a465c7106b5f98eecec909355
111bb44578e8098bdcd2a0ad2eea688e909d129e
789389 F20110218_AACQGB palmieri_c_Page_104.jp2
1497578eccac48f301482726479d7220
5c3b8fec31729421ab821b9cb4210f954943fe3e
84154 F20110218_AACPCL palmieri_c_Page_035.jpg
844305fdaa4278f460d1abccce5feb35
a18e3b2c1f0619c00bc9f137043eb8803c74f521
972502 F20110218_AACQFN palmieri_c_Page_086.jp2
b02fbc3f9452e16aecebc75873062ee3
6a9c014e1593cdfc6ae08c1e09c276d4461683b8
899951 F20110218_AACQEZ palmieri_c_Page_070.jp2
c79c184e65973b46124c43f1c7674e65
baaaf8e7cbeb6a099e5112287a2fc3aa5f2a1d9b
21429 F20110218_AACPZT palmieri_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
e0c9d7c0b44d11cf75b4b46c7e04b25f
3be1ad9343a2570b121394421c8e89c94ca82d15
39707 F20110218_AACPDA palmieri_c_Page_083.pro
180d18f6f7cd051d72b37f058f02d4b5
ac9ae26551ac44de7e9478bedbc63d34d9c7c201
687646 F20110218_AACQGC palmieri_c_Page_105.jp2
a1ea9cf3b08654bd42c75c97d2abf43b
407da2dd4cd6b9837564f4300fcbde224d0ae10d
6140 F20110218_AACPCM palmieri_c_Page_090thm.jpg
3371f1f0605d1dfefc06b266d1063339
a655af6a578d5647b345ef252e89fd9bd8482133
1051984 F20110218_AACQFO palmieri_c_Page_088.jp2
03ca80b6fc4558e31e6f0bf912ade5ac
0d3d46fbf7f59052ff7488367e528459324b11e7
46945 F20110218_AACPZU palmieri_c_Page_068.jpg
0162d0d3943965b0a246da9d0da60cce
84bf71817584a3fc317e807e76a067a2bd80281f
37321 F20110218_AACPDB palmieri_c_Page_080.pro
4e5716cf2614a1cb7b38d83b7f650007
00c4261f5b1c1924f268b75e18f0bb7076917b42
743282 F20110218_AACQGD palmieri_c_Page_106.jp2
91174c6fed33254de2288e2b8d315d78
35527a8837d5a1b32e43e8d88bb52ee3936906e6
5552 F20110218_AACPCN palmieri_c_Page_055thm.jpg
736e0c7cbb4605caa4a0059a08535940
e1bb6d1e53fd68969469de24b956b110981642f3
F20110218_AACQFP palmieri_c_Page_089.jp2
26c9d1fb1d352f9558f134b8caad1d6e
21dbf626c8830741f058eeec188a86d5ba23a914
63254 F20110218_AACPZV palmieri_c_Page_069.jpg
e3b43152f76570776683701cf7a7ccff
5b51334e8d6d1019c17db9f7f186ad979dc46b90
F20110218_AACPDC palmieri_c_Page_047.tif
3421114b9c966d199b15b58cba06378e
de961b3e3155290008a792d1718d4189e70fb016
617333 F20110218_AACQGE palmieri_c_Page_108.jp2
531d64814f1d2a55f39bf25c6e04c8b8
6d389b7c44b929d813bc7219c9ccea9ff4ec1f34
6399 F20110218_AACPCO palmieri_c_Page_097thm.jpg
c154b865f73dad21c7ae241d4243cc59
0102c39674122fcac58914d0e6565ef89380812e
1051940 F20110218_AACQFQ palmieri_c_Page_090.jp2
a44d207af3fbbdafa436f7df0ce02b14
ddcd9a80a316b1469c01f0f48267a61020119b4a
70035 F20110218_AACPZW palmieri_c_Page_070.jpg
43d436d9d38c4e722ae66a2d3570d0e7
0471038465a9d1fa3e6543b76c02d2ceee622b03
F20110218_AACPDD palmieri_c_Page_046.tif
9695abf6526c6b978d360f9e390bf323
655cc40cf63cf7c74027e2153a419514539faf22
204083 F20110218_AACQGF palmieri_c_Page_109.jp2
e55b7cd227eb40c31d89c059c2b4bae7
f03bbb8adbdda9c7e256e5ebe7e1efb2f8c6e0ae
69100 F20110218_AACPCP palmieri_c_Page_008.jpg
d5f448bd274bfae24233dbba6149d6cf
e91ba40a0d0e311ed934b25b15f710d82772b081
1032761 F20110218_AACQFR palmieri_c_Page_091.jp2
8cc47c176e22d47711e2fe3c633fd2bf
403c830b027a86d72229881f460974238b523e72
21611 F20110218_AACPZX palmieri_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
3be75ea880cf373e63966c7ee5283f8e
abf876158e4dade584f7bbcd1b4f50181b334f2d
79784 F20110218_AACPCQ palmieri_c_Page_015.jpg
6b548be4b1a9a5d3b2e1dc43b01fc2fe
e41bbf9e09d7eb6c7b0f9be0ba6c840fc994f90a
1051978 F20110218_AACQFS palmieri_c_Page_094.jp2
483bfb5680ffdb7081f6bf073c6f4999
d506c0ceb4cd6275d52c9c4ebfca49233661fa9b
22040 F20110218_AACPZY palmieri_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
14dd76aee795112522e730adf23b3ebe
afd393c2e4cc4f81876c68713474e714b03d1692
823 F20110218_AACPDE palmieri_c_Page_045.txt
2a20acfb5234f88ff8c7b7f7115fa83d
622a0fd19546eb7ff66eedc0144a473279b00cdf
356751 F20110218_AACQGG palmieri_c_Page_110.jp2
11cad5835c42ea42c3cd2c705a89a61f
9c5dd11b0b6efd9d116d19507896d792f61b83d2
6084 F20110218_AACPCR palmieri_c_Page_032thm.jpg
046b77cebe0f24bf098352addaf2ae5d
ed7e2bd3ca2827f6340fdac74298902c06f3eade
1051919 F20110218_AACQFT palmieri_c_Page_095.jp2
9aa58890a778f9759879c57249a32a2d
4dc6906936b41ccfc3d3d95fc1b2d38501dca622
52022 F20110218_AACPZZ palmieri_c_Page_072.jpg
3f9dce916660c2221e7753f55f4726fd
4ba9d884e9153b3bc68a292362ff58bbc93d09ce
51558 F20110218_AACPDF palmieri_c_Page_019.pro
0d635c104aefb6ad071cdc5f9945a396
f682d80a024e931d43d8190021cf69e5f9e5642c
324992 F20110218_AACQGH palmieri_c_Page_111.jp2
170e0e91da483c07a336256d051d9bfc
ece3908d4eeedfc1ec0cbfee95b949e882bf6e5f
F20110218_AACPCS palmieri_c_Page_115.tif
b9c8153d48f0db456a4f3e7d9bb4006a
ca7265f485f2fdf53db98e90fec2cd506c7e0d68
F20110218_AACQFU palmieri_c_Page_096.jp2
6c4f0c557f1b744443c9bf9b59744af0
258a0ba8447bfed7277f6e6c00b414c2c0307a99
25203 F20110218_AACPDG palmieri_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
32a787a0087f866404454328b7498ef1
8384a2dccfcf68e631a37309c65fdf4780a5d39d
305771 F20110218_AACQGI palmieri_c_Page_112.jp2
9b0a2723936396f819890229b723e78c
4842d31e3780c269f1298bf6b55d65397f7c6779
45247 F20110218_AACPCT palmieri_c_Page_020.pro
851dd8cd9f0980cf521ae158ea1f4410
18a7b7aa85de51548ce9b3d8f06752fd0bd7eb3a
1051953 F20110218_AACQFV palmieri_c_Page_097.jp2
4d3d8ce15f351b24cd99612dc0fc4afc
ce804509109f0085e2c34cf71333ecf1faa8e18a
5989 F20110218_AACPDH palmieri_c_Page_022thm.jpg
ef04eb87c06f041587297e968b151fee
fefe0488fe8819e886566b102c4cb32afbba394e
256391 F20110218_AACQGJ palmieri_c_Page_113.jp2
9a822de11f420e128f7eb7e583a10eac
00abaa0549984b180c199b3c8c1af70234a60f06
144009 F20110218_AACQGK palmieri_c_Page_114.jp2
47489d255ac2021afdf78ee3942049dd
e99eccbd6ed62496215f5d6e995daa106b27624f
22249 F20110218_AACPCU palmieri_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
40f6851d12ba0615d78bc470355f3632
6e997b96fe97afbde91f4a54247382b2354350ad
1051968 F20110218_AACQFW palmieri_c_Page_098.jp2
cb8b76aa086c71da0a22330af6f19895
137cb7520dafe2d5e03208786eb264b8cf53b13f
68410 F20110218_AACPDI palmieri_c_Page_024.jpg
8ae06931a1e8d217041a533307e97203
9db210c379e27732138bd0e91497849b7332f3e6
4863 F20110218_AACQHA palmieri_c_Page_011thm.jpg
4021b0959b7d55687b16d579536c681f
cda26a1055caa5c2f01798f35e660a8a8eda0d45
982431 F20110218_AACQGL palmieri_c_Page_115.jp2
d8dcb9addcd290a10bf9a78bd284bdd5
61ec31a97d22b7fce168fd6b69ee03a80b08d476
F20110218_AACPCV palmieri_c_Page_003.tif
7906b216c53e878fdee8eb653eb48d72
0c025a99f36ee88a31f8f66e5fa38fbf1cffd004
1051965 F20110218_AACQFX palmieri_c_Page_099.jp2
a728f8006f23f51354693b5e6f9be447
2b17db4f2067da5c9c8a0d1a0d326d9357589357
1835 F20110218_AACPDJ palmieri_c_Page_066.txt
997295743182115305afab2cb7e629ed
dffc550fc740d68fdc2e71e14702e1073b17358a
6373 F20110218_AACQHB palmieri_c_Page_012thm.jpg
1bfce5b232111580b998329ec1906e00
327a94782e2c17b2d6d3f0b21dbdf0ac28559329
1051959 F20110218_AACQGM palmieri_c_Page_118.jp2
3e6409196e047ae5a4c19f45b0f56556
f3339281fe66a8f706cf8548f0da169a2efa7267
1738 F20110218_AACPCW palmieri_c_Page_086.txt
80fbb8f4369c404cd491129e4b4b6f46
c64fbd44ffa00382742847efbd7e17a399594930
1020865 F20110218_AACQFY palmieri_c_Page_101.jp2
1404a3c4baa7514533c4ac3569361dbc
11e9beed18e26ade6cac936ddf84d38bb1ebb306
1949 F20110218_AACPDK palmieri_c_Page_028.txt
db1ebde7470ce5003e482719173f7cf1
8f8da6b4a3f7b8770e06973ab15bfd020f62fda7
5279 F20110218_AACQHC palmieri_c_Page_013thm.jpg
5b98200b46a32921b4a7f20e2d0d915e
5448d652043cb0897df8669a8ebd29c36d3c9ddc
731086 F20110218_AACQGN palmieri_c_Page_119.jp2
5b1e138382942fcbbe781e6306c4b6b4
e5384d9170b2d67056c882cac9132338e9cf08e4
48214 F20110218_AACPCX palmieri_c_Page_090.pro
f10fd37eb4d129e925810f35e4725065
ba4d449fb46931c7e28e3691bea1260e816abb9d
245920 F20110218_AACQFZ palmieri_c_Page_102.jp2
33977a502850626d1ddb4184a283ff63
dd4499ceb42103235123d0a965b5ff00737cf921
49666 F20110218_AACPEA palmieri_c_Page_040.pro
07a07dda8ea5e7dbe0316da31f2cf142
c788ebbe6844516a883600a0739a697927b5bd89
38776 F20110218_AACPDL palmieri_c_Page_011.pro
d8e57b2369c71b999bff7807635ec968
6f8c9037bfcd650da276085554b0373d2a52c93e
6155 F20110218_AACQHD palmieri_c_Page_014thm.jpg
b70f4bfc5b35c9744e08ad0c8fb36d90
c3bd0e98dcd873ed01ce14eb85200facf3964e8b
F20110218_AACQGO palmieri_c_Page_120.jp2
62ad40602f69587d85f11c11a6d25485
6886cf9048a65cc2678fb57f8f9e85c3820e2768
80181 F20110218_AACPCY palmieri_c_Page_047.jpg
01e5125db079d903e3578c5650fc4976
101da23381de0ac6fa7427fc5272d9e02b581828
6354 F20110218_AACPEB palmieri_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
b2a0b997c0d5358e4833f2914a3d5165
e1e73fab6a2b5cc1b6206f42981e42e5cd055ca8
49807 F20110218_AACPDM palmieri_c_Page_089.pro
6ab46bd54605b62caf69609ee9ce9d2c
8e5d27e9004b1b08df1fb3dc590e9d34c76d9331
6152 F20110218_AACQHE palmieri_c_Page_015thm.jpg
74d0be17bfe00eec4a72163b032a50a0
6ddf9be6772cc4b4f55612cec22d2b7b99f8eb32
1051927 F20110218_AACQGP palmieri_c_Page_121.jp2
0bdce7a18afc044425149394f73de1e1
fec7899d2ba11f25334a38df4c012e8d97211d72
17509 F20110218_AACPCZ palmieri_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
43d7bfdf5ad735d8dadea1c9f5b7af0c
78b8ac17f744bfe7016e3e3578ff05b466876464
49850 F20110218_AACPEC palmieri_c_Page_017.pro
6d3f5f4b936bc244e2e43dd3197673fe
2e13413d2b9930c5af4e0e916fd9ffe8cc553c6d
F20110218_AACPDN palmieri_c_Page_031.tif
104273613e90c8666bb12e608628b829
3ab282a0fdd082d434a5dfc74c5d51a2668dc151
5935 F20110218_AACQHF palmieri_c_Page_016thm.jpg
6257c73cc76198cd217644bdcd341380
99fa1f45118911a825c4a492f785254a6b8ec278
433533 F20110218_AACQGQ palmieri_c_Page_125.jp2
2c0e48a5daebbde8debf581c11cfe7d5
e2b3152e8775f21880192b29fbba63f006f45a4a
51281 F20110218_AACPED palmieri_c_Page_051.pro
13f7e481262c8ca4a8d2ba496b79f672
92ba4f2b7498184116a2d2f60744a34020d480d8
F20110218_AACPDO palmieri_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
c77b906c6456dec7cb47e8fd5869d8b3
d364115b1aed4aeba0d0f1b1be9d5e251aa2873b
6134 F20110218_AACQHG palmieri_c_Page_017thm.jpg
98439d0645d89283881d0ec268f98ba4
155bb043d6b3daafa8b73b63e504d0160f29025f
1687 F20110218_AACQGR palmieri_c_Page_001thm.jpg
6ab8ad522c9f4debd69c4d55125f0dce
d7d00e015ca07176d4083e703dcb233b42dd5fa5
1048664 F20110218_AACPEE palmieri_c_Page_117.jp2
435bb0b8abcc88e576e307f7f715381f
7d12f17c0b26e71a2a72d76ad1232c20e5a92f28
1964 F20110218_AACPDP palmieri_c_Page_017.txt
bc4b0003e714560c94b0bc7d57242083
55bb73a928e63d6fb8f0d3a42eb133f3862851de
550 F20110218_AACQGS palmieri_c_Page_002thm.jpg
06e0140a50cee0b17e5b01c7deab43de
af469875fa73ed71370a6b426e4ec22d3f202c10
5197 F20110218_AACPDQ palmieri_c_Page_057thm.jpg
605108bad89cb61730986816376962c3
9912cd2c593fabeaea76df724b0920da851d47a2
6070 F20110218_AACQHH palmieri_c_Page_019thm.jpg
745592e457d134391fb888aaeca41d2f
b3322d529edd54dfb70b1d907c1ce6b7241b14e7
1341 F20110218_AACQGT palmieri_c_Page_003thm.jpg
e3d03ffd3223df43ec5e5056d4175306
2bf74af3bdc1d3241b0cab61a0ffb83ff6544911
F20110218_AACPEF palmieri_c_Page_110.tif
637eab2753b0fd8463b73ceed377e2c0
2a86c78e9c7769def46ee739ad818d9cb3c2aee2
F20110218_AACPDR palmieri_c_Page_051.tif
ea8638303b81a310d0bf5139ed09d69e
1db9cadb4f3ab658d50fda3d4e8504633dafb5e6
5357 F20110218_AACQHI palmieri_c_Page_021thm.jpg
180acb91deb951e3e22b6a256a8533e7
cea5feb46d4de5d6a7a014afef6cd46261d68e19
5597 F20110218_AACQGU palmieri_c_Page_004thm.jpg
2aa2bc4199582ebd928bad3297a54034
ec239fa3ecddd0aa258ce76ea70ecd9a197eea95
63294 F20110218_AACPEG palmieri_c_Page_104.jpg
fc845407b486f27af1c4fad350fd7014
f54a43fef7f10e3e8cdedd0f421c84dd3fe75b52
F20110218_AACPDS palmieri_c_Page_005.tif
f405587d57197d58f72a8083715ebcce
a95cab252661662b2960c762607ec29a7abf8737
1209 F20110218_AACQHJ palmieri_c_Page_023thm.jpg
37fb1535e969b1127c029df4fb452ff1
cd1025549fbcf5bc4d6d9ac6dd490c911e4f2eac
3097 F20110218_AACQGV palmieri_c_Page_006thm.jpg
4887bc487e05f242a4e4c84027a47b22
58cad51fc29992a40c711339077b192e6ab94fb9
1051964 F20110218_AACPEH palmieri_c_Page_052.jp2
ad17f07e2b2e5a2ace633751ee75a4f1
fc6cfcc3c570c2ca55bd59aeae3f29a15e2b3eb6
60128 F20110218_AACPDT palmieri_c_Page_123.pro
1fcea3ea59a77bb729dbbb9b94d30737
9dbd1dbc85f9d6d3d9aa03dfa3a3adf9359dd320
5122 F20110218_AACQHK palmieri_c_Page_024thm.jpg
531601ba2fd8b448e17e291d6ae7c4f3
3467fbb9d30f8f541b504f3cbe6025fc879f518f
4613 F20110218_AACQGW palmieri_c_Page_007thm.jpg
cf3cf1b45364dacc964f2ef22490a3d1
5cadabd03bcc80f63ee7942ccd065b18ea7a97e0
10770 F20110218_AACPEI palmieri_c_Page_102.pro
39a8a87245810cef7b41241892557037
b260423779f1997e3f12cea2a4b8fad46eec763d
5619 F20110218_AACPDU palmieri_c_Page_115thm.jpg
a86e733cd86a26c9ea25410159f876d5
f044fbe04ac824904af544073ec085e0a33463e4
5945 F20110218_AACQIA palmieri_c_Page_047thm.jpg
d379c1870ebc02ae53553e979c9e3ea1
54016129f5b0c61dcd4764fd9d10730486752848
6219 F20110218_AACQHL palmieri_c_Page_025thm.jpg
5f6f97e9370792b114528b03a3801636
01017e84e8b1e1c847e66efdd6874e942a0be824
3774 F20110218_AACQGX palmieri_c_Page_008thm.jpg
24f683f90eeb8cca31def85345f4ee49
d8f554fc7687561afc597bce7638224fee51228d
1731 F20110218_AACPEJ palmieri_c_Page_013.txt
305203a893070d51854cc0f2c78c8bed
31f9bc4b54b6e508696bcbe3c9dfee2a545d6843
20442 F20110218_AACPDV palmieri_c_Page_001.jpg
7fcfa77fe162b4d82902224d69aba74d
a23f599f88c715f9f3a57a2d18eafb1a65f2efc4
5783 F20110218_AACQIB palmieri_c_Page_048thm.jpg
80ee698af9fcd8826b04cfa2f58a5764
8047ed0df35d3836eb60a7176121f9e6a5d6c044
6066 F20110218_AACQHM palmieri_c_Page_026thm.jpg
433541cda839477fffdba595d1e0fb05
cad7195a0eb010314d307cacdb976900653cbfa1
3986 F20110218_AACQGY palmieri_c_Page_009thm.jpg
8b696c107d45c4aae4c3401dcc4bc548
e05d24796d913d551e3ebbe87742bf4e83698ffd
5852 F20110218_AACPEK palmieri_c_Page_042thm.jpg
f3f5e429bf7cd2d2fdd71e2169c6948f
1e6d80b9f0c05d553f8f285f212012679fa7ae5e
1008578 F20110218_AACPDW palmieri_c_Page_048.jp2
93aeddee076b6b332f7999c262bb9614
c7b35dfab7ad0356486c1f364aeecce48dc5b991
5507 F20110218_AACQIC palmieri_c_Page_049thm.jpg
08d55d4f773d78b361ad67185577f089
a53d15c928a13caf1886b2e4d7cabf135c46b39d
6142 F20110218_AACQHN palmieri_c_Page_027thm.jpg
39acf2230b22c61786c0fe7e5ed817cf
cfd63629fc385ac87ec961f61100d2869d59c3e7
4888 F20110218_AACQGZ palmieri_c_Page_010thm.jpg
1fb6cc74120accdcac43e38207f57b7d
f6212ad04636b152b9fc11201c5a3c563e42fc07
20255 F20110218_AACPEL palmieri_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
ba6abedf620cca388b89f62f0cb68d9b
4c01d5bbbe7ec7d2e14eb9b33b23f64a4135b539
14224 F20110218_AACPDX palmieri_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
9d3df00f29029e5db5e89f9eb2397d9c
ba43de06a62c6d28729d496900ba2b1d82eb7eda
21471 F20110218_AACPFA palmieri_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
eb29de368af097f48d54e9785bcbe43c
37f88ba127f53e73eeb68f67a320bb6eb1f60cb2
5055 F20110218_AACQID palmieri_c_Page_050thm.jpg
3efabf163c1f14d78ada59cab960e28c
068922752de9081ce3594fa54b0e031ea60928fc
6216 F20110218_AACQHO palmieri_c_Page_028thm.jpg
bc5afa54975808d87833ccb937251d92
c54ea452689cf6845e84b96f3879b2391789ed82
4488 F20110218_AACPEM palmieri_c_Page_065thm.jpg
d25747ab7e9747021cc652ad8134722d
21cbd687ce51fb7fbe06f29bac7447c5d417df5b
5940 F20110218_AACPDY palmieri_c_Page_066thm.jpg
c60c4186190603a501b1b4792d1274b9
c7314d5a0c9cb097d45e687e5f2d5503cf35028f
1432 F20110218_AACPFB palmieri_c_Page_109thm.jpg
80c564fced5fde78406203aa99dff37d
2d5270d4bb3115c5d244a1f897891550b59478fa
6237 F20110218_AACQIE palmieri_c_Page_051thm.jpg
f3fab1ff0983de092901f3569d55ef26
9e8f28a59df2d1e01527dfaa476a13c40434dc76
6454 F20110218_AACQHP palmieri_c_Page_029thm.jpg
6fedfe8cd8bd67681dfed182de5b8c9e
b88b61446fd27d64fecd624de68a911bdd397379
550564 F20110218_AACPEN palmieri_c_Page_068.jp2
d334f852e3c9ba1df7d2c47124f03ecb
559666ec2c563943cf50e90706b5aea06b511c6c
42133 F20110218_AACPDZ palmieri_c_Page_074.pro
073fba2c8059930aa4c6649d1a9c0035
7cb9149f2827ddee7b53fdd382d7bb1114137a36
84880 F20110218_AACPFC palmieri_c_Page_098.jpg
5fe362ac1c5c9f0bf2ec5f5452db4a17
86e49f817fb6cfd34b042de7170df3286c1fbb5b
6185 F20110218_AACQIF palmieri_c_Page_053thm.jpg
9d8a2167ba11aa1daa7f62ef0026aab7
fdf602625f92fb540daf22c2afc6c2f91e82900b
5810 F20110218_AACQHQ palmieri_c_Page_030thm.jpg
a82426b7e9115b403fbcb8febae083c7
d81f92e2430c55ef0b44404ce8906e095aae2e07
2062 F20110218_AACPEO palmieri_c_Page_035.txt
c8a0caa277a1e9c7be48f1a0af5b1746
39dc78f8578db634b8c554d367c5ee64a0fa2654
1975 F20110218_AACPFD palmieri_c_Page_037.txt
34ce143e69806980cacdfefc86e8a8de
29c89209a397bbd577b2ec3a37d995aa9d8c7fe8
3791 F20110218_AACQIG palmieri_c_Page_054thm.jpg
79eaf7176db249c3ac2aaddfb6a862aa
853bd6cf17d8085e50c6b9c39fcdbb0881ae0c31
6356 F20110218_AACQHR palmieri_c_Page_034thm.jpg
061fad5b8745b00f108659b7ff404269
a5210a9237fc47194c7d048907d62bbc96e1663f
2016 F20110218_AACPEP palmieri_c_Page_029.txt
a8ece33913b51528a3aa9ebc0fde6f21
cbb81d6e9801f5fc71f6e3cc8954b443ed1eca25
961554 F20110218_AACPFE palmieri_c_Page_079.jp2
884e3ab31bf0c54e67281906565c172f
2a519a617dd421712739fa418aef20a45254bcad
5988 F20110218_AACQIH palmieri_c_Page_056thm.jpg
be8e3c6efd114655c7cc03b48c436f25
e0ae190721bae9dd53d9aad906b764d0a77c59c9
6428 F20110218_AACQHS palmieri_c_Page_035thm.jpg
e9677e241a8b74edceffaee5c67813c0
174e7f436ee8fe29d1b7c6857428ca10e22bfdb1
1496 F20110218_AACPEQ palmieri_c_Page_105.txt
ef4cad1a1f68c891ea7d460d309ae4ad
23f98405abde8c9bb4e5d9f890aa1c36af8ebad8
11248 F20110218_AACPFF palmieri_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
ea670dc97aa6a2bddff8234bfa35719e
b6009ae91f14a467176138ea0d3bc77a9ab84ca1
6095 F20110218_AACQHT palmieri_c_Page_037thm.jpg
a1291088a698177c7cd8e852e923f9c6
02355ad7e7dbbd5aa65ac473599fa06c873c1e0f
76828 F20110218_AACPER palmieri_c_Page_043.jpg
c7367bd02c5924097d3902eebeb51d1c
e0becd542307ec81d1a54c54dca482912d3365b4
4895 F20110218_AACQII palmieri_c_Page_058thm.jpg
836119ad4e2ce87f7a0e9f66e1aaa900
0ed90f6e012c92a4c0c9be3315fd85d039677b04
6281 F20110218_AACQHU palmieri_c_Page_038thm.jpg
9e9da71b674cbabdcae858f289411431
f399328804094d523644b89d7bc2388c20bb771a
59080 F20110218_AACPES palmieri_c_Page_005.jp2
676de07e2ead77c1fd90fe558a68be05
b4228cdc56f7f423eb79b0972f6190fa3f948915
868447 F20110218_AACPFG palmieri_c_Page_055.jp2
ba64ab54f5dae499780e24de9cd4e507
f57cb0be087ebbcb06fc9be680e89c7dda8a1318
5137 F20110218_AACQIJ palmieri_c_Page_059thm.jpg
1155296c7bde79e0cc85b66c99309d61
7b721fed7efd113e59fd63041ebe80728cea106c
5869 F20110218_AACQHV palmieri_c_Page_039thm.jpg
395153131fa98f1c0b9de657bc0ffba6
7a512d0712137cfa60a08c81d2738b2198920174
F20110218_AACPET palmieri_c_Page_053.jp2
47491017519e26d2d55126681ae72ef4
5139f272af418e7e1ed00059ec7ce02a93a4d104
F20110218_AACPFH palmieri_c_Page_037.tif
6a22618985f85eeb2861b9becb56b15a
ff5470c120a3ea766e5e6add4dfd71e46d406cd0
4058 F20110218_AACQIK palmieri_c_Page_060thm.jpg
68a2ed0ee34d180d7e855ee9f3eb4290
4ee3cea90232a209bce58902734ccd04c53800e2
F20110218_AACQHW palmieri_c_Page_040thm.jpg
cb9a7d7a67df5fe07ea48bf15252d787
62fb16cc6a6477082b180d0b8b8666ad9e9fbc84
F20110218_AACPEU palmieri_c_Page_029.tif
9ebd32e708ab6ca1f1cb307f3954572f
642332e2e832c07a58ab987661abb2ff7d227846
34163 F20110218_AACPFI palmieri_c_Page_058.pro
a361b69534253e903b7a3ecae675bfa8
b9438277aa806d31a6593049ffb73244145d7607
6226 F20110218_AACQJA palmieri_c_Page_089thm.jpg
b42016a7205b7c169a1608e17b7d4175
6b15db0e6b0f0b471fc7c1dbca2359ad2c3ee73c
5647 F20110218_AACQIL palmieri_c_Page_062thm.jpg
8a86e4d3eb4972b97624fe648e68a76a
c3f7edf5d455ce6c5e359f0056b2e7814821fc32
6067 F20110218_AACQHX palmieri_c_Page_041thm.jpg
be425a9a9e6daf331ccda21ba669fcd8
5930d42292473d237fe7be1f541d2f1923131eff
1742 F20110218_AACPEV palmieri_c_Page_024.txt
6ece468fb5f3a8e888171869de66481c
f245065eb850be2d0e01fa9dbebb4c7c3ea1f9f2
1827 F20110218_AACPFJ palmieri_c_Page_042.txt
47481b6cce58794bc3d5d730f67be961
015a3719b0e8d5ab53bb54485761d102606db50e
6019 F20110218_AACQJB palmieri_c_Page_091thm.jpg
23f48bd0627a85f9c008c918065e9fea
473ebea7a3a12148a92bf5b90563705656649d65
4658 F20110218_AACQIM palmieri_c_Page_064thm.jpg
5a3860ba169f5211c9300ab1f844422e
fa5b6691e9683c32e2174dffb9f7aae175fa5b0d
6031 F20110218_AACQHY palmieri_c_Page_043thm.jpg
c749168edb00c3a88a2809559b8c0a34
5f59455d3956867e06a8c81c06e9a69fe444ed37
1039753 F20110218_AACPEW palmieri_c_Page_087.jp2
68f73ba99de21711b9c9780467378de9
8b93520ffd7dd07edafd2355e0ddee178761c069
60798 F20110218_AACPFK palmieri_c_Page_006.jpg
24736261bf11c1c229bb73218d525d6b
9ec08e5b26eabfd2ace9693403a4fc9013ee6143
6339 F20110218_AACQJC palmieri_c_Page_092thm.jpg
d23967186f207e8dba94623e76e20c04
1b12e72bdfe6e06733a7014d6d181a8513b3ad25
5230 F20110218_AACQIN palmieri_c_Page_067thm.jpg
6ab784da4e25016ee7d334eae7ba3f14
be2d7e80c170c96995a171303cb216cc6507cdb0
4129 F20110218_AACQHZ palmieri_c_Page_044thm.jpg
96683c892d91b89ab14b15f52f99166d
3c2f8dcc52a9e420b5ac0ba4ffd1dfcaa224b168
5067 F20110218_AACPEX palmieri_c_Page_063thm.jpg
fc0c91a42a992abce118d926f242a5a8
6858fb5f41d618efd1ccdd0d96bc63e2e459767d
F20110218_AACPGA palmieri_c_Page_082.tif
58aa02de9bf4a72291682b1467b896a9
4a5f971836307d0241afa017cc8e0b7c4c9ddca4
1051976 F20110218_AACPFL palmieri_c_Page_030.jp2
7a25f9bedb84e34493a8495e36abd1e4
cd609cb60eadc00e7668ca412ef599fbb257d7f5
6247 F20110218_AACQJD palmieri_c_Page_094thm.jpg
60c72742e4cd92c9365d719c729180e5
cc435fbb09b38ce61516146d25b2bf75169e9bad
5636 F20110218_AACQIO palmieri_c_Page_069thm.jpg
4bf5196aacb692b47a541c7e757c2193
21123b9818e94a3cc0430d2791e670b0a7a237fb
2046 F20110218_AACPEY palmieri_c_Page_116.txt
95c2a55a8055d308d005310b6b85391d
f79c54e5ee72ba2719f31a746b7ea76325e11ff7
40702 F20110218_AACPGB palmieri_c_Page_078.pro
338cfcea8388aa7b9840d4d996330f6a
9872f5eec16adcf32379499e6e30c404215091dc
1601 F20110218_AACPFM palmieri_c_Page_070.txt
4aed3631b66614090e28cf37d917ba62
8166400a755e3aad1257def37f1caf431cfddc6b
5919 F20110218_AACQJE palmieri_c_Page_095thm.jpg
4da415063f3e07337ae4c7b26848bc24
d00665d6e14cad5723add7e334b38821160c5e10
5656 F20110218_AACQIP palmieri_c_Page_070thm.jpg
c99b43cab1e57cc99f6da2d1ac463c09
b6ecf0f3a62e0b61f7327227d8d898cc181ead42
484 F20110218_AACPEZ palmieri_c_Page_109.txt
04c6baf78c28e0a11c586fa8ee4bc594
64094de659320029733a8b0621f700f441f8043f
1989 F20110218_AACPGC palmieri_c_Page_100.txt
e398bbd2945a75096e0f562224451d62
99ed6498c2c7ac12cc84795f26e0e990a8eba407
75324 F20110218_AACPFN palmieri_c_Page_056.jpg
835ee4d58db4dc0d0b8428959c231931
62bf0a4b2179ce1a66bff7f3f9ea76be6506d757
6419 F20110218_AACQJF palmieri_c_Page_098thm.jpg
1c435b514ef809b7cd60d8a81eedb949
d7dba08d6128bd84fac14657dcda54cd7d187cff
4991 F20110218_AACQIQ palmieri_c_Page_071thm.jpg
79f2d41955ce8447fad09b3defefcba5
75349fc69b6ad079dab1105d577c6eb1e31e6467
5195 F20110218_AACPGD palmieri_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
02883b545c2dd281f852b46d23d6dfec
be023cbc6d6ef37c08d024ac9f7e0fa48532e3c7
47155 F20110218_AACPFO palmieri_c_Page_075.jpg
fb86cefe2b93b478a8ac70fc363f520e
14648bee54f6cfd2c3a0a1cf4e4b4e55fadceec7
6493 F20110218_AACQJG palmieri_c_Page_099thm.jpg
b5d37a7ccdeeaa1e33653dbd4fd2ded5
fa4b839284913d2e09d00be148d54c350af58ed0
4255 F20110218_AACQIR palmieri_c_Page_072thm.jpg
c24f197127a594505c9e61fd06465347
2142070a5a3e17da7c6e151f53af34b7c659fc8e
81245 F20110218_AACPGE palmieri_c_Page_118.jpg
bbfd38ec6e18f346a82c560e4675a94d
1e024ca1466055201c26b4273c4e1de67e1751f6
6330 F20110218_AACPFP palmieri_c_Page_116thm.jpg
0177fb92d088ee5e1f15ea4cc74afee1
9afe1be91ca1092e6a449ecd78b42a1ba7424f0c
6181 F20110218_AACQJH palmieri_c_Page_100thm.jpg
5681b248c303ffdd9d67d48f7f36ccda
774a86b413f4e49fe193d42dadd83f7a7b6c508f
4191 F20110218_AACQIS palmieri_c_Page_073thm.jpg
e1cf05524d80533fad041703cf9f8ad2
0e107ca4b05be0b0399d7756f092cfb3631ba67d
9499 F20110218_AACPGF palmieri_c_Page_113.pro
58af9d7b745d75b81db04f4a77da5284
c34c5c68f469d02301c84a1c0d3e75c0daf14c8d
4336 F20110218_AACPFQ palmieri_c_Page_108thm.jpg
1d514c2fbc0aeb87c2128ca65efbe19c
2f99a3a912d696f7d469d50e5bc192804a92739b
5806 F20110218_AACQJI palmieri_c_Page_101thm.jpg
edbfd676889916bf0ee6be0f26e55ada
1a19d41b0b99e0c60379a54d69552b01010bef8a
3954 F20110218_AACQIT palmieri_c_Page_075thm.jpg
ee2f014f8bf7ca140684ca9a30b5db53
f094102ebce8741107d0531214c745607f2ae200
910611 F20110218_AACPGG palmieri_c_Page_024.jp2
aa90ae5803f8848167bfd7c4082231b9
e39963db1663751f973dd2d3595dc806f85cd72a
1051951 F20110218_AACPFR palmieri_c_Page_010.jp2
9fa2a6d236c3d6ef6bd9b434444141c3
01668225fdebcd45277a3956328402eb45da287c
5090 F20110218_AACQIU palmieri_c_Page_077thm.jpg
89fcc0758a55d9a6fd719408d7d2bb3b
03958533afc0883155a0ddd289f934bf8d6f77a8
5964 F20110218_AACPFS palmieri_c_Page_076thm.jpg
6d4e7d5e72a57a5b37acd47f96595824
f61e8625b50524b652e795996e2263a1288c9b3e
1639 F20110218_AACQJJ palmieri_c_Page_102thm.jpg
59c4f0795ed3f35b7bfdac58d02217bb
f82fe842c41b884a9dc004f4d626eb652f69e53a
5509 F20110218_AACQIV palmieri_c_Page_078thm.jpg
f8767820af4909c7bed41d8b116db483
781e9436abd8080b15ddf1bfd2454f40bd78c88a
60228 F20110218_AACPGH palmieri_c_Page_010.pro
7b5adcf49960e2bf731f7577ec86b7db
8e85d2254cca0783e113cb790bb26a1471eabc77
5846 F20110218_AACPFT palmieri_c_Page_087thm.jpg
541e8dd5b23beccf90500be2bfd92a73
8667ebd1fd293d5207a0ae35f3dd8e1d83c7dfb2
5719 F20110218_AACQJK palmieri_c_Page_103thm.jpg
6eee9d1df26c903dac7d764d146ea4ee
8274dd6946f78b9ff67dcb75f54630dc72e08ade
6285 F20110218_AACQIW palmieri_c_Page_079thm.jpg
f1487e38be1cd1ee75fab08da740b6be
9eff72fa284315e1bef20c6204d7e72fafe61dae
F20110218_AACPGI palmieri_c_Page_121.tif
91b30329161fde491f504c855a1f788c
a7e085088c30e91d881744dedebc55efc8c0130e
5735 F20110218_AACPFU palmieri_c_Page_020thm.jpg
6c47582249ba73635437eac567efa733
94908954e3a2d73949a3d5573f4632ab6128082e
5310 F20110218_AACQJL palmieri_c_Page_104thm.jpg
d5efbcf75d290aa4fc052e0ea60c7fb6
7d1ee6c6bbbff0d1d385d073188c21d1b6e4f440
5174 F20110218_AACQIX palmieri_c_Page_081thm.jpg
f155a79418a219556d3bf4c566106f00
9cbabf933ed972c3a86e63d54fd33cc7ecca91d4
1765 F20110218_AACPGJ palmieri_c_Page_059.txt
b66e558d51b9a5350a3c422e71f5612c
f1b12be44c138ebee3afec7d7c26b60aa86f31ba
5798 F20110218_AACPFV palmieri_c_Page_117thm.jpg
62c0935fdf3c35005f5bb9e7e314763d
9bc68a1e4b707c6e9db7c34921db5a97c9fff931
4711 F20110218_AACQJM palmieri_c_Page_105thm.jpg
ac79bee97242ce9a177320a36a318fb7
4a879538343a81bc809e02b80ed777eaba2a950a
5493 F20110218_AACQIY palmieri_c_Page_086thm.jpg
513c33ee339e3cf7e06c5454f09ae412
d32e9996e24c138aa75291cd43fecaca1f984533
23602 F20110218_AACPGK palmieri_c_Page_054.pro
c88efac235e602a65aa3d0d86ed5abfd
0fb83d53d15b6b177400984bd71d5bbbdc4fb425
78768 F20110218_AACPFW palmieri_c_Page_016.jpg
c46b3ddab6af4c1d497dada33e03e92c
c1aafe58a84c8ccba57b9a5e4e7d613adcc7528e
4826 F20110218_AACQJN palmieri_c_Page_106thm.jpg
0c1bdbee732782af024a1effc2ed49f2
4dd1e8eb817bb6775c5b093741791e3cbdc56ab2
6211 F20110218_AACQIZ palmieri_c_Page_088thm.jpg
edf6db662e49d960734b65462fcd91c9
24aebe8b42d3905a53a740f5f8228c4899955278
121 F20110218_AACPHA palmieri_c_Page_002.txt
a471e145dfd5e1256c94d7ecb5cef155
67acffaf9aba849a0da8c20f4ccf6a013714c00f
F20110218_AACPGL palmieri_c_Page_083.tif
0e204b5aa20b25d3c0cdcf2a434298f6
bb0125248525055136b85db5366a4accb6c3d3b4
8835 F20110218_AACPFX palmieri_c_Page_109.pro
52fecb66dc0a63548cc66188f1e3363d
edf4aefa13f39c9d78f6c7080f0612e7935d1107
4075 F20110218_AACQJO palmieri_c_Page_107thm.jpg
87075801aec5e4b6b7136495c2bcf48f
ee2f93ef6e4ab7bf461669264487e5f8be30f12b
1051980 F20110218_AACPHB palmieri_c_Page_037.jp2
1acfca24e443c4f50c02ac1c61c9f29f
e81697fb2a6158ed652e2d3eec94e22ce204635b
5044 F20110218_AACPGM palmieri_c_Page_083thm.jpg
54235c00f8d53419ebd572ab931676a6
00da959430c01bc28eeccc181339751a9718b2e7
1481 F20110218_AACPFY palmieri_c_Page_084.txt
dbfcbdbc81c5e7bb68fb87c4ca39535e
b1b76e6c430d05836928caec6f2997255160c39b
1784 F20110218_AACQJP palmieri_c_Page_114thm.jpg
33852a3ccaf88750e24c5c884e611e4a
3d8f9bcb6b5432cc348408eb73e8b13b5cc7d37a
6047 F20110218_AACPHC palmieri_c_Page_018thm.jpg
a429003c42b088eda90dfcb5c75e5342
ae60312943681c0eb3d846ca3547d8fde5c1c720
F20110218_AACPGN palmieri_c_Page_093.jp2
bfdf663cc594086e25ccd0f1b3fd911c
eba92905b61e6831a9bfc075c47d7a01170aa046
784 F20110218_AACPFZ palmieri_c_Page_125.txt
675fde2fcc4e2b93fc7423e09552836c
25c1e4177c9d71bcfb4be8721c8997577d0f6a5e
6036 F20110218_AACQJQ palmieri_c_Page_118thm.jpg
eebe27cbf9bda930d0ed090f4b872f8a
f620fd9595b038179f03e17e4cc156a2e6207380
50558 F20110218_AACPHD palmieri_c_Page_038.pro
869bb08a721d94b3eef585651da46738
3e7a4d2606fe9f98824098dbee92998aaad06e70
20420 F20110218_AACPGO palmieri_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
692eaeb8f25e2405ee7793f1e68617dc
e4454ab83c858c8c4637d6fbdb4c09ee7924b8be
4274 F20110218_AACQJR palmieri_c_Page_119thm.jpg
c6ac2c05dde4453c77da2719bc7df29f
0cf1109a340ace5b62809a930089bae848450565
50980 F20110218_AACPHE palmieri_c_Page_093.pro
f83535b063ffd7285c38c3452ceef720
1a096459a6c41525c10838b52443285cb8eb8588
6502 F20110218_AACPGP palmieri_c_Page_031thm.jpg
bda90c77384f341d070d62dcb056802e
8c79e82705dde2335827e77a145ffc3965b138fc
5423 F20110218_AACQJS palmieri_c_Page_120thm.jpg
26f0c28eb43e32fb549339d265e9f4f0
08a5a49dc0bcda08f665d22212c357f2ba3e996e
F20110218_AACPHF palmieri_c_Page_066.jp2
9ea790b0616dda49f0c775e8f7961269
2acdb29c992add00d7b55f5f3f0b2606b93922f0
2433 F20110218_AACPGQ palmieri_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
9e36be4e58cdd7dcd3d9e83fbe0592c6
6f1f778abaed15802bfdcab98cc54962d6cf1a51
6503 F20110218_AACQJT palmieri_c_Page_121thm.jpg
b5fd73f9d84f2653c2d4607484bbc9fe
5651548597ee113ae641a02f5119f7baa1080b76
5396 F20110218_AACPHG palmieri_c_Page_084thm.jpg
e52beaf88e9817be7df4db3ff02310df
194184e955168ef9a47a4328dc25db1814500b77
57060 F20110218_AACPGR palmieri_c_Page_105.jpg
963e66276d6642c9980dbb52eb3fd6cc
150c5ca8f2f9b2879191abcd68fe9db5856dbd42
6259 F20110218_AACQJU palmieri_c_Page_122thm.jpg
9ad1c260e3376ba4a9399e1ce8bfb355
3f08d70d951a81e7bf96f867e9556e0165e25e77
2533 F20110218_AACPHH palmieri_c_Page_008.txt
f3552d6435b7743415515156d07479c1
f02dd46ecd387d88d6f6bf957db442ac625f4421
21677 F20110218_AACPGS palmieri_c_Page_124.jpg
85d62a705f1ebe3ccd9ae9f8180a2ccf
3d0fe07968165ca99b04dc0e8135526487e852eb
6481 F20110218_AACQJV palmieri_c_Page_123thm.jpg
f841646524fe61a795776b44c561c04d
a5016129300def45ba908d0d0887e57e7f0f61d7
5974 F20110218_AACPGT palmieri_c_Page_036thm.jpg
c5df5f2ef70b96a03434bde3d150a812
327aec67e8abd7ea3ad4064407caba0dd5ae8058
1690 F20110218_AACQJW palmieri_c_Page_124thm.jpg
848e42fbf013a0c97abccb21fd05a479
98882a9524fbe1f0c5d0b2804ef9af8f33900866
F20110218_AACPHI palmieri_c_Page_086.tif
7b3a332125009506c93a65f8b905fa1c
3ccf252babdfbd20bd528bbcb1fab4ad099cc9bb
6096 F20110218_AACPGU palmieri_c_Page_096thm.jpg
3367a9e137f3f25531ec04dfd77d0336
f022b7472e55756f62abe312ea25dce9bbd56d6b
2775 F20110218_AACQJX palmieri_c_Page_125thm.jpg
a38776a1f9e3fe8aaad25274ec68f641
6ef85e32731e1eef2a9281fe3f48eb47b8c0887b
F20110218_AACPHJ palmieri_c_Page_033.jp2
a770c68a076f083d4fd444d3ac533fe6
fcea7615318f3d086d334265c52c959258590d6a
25537 F20110218_AACPGV palmieri_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
0a60af1f10c3436ed90b46d92a8abd60
286bc95dc9fdb23ebd6f41e4e664d734d4db0c1b
325115 F20110218_AACQJY palmieri_c.pdf
ea080961922e669f20d7281c9fa474b5
8094018178d43b7053a7d890a6d4a3b05f1c84eb
3849 F20110218_AACPHK palmieri_c_Page_045thm.jpg
f65a8d02db93fb9e2350e1d2ad266b51
a0f5b1f9af442fc6040a6d1d8ceef0995b5c2abd
F20110218_AACPGW palmieri_c_Page_012.jp2
95a5b9a429bd198202e54cc6a39764ce
669e8bc81a8d4105e914faf20c4fbd03fc1dab10
148822 F20110218_AACQJZ UFE0013406_00001.mets FULL
a20080f4870ed32117b082a7161ff3fb
d76c1c901a15f8845c9d1ff4a5d0a5eec941f018
F20110218_AACPHL palmieri_c_Page_091.tif
01d883af323786a5850537f64cde5c78
690223705e1a345caf179db6799c62b3f8e293c1
39363 F20110218_AACPGX palmieri_c_Page_059.pro
17faa941b2e7b3e9f317dce41aafab99
c8f0b3a6f7a4a4552daaf00fdc1fc84fd86d4867
17004 F20110218_AACPIA palmieri_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
dbf68295b5df19cd1bbef261ec149f90
98ebd422f90febde131b1db342c38ded3b293bde
5412 F20110218_AACPHM palmieri_c_Page_114.pro
3352352bb2246cdd01bcb10ed7dcb261
7d89392422ff151385931da1b4874ad20e12d6b9
81431 F20110218_AACPGY palmieri_c_Page_041.jpg
86741ec64e601f047ed618b02e7011df
3d241fcbd74267149926e9bfdde4fc7199fe04c5
F20110218_AACPIB palmieri_c_Page_027.jp2
a1b4e6478cf2764c787340d6a8f91ae3
3e3e70d9bed82ff59cd8f0fedf47830d3c84e469
5773 F20110218_AACPHN palmieri_c_Page_046thm.jpg
9687d0823c732000413dd7ee7e5571f3
64b88300d515548107cb164ecf67ba6be6857910
79284 F20110218_AACPGZ palmieri_c_Page_090.jpg
e2f9cf4c7ab135adbca30efbf457975e
4be06fe4db5c54625fa6186d73abb48e1af0eb70
1698 F20110218_AACPIC palmieri_c_Page_078.txt
3c1c0137d9edf24215205f063e96d1df
ba5e5a3e548afa4602a8ee23c21a176d926ae063
85156 F20110218_AACPHO palmieri_c_Page_012.jpg
645e83b6f86bf662caff5bbab94301d7
987eb660d6d72df09bd4a085a96912d814db62e6
3301 F20110218_AACPID palmieri_c_Page_111thm.jpg
4b6b342d4eef2a01fc7328be7023f6e9
eccb222edb40e54e199c1f9dc10671405da9d089
F20110218_AACPHP palmieri_c_Page_108.tif
1b0c9208eeab6da23fbe611b3b64f128
ac4db4609b828ee18c81332ba7614faf2cc0880c
F20110218_AACPIE palmieri_c_Page_119.tif
0646050afaf2133f0cd5b3a916c21008
867d4e494efe0330f2140ff7119f249e45504902
891890 F20110218_AACPHQ palmieri_c_Page_008.jp2
73f61c8411cd7e5419c3023e4af9bd48
de3a1c8300d6d9e7bf6c4d03ae019bda35b5f2f4
27458 F20110218_AACPIF palmieri_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
de25347ca189baf7416e9fac27f3858d
c8c46e75ffba3a8b7db7e85680eb70f75efa4d4f
6030 F20110218_AACPHR palmieri_c_Page_074thm.jpg
974b5ea17f3e3d90401c0d3a97253d41
6a5c8109d81c9d17736ab66be7183051ed393a83
14709 F20110218_AACPIG palmieri_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
562f385bfce686997537a732d7e7f9c7
3766d8d60880e140e9475eda3a60b28607d2d3ae
1051958 F20110218_AACPHS palmieri_c_Page_039.jp2
5809e9166129b8f257bcc7eb66429ec6
1fb4464228fbb7d0b364cfb27fa7a9f3c7413eaa
1014 F20110218_AACPIH palmieri_c_Page_075.txt
37753859732a83c243ab600705d3fb27
84f9f986daa877f1c9d8097956eb1f06bb2e17d4
44585 F20110218_AACPHT palmieri_c_Page_115.pro
84ef10ab47725581fc1b9a8253e5e88c
87d8dc491d4c8c75d863b8f05533a804e010499c
F20110218_AACPII palmieri_c_Page_095.tif
3fe7e69ce41bb90c144eeedf60e1cc7f
6e1992481f7c294c67f403da76d67ab591ef96da
19104 F20110218_AACPHU palmieri_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
69d752854d4bea6968fef02aa005962a
35d855189bef7f86fbcbc0f2e28f9ecd7af6f42f
1656 F20110218_AACPHV palmieri_c_Page_062.txt
166777ea4c008602c6b9f2699a014694
96a7c12ee05ce28c4541bb903390bc86bffcd389
F20110218_AACPIJ palmieri_c_Page_012.tif
248358aaf98ae992e2e1ada3cce4ed72
3ff36f714bf6be61d9b0789ac2e403507fad253e
20475 F20110218_AACPHW palmieri_c_Page_003.jpg
35e9cc9cc965867fe3fffd76088b2a7b
fe50d1be6d88f5f859c27faa63e6beae7dc0c7b2
2573 F20110218_AACPIK palmieri_c_Page_113thm.jpg
6f6076c7cd12ca157cc1c3e59b11e19a
ebbc648ade4153d9f78dab9ca11f20cc86c2cd9a
F20110218_AACPJA palmieri_c_Page_015.tif
78c6586a017b5f8edc210c165fcf875f
d01a0f00ab4ede9d25d488c770610cb92374ca71
5165 F20110218_AACPIL palmieri_c_Page_082thm.jpg
08d24b0d9d188e009a90c4c7f5df89f0
e707563607062290d8ab160a0f1dc983fb7e4c84
65156 F20110218_AACPHX palmieri_c_Page_084.jpg
1e25ca5fb5d1c196309e6f0133da7e4e
ce10a3e588c69995b7b94103832a1b8a1823eb3a
82290 F20110218_AACPJB palmieri_c_Page_033.jpg
50c3ec8684fcb32c2e0bf2556ae38af3
91e2eb2ae7902bfa4c03c74024bbea9fcff86cb6
F20110218_AACPIM palmieri_c_Page_038.tif
511b55b7f998a73fb8d810d00f6447cd
b4e79c6785154139fae817b416785be30ab01afd
F20110218_AACPHY palmieri_c_Page_022.tif
5006750b42e5301265c948ceb8385bbb
a0823ae0618d183279fd0b0e1694e60ad4bc6d0f
82396 F20110218_AACPJC palmieri_c_Page_017.jpg
04bde73b975510944329a832779ba41f
2f040ac3000df3a245b55f457ad23f51eeb164b5
1798 F20110218_AACPIN palmieri_c_Page_074.txt
e0a71d76dc536e90030e9ab5cc2ec9a9
890b077e3d95d8fb241f5e8512389fd83da369cd
51960 F20110218_AACPHZ palmieri_c_Page_116.pro
b598f8f1e7aa4577d922fd996dbc4d41
f3447558459b0d66aa02e335885449150cb3e66e
80639 F20110218_AACPJD palmieri_c_Page_052.jpg
5bcdea01c5653a54205b3d1bd1feaf3f
b42aa1879266bf8b0e8aeb78a1722bbec0e17b02
47072 F20110218_AACPIO palmieri_c_Page_117.pro
68e26a2e21d577f8448cd559ffc37adf
57e159551a9ffa755758c2065fc20f262ec344af
F20110218_AACPJE palmieri_c_Page_025.jp2
b9aed6fac1b1aea23f1ae1d637a9a568
909cf6866e6bfcf9a07fcd6bbe6b57cb1251dba0
3796 F20110218_AACPIP palmieri_c_Page_068thm.jpg
eee366377b25e04e1f3d315d68c04972
8ece01ed055794a614f7f1b6a9b14a690437514e
60095 F20110218_AACPJF palmieri_c_Page_009.jpg
04b451a0f46a5772f3247d49da246658
48ca525718668c38bf58bfc9ad232e50092421a9
39165 F20110218_AACPIQ palmieri_c_Page_070.pro
e693df2a271ac9667cab62e06832dcbb
62d651b7404d2fc5190e23b2ce5f4581fed4b031
93941 F20110218_AACPJG palmieri_c_Page_123.jpg
6e78bc03c26f8f2ba8c50dc2033e42fe
0d22b5d62a5538a67b17ee6629985f56e9260daf
23976 F20110218_AACPIR palmieri_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
accf40b795310242ee96ef96548fd9bf
eb5f95d546bdd9fe2038c162fb237c074dc62e5e
58376 F20110218_AACPJH palmieri_c_Page_085.jpg
506d01c3eef0da0e40db33c15f139afc
ec08bc8e606746dedfa44599ac31d42a9e8090bc
8782 F20110218_AACPIS palmieri_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
202571b1837433e3262091e4ff194c5b
c669a30560752052f8a9d6c1737832dca22fac2e
1594 F20110218_AACPJI palmieri_c_Page_067.txt
b9ad3195d92c7e046f1dc3d4d3304232
958ee751ad4dc77a8bd70248ec1a01c63200c0ff
F20110218_AACPIT palmieri_c_Page_099.tif
bad1ea93ce8b8f7575f9da42936739d7
4cdbead0b4d3df1414de78f6c423823611a2cb53
2037 F20110218_AACPJJ palmieri_c_Page_094.txt
28a87dfc6bac0ed325cfe480da541cb2
9e4feb3070fd8de1e32662f256da29f25ba7c688
1942 F20110218_AACPIU palmieri_c_Page_120.txt
9404fad0b3361fa4b9eb5ea35b5ecc74
2589391b77087710e87964a0dff53f7602bd2b33
F20110218_AACPIV palmieri_c_Page_047.jp2
df2139b2471d20597f64ba418f8e6b20
6cf0d1aeb7dc8f92561f316e307c493f9ffd71df
6253 F20110218_AACPJK palmieri_c_Page_033thm.jpg
dfa5f3f025742a9c29fc014695bec279
f4098cfe5ead8f6f0b14845007a51f7d55251476
27021 F20110218_AACPIW palmieri_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
69141f81ac028db7d6202b7fee38bb2b
b80b0e2154c6d4f7238e536b661a3e8220d873c9
41186 F20110218_AACPJL palmieri_c_Page_071.pro
155f291e5d7d0780043d407f9c4d4933
1952723a0f32789c172758cb1e8af2ab37b9a976
1051985 F20110218_AACPIX palmieri_c_Page_014.jp2
f2261fe6d47cbc2a78c1bb8cb2a28814
f473af608b4ed96c9d23aee4975d1cde65dac379
51366 F20110218_AACPKA palmieri_c_Page_031.pro
7b823bbb2fafd2e4ca33139e73deb764
571cdd32ca9248a504d9f1908680f71bb2cfdb61
23536 F20110218_AACPJM palmieri_c_Page_107.pro
c2d021f6905602199c69fca2811b5192
cc1b2e584e39d546cc819a62f75ef7dccff701ac
1861 F20110218_AACPIY palmieri_c_Page_117.txt
cb1c79080372e510a1774427f5aa5761
b0dd474613372a16e8ea77028c348cf5f7d54d1d
5084 F20110218_AACPKB palmieri_c_Page_085thm.jpg
8fd54a644be6e7caec2f1543e7f1b91a
acb630b83502ddf62c5d6a8d734a8be5f21ce092
F20110218_AACPJN palmieri_c_Page_100.jp2
dae082e0d0a40729ecf089ab75bc762f
2de778de9a21e5e02176f9313b8febb2058c05eb
14395 F20110218_AACPIZ palmieri_c_Page_110.pro
3e781fdc9b102a8c113bc339469ce2e6
8ec304a4817297c00a510a64df1f6b7ed36dff2b
51712 F20110218_AACPKC palmieri_c_Page_098.pro
298a506e7c2b640b6c20329d860f907f
d1628ae76b729dce84a1c23604462dd0a46b0ca7
50431 F20110218_AACPJO palmieri_c_Page_034.pro
e6737c7ec2b02812f5d24a53de3c09d2
771f75c3184052388bbebbfcd0c650d2bd9138b1
21951 F20110218_AACPKD palmieri_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
591932ee217a706ecb9935282013207a
13102290ac39de683ce8d2f3b02d8ef1a72e71c3
5203 F20110218_AACPJP palmieri_c_Page_061thm.jpg
52f8bdb4ada729093eb21dad8fec6f76
ec9bda8e8d6ba15d60c3743439a82dbc8af81009
263094 F20110218_AACPKE palmieri_c_Page_124.jp2
13f91633e2ff91d479d9d12cb7e2764c
39aeecf33fa56760e714ee53fced37b868da4ce8
1051911 F20110218_AACPJQ palmieri_c_Page_019.jp2
448c7a7973123bbec9dd82d3a646e167
375207f580f8fb8435610aee4c7c84b86f110152
80330 F20110218_AACPKF palmieri_c_Page_095.jpg
79a5f3cb5069c400fff215b3c18f091d
af59defe28e59de41f32d04690cb4aa235016540
74118 F20110218_AACPJR palmieri_c_Page_103.jpg
5de6164a893906ed972c7363b8b122fd
88e6a9c52650b863998f422270041d7445c4cf71
3324 F20110218_AACPKG palmieri_c_Page_110thm.jpg
974a0be58ae4e1ff387494b245c0ed13
60c9cb33e25ebb6e66774f1c8b041fdb9f0197e9
26786 F20110218_AACPJS palmieri_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
c28c7c5eed238eff5edf3b451c380be5
ef0ccd3b79b32ed387564c3bac222acf5efb853c
49614 F20110218_AACPKH palmieri_c_Page_026.pro
a10dee104c25e838561877ced954dccf
df5dfbdd42514a89bc67ef4e3489a7f01a5c09a5
F20110218_AACPJT palmieri_c_Page_034.tif
9ca5c8aa8bfc35d89baf702c1622311e
4c17c7d8999d9c1f81321b7234f4151197a8d3b5
48980 F20110218_AACPKI palmieri_c_Page_041.pro
5aeee874cb3eb2a5f77fa58a3bba3982
f459a506178609d250b9740aa57d11450059e0ff
1051937 F20110218_AACPJU palmieri_c_Page_092.jp2
97d8fa2e325959c10f898995b10ff80f
839dc27ed7ece054a34cbec96959c284f631c3b4
F20110218_AACPKJ palmieri_c_Page_124.tif
f1ad75199a809b929c1cf1599dca5976
03831b6bb593ab292ee3c35ab7f8224148eee4d7
F20110218_AACPJV palmieri_c_Page_063.tif
560dd3942bb4ee29daa1ec73ddba967d
96234bba2790063293b0c521004772772dad1c97
27202 F20110218_AACPKK palmieri_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
22e983d37c8c9cb49e140444b2d59c9a
386e26d7083141a690856049962ec017db85cb3d
806761 F20110218_AACPJW palmieri_c_Page_081.jp2
bb745949eff666572cdacfcaa6c62c67
a758bb6691eca11b1805f69b25818e43c9e004ff
561313 F20110218_AACPJX palmieri_c_Page_107.jp2
9d421f5b7e398bf99f2addbe1801df0a
f387395781a3125bf7bdbc6ddc20d16374b0628e
1340 F20110218_AACPLA palmieri_c_Page_064.txt
399cf95afdb98921c1c56b4bb8f73d72
87bfc93e91273d0744f6745f2391fdee8b323a86
1011 F20110218_AACPKL palmieri_c_Page_068.txt
91cf83d707f3c9727864c53768b0c766
0453b3ec3872c4f413db16b0d06344d4c4f8cc4a
1986 F20110218_AACPJY palmieri_c_Page_034.txt
b07569c9911de8acee3c1a36355ad83e
0f991779d447f55096c01b28f41c534d25100675
34085 F20110218_AACPLB palmieri_c_Page_063.pro
43e9655b9f333af77d1936c8347ab7e1
8c84a3b993ddd28f9592c13096142326685cb5d2
85088 F20110218_AACPKM palmieri_c_Page_031.jpg
53553e2caa8795d3bb9cf7b47938e651
f57d48a0240ec1e1be95d009b5fa8eec91220510
1330 F20110218_AACPJZ palmieri_c_Page_002.pro
b40bc905cf1b18121c019e64b01cc1d4
3014f2bf7b0d3a6ec86390679800e17272eb7869
22238 F20110218_AACPLC palmieri_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
2bb76e3463960eea39600796c0b76071
84eb390209d1be09f8660a5ca1fadcca2588267d
F20110218_AACPKN palmieri_c_Page_059.tif
65d4ba8676892d4819aba17f72180d64
4fc4ef3f21d0f9863e1938a55bc7dda35d9d17dd
2384 F20110218_AACPLD palmieri_c_Page_122.txt
98d39ab6c1bfc335b646d07200d8c9c3
aa3ab72acfebf4c0e0f59beb6b79a6859d8bc03b
2457 F20110218_AACPKO palmieri_c_Page_123.txt
3af067dfd2c7394ee912b8bb343203d3
192954f4b3311f15643dea935faf4f1aa6d484be
39697 F20110218_AACPLE palmieri_c_Page_067.pro
f3c1425068035ef951cf0f95a782943a
4d87c9e9acf7db08a1e29c0446afd2979714ae57
2053 F20110218_AACPKP palmieri_c_Page_031.txt
ca763e2feabf91835960e7bd6489a008
d0efe2ed1668f33817fcb903faecc9a627a06e66
1848 F20110218_AACPLF palmieri_c_Page_015.txt
bc00da33f07ef1cd2d7219435836e886
c4193d350827415cb05611d850c1ebde697aed66
14952 F20110218_AACPKQ palmieri_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
13606d1747d63c68c703abd25f7e3a75
942ed164d84d1590e82e80f9a8e9d5dd212584b7
67664 F20110218_AACPLG palmieri_c_Page_011.jpg
10f07028f5cc070199c7e8d3554e64dd
0ecdfbfed5e7748bb8ebfe7382ee5ec3882b2735
F20110218_AACPKR palmieri_c_Page_052thm.jpg
0eba47125eb20975bc2f1b7b383a0ce6
5a9acde3b2fe1c540c9e5c802cf6ef826c9e507c
1051966 F20110218_AACPLH palmieri_c_Page_122.jp2
2015443acc3e6fa8dffc5a0a1c6a81ad
f32fa570c17e71468ed9fc3e025b7845a23c037a
6304 F20110218_AACPKS palmieri_c_Page_093thm.jpg
0878d76bd6a2c68ab4ceffbb0091964a
b1cd6db32aebabdc2eff2f9e606ad6d65a1a1685
19172 F20110218_AACPLI palmieri_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
e6f88f5ac5a80491d69e06b2f181463b
3f5a441e3f23a0c293325a057b03bf0cd06c8be7
5159 F20110218_AACPKT palmieri_c_Page_080thm.jpg
40df49ee379908ed2742ef32708c61b5
1121c6de8d66b28e0d10e37b3e8230337c4b8b16
2958 F20110218_AACPLJ palmieri_c_Page_112thm.jpg
6e5082979a33a4bc2d92bd5402efd125
c31898f2ed426190338d1b944f429e1a73350190
F20110218_AACPKU palmieri_c_Page_007.tif
cbe8b1a66dbeb66f3cee1c717900b259
9d56e047be2b3986636a5f422692ec96d6d3fd54
F20110218_AACPLK palmieri_c_Page_123.jp2
3a0c76c02130ef4eb9c4fec79ead389c
0beb5a82cea457421ba4ee8efc8f41277da131b4
21450 F20110218_AACPKV palmieri_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
5088f9a5927b0760d5df294341b17339
638b0208ef16d6cf9fa626ddabd8d30f0295491c
61815 F20110218_AACPLL palmieri_c_Page_083.jpg
d11bc9f06141584407545bbbb6771f4c
d12619eb61796fb0f4badd69f8858396f94846dc
F20110218_AACPKW palmieri_c_Page_030.tif
3b669aecb61c1463f8c0d57b5b93b56a
94c397aa1f49fe60e4b78e14030d91bd865b0ce5
2051 F20110218_AACPKX palmieri_c_Page_092.txt
a5078f79ca550a48f19bc736d431920c
85e4bf20a46055018f801f563973e905a211a461
F20110218_AACPMB palmieri_c_Page_001.tif
db968e7ef9349e02a0ccbe65ac827426
e2424ccfceb0b3f330d506b1957541c666cee22c
1051944 F20110218_AACPLM palmieri_c_Page_116.jp2
ff36fe729f47d8dd81a6a93980cd9fe5
9b88a930c67fd3c04878a24601dc01f20c1eb8c1
25598 F20110218_AACPKY palmieri_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
b41e3a1523b6870b12b19f88c87efde3
15a1909755a4da548f0bdd44562a3d31eebef2bd
F20110218_AACPMC palmieri_c_Page_002.tif
4e3965c850a1ad4b173942f914626163
91cb2f4c8df814a411abff795d6b0e739add7bb0
993811 F20110218_AACPLN palmieri_c_Page_056.jp2
4290c7328d68c6d621464e74d138ed83
48e4933d6c05583fd7c4334d55b7592564ec7853
F20110218_AACPKZ palmieri_c_Page_013.tif
055a1900878d46bfea632eaf88aad302
8efedb8f92dc0ed5b3d7ea7c9d32c80ee0a61845
F20110218_AACPMD palmieri_c_Page_004.tif
ccba0c5cdcd0be3a1282596251a0e41b
32370e8847960e6b2f6ab04251a653f679b81827
F20110218_AACPLO palmieri_c_Page_073.tif
0c65fc0524301a6b84ecc74a91cb17ff
c3a0d8d36ce8f8c3787caa0ea175b9b53a112992
F20110218_AACPME palmieri_c_Page_006.tif
34f4a0924be59edced03c1089b9973a3
03a396fe947bcd04f15bea5ef26dab095d0a9b6c
1047509 F20110218_AACPLP palmieri_c_Page_036.jp2
07ee25e52b3d8b9da23d29174b7ff523
d053c86ead331368df2af3c1abe45b0ec5dad414
F20110218_AACPMF palmieri_c_Page_008.tif
ea08e93b9f1d907577157b4c1a4767ce
fd4a8540822d28eb6770c9b25eec1f10da4d5c5b
911344 F20110218_AACPLQ palmieri_c_Page_067.jp2
6f41b160379318251f3e9c76fda0b704
c4e8cdf7ecf4f841fe2de31719b5a55e0ca46f84
F20110218_AACPMG palmieri_c_Page_009.tif
8e67f6a917be60e3ed411774c5b84c62
c0ead8dbcde830f8187fee1d6769d3adeead9735
25920 F20110218_AACPLR palmieri_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
0032835a0c9c8c9e6b3d28e7b4228ee1
209fc9b7c90e1887650edc863eaad01d54247317
F20110218_AACPMH palmieri_c_Page_010.tif
265242f6501178b00a4d1017f4c656e6
78fe5f618df75e991e7280f1bcceb0cf8d90ad2d
24649 F20110218_AACPLS palmieri_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
0e43487368471269b0ce5af84ba91498
c294cfde546da1d27ff262e4be7740fbd3f34f94
F20110218_AACPMI palmieri_c_Page_011.tif
13cfe987cdfe7a1a1770274ae5e4abf0
5a2ed016a58766be140d70f29a1b3c790997f5ec
46532 F20110218_AACPLT palmieri_c_Page_016.pro
0bdbe84d6b11717b870ff4d1e11513d1
0f3deea07f30d468713f8d2b51b962ef14633bc9
F20110218_AACPMJ palmieri_c_Page_014.tif
f06cc484ba0919d15c5a66f138dc7e1f
e3272b97cf569610b65a24e19c3c6cabd12db3cd
F20110218_AACPLU palmieri_c_Page_035.tif
0bfeb99a4c10ad48185195ab243babbc
0f80b8c948dcd5669eb109f9ab894e4745c01cdf
F20110218_AACPMK palmieri_c_Page_016.tif
3dbf0cb9b321d3c1892e76286f168185
0ba1354309226b208eb88a0b455a9679b560cad3
12188 F20110218_AACPLV palmieri_c_Page_112.pro
a5ca2c1d238ba3952e769e291fa94ae1
03772254a31441338e7e1ec2ff3be69c58924139
F20110218_AACPML palmieri_c_Page_017.tif
e65044c58193b6d706b1b8d5243256d7
6aedd497dd44b7a6281b35165f8697ae81dcbad1
F20110218_AACPLW palmieri_c_Page_019.tif
6ab34fa348b70a9949e4027971c7a479
b896151d0cf18357b8ad045a93edea0db925cbe8
F20110218_AACPMM palmieri_c_Page_018.tif
15a13e5ac8ed2a979ed811248363a3c8
13014ed9e209899b9b9dc820a553cf96f21220cb
724 F20110218_AACPLX palmieri_c_Page_005thm.jpg
e69dbdc4025f896bb8a909747e0a060c
6399741f86c485cebe139ba24779e026fe3a2572
F20110218_AACPNA palmieri_c_Page_041.tif
19a376e40753fe50a001fe2de0118d29
5dd597974a88d1ca0911f20743ca3caf98bfb6ee
203731 F20110218_AACPLY UFE0013406_00001.xml
6f822f133f7d4e1b04e0af9e5e0d9acf
94f789533bfc3a7ec64f4637d3d52e631f369833
F20110218_AACPNB palmieri_c_Page_042.tif
90164702b48e022db6c4bbdcbc57638d
bdba4ee83f00d737bbdb8a459cfddef9fd0f5d8c
F20110218_AACPMN palmieri_c_Page_020.tif
c9ac4d0565ce873fb699ae4fe129e7ed
5787a31a6826969a21a908b130f56f08429e8a69
F20110218_AACPNC palmieri_c_Page_043.tif
3c51e2d4b3a1249095b3c68bc87823ac
d1ef366da6947ca469f2b5edb5e482564222b916
F20110218_AACPMO palmieri_c_Page_021.tif
4de44b6afcdb92f3d4ccae6b15dc12f2
b30ff23ec1bcd847ed372c805d004f22a49d81b5
F20110218_AACPND palmieri_c_Page_044.tif
d2231250f0ab471330b78b5c32d558b1
04d0eb9965db46d6496802af1a058634d2972af9
F20110218_AACPMP palmieri_c_Page_023.tif
b56f8866743cccf16855f2fc4984a1a2
0c57aa41c8fd35c963c989b28afe257f027e89b2
F20110218_AACPNE palmieri_c_Page_045.tif
991a8c67204f670fca2189e7bc2bb2ac
07a83766eccbe795b3a4850189b62ba9c43543dc
F20110218_AACPMQ palmieri_c_Page_024.tif
d088dcb41d620088f3458bf9a0c72512
1cfdf4071f73f3bc3194698c0e1e4ed41ba7dabf
F20110218_AACPNF palmieri_c_Page_048.tif
fbfbcab4eb24a3f7b50b1beae6e24c0c
4171a9145e7d70ec3158f9c732bf6b59ebc2089c
F20110218_AACPMR palmieri_c_Page_025.tif
7c630c9cefbc3f8821c6f4eb2eb0fcbb
b42d429159953eb27eeb60a0aaa94dbe06dcd1b7
F20110218_AACPNG palmieri_c_Page_049.tif
a3bb94121f079543232a0d4e49d75444
17b8c9e9b54916f86f059b53d71cbdc6279fbf5a
F20110218_AACPMS palmieri_c_Page_026.tif
17bf7abd36ea79e57e7193dedf448992
23dda315f45554ebfe51fdc6f61caf2576aa04e0
F20110218_AACPNH palmieri_c_Page_050.tif
c743b624c6baee6bc1f6142c934eb018
83cfc53a1f305891afbd49b94c14d004add97ae9
F20110218_AACPMT palmieri_c_Page_027.tif
42f0b1b9bffd11aa00f05dbfb88d0ac5
6f8a1d74cb3869150defd73214938e8ebab70340
F20110218_AACPNI palmieri_c_Page_052.tif
7ac6444d3ff33b371ea272b6422af3db
e0ea51c064e2998001e16c48aef6890af5531fdd
F20110218_AACPNJ palmieri_c_Page_053.tif
4ebb9b3bdd6c2473b4fc4903daa64c55
fa5521e5897ac5c3888403dbb1bf32517666c122
F20110218_AACPMU palmieri_c_Page_028.tif
489deee8de188e7fddd0a88ca0c4f153
b83eaadee1ed30f378e3fad3ed3afa7d7d5db7fc
F20110218_AACPNK palmieri_c_Page_054.tif
1b86778e8ca4f135b5afce030f7a45f2
1022f9745462236b5614326de871a7aa84209c6c
F20110218_AACPMV palmieri_c_Page_032.tif
d012a33e12d15e0059b9ed40c8094255
ed29e055f8b172bb94248c43279bd829c1b1ac12
F20110218_AACPNL palmieri_c_Page_055.tif
8ed80b105cbded57ce1601567c9bd7b5
d5f2443d4698d2b920186616ce8cc1eb01ae6378
F20110218_AACPMW palmieri_c_Page_033.tif
7e671280afc960842e1fd37daef2253d
d56a14af10e93be6cd8b5cb7450d9a1b0220f52e
F20110218_AACPOA palmieri_c_Page_072.tif
3aeb85cb6038b2b2b1cd4717977f4213
247159dae39797b16da3e6580c165f6930630f51
F20110218_AACPNM palmieri_c_Page_056.tif
4a46dec1b358455c797435c4ce9f7240
3012801dfe903891cebff50e73e204cdfef6791d
F20110218_AACPMX palmieri_c_Page_036.tif
6d8528ec05254d0e90e1ba121a5c7e96
3b71bcfdd2b402886046283a868c9434bbdd7bc6
F20110218_AACPOB palmieri_c_Page_074.tif
f66f9d149c1f577bf751d138c7a28d84
c67d3891f8b28d8b5723d10a7642810e1efad67a
F20110218_AACPNN palmieri_c_Page_057.tif
40e227838ed6f7a759a8437b8ea29375
12e149f86d9883b0d03a1e6a9616621fcdddc80f
F20110218_AACPMY palmieri_c_Page_039.tif
251ea07792fce4cc01b016c098bf57ba
d353a06466df5cba0821ae3254dc19f6a60251fd
F20110218_AACPOC palmieri_c_Page_075.tif
de19f3f43d3c4502c9a82190b0a01ccc
5bad01ebeaa193c6a08de94a0acdd2ff3556a3fd
F20110218_AACPMZ palmieri_c_Page_040.tif
9809425d6d0956c8d64fb78aef0fd96a
9d801bf159c51efb81c4782dad34985226bfba31
F20110218_AACPOD palmieri_c_Page_076.tif
75f537000eaf5e6fa2f91239a4bd121c
035db5235effa3bb9f1b40560d4bcdb94b22f139
F20110218_AACPNO palmieri_c_Page_058.tif
39c65ceba4cf41a1f95583a307181906
c0536476d721c8f001d5d4227d518425de85c85f
F20110218_AACPOE palmieri_c_Page_077.tif
b4127388e260d9f158d6fd3a25e5d668
55575d1d150f39e42c68328850c66eaf0b88eb4c
F20110218_AACPNP palmieri_c_Page_060.tif
5958cdbad9f7844e6dcb7ca87ac4cdb9
8186590c33ab58fc3bb18e027ca83ff009a501e5
F20110218_AACPOF palmieri_c_Page_078.tif
cc71165f9d0a35a59c91757e0606f776
c563512b1f4a395534c6dea491d275578a7d3b5d
F20110218_AACPNQ palmieri_c_Page_061.tif
74cb313ed8702c67d1e4a3358a1d01da
4e8889c9c4044ac9b1b08865981b32608ffa1ac8
F20110218_AACPOG palmieri_c_Page_079.tif
caed715b875aeae57f81a6c0796b5628
02a27a8a70ff1d880c42ff9d934b247b7592c922
F20110218_AACPNR palmieri_c_Page_062.tif
07fddc66b3bb914b91bafd9613b2889d
fed97f402ead3f9162c14c73a5e246f7ecbf5103
F20110218_AACPOH palmieri_c_Page_081.tif
fcc351ad8308bff6b9be3fc3a4135e13
3d80fb6d798da2fc8ceb524ff921f373cfc314ea
F20110218_AACPNS palmieri_c_Page_064.tif
783e3c018957903c31542e5e7aefd705
963f8ba3a151385d6f195b157cb99f217f0957f3
F20110218_AACPOI palmieri_c_Page_084.tif
0431aacf6737dac7556a6d876bbe7a53
83f9f7dce6840277443a4dc2c4ee6faaec743dda
F20110218_AACPNT palmieri_c_Page_065.tif
898906acd7c2f5437a35b9621f6f2f5c
1362f689cff0dff8f3bc0fd1528154603e4d9c40
F20110218_AACPOJ palmieri_c_Page_085.tif
b76b58284245a178f80e46ec6f378a7a
89489bd6ea23e693653cc9104659bb9f1cc82b8b
F20110218_AACPNU palmieri_c_Page_066.tif
f69df6415131bb3f3191018f4f462e92
6b400ad6bf259db3b5279351d52891d447d382a3
F20110218_AACPOK palmieri_c_Page_087.tif
2a95217d94f38243d3adaf3580159343
3dedc0a9006d1fb66f1b60e005a3c44c25849dfe
F20110218_AACPNV palmieri_c_Page_067.tif
4d4350d24d48ea1db8e8d809515221b7
9261da5eb5fc4a9d69c25367d2220881012468dc
F20110218_AACPOL palmieri_c_Page_088.tif
56d5e93c3585aa5781b002fb71396a5b
c74198d3b883b9916ccf8664b1fc06fef34a3433
F20110218_AACPNW palmieri_c_Page_068.tif
e2b37ae076fef267f82e0eccb66d941a
4d4be1289a72df54ab0146050de7c1f330e2c864
F20110218_AACPOM palmieri_c_Page_090.tif
80e782f86ea7892c2ae26673f864e560
4b69df43e0e6275b58fddbae8f944ce4a1c705c7
F20110218_AACPNX palmieri_c_Page_069.tif
974f3462a27b5a1270b7d68d35509601
d52f809ecbb42286ba1797bc24f331258090a175
F20110218_AACPPA palmieri_c_Page_107.tif
d37c23965c2c14572b112592c427bab3
7956cbec8de32a7791f94affc871ac3f2056a45d
F20110218_AACPON palmieri_c_Page_092.tif
95831c155bbd49cbb78b4674c3d0fbbf
ae92a3b479f6369550f467de84767aec7bdafaca
F20110218_AACPNY palmieri_c_Page_070.tif
84c020928f9824d9b394ecf03a9980d8
6db3407b0c64661dc4818970c8793409d032f337
F20110218_AACPPB palmieri_c_Page_109.tif
c8224f99d9abd4371bc3fd91cd19d346
afb78aeb89e02a588664f973ac20ee2b43669935
F20110218_AACPOO palmieri_c_Page_093.tif
87620d80d67d22f92aa392e97f85296f
a8b4bef313f51f128b4344a6e96e7b963d8e4d00
F20110218_AACPNZ palmieri_c_Page_071.tif
f332b8600f9f86a2136918cb0a888212
63194335c1c31e4f13288c720e5c7ee0e3a8a64e
F20110218_AACPPC palmieri_c_Page_111.tif
2b6372a62356ff087def6c776366ef7b
195ae788e1b5f7aaa6be90b293eef05cdab7cf95
F20110218_AACPPD palmieri_c_Page_112.tif
c4ba5385286dcfd34ca658c662a26728
a6fc90ab2f5b86c4cd96d2717a719d257627cc51
F20110218_AACPOP palmieri_c_Page_094.tif
ea11e3342e3d0193ba50429c634c2ee6
aecfc03207633764a61ea0dfe1af744efba6c5e6
F20110218_AACPPE palmieri_c_Page_113.tif
9b56ec5130101b0fcf2fdc5e590850a8
d2f2ad53fea7a29a26e3d0b7ece59867d661c6dd
F20110218_AACPOQ palmieri_c_Page_096.tif
278e9af90202adc88a8d611b1de06480
303d3b8dafbfd24fa4a619dfa8c70af5373be5af
F20110218_AACPPF palmieri_c_Page_114.tif
5a7340e11d0386db20db442786d07de0
0c2b15ebfcf81a7b0a865db94f1a5e829a2cee4e
F20110218_AACPOR palmieri_c_Page_097.tif
a23f652cbe5f51411d242c9c8d341412
41d2e37e0509d207438d9cd5a2545dacd431bdb4
F20110218_AACPPG palmieri_c_Page_116.tif
2ba63d8328971ec25f06c2d6a024e419
9c6b8dfe1378a93db3bc5e5c6fe51e26fcb81810
F20110218_AACPOS palmieri_c_Page_098.tif
c528ed404d27e958f5ee08bbc2bf9389
f5dcc4c2f7003e570a6d7f66cb3b03699a5798fc
F20110218_AACPPH palmieri_c_Page_117.tif
681bf31e3d7fb50efdde9616a513f85d
fb8c7a2b9d6b472d6564c81030ea976ae2439e1c
F20110218_AACPOT palmieri_c_Page_100.tif
6301ab7bb7fc1b8f49a41a6313190f13
bf5e03f6f0cf6540b1e27f33f5a493b4c947f628
F20110218_AACPPI palmieri_c_Page_120.tif
9980780e4ea67481c823656ff2a06594
7545ba1f9d2f0e0065750875acc2c05559681c39
F20110218_AACPOU palmieri_c_Page_101.tif
57b29c7e930fa1857581817617562f66
fbeccd4d7e81fd80cd9c29a981dae19bc9e024a8
F20110218_AACPPJ palmieri_c_Page_122.tif
8eab4258f0249a72017eb1a57aedaad4
11c5b46d418bc7a62df6cd0278e25c5d21887c4e
F20110218_AACPOV palmieri_c_Page_102.tif
755ae5a24eba713989464547fb62f76a
93bafb73bd834f2d0f2e07214555fdc8beff5d86
F20110218_AACPPK palmieri_c_Page_123.tif
9707f8ce11fe414d11b7f84dcfbfcffe
9f63b0e1b815710a533a5e2c49c4c8c0d1b9e05b
F20110218_AACPOW palmieri_c_Page_103.tif
4f97499903eb5e1b78e9a5c952770b12
7e0722b293249c14dee76c748a445b3422508a76
F20110218_AACPPL palmieri_c_Page_125.tif
b287b5f33a39bb39d6808d7b73d746ea
717a7060e29ba11f81ec0b8710109724e65c70a6
F20110218_AACPOX palmieri_c_Page_104.tif
b0acee7aa73836263a29b6f16017b846
7bc567bd6abbb22b98cbf40569c80032577d82d4
1831 F20110218_AACPQA palmieri_c_Page_020.txt
728a04323eab24797ef4d8fa5662375b
5e54429866d5979fedad930684992b9fb81b84ef
423 F20110218_AACPPM palmieri_c_Page_001.txt
747016a40c573b48ff716395d731ea85
f978c61cc0f11e6cd983700b24d96060f1986ef8
F20110218_AACPOY palmieri_c_Page_105.tif
bdabe6c64c5349346da0aeb6bcc0c446
57093ca165d6984f52065267fcc26e0521e50ab6
1852 F20110218_AACPQB palmieri_c_Page_021.txt
55d186a644cddd7c1b3fcb268c3c2b42
9fb28c35d1ebb1f5af0f6aadc24e3d73299b6066
466 F20110218_AACPPN palmieri_c_Page_003.txt
a6845ae2117c3ad4c32f085c0779d8df
fee7769cea470fc5cbfa01b9f96e62a82e7ceb2e
F20110218_AACPOZ palmieri_c_Page_106.tif
69cd10c06bfa94c67fd1cb453aa9aec2
2af7b23079867d35a178bce9915f5553d9c430a7
251 F20110218_AACPQC palmieri_c_Page_023.txt
26921fff18c57895396eb662f105ad7a
6568358fad3201ab85457c06bf3d334c3a21673d
1684 F20110218_AACPPO palmieri_c_Page_004.txt
9ef2b2f3698a6254eb4e16b71cdd9bc5
663959c4693742ec8ca8e3f28bae89239cef5edb
2007 F20110218_AACPQD palmieri_c_Page_025.txt
e7603130e92fe24b86ea6dafaf33bf9c
1d8475de6dbd46c057d2663cf81c811d6ccccdcd
116 F20110218_AACPPP palmieri_c_Page_005.txt
65982448953c0bbab145925a43255a36
e4e4a8031834f68891a55d48d4feaf7d755bccc2
1961 F20110218_AACPQE palmieri_c_Page_026.txt
3b8ca0b09208baa0206ef4239f49c6e0
3037f19d906855bede6eb26c011a61bdd493d261
1972 F20110218_AACPQF palmieri_c_Page_027.txt
8dbd9ef5371ec905d9883f10f4003a16
96972d627e14b21295deaefe64be703350bc3638
2560 F20110218_AACPPQ palmieri_c_Page_006.txt
3b9fe0bf46081e711cc23bb11d693b9d
6c408e15c35f20a2c6dd17dc8233adccc4e1cb06
1954 F20110218_AACPQG palmieri_c_Page_030.txt
4e6d95a8ad3c5f28331929743f7b0c6e
ff1b1f5509f3ac8e5993147b598dd327dcfa9430
3991 F20110218_AACPPR palmieri_c_Page_007.txt
700414943db3854326e03f720cf9912e
950107c4b7e0cfe5ad38591fc5f821c91422e166
1891 F20110218_AACPQH palmieri_c_Page_032.txt
067b14cce545ba9ff1c1c01950abe77e
dda4ab8b972bf00754fa4eef0bc1153dfd93f794
2159 F20110218_AACPPS palmieri_c_Page_009.txt
dd304556b939061d86c8354e4a0daba5
69f577e265da05fc220c1332c9a65a92e48ba28b
1960 F20110218_AACPQI palmieri_c_Page_033.txt
b2e6cca6375cb3aa197e12a148ee51a3
0e2925cc3156b51bf64ff15973053d74ed432575
2491 F20110218_AACPPT palmieri_c_Page_010.txt
1604608e323b8b80740456f6318c4256
2142a2f0e1c8c6a3245155a4e1af25a73502b595
1837 F20110218_AACPQJ palmieri_c_Page_036.txt
cfb9dc78ac45a4a35f0e89e5460139ef
954735e4e4a3aaedbcb5cadaee87d44bc834776b
1735 F20110218_AACPPU palmieri_c_Page_011.txt
1aa4232fc8d9ebfcf47c5065d3452502
7b74896be8305a364b28ac4800324e2b672dc752
F20110218_AACPQK palmieri_c_Page_038.txt
a800f1c919e0f67565a3e3263c7bbd26
5db3f45add4ec6c9d4104dcf354252e5d6d5a400
2025 F20110218_AACPPV palmieri_c_Page_012.txt
616f70710bf7adfe77078b038dabc172
6274dddc3a412a094a1deb4064cfa8b81c15f8a1
1883 F20110218_AACPQL palmieri_c_Page_039.txt
6a20476ffa49b6f93285f3def9ed233c
74321e55a6d70280c2c24baaa9caa92552432671
1992 F20110218_AACPPW palmieri_c_Page_014.txt
3fdf55c2ec93479eefac5b394a548399
4f76fd923ae1ee4042a262ada4ef9180e38895d6
1791 F20110218_AACPRA palmieri_c_Page_056.txt
89c78c2fb6b90aa26fa14a633f9c03eb
9829cf228854600707a8f271f93feaa291a90a31
1963 F20110218_AACPQM palmieri_c_Page_040.txt
7f4a62b424ba42e0f02ff6965f7f73eb
768378a5b529ec0442268a66799793549bc4d993
1885 F20110218_AACPPX palmieri_c_Page_016.txt
f2543935af03bc57a92c7ae2bb0cc219
2dd8adfe480a4ebd3aadf04d6ff5dfcc46e1d925
1616 F20110218_AACPRB palmieri_c_Page_057.txt
c8d07034068ec82eb2df03e06d39aecf
de157f359b84f3e57f9edb9daf5764ea538c4b75
1934 F20110218_AACPQN palmieri_c_Page_041.txt
35ed9cc41fb8d473b714aa183fef18f8
6641522df3e3fc238dd5cf8ffa8ed8044ca94440
1997 F20110218_AACPPY palmieri_c_Page_018.txt
5cf033189c606f4abcd7cfadacec13d5
0c88f4ff16e927f44ff77a3acba6e3f7e876b9d4
1470 F20110218_AACPRC palmieri_c_Page_058.txt
8de82915ebb3b6f5ea4e7e6719356145
655750f4b2e4669229447c91482338c0adb17afa
1887 F20110218_AACPQO palmieri_c_Page_043.txt
e66b2cc04cbad95c69ea5258a225dac0
8dc4c28d36bdf8f77f4d43fed675a033c4526720
2040 F20110218_AACPPZ palmieri_c_Page_019.txt
83ae8e333ab6e8944b90e3a593a58058
5cf04613d9b5b52845d0d1ad82c19d3b0122c5ad
1349 F20110218_AACPRD palmieri_c_Page_060.txt
3dc223cdaeb99e552cd7450ec28a4a12
391485aa8b6dd79dd8b52c99b6f2fb232d1880eb
1283 F20110218_AACPQP palmieri_c_Page_044.txt
92f81defcb3d900ed321ee9663eee8dd
ea0cd3047b84ef30e0ae2e40590c284183b5e4e7
1460 F20110218_AACPRE palmieri_c_Page_061.txt
fbe454b602ed7ad07f01237fa4921ba2
b30406781fd344d0c746d3342804c3aeb00c407a
1937 F20110218_AACPQQ palmieri_c_Page_046.txt
f415c99092a15933e48c5e5ba8391090
a86462aa0f4dbdd0618726e60cd8d352059c4475
1589 F20110218_AACPRF palmieri_c_Page_063.txt
68eedf10f4396c434c68c05f3076eb3c
719c068234580e737de3f5f498aa281c19414940
1153 F20110218_AACPRG palmieri_c_Page_065.txt
dcce68877093a24a0019ac604acb62bd
9ce03938c9e7177ef4f8a0bc197940536e242bde
1944 F20110218_AACPQR palmieri_c_Page_047.txt
d683fcce682f46ba1c8ec92901730ba0
20f271b0eb87c8ea456d8bb96ddb7e780f0772b2
1397 F20110218_AACPRH palmieri_c_Page_069.txt
b93e6a6015ea2ff7dc4019793e517428
a91ce9af2cbdc04e94671cb725ce91acf8ce368e
1828 F20110218_AACPQS palmieri_c_Page_048.txt
da2b10f84efcc20dbe6a119511fe7298
0db4355fb300ee08e2c9a5c0074d77dfd36fe3fa
1645 F20110218_AACPRI palmieri_c_Page_071.txt
70a17d0e1aadb8ea9c6ca74359a74e75
df3ff7328b3210566472e910c0abad04eee728ce
1674 F20110218_AACPQT palmieri_c_Page_049.txt
f759f585c7ddc666f4cdfb60b03a670c
bbda25ab6f302af9ab803c856d51aeb1aaafe365
1089 F20110218_AACPRJ palmieri_c_Page_072.txt
1a80435cde0ef88f4175cb78f7c5fa89
ae3440f5c813782bdd3301eb253406942cc88ead
1833 F20110218_AACPQU palmieri_c_Page_050.txt
a387600fa1b569956da321b6c291d5b1
4012e35617670d45bcb6ed9c4ae3087a0e867763
1054 F20110218_AACPRK palmieri_c_Page_073.txt
462dcc76039fb18f09c592eff3f249c1
6d19560da634a659dd37dd6d77e4af88b9fc7199
2055 F20110218_AACPQV palmieri_c_Page_051.txt
2996c24cce58b6bb06eccf864b0a0e25
c395919d03e67a007e4674d85f7e3a13502cf622
1733 F20110218_AACPRL palmieri_c_Page_076.txt
98f16b9ef8c71a556e08f5914b709bb5
1bdbe1d2aa6f7ea140cf5a480ed1c975ed9f88d3
1931 F20110218_AACPQW palmieri_c_Page_052.txt
09861d281e74c2314400b80aa815c18a
db1da99778f9ae992c7787ed6b32bfd1ac351e44
1375 F20110218_AACPRM palmieri_c_Page_077.txt
54a946e9238eed0d242ffc08219d5ea6
5e7174574be4b35254f1f4ea94f444edf807f883
2033 F20110218_AACPQX palmieri_c_Page_053.txt
b90950337e3ad701950c583016d73950
45624d91c887c04cdd88edba2916c31d4d7ef2fc
1971 F20110218_AACPSA palmieri_c_Page_096.txt
24cd884a4475bf4b80957cc2ec74cd70
876bd933fd461d3604f31fd908cb5dc513c46443
1695 F20110218_AACPRN palmieri_c_Page_079.txt
bf5837dc7c9b3e0e4641191db1107dc4
f2fee7f633d65a1908f82a18a83df7dabd385017
1024 F20110218_AACPQY palmieri_c_Page_054.txt
ae76fbefb6c7df315cd8ef83493d6885
8701cefd29b845594302c0648fe1d247bdfce6df
1980 F20110218_AACPSB palmieri_c_Page_097.txt
7a7c48558645f380951c0365f5c7c218
755c0bc923aafed58cd7c856fed6bcffd98bcd7d
1557 F20110218_AACPRO palmieri_c_Page_080.txt
39883c57f9579ae57fb2c1dc4b682411
189373b07da5ae6611d28eaff47b37a1540f96d3
1537 F20110218_AACPQZ palmieri_c_Page_055.txt
f783aebcea4dbd159438f6dfc9ba616e
3d9f77bd712695efe9df466aca6ca2c927d1171f
F20110218_AACPSC palmieri_c_Page_098.txt
005d71fe82fcd655385178e294217e00
42ac1df520ad15e90f689bf25fab44e3cb69c50b
1711 F20110218_AACPRP palmieri_c_Page_081.txt
f692f43b8afc19f95852055637ec4e0c
f62d6c324bf3ab6212ef5be2bc7a7a1cf09525f0
2010 F20110218_AACPSD palmieri_c_Page_099.txt
8285e5cf09f659d81aa693d4f9899a49
4cbcaa4bfbedcb6857f6671d7a4c31500c5e32f8
1679 F20110218_AACPRQ palmieri_c_Page_082.txt
210e8e3bc35a0820b6b02b4d96b80511
07816432cac558784ffcd59d828e6bd52a8945cc
F20110218_AACPSE palmieri_c_Page_101.txt
8e3f423742c21142187b46cde7733f1e
42a43f2ceab404d99ec8cf0cea0688d65b09ebae
1680 F20110218_AACPRR palmieri_c_Page_083.txt
c1a3c5f8b1ca583415b62669f05d9c85
62643d71ca6a43419b23b0a77d1ead2444b71985
438 F20110218_AACPSF palmieri_c_Page_102.txt
b8e556a49f758e5fb8afe75e46f68a7b
aeed26af55fd305c706600b5ae501e563ca672e3
1669 F20110218_AACPSG palmieri_c_Page_103.txt
ca8b5de93d7667134c94231d46c48ac6
b51b51cbc1e72b45c3e3533073ec686c50ec61a4
1643 F20110218_AACPSH palmieri_c_Page_104.txt
9309ada8b2b5ac1514cea1bf36abd7a0
f97f3a6e89c410beed66c65be448e6439be5e07a
1058 F20110218_AACPRS palmieri_c_Page_085.txt
727c5e75455ece0c750a9c317ee7ef78
7e0d9fd562e7537ce61b16bc8e618299fc5333b3
1520 F20110218_AACPSI palmieri_c_Page_106.txt
f33052cfc9d76ea873faabf599fb34c8
806af85bca8a28ed49e099af77690dc9bc4e638e
1874 F20110218_AACPRT palmieri_c_Page_087.txt
57b86090bd2a5793ecae6a3016f860b1
08f02f35e9771e07e509174921cc3deaf6182963
1106 F20110218_AACPSJ palmieri_c_Page_107.txt
2dc66b2a571821a6588e90531890085c
0da67c965d15556c7e051ca0c8e1144ca146965a
2006 F20110218_AACPRU palmieri_c_Page_088.txt
0bf79dd16307d19d2bf60e7b5a9225fe
1871ed3e4a580ec13533ba4ec3b46b5dcd559b3f
1331 F20110218_AACPSK palmieri_c_Page_108.txt
5fcccf66164207ab8136bc9da85d15a6
14fafbe6a03e52d4c2377fd010b08f900e6b319e
1968 F20110218_AACPRV palmieri_c_Page_089.txt
da0ba72ecb201fa747894494893f772d
c2be8333af108c4fadfa8e4cfc0ff4dbf8a7c4cf
667 F20110218_AACPSL palmieri_c_Page_110.txt
6e5771f796059979f9f4c68f7bf10533
9ad685f608753d6e87c642f12171fcb185922d1e
1908 F20110218_AACPRW palmieri_c_Page_090.txt
5a4ccf4d45b6258b32c821db8d7fc424
6091cde154eb174cd9152d31cd7f6752fade106d
56993 F20110218_AACPTA palmieri_c_Page_008.pro
096966b4f17626992de5681f65647f48
47774675bccf8211615b72d9c2d2762edf619501
612 F20110218_AACPSM palmieri_c_Page_111.txt
355c045cda5714b19e2ab71185ddb456
e4b8c4f62d82fbe61bc14a795aeb324e7c78870d
1867 F20110218_AACPRX palmieri_c_Page_091.txt
37d3e73f3a3067cc4d77df2b6e43f065
02f2222d05c0302c9ce054c8ee981bb2bd0de851
51220 F20110218_AACPTB palmieri_c_Page_009.pro
f5d061d1dd474793d1c350446eea55c6
b75e50349ed89d05051e5ae832f055b20afd41a5
580 F20110218_AACPSN palmieri_c_Page_112.txt
ece2873465406267f44d47b3dd564284
304fe979ed143bd7c76c0e2613eebb85a8d26d39
2008 F20110218_AACPRY palmieri_c_Page_093.txt
d86109fec61fb0559f47e64a4126b37a
8557f1c6eb07d7b96e71a8291b46c3c21b4e578e
51588 F20110218_AACPTC palmieri_c_Page_012.pro
cd9ffdc6a5441ddf9fe2be08ea753e7e
9280ed24824d3871c6fb46ee17fdcd541f59d58c
459 F20110218_AACPSO palmieri_c_Page_113.txt
6cc4ed8841c028bcbfdc7d8af118b0d5
a90fd6357e36d41d8e7a12969bd798e9e2274898
1905 F20110218_AACPRZ palmieri_c_Page_095.txt
955e3d87bdfbd7fda40c45b9e9527613
419d4f90ce9b0e71e7bcf78b581b38f3c0404493
41033 F20110218_AACPTD palmieri_c_Page_013.pro
e6919f50373fe84519d960422c52f5e6
c06f4783e4b40d175066dab3d189bd591621937e
1840 F20110218_AACPSP palmieri_c_Page_115.txt
7c40ddd0fe47ac7834c1f44101d2f403
4558dec3dac0336b68ec4e5aa2a772072a343c53
49478 F20110218_AACPTE palmieri_c_Page_014.pro
8ce4431d63ddcf75b4895502418eedb9
843fc4e0ee1979e88b82f4a45e08c10ba3e4a974
1955 F20110218_AACPSQ palmieri_c_Page_118.txt
eb4118b7fd60a304dac9e9519b5d1f22
acac63d76896be10b57737f0b6f2f43e4bf4c29d
46673 F20110218_AACPTF palmieri_c_Page_015.pro
c86da9c92002e9b0dfb13b564383a21c
5a22d8884a02089df01c8d6da4296b70d3c39b1a
1322 F20110218_AACPSR palmieri_c_Page_119.txt
c06159f4e208e2d5f5320c9f061e54b7
84c871919f3fb790257d77b117ee92e3c93d7c2f
50686 F20110218_AACPTG palmieri_c_Page_018.pro
78ad432dd8bf11bd42a4cc5c783731b5
c3edb4052d7023446683d466f9a2d9270d25fe17
2428 F20110218_AACPSS palmieri_c_Page_121.txt
9bdcb7aa6d735a229824f198a7e5d2de
621e77fb1d8aca5bedab29f6c8c395cf0c5eac3c
43165 F20110218_AACPTH palmieri_c_Page_021.pro
64452305576f69a826b23dc4ec564582
9dc1cb5cfcd72abbe6f174d8a432e1cb897d8ee4
48450 F20110218_AACPTI palmieri_c_Page_022.pro
19bf1b5ad8f004f40d5a2449fc631dcf
b6c0928d5e005d50023c947eb7ad4a1344d1a3b9
517 F20110218_AACPST palmieri_c_Page_124.txt
d97bdd2e90c1f4f16121ebf5fc222bfd
e37def7174b57c3144c8126d0f20dea36d2b4db4
6061 F20110218_AACPTJ palmieri_c_Page_023.pro
2a2cf6646c6c2ae984e15b25c5c1da4b
0814e3b3e6557bd2c46d12298627d14a9c45573e
7869 F20110218_AACPSU palmieri_c_Page_001.pro
8578551709f1b3963b9e9f86f4e9d000
1ec622851f8a64e382e7d1221f82c25d143eae1d
41257 F20110218_AACPTK palmieri_c_Page_024.pro
f890f4b256917afe69befbf8796080e8
4692469172377d2d966e62cdf9645da0883b0f9f
10876 F20110218_AACPSV palmieri_c_Page_003.pro
d03d28dc753922843e1183f28528f673
3b32de338c9170f26d8e0674ad923090387feb7d
50750 F20110218_AACPTL palmieri_c_Page_025.pro
f9d6bb47e021e03c6d203404a99188c6
c79bdfcec0bc1bbdb79e55c999956c19ca8a97dd
41275 F20110218_AACPSW palmieri_c_Page_004.pro
a382b10b59d1e3b1237cd58487c9d21d
0355c940cf608c7076545b9e55ba9ceebd107ad6
49788 F20110218_AACPTM palmieri_c_Page_027.pro
0d45aab8937ab50c00cbbbaa763a1fbe
adaee7982d8ff91238b9eb94006332427de1e914
2754 F20110218_AACPSX palmieri_c_Page_005.pro
bebe15ed146c1e49119221ebadd5055b
976f2846545258f8a97fc6971ea5e8d370eb942f
43575 F20110218_AACPUA palmieri_c_Page_046.pro
bcb9da448dfeaf3e943d4f628ed7c3ae
c6750b83b783ecbd19e538c21efc8dae24a2c00c
49458 F20110218_AACPTN palmieri_c_Page_028.pro
1a3131a3f294a5950abb4a18cc4340e7
15b4bcbfaf93a16da3fa7a14c9271d3352036ea8
56923 F20110218_AACPSY palmieri_c_Page_006.pro
54a929ebeb29a04b346ebc32f0aad850
0a5ce106e41e8f02afef485233b7632a92c94596
48148 F20110218_AACPUB palmieri_c_Page_047.pro
ea1846e7a44311613505e82715d1e753
c57837532f46a485664d30a9fcde604fead599af
50930 F20110218_AACPTO palmieri_c_Page_029.pro
6e05872be000d31a5f43d3355a55d0e4
dd75f0c2bc4b31ab4815ac54c1f1596425544cdc
89859 F20110218_AACPSZ palmieri_c_Page_007.pro
9c8df0c46fb6f54649de4240709fa07f
d1f330fc36a33b18a003b27c442aa19b2d15e8ab
45890 F20110218_AACPUC palmieri_c_Page_048.pro
c1625434d308d3d53e47803d7e847634
7050ba899d2203e6a1e1e1970bfeeab025f5e453
48408 F20110218_AACPTP palmieri_c_Page_030.pro
09ef6920be0393c80e53e45a75ea4438
9a79d21a0a4f579a2067efcc2775e0e35fe53fa7
41780 F20110218_AACPUD palmieri_c_Page_049.pro
cbd1237b3942c3e13cd04e38bdf051c9
c5b24e711ad74cc4149020e77167bc40fd001e9d
47675 F20110218_AACPTQ palmieri_c_Page_032.pro
8b2da0751ae957534b959658e2ad8ec7
d1309f6cf1067197127ce6418f981fc0b59dd45e
37175 F20110218_AACPUE palmieri_c_Page_050.pro
6f74b6d153198a7ac7be494b7ce5a544
09736ac442c78c3140dae31719bdb094e9056a58
49752 F20110218_AACPTR palmieri_c_Page_033.pro
0efbb534905c6513608a7e8abdeb4cdf
483304193b2688c646ec14e7436e491571e04abe
48721 F20110218_AACPUF palmieri_c_Page_052.pro
96d00bf922aa1c2607caf2ae6918593d
b52d30eac595bfaa6b61148d799013bf0d1e141b
52434 F20110218_AACPTS palmieri_c_Page_035.pro
f32928011a5892456c30913d4414e45d
aa05763bbddaa85a17b060db502304d298daf5aa
15828 F20110218_AACQAA palmieri_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
fdff294a5a52b10fdfe985c78d6d8def
acd432b97ebebb274ae112ed4c3362588f17a395
50993 F20110218_AACPUG palmieri_c_Page_053.pro
d629d21af2e88945baa8d04794ab69c7
a25104afd30f9a26bc1af423f80ca46768d1b844
46313 F20110218_AACPTT palmieri_c_Page_036.pro
4cba326eee40ba95de28ef924829c753
a606e2ab63d325cb31ae89bdf70961a9f74d434a
39414 F20110218_AACQAB palmieri_c_Page_073.jpg
0c5086714c34104a4677b6972090268d
f2c4714b866f59f2979572082daf1b5734064ff7
37633 F20110218_AACPUH palmieri_c_Page_055.pro
c94f1103baf5154b39480e94fe0bab7b
d4ac2df40e202dc019006505ff75ef470e396681
13611 F20110218_AACQAC palmieri_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
fc515d47b8085077a0e20abe20286ff8
8ab7177cc0ff0cf570454723a8dcb2d56273c5f7
44035 F20110218_AACPUI palmieri_c_Page_056.pro
3494ed7158aaf6ec2dd956ad5c6ad233
a69efb2b29b7953522864d3199b8622839ac351c
49547 F20110218_AACPTU palmieri_c_Page_037.pro
ffce99aaf09364657a3654b1ca293544
dad98e93bc726e16c60327c12867addfb253e494
73598 F20110218_AACQAD palmieri_c_Page_074.jpg
c9f3036037a6d267a89b6579bc724b36
2eb8f6a27e3d2d38331a9c9b9da3b7f6a949aa31
40000 F20110218_AACPUJ palmieri_c_Page_057.pro
a80f1bbdcc0bcb2d378689f35666d45b
66db59f01df3e0656871d5643ea4e22c300d30fa
47614 F20110218_AACPTV palmieri_c_Page_039.pro
7cd2769104eb7f56ea2e886155279ca0
af3ee7ec6ab90a2c41247fa43172be91479a0381
23822 F20110218_AACQAE palmieri_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
0076319e9ae3da53af3a38daf60899da
e5d5be6d11a38e6e45a2d511c1da621e3237fd87
24256 F20110218_AACPUK palmieri_c_Page_060.pro
a2a52eae0741d6e7ecd0e7ba939b6b87
09e9df0fe6894a18992897e6701811f7c4440142
46142 F20110218_AACPTW palmieri_c_Page_042.pro
ddc1fb7e15f1f70d53adc5cc17db1e3b
ff26078dc856e9ef8711d7925a1e4ef6e2ee7335
F20110218_AACQAF palmieri_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
35bcfb0c3823eb708e827d6372004bef
f1181673201e41c18a8a8799114f3966d81296a0
30939 F20110218_AACPUL palmieri_c_Page_061.pro
1e8b72b772b7899b472209171fead257
e7eee3cceb3093f1da20f1ecaf178cad9bca0382
46567 F20110218_AACPTX palmieri_c_Page_043.pro
c30fa682f6ea8d5f140c5137668c2a0c
d93e6f3640b768cc2edb9b6f70cc0c6b6b1d48bf
73530 F20110218_AACQAG palmieri_c_Page_076.jpg
9440bb51bc0a84a98528aaa079ef3b3e
c92a6b0b5daa748015847eb88d51be0b8c06228c
36104 F20110218_AACPVA palmieri_c_Page_084.pro
a1ea12d93ece7a8bfa8d60d6061bcb0c
8f75dff13f8028d281ba4bee16d14d23a59a2a21
39251 F20110218_AACPUM palmieri_c_Page_062.pro
514b27d3646e0310697d3919070c3ef8
9170c171971ed61c8e7870cfd073507af78ed05a
31978 F20110218_AACPTY palmieri_c_Page_044.pro
60d5a1d26a25361b91a20b39d5adfba8
28ce26c2bc90400ae10fcc00b7ac4cca2e15c239
23799 F20110218_AACQAH palmieri_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
d319519f9d2ee82c606ac23b01cc9644
f30dbd44bf6213cb00200b5f9820b7308bad4d70
25570 F20110218_AACPVB palmieri_c_Page_085.pro
f80c879840b27c6dd45f7fa482c013a7
7b65d667101d6be90060c5c03aba9193d739be00
30222 F20110218_AACPUN palmieri_c_Page_064.pro
61b491408a16cef246a214079915c593
3efca9d5bd4cdf642c4609b23984b2c4f4c2012b
17551 F20110218_AACPTZ palmieri_c_Page_045.pro
6bfc2dfd4b74b038ba046862589c65e9
285bef13d856b1edd03b5c33ba5986012cc685d6
50644 F20110218_AACQAI palmieri_c_Page_077.jpg
63422ea1f7376845c3cc692f62f0e467
e7faab8a8966c00dd669bc51dbf55c1a7cc796ee
42049 F20110218_AACPVC palmieri_c_Page_086.pro
021f3b3a294a41bd6b37a860e8e5b833
4b34ced17135159423d9b6193af4b61b858e9f5c
27621 F20110218_AACPUO palmieri_c_Page_065.pro
b1bd33498c62287709d8adf270757e74
dfc558fcc349e0acfc04275c066d9cea2fe3bace
17446 F20110218_AACQAJ palmieri_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
bab8727f899a9713405a552e67d8ffb9
173d45883e1cdd85e64b1a3d4887aa8b9852e76e
50858 F20110218_AACPVD palmieri_c_Page_088.pro
a6c054a60e7411628d5dbfab536a01bc
c645e6614b18c3aace2fb7dbfcd39d44b131d484
46417 F20110218_AACPUP palmieri_c_Page_066.pro
982f2dc7a0300e3aae136266db371c94
f2712ac1680e31a971b4dd37d7023e5d24670e49
73012 F20110218_AACQAK palmieri_c_Page_078.jpg
0a1987ae41a8b674e2eb5714ca90fe6a
b4c6cb0327abaf30a8ea8b0a0adf4aa81c561afe
47135 F20110218_AACPVE palmieri_c_Page_091.pro
5a3e59b8f1c4d222bdd0c574a483f594
e0738b44bb879bfb9e6c949500aeb6a88bd554ac
22583 F20110218_AACPUQ palmieri_c_Page_068.pro
f7ba69fa994945c6995f09dc43421ac9
c895c8bc8c5f75a327d5815f84529196378964b7
77236 F20110218_AACQAL palmieri_c_Page_079.jpg
7dc13635bb86a05fc24b73ece0086ff9
8ddba150a1e0d8f0199aff5b31b20150fb49ecc1
51767 F20110218_AACPVF palmieri_c_Page_092.pro
1ea9b7d626ebe77448f306cc05f3f9cc
382cf49167112422b45a1a1f42711ce8d1d4142e
31922 F20110218_AACPUR palmieri_c_Page_069.pro
56faa6cc9da84658cb2355a90ed2c50f
306050e33a7aef662325cd468e50419ba65ca04e
83901 F20110218_AACQBA palmieri_c_Page_088.jpg
13c8744004f088ee536fd7fada48a7e7
1d330ece7a2388780a8d434813c199924cc4d6a2
24046 F20110218_AACQAM palmieri_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
bda47cfc0c727c169bcbc2d3cd109d31
3c97b466086ee7363ea0e7e5c6e0b660f1f7d557
51073 F20110218_AACPVG palmieri_c_Page_094.pro
e40033957e361ce33b0a954939246654
13b9451f63377d8ad1ad5c58f543cac97a337db2
26043 F20110218_AACPUS palmieri_c_Page_072.pro
cd24c38d08fe8046a1984395bcd85afd
c6c57922743d320506a63ed00773ef2c856ed9f9
F20110218_AACQAN palmieri_c_Page_080.jpg
0d115f61aba49d208d06cb3fff853f00
fbb65b7363b2a4f75648d9efde4d532fab84860b
48233 F20110218_AACPVH palmieri_c_Page_095.pro
006e8bfcdb0256f9b2c337e972eb1320
070cba55a5e7cfb258977b41aa251268d6538bda
18814 F20110218_AACPUT palmieri_c_Page_073.pro
0fb500b9c435abed36fda47f8c2d8429
76bf19a2a642eeeff501a23ab2994664a0b8b452
26769 F20110218_AACQBB palmieri_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
41662042b705f9124bfbe96bbfcfb03f
02b7fa586ca2ad5ac7f17bfd72255234c07caf4c
19435 F20110218_AACQAO palmieri_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
a027ce7a9b31a08dc2a39923e43f8c62
ac2cd0e29f1abb503735dd8cadba1c8834071835
49892 F20110218_AACPVI palmieri_c_Page_096.pro
4d3fc61369bf48d8f75a9d3be7fdc8d0
08bac08142c24c40333a231fdbed38167953fb73
23647 F20110218_AACPUU palmieri_c_Page_075.pro
fef79a45fb08171b7c7fbe0cbe99fba5
91cf747a80b6a1c1f8e59f7833bcbb8842988251
83022 F20110218_AACQBC palmieri_c_Page_089.jpg
c73aaec51e35ef729fd2a33ded1db83e
b0a0b70cc678b40444de5d144c4f52d1af89e2ce
64137 F20110218_AACQAP palmieri_c_Page_081.jpg
b3496ca27cd427188e4d8446b4addd90
102633d7b29cf0898d251355e5c0c7a593483adb
50141 F20110218_AACPVJ palmieri_c_Page_097.pro
5ca7a9eed47848493d5b58ccaea972b8
d0e68fe06c4379281b3a58505ed52803cdaedf7e
24387 F20110218_AACQBD palmieri_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
3cee7509a811c96896ff0a827a492259
83ab474fdda249abbde4a92d5677ec39a1d88744
20249 F20110218_AACQAQ palmieri_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
b1995b2f6414ab92054f09675f15ad47
8a8b44658c9920f5e53533c2862ece7adcbc9d0a
51022 F20110218_AACPVK palmieri_c_Page_099.pro
f21757db4f4e8f17b14159c3cc47679a
f9f2561b49773b4dba7d614aa7f11e981457bf9a
42645 F20110218_AACPUV palmieri_c_Page_076.pro
8ad138c48ef7efea737dc78ef148d98f
752c5d4c7f4b28fa8b59826d1694bb6f3e2e5f94
78486 F20110218_AACQBE palmieri_c_Page_091.jpg
74be3da13b5c33b654c15333b15f0214
5ab3bfa7784903aa48a619975ef8a2fb77a975ce
61842 F20110218_AACQAR palmieri_c_Page_082.jpg
f33f70d1b89f694760575cd2b6f45c31
ecf77d2fbd7ab8a477b756455dd492ca3b2e2a52
50677 F20110218_AACPVL palmieri_c_Page_100.pro
f524ae5971c314d1465578ee55bb7a9b
8b0697e58e61adc7cdbc914c56de2da8f19095db
27584 F20110218_AACPUW palmieri_c_Page_077.pro
2608b6f6e3fe0c0914d5bbacc24dc167
7e7c3ef9068b20e160f57f2eea66da42f1391409
24562 F20110218_AACQBF palmieri_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
81ade129328d663fcc8dd8b29e3afbe2
07c160c9e11bec894d68aaa5fb9b0c22386e295d
4497 F20110218_AACPWA palmieri_c_Page_002.jpg
2c5dc6f08f5f2f5b78e7245f5aa42ca8
6a90f4bc2d681f63dcfb5a7f13040286404ef256
18699 F20110218_AACQAS palmieri_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
8be98554a696a352af3193cfafb1f90b
db4bf374823e0b3efd5766f528658ca2e8853147
45818 F20110218_AACPVM palmieri_c_Page_101.pro
27f2a4a533ce93481f15acf59fa3a850
568fefe602cb9fb08eec83a93e3bce82a4e5b8ad
40515 F20110218_AACPUX palmieri_c_Page_079.pro
ce35ba578d0f3f9c06bb84d872f2fc98
1dcbf90a45a80d8db9f53bd43bbad137ede0c169
85836 F20110218_AACQBG palmieri_c_Page_092.jpg
6bf8626f209f7a6198f278d41073b0cf
644a5b09cebf0f2d35887a35c90dbfb5934fe23a
1484 F20110218_AACPWB palmieri_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
61da436744bb19415e77458f2952d6f3
70ef11c8ab980fc61656c49aaa71f87ab95a0f2f
19068 F20110218_AACQAT palmieri_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
bcfc83a89a0a05c672353dd691478a82
5158448408ef812ba179b191d0572f018eefdce5
39196 F20110218_AACPVN palmieri_c_Page_103.pro
e4b8d95a2c858f1c055acd3020a4d501
919de5ad9b5f4afd464595015bed65b11abf8b46
40553 F20110218_AACPUY palmieri_c_Page_081.pro
de3c68c6992a49915e83721c7a9d5f81
05d54404ec99eb3a91ae1f6b9e8a84adab52ca51
84995 F20110218_AACQBH palmieri_c_Page_093.jpg
a7c72af082f841aaa4dfb7712dfa4e55
2c67c9d810ad4e7357d684d40c23af695eb8b3e8
70031 F20110218_AACPWC palmieri_c_Page_004.jpg
600f99807dd1bcff61b3f853695f62c8
4e688b95560270453a818741f3351c1ed0d64bd9
20091 F20110218_AACQAU palmieri_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
01dba80e3043bb904c1f90ab92dafae0
4fe3af5dbd64f2d8b4a342a44ebfad6370d82a01
33790 F20110218_AACPVO palmieri_c_Page_104.pro
85d3382872a7a86ab7b84465ef51ad73
adedafbf8f05c345d6db9e3af41a34b340c7baf9
39664 F20110218_AACPUZ palmieri_c_Page_082.pro
71c0da81a0265c4c546e9bd50e80f4a3
cec4de8a214e8712e358bd26f5c87fdb0321342f
26547 F20110218_AACQBI palmieri_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
5d3b9294b8deb39cea01c3f9516cc8e7
c8be73a516139d8baf462c03b9d5b138f3af0611
21833 F20110218_AACPWD palmieri_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
1d06bf46db0178987637daeb7c49ca78
de14f0cd477cf42ee1d4232ea0069233b230fc52
18128 F20110218_AACQAV palmieri_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
6cdb173ab5c30c8a6da4f7c8c4025fcd
7465b37f515088c4502331cab22532aac9dd4219
29316 F20110218_AACPVP palmieri_c_Page_105.pro
2d412a1e7d98689a430e5dcd5b355333
ab71ee1c38d6bc38da96e6350446f7505d9aa27e
83472 F20110218_AACQBJ palmieri_c_Page_094.jpg
0d45b9c7ea647b55583139e8339d120c
d291b1914dd141413082248c00a46dd8d0e96b81



PAGE 1

INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY AS A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING GRANDTRAVEL By CATHERINE A. PALMIERI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Catherine A. Palmieri

PAGE 3

To my sister who became my survey-collecting partne r. With her along, I never minded the long drives to The Villages, a nd with her smiling face beside me, I was able to attract more participants then I ever could have by myself. I am grateful for the weeks and months it took me to collect this data, because these were weeks and months I was able to spend and enjoy with my sister. Thank you Elizabeth.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge my committee for their support in this process: my chair, Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray, for the many hours she spent reviewing all parts of this paper; Dr. Heather Gibson and Dr. Terry Mi lls who also spent ma ny hours reading this work and sharing with me their ideas and opinions. I thank them for their time and support. The Villages has been a vita l part of this study. Without the assistance of Allison Benszick and The Villages Recreation Department, this study would not have been possible. Several social cl ubs generously opened their door s for me to collect surveys during their meetings, including the Mulberry Recreation Center, Three Cs Ohio Club, La Hacienda Womens Club, Baby Boomer s, Michigan Club, Kentucky Club, ClogHoppers, Pimlico Social Club, and Th e College of Life Long Learning. I would like to thank Dr. Eldor Quandt, A ssociate Professor at Western Michigan University. It was his study on children and vacation/decision making that spawned the idea for this thesis. Even t hough it has been several years sinc e I sat in his classroom, his love for travel and tourism, dedication and hard work live with me everyday. I would like to thank my employer, Holbrook Travel for its patience and understanding throughout this process. Finally, I would like to thank my family who serve as the founda tion of my life my mother and father, sister Elizabeth, brother Matt, gra ndmother, and best friend Genevieve. There is absolutely no way I can express my thanks, gratitude and love to

PAGE 5

v these individuals. I thank them for being th ere for me. I love them and thank God for them.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Aging Population..........................................................................................................1 Grandtravel...................................................................................................................2 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................4 Grandparenting Styles...........................................................................................4 Intergenerational Solidarity...................................................................................6 Link Between Intergenerational Solidarity and Grandtravel........................................7 Justification.................................................................................................................. .8 Purpose........................................................................................................................ .9 Research Questions.......................................................................................................9 Delimitations.................................................................................................................9 Limitations..................................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................12 Senior Travel..............................................................................................................12 Link Between Grandparenting and Leisure................................................................18 Past Experience with Grandtravel..............................................................................18 Decision-making and Grandtravel..............................................................................19 Perceptions of Grandtravel Held by the Grandchildren.............................................25 Intergenerationa l Relationships..................................................................................26 Summary.....................................................................................................................31 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................33 Data Collection...........................................................................................................33 Survey Instrument.......................................................................................................34 Independent Variable..................................................................................................35 Dependent Variable....................................................................................................39

PAGE 7

vii Setting up the Data for Analysis.................................................................................41 Computing the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity..............................41 Analysis of the Data....................................................................................................44 What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like?............................................44 What Does the Profile of Grandtravelers Look Like?.........................................44 Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of Grandtravel?.....................................................................................................44 What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past Experience with Grandtravel?..........................................................................45 What is the Relationship Between th e Six Domains of IGS and Support of Grandtravel?.....................................................................................................45 What is the Relationship Between th e Six Domains of IGS and Decisionmaking Behaviors Toward Grandtravel?.........................................................45 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................46 Results........................................................................................................................ .46 What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like?............................................46 Affectual Solidarity......................................................................................46 Associational Solidarity...............................................................................47 Consensual Solidarity...................................................................................49 Structural Solidarity.....................................................................................50 Functional Solidarity....................................................................................50 Normative Solidarity....................................................................................51 Intergenerational Solidarity..........................................................................52 What Does the Profile of Grandtravelers Look Like?.........................................53 Gender of Grandparent.................................................................................53 Gender of Grandchild...................................................................................53 Age of Grandparent......................................................................................54 Age of Grandchild........................................................................................54 Number of Grandchildren............................................................................54 Race/Ethnicity..............................................................................................55 Average Yearly Income...............................................................................55 Marital Status...............................................................................................55 Relation of Grandchild.................................................................................55 What Does the Travel Related Profile Look Like?.............................................57 What Does the Decision-making Profile Look Like?.........................................58 Where to Go.................................................................................................58 When to Go..................................................................................................58 What to Do...................................................................................................59 What to Eat...................................................................................................59 How Much Money to Spend........................................................................59 Where to Stay...............................................................................................59 Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of Grandtravel?.....................................................................................................60 What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past Experience with Grandtravel?..........................................................................62

PAGE 8

viii What is the Relationship Between th e Six Domains of IGS and Support of Grandtravel?.....................................................................................................64 What is the Relationship Between th e Six Domains of IGS and Decisionmaking behaviors Toward Grandtravel?..........................................................67 Where to Go.................................................................................................67 When to Go..................................................................................................69 What to Do...................................................................................................70 What to Eat...................................................................................................71 How Much Money to Spend and Where to Stay..........................................72 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSI ON, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................74 Summary of Procedures and Treatment of Data.........................................................74 Summary of Findings.................................................................................................75 Intergenerational Solidarity.................................................................................75 Respondent Profile..............................................................................................76 Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Likelihood of Grandtravel................................................................................78 Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Past Experience with Grandtravel....................................................................80 Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Support of Grandtravel....................................................................................80 Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Decision-making Behaviors Toward Grandtravel...........................................81 Conclusions and Discussion.......................................................................................82 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................89 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT..........................................................................................91 B UNUSED DATA........................................................................................................98 C ADDENDUM...........................................................................................................103 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................113

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Distribution of Responses for Diffe rent Areas of Data Collection..........................34 2 Intergenerational Solidarity Scale...........................................................................38 3 Affectual solidarity resp onses (six-point scale).......................................................42 4 Transforming of affectual solidarity scale res ponse from a 5 to a 6 point scale How is communication between you and this grandchild (n=249).......................43 5 Reliability of affectual solidarity..............................................................................43 6 Associational solidarity frequencies of the amount of contact with grandchild in the past year..........................................................................................................47 7 Associational solidarity frequencies combined.....................................................48 8 Total associational solidarity index..........................................................................49 9 Consensual solidarity responses...............................................................................49 10 Structural solidarity responses.................................................................................50 11 Functional solidarity res ponses financial support.................................................51 12 Functional solidarity re sponses childcare..............................................................51 13 Normative solidarity responses................................................................................52 14 Combined intergenerational solidarity profile........................................................52 15 Socio-demographic charact eristics of respondents..................................................56 16 Frequencies of likeli hood of grandtravel.................................................................57 17 Frequencies of past expe rience with grandtravel.....................................................57 18 Frequencies of support for grandtravel....................................................................58 19 Decision-making profile...........................................................................................60

PAGE 10

x 20 ONEWAY ANOVA for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel..........................................................................................61 21 Mean (M) and standard deviations (S D) for relationships between the six domains of intergenerational solida rity and likelihood of grandtravel....................62 22 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and past experience with grandtravel.....................................................................................63 23 ONEWAY for the six domains of interg enerational solidarity and support of grandtravel................................................................................................................64 24 Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for significant relationships between the six domains of intergenerational soli darity and support of grandtravel...................65 25 Model summary for intercorrelations fo r the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel.......................................................................67 26 ONEWAY ANOVA for intercorrelations between intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel........................................................................................67 27 Coefficients for intercorrelations fo r the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel.......................................................................67 28 The relationship between the six domain s of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making of where to go...............................................................................68 29 The relationship between the six domain s of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making of when to go................................................................................69 30 The relationship between the six domain s of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making of what to do.................................................................................70 31 The relationship between the six domain s of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making of what to eat................................................................................71 32 The relationship between the six domain s of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making of how much money to spend.......................................................72 33 The relationship between the six domain s of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making of where to stay.............................................................................73

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY AS A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING GRANDTRAVEL By Catherine A. Palmieri May 2006 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major Department: Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management As the baby boomers reach old age, the senior population is growing at an unprecedented rate. Characteristics of this population may include free time, willingness to travel, and a desire to spend time with family, especially their grandchildren. Combined, these characteristics create a st rong case for grandtravel, grandparents traveling with their grandchildren. Various researchers have examined senior travel patterns, intergenerational relationships, and decision-making. However, there is currently no research examining how inte rgenerational relationships influence grandparents tendencies toward grandtrave l. This study contri butes to the body of academic knowledge by being one of the first stud ies to relate interg enerational solidarity theory to the leisure field. This study looks at the concept of interg enerational solidarity (IGS) and its relationship with likelihood of support of, and past experience with grandtravel. Intergenerational solidarity is also examined in relationship to grandtravel related decision-making tendencies. Two hundred and fifty two (252) surveys were

PAGE 12

xii collected from different clubs and social groups in the retirement community of The Villages in Ocala, Florida. Results indicate that the majo rity of grandparents support the idea of grandtravel (80%) and w ould like to take part in th is form of travel (79%); however, only 42% of grandparents had ever done so. No significant relationship between IGS and likelihood of travel was found. However, a significant relationship exists between four of the domains of IGS (affectual, consensual, normative and associational) and support of grandtravel. Grandparents with the highest levels of IGS were also the most likely to have traveled with their grandchild ren. Those with the lowest levels of IGS were the least likely to have taken part in grandtravel. No significant relationship was found between IG S and grandtravel related decision-making tendencies, although grandparents with the highe st levels of IGS were also the most likely to allow their grandch ildren to take part in tr avel related decision making. Grandparents dominated in the decisions of where to go, when to go, how much money to spend and where to stay, and were most lik ely to evenly share with their grandchildren the decisions of what to eat and what to do while traveling. This study has several implications. Because there is a strong interest, but fewer than half of grandparents have taken part in grandtravel, this is a strong travel niche that should be further explored by travel professionals and rese archers. Second, grandparents with high levels of the six domains of IGS are more likely to support, likely to travel, and have past experience traveling with thei r grandchildren. Finally, the decision-making results of this study indicate that marketing relating to high-priced decision (where to stay) should be targeted toward grandparents Marketing that relates to less expensive decisions (what to eat, what to do) should be marketed toward children.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Aging Population Rapid changes in all areas of life have o ccurred over the past 100 years. Diseases such as polio have been vanquished, sma llpox has been virtually eradicated, and incidences of cholera and tuberculosis ha ve been severely reduced (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). Because of the invention and use of penicillin during World War II along with a greater understanding of microbiology and a dvances in Western medicine and public health, age-old diseases have been system atically tackled in the United States and throughout the world (Hobbs & Damon). Because of these advances, life expectancy around the world has risen faster during the 20th century than ever before (Ceresole, 1999). In 1860, half th e population of the United States was under age 20, and most of the population was not expected to live to age 65 (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). Since that time, life expectancy has been rising. In the last two decades of the 20th century, life expectancy at birth increased by 4.7 years for men, and 3.5 years for women (Reuters, 2003 ). Where life expectancy in 1993 was 76 years, by the year 2050 life expectancy is projected to be 82.6 years (Cheeseman Day, 2000). Over the last fifty years, the worlds population has increased over three times (Ceresole, 1999). During the 21st century, the total population of the United States tripled (Hobbs & Damon, 2001), with a large amount of this growth coming from longer life expectancy. Data gathered by the 2000 U. S. census support the massive growth of the

PAGE 14

2 elderly population. In 2000, 35 million people 65 years of age and over were counted in the United States (Smith, 2002). This numb er demonstrates a sharp increase as 31.2 million older people were counted in 1990, a 12 percent increase (Hetzel & Smith, 2001). Looking at the increase in age over a longer period of time, the number of persons 65 years of age and older has increased by a f actor of eleven, from 3.1 million in 1900 to 33.2 million in 1994 (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). Seventy-five million babies were born in the United States between 1946 and 1964 (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). The coming high gr owth of the elde rly population will be the result of the entrance of this Ba by Boomer cohort into the 65 and over age category (Hobbs & Damon). The sheer magnitude of this human tidal wave can be seen when considering that those born between 1946 and 1964 totaled 70 percent more people than were born during the previous two d ecades (Hobbs & Damon). Because of the large number of baby boomers, the rate of growth of the elderly populati on will far exceed the growth of the population of the country as a whole (Hobbs & Damon) While growth of the elderly population from 1990 to 2010 will be steady, due to the medical advances stated above, there will be a massive incr ease in this population between 2010 and 2030, as these baby boomers reach old age (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Institute on Aging (NIA), overall, the worlds population age 65 and older is growing by an unpr ecedented 800,000 people a month (Velkoff & Kensella, 2000). Grandtravel Couples and immediate families have trad itionally been the focus of researchers and marketers. In the tourism industry however, there are ma ny overlooked and underserved niches within this family travel mark et; one of the most signi ficant of these is the

PAGE 15

3 grandparent/grandchild niche (Gardyn, 2001) Grandparents vacationing with their grandchildren, without the gra ndchildrens parents have beco me one of the fast-growing travel trends to date (Curr y, 2000). The growing demand fo r grandtravel is indicated by the fact that the busin ess of grandtravel has increased 60% since 1996 (Jeffrey & Collins, 2001). The concept of grandtravel was first put into practice by Helena T. Koenig. She developed Grandtravel, a company which r uns escorted tours for grandparents and grandchildren. Grandtravel has received calls from over 15,000 people, without advertising (Schlosberg, 1990). Schlosbe rg hypothesized that if 15,000 sought out Grandtravel, thousands more would respond to advertising. Grandtravel, which is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland, has been in operatio n for 18 years. Tours range from 7 to 15 days and take place in the U.S., Europe, Af rica, and Australia. Koenig believes the grandtravel experience draws grandparents a nd grandchildren closer together and helps them relate to each other in remarkable wa ys. Grandtravel may be an exciting way to expand the world of grandparent/grandchild relationships (Koenig, 2005). Recognizing a lucrative market niche, companies beside s Grandtravel are now developing special grandparent/grandchild excursions. The Walt Disney Corporation was another pioneer with the id ea of grandparents traveling with their grandchildren. In 1998, Disney recognized opport unities to attract grandparents and grandchildren to Disney park s for vacations. It was at this time that Disney began to offer special packages and tr avel arrangements specifically arranged for grandparents with grandchildren. These pack ages continue to be offered today (Walt Disney World, 2005).

PAGE 16

4 While grandtravel trips take travelers a ll over the world, there is a strong interest for grandtravel in the state of Florida. An independent telephone survey conducted in February 1998 asked 521 grandparents what thei r first, second, and third choice in the United States would be as a destination to take their grandchildren on vacation. Consistently, respondents mentioned Orlando. Forty-five percent of respondents mentioned Orlando in their top three choice s, and 34 percent stated Orlando was their number one choice. Other popular cities incl uded Washington D.C ., San Francisco, and New York City. The Orlando/Orange Count y Convention and Visitors Bureau found similar results in a study conducted one year earlier. In this study, 29 percent of respondents had participated in grandtravel, with the top destination being Orlando and its surrounding attractions (Orlando/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2001). The grandtravel trend appears to be catching on. This type of travel is now part of the schedule for many tour operators across the country including Elderhostel, a company well known for its ed ucational travel programs (Gardyn, 2001). The grandtravel business may be one of the most lucrative trav el niches available. Jerry Mallett, who researches travel trends as head of the A dventure Travel Society Inc, remarked that: Grandtravel is the new cutti ng edge, for the first time in history were going to see grandparents taking the grandkids along as the next level of leisure activities (Maxwell, 1988, p 18). Theoretical Framework Grandparenting Styles With 69 million grandparents throughout the country and even more throughout the world (Jeffery & Collins, 2001), grandpare nt/grandchild relationships may vary

PAGE 17

5 drastically between different families, and even within the same family. Cherlin and Furstenberg (1992) identified three styles of grandparenting: remo te, companionate, and involved. Grandparenting styles are classified by the de gree of contact between the grandparents and the grandchildren and the amou nt of influence the grandparents have on the grandchildren and vice versa (Cherlin & Furstenberg). The three grandparenting styles can be thought of as being on a continuum, ranging from remote to involved, and not very involved to extremely involved. At the first end of the continuum is the remote relationship. Remote grandparents generally see their grandchildren so infreque ntly that they are unable to establish the easygoing, friendly relationship that is necessa ry for the closer grandparenting styles. Some remote grandparents live close to their grandchildren but still do not interact with them enough to develop a close relationship. Perhaps this is due to the relationship between the grandparent and the children, or va rious other factors. Remote grandparents find it difficult to become more than a sym bolic figure in their grandchildrens lives (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1992). At the middle of the grandparenting c ontinuum is the companionate style. Cherlin and Furstenburg (1992) report that th e companionate style of grandparenting is the dominant style of grandparent ing. These grandparents desc ribe themselves as playful companions, and the givers and receivers of love and affection. Companionate grandparents enjoy taking part in emotionally satisfying, leisure-time activities with their grandchildren. Being able to spend time with their grandchildren w ithout having to deal with the responsibilities of child rearing is a popular theme among companionate grandparents. These grandparents care a gr eat deal about, and en joy being with their

PAGE 18

6 grandchildren. However they also enjoy th e fact they can love them and send them home (p 56). At the opposite end of the continuum is the involved style of grandparenting. These grandparents take an active role in ra ising some, or all of their grandchildren. These individuals are likely to act more as pa rents than traditional grandparents. Daily or almost daily contact, often after a disruptive event such as an out of wedlock birth, divorce, or death of a parent, characterizes the involved style of grandparenting. Much like the companionate grandparent, involve d grandparents can be spontaneous and playful. However, these styles of gra ndparenting are different in that involved grandparents exert substantial authority a nd impose definite and sometimes demanding expectations upon their grandchildren. Intergenerational Solidarity The concept of intergenerational solidari ty is based on the idea that the more you see and interact with a person, the closer your relationship will be with that person. Mangen, Bengston, and Landry (199 8) suggest that intergener ational solidarity, or how close you feel to someone, is a multidimensi onal construct comprised of dependent on six distinct but interrelated constr ucts of solidarity. Solidarity re fers to the nature of social bonds or ties that link individuals in one gr oup to another. Interg enerational solidarity refers to how close your relationship is with th ose in different generations in your family. Specifically, the constructs of intergenerat ional solidarity examine issues of warmth, affection, attraction to, and in teraction with one another and providing assistance when needed. The term solidarity is used to examine the va riable manifestations of cohesiveness within the family group. These constructs include aff ectual, associational, consensual, functional, normative, and struct ural solidarity (Bengst on & Schrader, 1982).

PAGE 19

7 These constructs have been used in various studies concerning different aspects of grandparent/grandchild relationships. Affectual solidarity involves the percepti ons of feelings or emotional closeness and sentiment for family members in anot her generation. Associational solidarity involves the type and frequency of interac tions shared between family members in different generations. Consensual solidarity is the degree or perception of agreement in opinions, values, and orientations between fa mily members in different generations. Functional solidarity is the giving, receiving, and exchanging of tangible assistance and resources between family members in diffe rent generations. Normative solidarity involves the expectations regarding interg enerational support a nd filial obligations. Finally, structural solidar ity is the opportunity stru cture for intergenerational interactions. This reflects the number, gender, and geographic proximity of the intergenerational family members (Mangen et al., 1988). Link Between Intergenerational Solidarity and Grandtravel Previous to this study, the link between gr andtravel and intergen erational solidarity had not been established in th e literature. Most of the existing work on grandtravel reports numbers concerning how many peopl e travel, and where these people are traveling. This research typica lly does not use a theoretical or conceptual basis to reveal the causes and reasons for grandtravel. In contrast, this study e xplored the relationship between the constructs of intergenerational soli darity and travel. In so doing perhaps it would be possible to identify and explain what types of gr andparents are more likely to participate in grandtravel. What types of grandparents are most lik ely to take part in grandtravel? What types of relationships these grandparents have with their grandchildren? Information re garding these questions would enable travel professionals

PAGE 20

8 to determine which grandparents are most likely to take part in grandtravel, and better enable those involved with grandtravel to make the experience as enjoyable and rewarding as possible. Justification The justification for this study lies in a number of areas. First, this study will contribute to the academic body of literature. In this area it contributes as one of the first studies to apply the concept of intergenerational solidarity to the leisure field. In addition, from an industry point of view, th is study can help determine how to give grandparents and grandchildren the best travel experience possible. This study is relevant to all areas of the country, but especially to Florida. Although th e elderly population is increasing throughout the nation, the West and South regions have had the most growth in total population and in the older popul ation (Hetzel & Smith, 2001). The older population is a particular concern for the state of Florida. In a repor t of the ten places of 100,000 of more population with the highest pr oportion of their population 65 years or over, five of these cities are located in Fl orida and include, Clearwater, Cape Coral, St. Petersburg, Hollywood, Miami, and Hialeah (H etzel and Smith). Th is demonstrates a huge need for studies relating to the older population in the state of Florida. Specific to this study is the interest in those who have grandchildren. The large numbers of older adults who are retired, have money and free tim e, and reside in Flor ida demonstrates the need for a study such as this. In additiona l, these grandparents may be geographically removed from their grandchildre n and therefore travel to see their grandchildren or vice versa.

PAGE 21

9 Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the concept of intergenerational solidarity and grandtravel. This study provides information on the likelihood of grandtravel, support of grandt ravel and past experience of grandtravel in relation to intergenerational solidarity. In addition, this study looke d at decision-making tendencies during grandtravel in relation to intergenerational solidarity. This information revealed what types of grandparents are mo st likely to take part in grandtravel and what types of relationships they have with their grandc hildren. This was accomplished by examining grandtravel from a theoretical and conceptual point of view. Research Questions Six research questions guided this research: 1. What do the distinct domains of inte rgenerational solidarity look like? 2. What does the profile of gr andtravelers look like? 3. What is the relationship between the six dom ains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel? 4. What is the relationship between the six dom ains of intergenerational solidarity and past experience with grandtravel? 5. What is the relationship between the six dom ains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel? 6. What is the relationship between the six dom ains of intergenerational solidarity and decision-making behaviors in regards to grandtravel? Delimitations This study was delimited to grandparents who live in The Villages and took part in some of recreational activity of club. Th e residents of the Villages are all middle class to high-income individuals or families. This is a newly developed community with

PAGE 22

10 mostly new large houses. The large majority of The Villages residents are white, which resulted 98% of response coming from wh ite grandparents. Also, residents of The Villages have chosen to live in a place with a myriad of recreational activities, because they chose to move to such a place resident s are most likely to enjoy such activities. Participants volunteered to take part in this study. It is possible that volunteers of a study concerning grandchildren had a better re lationship with their grandchildren than those who were not willing to take part. This may have resulted in a skewed result in the intergenerational solidarity results if compar ed to those that would have resulted if the sample had been random. Because of thes e limitations, results are limited in terms of generalizability to all grandpa rents but may be generalized to those grandparents who have similar circumstances to t hose to took part in this study. Limitations There were a number of limitations to th is study. First, the questionnaire was 37 questions long and many participants may have suffered from fatigue while filling out the questionnaire. Several participants complete d the questionnaire as quickly as possible, which may have caused them to not thoroughly consider all the questions. There were some issues within the questionnaire, which may have posed a threat to the validity of this study, mainly unclear questions. For example, when asked about the amount of financial support they provided for their gra ndchildren it was not made clear whether or not this included gifts. Add itionally, the question of childcar e did not include a response for none, making it unclear whether or not those who did not answer this question did so because they did not provide any childca re or because they simply skipped the question.

PAGE 23

11 An additional limitation of this study is the fact that it asked about a favorite grandchild. A large number of respondents were offended by the word favorite and opted to withdraw from the stu dy after seeing this word.

PAGE 24

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW There are several areas of literature that relate to the topic of grandtravel. Literature on senior travel examines a variety of topics relating to th e travel tendencies of older adults. Past experience with grandt ravel is examined from several different sources. Decision-making processes of families and the effects of decisions made by different members of the family are examined in literature on decision-making. Perception of grandtravel held by grandchildren reveals the childs view of grandtravel. Finally, a review of th e literature on intergenerational relationships introduces us to the variety of issues affecting the relationship s between grandparents and grandchildren. These areas of literature are examined below. Senior Travel The senior travel market is not a new topic in the travel literature. One of the first studies on this topic was by Guinn (1980) who examined the motivations for recreation participation among older recreational vehicle tourists. Using data gathered from over 1,000 recreational vehicle touris ts, Guinn found that the primary motivations for travel included rest and relaxation, opportunities to meet and be with friends and family, physical exercise, and learning experiences. Results revealed that leisure motives and recreation participation were closely associat ed with age and socioeconomic variables. Also, the motive of rest and relaxation wa s more important to those with higher socioeconomic status. Pr oviding a learning experience was found to become more

PAGE 25

13 important with age. Participation in leisur e activities with friends and family became increasingly important with age and so cioeconomic status. Finally, recreation participation in games, sports, and nature appreciation activities decreased with age. Participants and non-participants of gr oup travel programs were studied by Blazey (1987). He study examined travel interests, constraints to travel and other relevant characteristics regarding those ag ed 55 and older that participat ed or did not participate in a group travel program. Blazey found that re luctance to drive in the dark, not being interested in the trip, and difficulty register ing for the program were the most frequently cited reasons for not taking part in the travel program. Participants were significantly more likely to be female than male. Particip ants were more likely than non-participants to report having average to exce llent health. There was no si gnificant difference in race, educational attainment, employment status, or marital status between participants and non-participants. The female segment of senior travel ers was studied by Hawes (1988). Results indicated that women aged between 55 and 59 ha d a high interest in traveling overseas. Women who indicated they would be most likely to travel to foreign places were those who had previous experience traveling to such countries. Three of the five age groups identified by Hawes, including the 70-and-ove r group, were not primar ily interested in resting and relaxing on vacation. The general pr ofile of women travelers showed that this group consisted of those with higher education levels and higher income levels, smaller household sizes, activeness, and acceptance of the uncertainty involve d with travel. Shoemaker (1989) surveyed members of the senior travel market and segmented the market into smaller homogenous groups. He surveyed 407 Pennsylvania residents

PAGE 26

14 aged 55 and older. Travelers were divided into three cluste rs, based on their reasons for travel. Cluster 1 was considered family trav elers. According to Shoemaker this group enjoyed spending time with immediate family members; enjoyed playing golf and going shopping. This group also enjoyed shorter trips and preferred to retu rn to a destination rather than visiting a new one. Family trav elers also preferred th ings to just happen rather then plan carefully. Cluster II was re ferred to as active resters. This group sought spiritual and intellectual enrichment; enjoyed meeting people, socializing, resting and relaxing, escaping the ever yday routine, engaging in phys ical exercise, and visiting historic sites. Finally, cluster III, the O lder Set consisted of travelers who were generally older than those in cl uster I or II. Cluste r III travelers were most likely to stay in resorts where everything was included. This gr oup also liked to visit historic sites, tell family and friends where they had traveled, and take part in trips filled with activity. Shoemakers cluster analysis of senior travelers was used by Vincent and de los Santos (1990) in their study of older winter travelers to Te xas. Senior wint er travelers to Texas were found to fit into tw o clusters: (1) active resters and (2) older set. These travelers preferred longer tr ips over shorter ones, and sought many incidental activities. These two studies are slightly different in that while Shoemaker examined senior travelers based in Pennsylvania, Vincent a nd de los Santos examined snow birds who traveled to Texas or the winter. Different groupings were determined by Leuix, Weaver, and McCleary in 1994. Their study of lodging preferences of the senior tourism market helped to identify three types of leisure-travelers among older adults These categories we re novelty seekers,

PAGE 27

15 active enthusiasts attracted to physically ac tive pursuits while on vacation, and reluctant travelers who are older, less educated and have a lower income. Determining the difference between pa rticipants and non-participants was examined by Zimmer, Brayley, and Searle (199 5). They explored the differences between older adults who traveled and those who did not. Results indicated that as age increased the tendency to travel decreased. Also, as education level increase d, tendency to travel increased, and as mobility decreased, tendency to travel decreased. Other important indicators of likelihood of travel included h ealth status, income le vel, ability to handle money, number of chronic health conditi ons, and interest in spending money on recreation. As health status, income level, ability to handle m oney, and interest in spending money on recreation decr eased, tendency to travel al so decreased. As number of chronic health problems increase d, tendency to travel decreased. Similarly, Teaff and Turpin (1996) studied the preferences of se nior travelers. Travelers over the age of 50 preferred non-hectic, pre-pl anned, group-based pleasure travel for rest and relaxation and visiting rela tives. In contrast, travelers aged under 50 who traveled for rest and relaxation were mo re likely to participate in outdoor recreation activities or to visit man-made amusement f acilities. Teaf and Tu rpin also found that 52% of respondents 65 years of age and older pla nned to take three to four trips per year during retirement, and that when people reti red the number one activ ity they wanted to engage in was travel. Conclusions indicate that travel may be a very important lifeenriching resource (p. 16). The differences between segments of th e older adults were examined by Backman, Backman and Silverberg (1999). The authors examined the senior nature-based travel

PAGE 28

16 market by comparing younger seniors (aged 55 -64) with older seniors (over the age of 65). Older seniors were more likely than younger seniors to visit friends and relatives as the major purpose of their trip. Older seni or travelers stayed l onger on their trips (8.46 nights) than younger seniors ( 6.95 nights). Younger seniors spent less time planning for their trip than older seniors. Younger seniors were also more interested in relaxation than older seniors. Hong, Kim, and Lee (1999) used data fr om the 1995 Consumer Expenditure survey to examine factors associated with the likelihood of taking a trip. Race, education, marital status, economic factors, and home ownership determined whether or not the elderly were not going to travel. Income wa s significantly related to both the likelihood to travel and the level of travel expenditure. Current income was the only variable that significantly affected both the likelihood to travel and the actual amount of money spent on trips. Finally, young-old (55-64) traveler s were most likely to spend more on trips than other groups of the elderly, possibly be cause for many there are peak earning years and for many who are parents no longer have fi nancial responsibilities for their children (Hong et al). The decision of senior citi zens in Isreal to travel wa s examined by Fleischer and Pizam (2002) in a study of the Israeli senior travel market. The decision to take a vacation by Israeli seniors aged 55 and olde r was dependent not only on the individuals self assessed health c ondition but also income level. Ag e did not play a significant part in the decision to travel. In addition, these authors found that the number of vacation days taken increased until age 65, and then dropped after th e age of 75, revealing that those ages 61 to 70 years of age tended to take the longest vacations.

PAGE 29

17 The study of the Israeli seniors was ex tended by Fleischer and Seiler (2002). Findings focused on past experience and income Seniors with past vacation experience took longer vacations than those without pa st experiences. There was a significant positive relationship between income a nd the likelihood of vacation travel. Leisure-travel patterns a nd meanings in late r life were examined by Gibson (2002) who found that in the early years of retireme nt individuals are busy travelers. Traveling to Europe, taking part in Elderhostel program s, and traveling throughout the US to visit friends and family were the most popular forms of travel amongst respondents. The majority of respondents also felt that leisuretravel was an important part of their lives both for educational and spiritual reasons. In a study of senior traveler behavior in Taiwan, Hua ng and Tsai (2003) found that the majority of respondents traveled for rest and relaxation. Spending time with immediate family was also an important re ason for traveling. When looking at allinclusive packaged tours, convenience was rate d as the most important attribute, followed by help with unfamiliar sights, language problems, and help with travel safety. Senior travelers preferred their trips to be 6-10 days long. Taiwanese senior travelers were most attracted to historical places, beautiful plac es, culture and eco-tourism. The biggest barrier to travel were issues of health related mobility problems. As demonstrated by the above studies, the se nior travel market has been researched in a number of ways. Major findings include th e primary motivations for travel being to visit with family and friends (Guinn, 1980; Gibson, 2002; Huang & Tsai, 2003), older travelers prefer non-hectic, pre-planned, group-ba sed travel for rest and visiting relatives (Teaf and Turpin, 1996), participants are likely to be female and be in excellent health,

PAGE 30

18 base decision to travel on self-assessed h ealth condition and income level (Blazey, 1987; Fleisher & Pizam, 2002), and as income and hea lth status increase, likelihood of travel also increases (Zimmer, Brayley & Searle, 1995). Even with this large amount of literature, research concerning older adults traveling with their grandchild was not found in the extensive litera ture review. This study will e xpand the study of older adults to include grandtravel. Link Between Grandparenting and Leisure Very few studies have looked at grandparent ing as it relates to leisure activities. However, this link was examined by Weari ng in a 1996 study, which looked at whether or not grandmothers considered grandmotherhood as leisure. Results from 20 qualitative interviews indicated that ove r half of respondents were ambivalent in determining whether or not they considered grandmothe rhood leisure. Six re spondents stated that grandmotherhood was leisure and two res pondents said it was not. One of the determining factors of whether or not grandmot hers considered this role leisure was the amount of childcare grandparents were required to provide to their grandchildren. As the amount of childcare increase d, the fewer grandmothers considered grandparenting a leisure activity. This study de monstrates that grandparenting can be considered leisure, but it is dependent on how much responsibility grandparents are require d to have for their grandchildren. Past Experience with Grandtravel In the year 2000 Americas 60 million gr andparents spent $36.6 billion on their grandchildren (Curry, 2000). Escorted gr andtravel trips thro ugh the Grandtravel company range from $6,700 per adult for a 10-day Wild West tour, to $17,625 for a 12 day trip in China. (Maxwell, 1998). Twenty seven percent of grandparents aged 50 to

PAGE 31

19 59, and 16% of grandparents aged 60-74 said th ey vacationed with their grandchildren in a typical month. According to this informa tion, if grandparents spent $500 per trip with grandchildren, Curry estimates that grandtrave l would be at least a $6.5 billion market. The key to the popularity of the grandtravel e xperience may be that this type of trip offers something for everyone involved, even the parents who are not involved. Grandparents are able to spend quality time w ith their grandchildren without interference from the parents. The parents are able to re lax, as they know their children are away with someone they know and trust (Maxwell, 1998). Currently, the most popular grandtravel trips include theme parks and cultural cente rs like Washington D.C., New York, and Orlando. Safaris are popular for those wa nting more extensive travel. Maxwell reported that the most diff icult part for the grandparents may be remembering how to deal with young child ren and being prepared for any problems (carsickness, homesickness, etc.) However, many trips are pre-a rranged in order to alleviate these problems. Often in planned group travel, grandparent s are offered breaks from the grandchildren through separate arra nged activities. As an example, on Hong Kong trips, grandparents get a day off for shopping and sightseeing, while grandchildren are taking a tram tour. Decision-making and Grandtravel One of the earliest studies to examine ch ildren in family decision-making was that of Berry and Pollay (1968). This study fo cused on the influence of children on family decision-making by investigating the hypothesis that the more assertive the child, the more likely the mother would purchase the child s favorite brand of breakfast cereal (p. 71) and the more child-cen tered the mother, the more likely she would purchase the childs favorite brands of breakfast cereal (p. 71). The study was unable to support

PAGE 32

20 either of these hypotheses, showing that child-assertiveness and mother childcenteredness may not be directly re lated to purchasing decisions. In order to determine the effect children had on thei r mothers purchases, Ward and Wackman (1972) studied chil drens attempts to influence mothers purchases of various products, and the mothers giving in to these attempts. The childrens influence on purchases of certain products decreased with age, depending on the type of product. However, mothers agreement with the childs request increased with age. This could most likely be due to a perceived increase in the childs competence level, as they begin to understand what they need. The products that mothers most likely agreed with were food products. Early family decision-making literature primarily focused on the husband-wife dyad. Davis and Rigaux (1974) examined the pe rception of marital roles in the decision process. Their study addresse d specific questions: (1) do marital roles in consumer decision-making differ by phase of the process? (2) to what extent do husbands and wives agree in their perception of ro les at various phases of the decision process? The study determined that marital roles were found to vary in the decision process. Roles in decision-making also varied depending on what type of decision was being made, or what the decision was related to. For example decisions were found to be either husband dominated, automatic, wife dominated, or syncratic. Syncratic decisions were considered to be very speci alized and had an equal amount of influence exerted by the husband and the wife. In the early years, research concerni ng family purchasing activities was limited and tended to characterize the wife as the pr inciple family-purchasing agent. However,

PAGE 33

21 this varied throughout the family life cycle. For example, family decisions were thought to take place differently during the early marriage stage versus the late marriage stage, with early marriage being a time of intense negotiation, and late marriage being a time in which everything tends to be in a stage of flux. Because of this, Cox (1975) suggested that viewing family purchase decision-mak ing in the context of the goal-oriented behavior of a small group may be more sati sfactory than examining it in terms of the relative power of husband and wife. Szybillo and Sosanie (1977), examined decisions capable of reflecting a full range of family role structures, and decisions that could be generalized into the idea of family outings. Specifically, questions regarded having dinner out, and going on a one-day family trip were examined. The dominance of different family members varied within the decisions being made. Families visiting fa st food restaurants indicated a high degree of adult/child interaction throughout the en tire decision-making process. Family decisions for day trips were also characteri zed by adult and child in teraction. However, the interaction was not as pronounced as that of the fast food restaurant decision. A significant number (34%) of the decisions fo r family trips were made by the husbandwife dyad, not including the child. This lead to further research invol ving the child as a family decision maker. Childrens influence on family decision-ma king has been examined in terms of deciding where families go when they eat out. Childrens involvement in this decision was examined across six decision-making stages including, problem recognition, providing information, deciding on restaurant type, deciding on particular restaurant, deciding how much will be spent, and making th e final decision. The results of this study

PAGE 34

22 indicated that children over th e age of five were as involve d as the parents in four of these stages, recognizing the problem, provi ding information, decidi ng on restaurant type, and deciding on a particular restaurant. Pare nts were in total cont rol of the other two stages, making the final decision, and d eciding how much money would be spent (Nelson, 1979). Other research on family decision-maki ng found that the husband and the wife may perceive the amount of influence the ch ild has on decisions differently (Jenkins, 1979). Through focus group interviews it was dete rmined that in general, husbands more than wives perceived their children to be mo re influential in family decision making. Also, children were perceived to exert more influence in vacation decisions and less influence in major appliance decisions. Th e vacation decisions were considered child dominant. The types of activities the family would take part in while on vacation were the most likely to be influenced by childre n. The amount of influence children had on vacation decisions varied by the number of child ren in the family (the more children the more influence the children had). Perceived in fluence of the child also varied depending on the level of education of the husband and number of hours spent at work. As these variables increased, the amount of child decision-influence decreased. The amount of influence parents perceive th eir children to have in terms of family consumption may be related to the mothers attitudes. Roberts, Wortzel, and Berkeley (1980) studied mothers attitude s and perceptions of children s influence and their effect on family consumption. Two research que stions were developed, (1) do mothers attitudes toward a variety of family-related a nd social issues, influe nce their perceptions of the amount of influence their children have on their brand choices? (2) Does the

PAGE 35

23 amount of influence children have affect the amount of family consumption in that particular product category? Results indicated that th ree attitudinal dimensions, economic, health-related, and liberal versus c onservative affect the amount of influence mothers allow their children to have on family purchasing decisions. The higher the amount of concern was in these three categor ies, the lower the level of influence. In examining travel behaviors, it is im portant to consider who the person is traveling with. Individuals are most likely to travel as pa rt of a group. In a study of the dynamics of travel groups, Crompton (1981) sought to determine how groups influence an individuals travel behavior. Four c oncepts were found to have influenced the decision to travel. First, the group had a di rect influence on the destination selected. Second, members of groups who had traveled to a certain location influenced other members, through casual conversations. This is referred to as the nor mative influence of social groups. Third, individuals were in fluenced by the history of a groups travel experiences. For example, if a person traveled often as a child, they were more likely to travel often as an adult. Finally, travelers were affected by the locationa l influence of social groups, i.e. traveling to visit frie nds and relatives. Those who take part in grandtravel are likely to be a ffected by all four of these grou p related travel influences. Contrary to Berey and Pollays (196 8) study where childre n were thought to influence parents, studies have also examin ed parents influences on children. This concept focuses on the idea of socialization. Socialization refers to childrens acquisition of consumer habits from their parents. Reve rse socialization is the opposite. The type of socialization that takes place varies depe nding on the communication between parents and children. Children in families whose communication patterns encourage children to

PAGE 36

24 develop their own ideas tend to have more in fluence on parents than children in families who avoid communication. (Ekstrom, Tansuhaj, & Foxman, 1986). Childrens influence on family purchasing de cisions has also been studied in terms of family vacations. According to Swi nyard and Sim (1987) children are significant participants in each stage of the decisi on-making process for a variety of products, including vacations, outside entertainment, and restaurants. In fact, children were involved in approximately 60 to 80% of all decision stages. The family typically is the predominant social group in which people choose to spend their free time. Travel makes up a large amount of this free time. When family members travel together who makes the deci sions for the vacation? Travel related decisions within the family are frequently examined in three ways, husband-dominated, wife-dominated, or joint decision between husband and wife. When examining families traveling to Alaska, Nichols and Snepenger ( 1988) found a majority of families used the joint decision-making mode, with the husband-dominated mode coming in second, and the wife dominating mode coming third. Th is study indicated that marketing efforts should appeal to both spouses. Even though th is study did not mention the influence of children, the joint decision-making mode show ed that more than one person makes the decision. The idea of joint decision-making was supported by Lackman and Lanasas (1993) study on decision-making activities for goods and services within a family. They found decisions appeared to be more of an outcome of joint decision making. The presence of children within the family had the potential to affect decision-making within the husband-

PAGE 37

25 wife dyad. In families that had children, children played more of a role in the decisionmaking process. Lackman and Lanasa (1993) found that chil dren have an especially important influence on the decision-making process in terms of vacation. When making vacation and travel decisions, 60% of families reported adolescents had an influence on decisions. Because of this, Nickerson and Jurowski (2000) examined the benefits of conducting surveys on vacationing children. Results indicate d that childrens response rate is higher than that of adults, children are slightly more satisfied with the destination, and children provide an important perspective in terms of planning and devel oping a destination to increase child satisfaction. The authors sugge sted, because children play a major role in the decision-making processes of family vacatio ns, it is important to listen to what these young customers have to say. Word-of-mouth adve rtising is one of th e largest forms of advertising, which children play a large part in. Luckily, children are more willing and likely than adults to fill out and return su rveys so their important ideas may be easily accessible. In their study on family vacation deci sion-making, Kim and Kerstetter (2001) sought to broaden the understand ing of childrens influence on family decision-making in the context of travel. Results indicated that children had an influe nce on various aspects of the family vacation decision, and that ch ildrens influence changed under different family structures. This indicat es that children may have a different form of influence in the grandtravel situation. Perceptions of Grandtravel He ld by the Grandchildren The steady increase in the popular ity of grandtravel is dem onstrated by the fact that grandparent/grandchild travel accounted for one fifth of all trips taken with children in

PAGE 38

26 2000 (Gardyn, 2001). This percentage is an increase of 13% from 1999. In his study on grandparent travel, Gardyn found that 20% of grandparents had been on a trip with their grandchildren in the past year. While thes e trips included the ch ilds parent, 12% of grandparents reported having been on a trip w ith children in their family without another adult present. The demand for grandtravel is not coming exclusively from grandparents. The majority of grandchildren (56 %) ages 6 to 17 say they would really like to travel with their grandparents. The youngest grandchildren were the most enthusiastic about the opportunity with 78% of grandchildren aged 6 to 8 responding that they would like to travel with their grandparents. Intergenerational Relationships The constructs of intergenerational solid arity are used to measure many different aspects of grandparent/gra ndchildren relationships. For example, structural, associational, normative, and functional solidarity are us ed to show how geographic distance influences the frequency of associa tion and assistance between grandparents and grandchildren (Kivett, 1991). Grandfathers relationships with their gra ndchildren develop as they take part in joint activities, provide assistance to, support, and help their grandchildren face family challenges (Roberto, Allen, & Blieszner, 2001) The proximity of family households influences the frequency of association a nd exchange of assist ance and support between grandfathers and grandchildren. Greater geogr aphical distance in grandfather-grandchild relationships, especially duri ng the early years of the grandchilds life, increase the likelihood that the relationship will be remo te (Roberto et al., 2001). However, even if geographic distances increas es the amount of contact between grandchildren and grandfathers, this does not guarantee the formation of a close relationship.

PAGE 39

27 The constructs of intergenerational solidarity have also been used to measure adult grandchildrens perceptions of emotional cl oseness and consensus with their maternal and paternal grandparents (Mills, et al, 2001) This study focused on the constructs of affectual and consensual solidar ity; they found that grandchildren feel emotionally closer to maternal grandparents then they do to paternal grandparents. Overall, the most emotional closeness is held toward matern al grandmothers. Results indicated that grandmothers received the highest scores on affect and consensus regardless of lineage. This supports the idea of kin-keepers theories that are based on the idea that women are more involved in family relationships then me n are; hence they are kin-keepers and hold the primary responsibility of keeping the family togeth er (Dubas, 2001). Dubas found that gender is related to both clos eness and importance young adults place on relationships with their grandparents. Also, relations with maternal grandparents were described as more important then those with paternal grandparents. Aspects that may include affect and consensus include enjoyi ng the grandparents pe rsonality and shared activities (Kennedy, 1991,1992). Affectual and consensual solidarity we re used to examine cross-ethical grandparent/adult grandchildren relationships (Giarrusso, Feng, Silverstein, & Bengston 2001). This study demonstrated that when bot h grandparents and their grandchildren are asked about their relationships with one another, grandparents tend to rate the relationships higher in term s of affect and consensus. This is known as the intergenerational stake phenomenon. Th is is most common with Euro-American grandparent/grandchild dyads. However, th is varies across different ethnicities. In

PAGE 40

28 Mexican American grandparent-grandchildren dy ads, feelings if affect may exhibit a reversal of the pattern demonstrated by that of Euro-Americans (Giarrusso et al., 2001). Associational, functional, and affective c onstructs of intergenerational solidarity were used by Silverstein and Marenco (2001) to determine the different roles grandparents play in the grandc hilds life throughout different life stages. In general, grandparent involvement was ch aracterized by frequent contac t, high rates of support and activity, and a strong sense of accomplishment a nd meaning in the grandparent role. This varies with the age of the grandchild however. Grandpare nts with younger grandchildren tended to have more interaction with th e grandchildren then those with older grandchildren. While younger grandchildren accompanied their grandparents to fun activities and religious events, older grandc hildren discusses pers onal concerns with grandparents, but interacted with them less (Silverstein & Marenco, 2001.) It is obvious that the gra ndparent/grandchild relationshi p is very complex and can be affected by many different factors. The c onstructs of intergenerational solidarity have been used to determine how geographic distance effects association and assistance between grandparents and gr andchildren, perceptions of emotional closeness and consensus, intergenerational stake phenom enon, and relationship differences between different life cycles. Grandparent/grandchild relationships shar e many characteristics, but some are distinctively different. Studi es have examined a variet y of these relationships. Particularly, interesting is a study which examin ed the role of the gr andfather. In a 2001 study, Roberto et al., conducted a qualitativ e study on grandfathers to examine the interactional dynamics occurring within fam ilies. They examined the influence of

PAGE 41

29 interactional dynamics on quality, meaning, and maintenance of relationships as grandparents (fathers) and grandchildren grow older. Similarly, Dubas (2001) examined the influence of gender on grandparent/grandchi ld. Controversially however, this study attempted to determine which grandparents (maternal of paternal, grandmothers or grandfathers) grandchildren felt closest to. The above studies, while focusing on different areas, all focus on the general gra ndparent/grandchild relationship. Few studies have explored grandparent/grandchild relati onships as they relate to specific life occurrences, events, or activities. One of the shortcomings of many studies looking at grandp arents/grandchild relationships is the fact that researchers are of ten only able to gather data from one side of the relationship. For instance in a 2001 st udy conducted by Dubas and a separate study conducted by Mills, Wakeman and Fea (2001), da ta were gathered using grandchildrens ideas and opinions about their relationships with their grandparents. In addition a 2001 study conducted by Silverstein a nd Marenco used grandparents to gather the data. The problem with these studies is that even t hough relationships occur between two groups of people, we only become aware of thoughts a nd feelings from one end. Few studies have been able to avoid this issue by gatheri ng data from both the grandparents and the grandchild. One such study is that Giarusso, Feng, Silver stein and Bengtson (2001) who surveyed both grandparents and grandch ildren on the interg enerational stake phenomenon. Another issue concerning studi es of grandparent/grandchild relationships is the lack of diversity. Illustrative of this, Roberto et al., (2001) studi ed grandfathers perceptions and expectations of relationshi ps with their grandchildren in a qualitative matter. This

PAGE 42

30 sample was very homogeneous. Of the 11 gr andfathers, all were white except for one African American. A similar issue appears in Dubas (2001) study of how gender moderates grandparent-grandchild relations hips, of the 335 midwestern students used as a sample, 98% were white. Because of the imbalance of white respondents in these studies, results cannot be generalized to othe r populations. This idea is supported by the 2001 study by Giarrusso et al., which demons trated the differences in affect and consensus between grandparents and grandchild in the Euro-A merican and Mexican-American dyads. While Euro-American grandparents tended to have mo re affection for thei r grandchildren than their grandchildren have for them, this patter n is reversed in Mexican American dyads. Hence, the variability of rela tionships between different et hnic groups can be extremely different and makes it important to take into co nsideration. Studies concerning grandparent/grandch ild relationships have not been in agreement as to whom they consider a gr andparent. The main discrepancy comes in terms of age, period of birth and coho rt. The age used for samples involving grandparents varies between study to study a nd also within studies. For example, Silverstein and Marenco conducted a na tional telephone survey interviewing 920 grandparents, 31% of which were under the age of 55. Conversely, Giarrusso surveyed and compared results between Euro-Ameri can grandparents and Mexican-American grandparents. The Euro-American grandparent s in this study were all age 55 or above, while the Mexican-American grandparents we re all age 65 or above. Even though all respondents were grandparents the samples are not equivalent in term s of age and leaves

PAGE 43

31 questions concerning how the age, period of birth or cohort the gr andparent belongs to may affect the grandparent/grandchild relationship. The importance of grandparent age is de monstrated in a 2001 study by Silverstein and Marenco, which focused on how the gra ndparenting role changes in meaning and with the aging of the family unit as both grandparents, and grandchildren pass through different life stages. Results indicated that the life stage of grandparents and grandchildren is an important factor in dete rmining how the grandpare nt role is enacted. Older grandparents are less likely to inter act and recreate with grandchildren, and are more likely to provide money or gifts. Consequently, the age and mindset/attitude of the grandparents is an important aspect to ta ke into consideration when examining the grandparent/grandchild relationship. Summary In summary, there are several areas of lite rature that lead us to the present study. Previous studies of senior travel have examined senior travel motivations and preferences. Different segments of the senior travel market have been studied, including female travelers, travel part icipants and non-participants. Finally, senior travelers have been examined in terms of their likelihood to travel, especially in relation to their past travel experiences. Decision-making has been studied in seve ral different ways, specifically in terms of the family. Most family decision-making literature has focused on the husband-wife dyad. In more recent research, family deci sion-making has been examined in terms of the entire group, specifically childrens influe nce on parents and visa versa. Decisions made while eating out are the most studied decisions made by families. Other studies

PAGE 44

32 have examined a childs influence on the mo ther in terms of purchasing decisions. In terms of vacations and travel, adolescents have a large influence on decision making. This may have a strong influence on grandtrave l, as grandchildren st ate a strong interest in traveling with their grandparents. Even though there are numer ous studies regarding family decision making, there is curr ently little resear ch examining the grandparent/grandchild decision-making pro cess, and no research examining decisionmaking during grandtravel. Although there is little information presen tly available regarding grandtravel, there are a few known facts. First, gr andparents are very likely to tr avel or want to travel with their grandchildren. Second, grandparents are most likely to wa nt to take their grandchildren to theme parks or cultural center s, and finally, the most difficult part of the trip for the grandparent may be making sure they keep up with their grandchild. Finally, intergenerational re lationships have been studi ed in a number of ways. Studies have examined gender and race infl uence on intergenerational relationships. Studies have also examined the effects of aging on intergenerati onal relationships.

PAGE 45

33 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Data Collection Data for this study were gathered using a convenience sample of residents of The Villages Retirement Community. Data were gathered through surveys that consisted of 37 questions and took about 15 minutes to comp lete. Questions consisted of Likert-type answers, multiple-choice answers, write in th e number answers, etc. Between June 1, 2005 and August 15, 2005, the researcher traveled to The Villages retirement community in Lady Lake, Florida to co llect data (Figure 1). Figure 1 The Villages distance ( www.maps.yahoo.com )

PAGE 46

34 The researcher visited different social clubs including the Three Cs Ohio Club, The Michigan Club, The Kentucky Club, Th e Baby Boomers Club, The La Hacienda Womens Club, the Pimlico Community Cl ub, and The Villages Clog Hoppers. The researcher collected surveys during The Villa ges College of Life Long Learnings open house and shared a table on Wednesday evenings with the College of Life Long Learning at the Villages Spanish Square. The researcher also spent four Saturdays from 9 am to 4 pm collecting surveys in the lobby of the Mulberry Grove R ecreation Center. An article was printed in The Villages Daily Sun a nd the researcher was interviewed on The Villages radio station in an e ffort to recruit participants. A total of 252 surveys were collected (Table 1). Table 1. Distribution of responses for different areas of data collection Location N % Mulberry Recreation Center (3 visits) 75 30.0 Three Cs Ohio Club (2 visits) 34 13.0 Life Long Learning College 30 8.4 Baby Boomers 26 10.3 Kentucky Club 20 7.9 Michigan Club 18 7.1 La Hacienda Womens Club 18 7.1 Pimlico Neighborhood Social 11 4.4 Village Clog Hoppers 10 4.0 Spanish Square Table 10 4.0 Total 252 100% Please note percentages may not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding. Survey Instrument The questionnaire consisted of five parts: intergenerational so lidarity, likelihood of grandtravel, past travel e xperience, perceptions of gra ndtravel, and decision-making during grandtravel. Respondents were asked to complete the survey while thinking about one particular favorite grandchild for the entire questionnaire. This has been done before

PAGE 47

35 by Mills (2001). Because grandparents have diff erent types of relationships with each of their grandchildren, asking respondents to comple te the survey referring to their favorite grandchild controls for responses of multip le grandchildren. Without this, respondents may or example answer question 1 referring to their oldest grandchild, question 2 referring to their youngest grandchild, etc. It is predicted that higher levels of in tergenerational solidarity will lead to higher levels of grandchild decision-making, more favorable perceptions of grandtravel, and higher levels of past experience with grandtravel. This in turn will lead to a higher likelihood to take part in futu re grandtravel experiences. Independent Variable The independent variable of this study is intergenerational solidarity (IGS). Through a variety of questions concerning th e relationship with their grandchildren, grandparents level of intergenerational soli darity with their favorite grandchild was determined. Intergenerationa l solidarity was ranked on a th ree point scale 1 = high, 2 = medium, 3 = low. Structural solidarity was measured as either high or low. By comparing intergenerational solidarity to th e answers given concerning likelihood to take part in grandtravel, it was determined whet her or not grandparents with higher levels of intergenerational solidarity w ould likely exhibit differences in likelihood to take part in grandtravel as compared with grandparents with lower levels of intergenerational solidarity. Intergenerational solidarity was measured using six distinct, but interrelated constructs; affectional, associ ational, consensual, structural, normative, and functional solidarity. In order to answer these questions respondents were asked to do so referring to one particular grandchild.

PAGE 48

36 Affectual solidarity was measured using 6 questions (1) How well do you get along with your favorite grandchild, (2) how well do you feel you understand your favorite grandchild, (3) how well do you feel this gr andchild understands you, (4) overall, how well do you and your favorite grandc hild get along together at this point in your life, (5) how is communication between you and this grandchild exchangi ng ideas of talking about things that really concern you at this point in you lif e and (6) taking everything into consideration how close do you feel is the relationship between you and your favorite grandchild? (Table 2). Questions 1-4 were answered on a six-point scale including not at all well, not too well, somewhat well, pretty well, very well and extremely well. Question 5 was answered on a five-point scale includ ing not at all good, not too good, somewhat good, pretty good, and very good. Finally, questi on 6 was answered on a six-point scale including not at all close, not too close, somewhat close, pretty close, very close, and extremely close. Associational solidarity was measured usi ng a single question that asks, in the past year approximately how many times have you been in contact with your favorite grandchild. Respondents were as ked to write a number next to the relevant reponse: in person, over the phone, letters, and email. Consensual solidarity was also measured with one question. In general, how similar are you opinions and valu es about life to those of your favorite grandchild at this point in time? Respondents completed this question by choosing one of six choices, not at all similar, not too similar, somewhat si milar, pretty similar, very similar, and extremely similar.

PAGE 49

37 Structural solidarity was measured in one question. Respondents were asked, what is your gender, answered by ci rcling male or female, and wh at is the gender of your favorite grandchild, also answer by circling male of females. Next respondents are asked, how close does your favorite grandchild live to you? Respondents sele ct either within the same city, within the same state, in the same region of the country, in a different region of the county, or in a different country. In what year were you born determined the respondents age, and was answered by writi ng the year in the blank. How old is your favorite grandchild was answered by the re spondent writing the number of years in the blank. Functional solidarity was measured in two que stions. First, In the past year how much financial support have you provided for you favorite grandchild. Respondents selected either none, $50 or less, between $51 and $100, between $101 and $500, between $501 and $1000, over $1001, or over $10 ,000. The second question, In the past year how much childcare have you provided fo r your favorite grandch ild, was answered by respondents choosing either none, 1-12 hours, 1-3 days, 3-7 days, 2-3 weeks, 1 month, 2-3 months, 4-6 months, or more then 6 months. Normative solidarity, the final construct, was measured using one question. This question stated; looking toward the future how much do you expect that your favorite grandchild will feel a since of family obligation toward you? Respondents chose either, none at all, a little, some, a good amount quite a bit, or a great deal.

PAGE 50

38 Table 2. Intergenerational solidarity scale Catergory Question Score Affectional 1. How well do you get along with your favorite grandchild? 1 to 6 2. How well do you feel you understand your favorite grandchild? 1 to 6 3. How well do you feel this gra ndchild understands you? 1 to 6 4. Overall, how well you do your favorite grandchild get along together at this point in your life? 1 to 6 5. How is communication between you and this grandchild exchanging ideas or talking about things that really concern you at this point in your life? 1 to 5 6. Taking everything into consid eration, how close do you feel is the relationship between you and your favorite grandchild? 1 to 6 Associational 7. In the past year, approxima tely how many times where you in contact with your favorite grandchild? 1 to 4 Consensual 8. In general how similar are you r opinions and values about life to those of your favorite grandchilds at this point in time? 1 to 6 Structural 9. How close does your favorite gr andchild live to you? 1 to 5 Functional 10. In the past year, how much financial support have you provided for your favorite grandchild? 1 to 7 11. In the past year, how much childcare have you provided for your favorite grandchild? 1 to 8 Normative 12. Looking toward the future how much do you expect that your favorite grandchild will feel a se nse of family obligation toward you? 1 to 6 Total 12 to 71

PAGE 51

39 Dependent Variable It is hypothesized that the le vel of intergenerational soli darity would be related to several components of grandparents travel. Specifically, decisi on-making, perceptions of grandtravel, and past experience with grandtravel were examined. Perceptions of grandtravel were examined by five questions. The first question asked, what do you think about the idea of traveling with your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child? Answers included strongly support, support, neither support or dont support, somewhat support, a nd do not support. Next, respondents were asked, if you were to travel with your favorit e grandchild without the parents of this child, what would you like to do. This is asked as an open-ended question. Another open-ended question followed, asking responde nts where they would like to go. The fourth question in this section was how l ong would you like to stay on such a trip? Answers included 1-2 nights, 3-4 nights, 5-6 nights, one week, 1.5 weeks, or 2 weeks. The last question in this section asked res pondents what types of activities they would like to take part in during a trip with their grandchild. Responses included sightseeing, taking part in educational classe s, sporting activities, crafts, shows (theater, dance, etc.), shopping, or relaxing. A number of questions were asked in order to determine respondents past experiences with grandtravel. First, responde nts were asked if they had ever traveled with their grandchild without the parents of that child. This que stion was answered by circling either yes or no. If the respondent answered ye s, they were then asked how many times they had traveled with their favorite gran dchild without the parents of that child. They were then asked where they traveled t oo. Respondents then chose in state, out of state but the same region of th e country, out of state in a different region of the country,

PAGE 52

40 or internationally. For this question respondents were aske d to check all answers that applied. Next respondents were asked if this trip took place within the last 12 months answers were either yes or no. The next question asked how long the trip was. Respondents chose either 1-2 days, 3-5 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, or more then 2 weeks. Finally, an open-ended question asked, what was your favorite place you traveled to with your favorite grandchild without th e parents of that child? The final section of the survey examin ed the decision-making process between grandparents and grandchildren while traveli ng. Respondents were as ked to predict the percentage of the decisions they made, and the percentage of the decision they allowed their grandchild to make in relation to di fferent aspects of the trip. The questions included where to travel, when to travel, how much money to spend etc. Respondents were asked about, where to travel, when to trav el, what types of activities to take part in, where to stay, and what to eat. For each of these questions respondents had a response space for themselves and a space for the grandchild. Respondents placed a percentage in each response space with the numbers adding up to 100%. The decision-making framework utilized in the present study is a variation of Jenkins (1978) study on family decision making. The purpose of Jenkins study was to determine how families made vacation decisions More specifically, Jenkins sought to determine which members of the family decide d where to go, where to stay, how long to stay, how much to spend, and what to do. For the present study, the framew ork was adjusted to use the grandparent/grandchild dyad. Like the hus band/wife dyad used by Jenkins, grandparents were asked to record what percentage of the vacation subdecision was made by the

PAGE 53

41 grandparent, and what percentage of the s ubdecision was made by the grandchild. The decision was then categorized as either gra ndparent dominant, gra ndchild dominant or shared equally by both. As with Jenkins study, understanding how families or any sort of traveling dyad makes decisions is important to travel agen ts, travel promoters and state and local governments interested in attracting tourists. With the most influential member identified for various decisions, marketers can focus their efforts on the member of the dyad most likely to influence that decision. Demographic questions included; race (W hite, Black, African American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiia n, Other pacific islanders, or some other race), yearly income (l ess then $10,000, $10,000-30,000, $30,000-50,000, $50,000$100,000 or over $100,000), marital status (singl e (never married), married (first marriage), widowed, divorced, remarried after divorce or death of spouse, or living to together as if we were married) paternal versus maternal relationships (how is your favorite grandchild related to you)? Responde nts selected, child of a son, child of a daughter, child of a son-in-law, or child of a daughter-in-law. Setting up the Data for Analysis Computing the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity In order to respond to research questi ons #1 What do the distinct domains of intergenerational solidarity look like? each domain was examined individually. Responses to 5 of the 6 survey questions fo r affectual solidarity we re measured on a sixpoint scale. One item was measured on a five -point scale. To examine the affectual solidarity variable that was measured on a 5point scale the variable was arithmetically transformed from a 5-point scale into a 6 point scale (Table 4). A reliability measure was then run to determine the reliability betw een these 6 variables (Table 5). The six

PAGE 54

42 variables were then added toge ther and divided by six to create a single variable of affectual solidarity Table 3. Affectual solidarity responses (six-point scale) Response Not at all Not at Some what Pretty Very Extremely well/good all well well well well well % % % % % % How well do you get along with your favorite grandchild? (n=251) 0.0 0.4 1.2 6.0 34.2 58.2 How well do you feel you understand your favorite grandchild? (n=251) 0.0 2.0 6.0 26.7 35.9 29.5 How well do you feel this grandchild understands you? (n=250) 0.4 2.4 14.0 36.4 31.6 15.2 How well do you and your favorite grandchild get along together at this point in your life? (n=251) 0.4 0 .8 1.6 13.1 38.6 45.4 How close do you feel is the relationship between you and your favorite grandchild? (n=250) 0.4 2.0 9.6 22.8 37.2 28.0 Total 0.2 1.5 6.4 21 35.5 35.2

PAGE 55

43 Table 4. Transforming of affectual solidarity sc ale response from a 5 to a 6 point scale How is communication between you and this grandchild (n=249) Old Scale Item New Scale Item % Not at all 1 1.2 1.2 Not too 2 2.4 5.2 Somewhat 3 3.6 16.9 Pretty 4 4.8 41.0 Very 5 6.0 35.7 Table 5. Reliability of affectual solidarity Response Corrected Item Alpha if Standardized Cronbachs Total Correlation item Deleted Item Alpha Alpha Coeff. 1 (n=251) .70 .88 .90 .90 2 (n=251) .74 .87 3 (n=250) .71 .88 4 (n=251) .73 .88 5 (n=249) .70 .88 6 (n=250) .77 .87 To determine the level of associational solidarity, responses were recoded into seven different variables; (1) once a year, (2) once every 6 months, (3) once every 2-3 months, (4) once a month, (5) once every 2-3 weeks, (6) once a week, and (7) everyday. Frequencies were then run on each type of contact. To create one measure of associational solidarity, the four different types of contact (in person, over the phone, letters, and email) were a dded together on the assumption that no type of contact was more important than the other. Frequencie s were then run to show the frequency of contact across all four va riables (Table 7). Frequencies were run on each of the two f unctional solidarity variables; financial support and childcare. These two variables, we re then added together to create an index for one measure of f unctional solidarity.

PAGE 56

44 Consensual, structural and normative so lidarity were all measured with one variable. Frequencies were run on each of these variable s to determine what these different domains of intergenerat ional solidarity look like. Analysis of the Data What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like? Once the six domains of solidarity were collapsed into one variable for each domain (as explained above), frequencies were run. Where possible each domain was recoded into three groups; low, medium, and high. This created a consistent measure for all six domains of solidarity. Because of the distribution of responses, structural solidarity was recoded into only low and high. What Does the Profile of Gr andtravelers Look Like? A profile of the grandtravelers was cr eated by running frequencies on demographic information. The profile also includes freque ncy statistics for like lihood of grandtravel, past experience with grandtra vel, support of grandtravel, and decision-making tendencies Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of Grandtravel? In order to determine if there was a relationship between IGS and likelihood of grandtravel, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed between the responses of the question would you consider trave ling with your grandchild and the intergenerational solidarity scale. In to determine which domain of IGS was most likely to influence likelihood of grandtravel, a st epwise regression was run between these two variables. The independent variable was IG S and the dependent variable was likelihood of grandtravel. In order to determine whic h domain of IGS was most likely to influence

PAGE 57

45 support for grandtravel, a step wise regression was run betwee n these two variables. The independent variable was IGS and the dependent variable was support fo r grandtravel. What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past Experience with Grandtravel? In order to determine if there was a rela tionship between IGS and past experience with grandtravel, crosstabs were run betw een the responses of the question have you ever traveled with your grandchild and th e intergenerational solidarity scale. What is the Relationship Between th e Six Domains of IGS and Support of Grandtravel? The relationship between intergenerational so lidarity and perceptions of grandtravel was determined by running an analysis of variance (ANOVA). This ANOVA was calculated using the mean of the responses to the question what do you think about the idea of traveling with your favorite grandchild without th e parents of that child? (measured on a 5 point likert scale and the means of the combined intergenerational solidarity scale. What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Decision-making Behaviors Toward Grandtravel? In order to determine the relationship be tween intergenerational solidarity and decision-making, cross-tabs were run between the different types of decisions and the different domains of intergenerational solidar ity. These cross tabs utilized the decisionmaking variables that were recoded into gra ndparent-dominant, grandchild-dominant, and both (equally shared decision).

PAGE 58

46 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION Results What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like? Affectual Solidarity For affectual solidarity, the most responses (58.2%) were received in the extremely well category when grandparents were asked ho w well they got along with their favorite grandchild. For the overall affectual do main, the highest percentage (35.5%) of grandparents indicated that they would rate their affectual solidarity level in the very well category, followed by the extremely well category with 35.26%. Fewer respondents (21.0%) indicated that their aff ectual solidarity was pretty well. Only 6.48% fell into the somewhat well categor y and even less (1.52% and .24%) were classified and as to we ll or not at all well, respectively (Table 3). The fifth question in the affectual solidar ity responses was measured on a 5 point scale rather than a 6 point scale. For th is question regarding communication, the largest percentage (35.7%) indicated th at communication with their gr andchild was pretty good. Very good communication was reported by 35.7% of the sample. Somewhat good communication was reported by 16.9% of the gr andparents. Fewer respondents indicated not too good and not at all good communicati on with 5.2% and 1.2%, respectively (Table 4).

PAGE 59

47 Associational Solidarity Associational solidarity was measured by the amount of contact grandparents had with their grandchildren over the last year. This was m easured by asking grandparents how often they contacted their grandchild ren in-person, over th e phone, through letters, and through emails. This construct was cr eated by adding the items together under the assumption that each method was weighted the same in importance. For in-person contact, grandparents tended to have contact with their grandchild once every 2-3 months (35.7%). With regards to phone contact, 20.5 % of respondents contact their grandchild over the phone once every 2-3 months and 20.5% contacted their grandchild over the phone once a month. Grandparents tended to co ntact grandchildren by letters every 2-3 months (57.8%) or every 6 months (32.9%). Email was the least frequent method of contact (37%); those who did use email tende d to do so every 2-3 months (30.0%) (Table 6). Table 6. Associational solidarity frequencies of the amount of contact with grandchild in the past year Type of Contact Frequency Valid Percent In Person (n=238) Once a year 19 8.0 Once every 6 months 45 18.9 Once every 2-3 months 85 35.7 Once a month 35 14.7 Once every 2-3 weeks 29 12.2 Once a week 24 10.1 Everyday 1 0.4 Over the Phone (n=210) Once a year 5 2.4 Once every 6 months 13 6.2 Once every 2-3 months 43 20.5 Once a month 43 20.5 Once every 2-3 weeks 63 30.0 Once a week 40 19.0 Everyday 3 1.4

PAGE 60

48 Table 6. Continued Type of Contact Frequency Valid Percent Letters (n=82) Once a year 6 7.3 Once every 6 months 27 32.9 Once every 2-3 months 31 37.8 Once a month 12 14.6 Once every 2-3 weeks 5 6.1 Once a week 1 1.2 Emails (n=90) Once a year 7 7.8 Once every 6 months 10 11.1 Once every 2-3 months 27 30.0 Once a month 12 13.3 Once every 2-3 weeks 22 4.4 Once a week 11 12.2 Everyday 1 1.1 The index of contact or a ssociational solidarity reveal ed a mean contact of 2.26 times whereby the majority of grandparents were in contact with their grandchildren more than once every six months, but less th en every 2-3 months (Table 7 and 8). Table 7. Associational solidarity frequencies combined Response (n=252) n % M 0.0 5 2.0 2.26 0.25 3 1.2 0.50 5 2.0 0.75 17 6.7 1.00 4 1.6 1.25 13 5.2 1.50 30 11.9 1.75 18 7.1 2.00 19 7.5 2.25 23 9.1 2.50 17 6.7 2.75 24 9.5 3.00 22 8.7 3.25 17 6.7 3.50 12 4.8

PAGE 61

49 Table 7. Continued Response (n=252) n % M 3.75 10 4.0 4.00 5 2.0 4.25 2 0.8 4.75 3 1.2 5.00 2 0.8 5.25 1 0.4 Table 8. Total associational solidarity index Response (n=252) n % M Less than 1 34 11.9 2.26 Between 1-2 80 31.7 Between 2.1-3 86 34.0 Between 3.1-4 44 17.5 Between 4.1-5 7 2.8 More than 5 1 0.4 Consensual Solidarity Responses for consensual solidarity re vealed that over one-third (36.2%) of respondents indicated that they felt their op inions and values about life were pretty similar to those of their favorite grandchil d. One quarter of res pondents indicated that their opinions and views were very similar to those of their grandchild. While, 17.9% indicated that their opinions/views were som ewhat similar to those of their grandchild, and 10.6% indicated their opinion/views were not too similar. Grandparents with extremely similar opinions/views to their gr andchild made of only 8.5% of respondents and only 1.3% indicated that their views/opinions were not at all similar to their grandchild (Table 9). Table 9. Consensual solidarity responses Response (n=235) n % Not at all similar 3 1.3 Not to similar 25 10.6

PAGE 62

50 Table 9. Continued Response (n=235) n % Somewhat similar 42 17.9 Pretty similar 85 36.2 Very similar 60 25.5 Extremely similar 20 8.5 Structural Solidarity Responses for structural solidarity indicat ed that 157 respondents (62.8%) live in a different region of the country then their grandchild. Only 17.6% lived in the same region of the country and 12.8% lived in the sa me state as their grandchild. Even less (4.8%) of grandparents lived in the same city as their grandchild and 2% of respondents lived in a different country then their grandchild (Table 10). Table 10. Structural solidarity responses Response (n=250) n % Within the same city 12 4.8 Within the same state 32 12.8 In the same region of the country 44 17.6 In a different region of the country 157 62.8 In a different country 5 2.0 Functional Solidarity Two questions were asked to determine th e level of functiona l solidarity. When asked how much financial support they provide d for their grandchild over the past year, the results were bimodal. The largest pe rcent (27.2%) answer ed $101-$500, while the second largest percent (25.8%) in dicated that they did not provide any financial support. Responses were very similar fo r $51-$100, $501-$1000 and over $1000 with 13.7%, 13.7% and 12.9% respectively. Only 4.4% indi cated that they provided $50 or less in financial support and even less 1.2% repor ted that they provided over $10,000 in financial support over the last year (Table 11).

PAGE 63

51 Table 11. Functional solidarity re sponses financial support Response (n=248) n % None 64 25.8 $50 or less 11 4.4 $51-$100 34 13.7 $101-$500 70 27.2 $501-$1000 34 13.7 Over $1000 32 12.9 Over $10,000 3 1.2 With regards to hours of childcare, ov er one-quarter (28.9%) of respondents indicated that they only provi ded 1-12 hours of childcare for their grandchild per year. Close to 20% provided either 4-7 days of childcare (20.2%) or 2-3 weeks of childcare (19.1%). Fewer respondents (12.7%) provide d 1-3 days of childcare. The greatest amount of childcare received the lowest responses with 9.8% i ndicating that they provided one month of childcare. Four re spondents (2.3%) indicated providing more than 6 months of childcare for their grandchild (Table 12). Table 12. Functional solidarity responses childcare Response (n=173) n % 1-12 hrs 50 28.9 1-3 days 22 12.7 4-7 days 35 20.2 2-3 weeks 33 19.1 1 month 17 9.8 2-3 months 11 6.4 4-6 months 1 0.6 More than 6 months 4 2.3 Normative Solidarity For normative solidarity, 31.2% of respondent s indicated that th ey expected their grandchild to feel a sense of family obligati on toward them. Just over one fifth indicated some level of normative solidarity, while 19.4 % expected their grandchild would feel a

PAGE 64

52 great deal of family obligation. Over 17% beli eved their grandchild would feel quite a bit of obligation (Table 13). Table 13. Normative solidarity responses Response (n =247) n % None at all 11 4.4 A little 14 5.7 Some 54 21.9 A good amount 77 31.2 Quite a bit 43 17.4 A great deal 48 19.4 Intergenerational Solidarity The domains of intergenerati onal solidarity were recode d into three groups: low, medium, or high. For affectual solidarity, associational solidarity, and consensual solidarity the majority of grandparents fell into the medium IGS (34.9%, 35.5% and 36.2% respectively). Due to bimodal distributi on, structural solidarity was measured as either high or low. The majority (64.8%) fell into the high group. Finally, functional and normative solidarity had the highest percenta ges of respondents (33.9% and 36.8%) in the low group (Table 14). Table 14. Combined intergener ational solidarity profile Intergenerational Solidarity Frequency Valid Percent Domain Affectual (n=218) Low 68 31.2 Medium 76 34.9 High 74 33.9 Associational (n=251) Low 77 30.7 Medium 89 35.5 High 85 33.9 Consensual (n=235) Low 70 29.8

PAGE 65

53 Table 14. Continued Intergenerational Solidarity Frequency Valid Percent Domain Medium 85 36.2 High 80 34.0 Structural (n=250) Low 88 35.2 High 162 64.8 Functional money (n=248) Low 75 30.2 Medium 104 41.9 High 69 27.8 Functional care (n=251) Low 64 25.8 Medium 115 46.4 High 69 27.8 Normative (n=247) Low 79 32.0 Medium 77 31.2 High 91 36.8 What Does the Profile of Gr andtravelers Look Like? In order to profile grandparents, the fo llowing variables were analyzed; gender of grandparent, gender of grandchild, age of gr andparent, age of gra ndchild, number of grandchild, race/ethnicity of grandparent, av erage yearly income, marital status and relation of grandchild. The result s are presented in (Table 15). Gender of Grandparent Almost two thirds of respondents (68%) were female. The remaining 32% were male (Table 15). Gender of Grandchild Close to half (52.5%) of respondents reporte d that their favorite grandchild was female while 47.5% of respondents reported th at their favorite grandchild was male (Table 15).

PAGE 66

54 Age of Grandparent Over 80% of respondents were between the ages of 56 and 75. The largest percentage of respondents (24.3%) were aged between 66 and 70. The next highest age category was 61-65 years old (20.9%) follo wed closely behind by 71-75 years old (20.4%) and 56-60 years old (19.6%). Seve n respondents (3%) reported being 51-55 years old and seven respondents (3%) reported being in the youngest age category of 4350 years old. Finally, four respondents (1.7%) were 81 years of age or older. The mean age of respondents was 66 y ears old (Table 15). Age of Grandchild More than a quarter (25.7%) of respondents reported that their favorite grandchild was between the ages of 6 and 10. Close to a quarter (24.9%) of respondents reported that this grandchild was between 11 and 15 years old. Next, 18% reported that their favorite grandchild was between the ages of 1 to 5 years old. Fewer respondents had older grandchildren with 11.4% reporting th e grandchild was 21-25 years old, 5.3% reporting the grandchild was 26-30 years ol d, and 2.4% reporting that their favorite grandchild was over 31 years old. The youngest favorite grandchild was 1 year old and the oldest grandchild was 40 years old. The mean age was 13 (Table 15). Number of Grandchildren Over half of the respondents reported th at they had 2-5 grandchildren. The most respondents (26.3%) reported that they had 2-3 grandchildren and 23.9% reported that they had 4-5 grandchildren. Fewer respondents (15.8%) reported having 6-7 grandchildren. The two highest categories, 8-9 grandchildren and 10+ grandchildren both had 11.7% of responses. The smallest group (10.5%) was gra ndparents with only one grandchild. The mean number of grandchildren was 5 (Table 15).

PAGE 67

55 Race/Ethnicity The vast majority (98%) of respondents were white. Only 3 respondents (1.7%) were white/Hispanic. One person (.4%) was black and one person (.4%) was Native American (Table 15). Average Yearly Income Sixty-nine respondents ( 35.2) reported that their av erage yearly income was between $30,001-50,000. This was followed cl osely behind by 68 respondents (34.7%) who reported that their average yearly income was $50,001-100,000. Fewer respondents (17.3%) reported that their average y early income was $10,001-30,000 and even fewer (10.7%) reported $100,001-500,000. The lowest income category of less than $10,000 had only 4 respondents (2.0%) (Table 15). Marital Status The majority of respondents (64.2%) were married. Fifty-four respondents (22%) were remarried after a divorce or death of a spouse. Only 7.7% of respondents were widowed/not remarried, 4.5 of respondents repo rted that they were divorced and 1.2% reported that they had never been married. One respondent (0.4%) reported that they were living with someone as if th ey were married (Table 15). Relation of Grandchild The majority of respondents (62.5%) repor ted that their favorite grandchild was the child of a daughter. Fewer respondents ( 36.3%) reported that this grandchild was the child of a son. Only 8.0% reported that their favorite grandchild wa s the child of a sonin-law. Finally, one respondent (0.4%) reported th at their favorite grandchild was the child of a daughter-in-law (Table 15).

PAGE 68

56 Table 15. Socio-demographic ch aracteristics of respondents Socio-demographic Frequency Valid Percent Characteristic Gender of Grandparent (n=244) Female 166 68.0 Male 78 32.0 Gender of Grandchild (n=236) Female 124 52.5 Male 112 47.5 Age of Grandparent (n=235) 43-50 7 3.0 51-55 7 3.0 56-60 46 19.6 61-65 49 20.9 66-70 57 24.3 71-75 48 20.4 75-80 17 7.2 81+ 4 1.7 Age of Grandchild (n=245) 0-5 44 18.0 6-10 63 25.7 11-15 61 24.9 16-20 30 12.2 21-25 28 11.4 26-30 13 5.3 31+ 6 2.4 Number of Grandchildren (n=247) 1 26 10.5 2-3 65 26.3 4-5 59 23.9 6-7 39 15.8 8-9 29 11.7 10+ 29 11.7 Race/ethnicity (n=245) White 240 98.0 White/Hispanic 3 1.2 Black 1 0.4 Native American 1 0.4 Average Yearly Income (n=196) Less than $10,000 4 2.0 $10,001-30,000 34 17.3 $30,001-50,000 69 35.2 $50,001-100,000 68 34.7 $100,001-500,000 21 10.7 Marital Status (n=246) Single never married 3 1.2

PAGE 69

57 Table 15. Continued Socio-demographic Frequency Valid Percent Characteristic Married 158 64.2 Widowed 19 7.7 Divorced 11 4.5 Remarried 54 22.0 Living together 1 0.4 Relation of Grandchild (n=240) Child of a son 87 36.3 Child of a daughter 150 62.5 Child of a son-in-law 2 8.0 Child of a daughter-in-law 1 0.4 What Does the Travel Related Profile Look Like? The majority of respondents (79.2%) stated that they would consider traveling with their favorite grandchild w ithout the parents of the gr andchild. Only 11.1% of grandparents said maybe when asked if they would consider this type of travel and only 9.7% said they would not consider traveling wi th their grandchild w ithout the parents of that child (Table 16). Table 16. Frequencies of lik elihood of grandtravel Response n % Yes 114 79.2 No 14 9.7 Maybe 16 11.1 When asked whether they had ever trav eled with their fa vorite grandchild responses were about split, though heavier on the no side. The largest percentage (57.1%) said they had not taken part in this ty pe of travel while 42.6% said that they had (Table 17). Table 17. Frequencies of past experience with grandtravel Response (n=245) n % Yes 105 42.6 No 140 57.1

PAGE 70

58 When asked what they thought about the idea of traveling with their favorite grandchild without the parent s of this child, 201 respondent s said they either strongly supported this idea (43.5% of respondents) or supported this idea (37.5% of respondents). The amount of support decreased where 8.1% said neither support nor not support, 6% somewhat supporting the idea, and 4.8% reporte d not supporting the idea (Table 18). Table 18. Frequencies of support for grandtravel Response (n=248) n % Do not support 12 4.8 Somewhat support 15 6.0 Neither 20 8.1 Support 93 37.5 Strongly Support 108 43.5 What Does the Decision-ma king Profile Look Like? Where to Go Close to half (50.5%) of respondents reporte d that they made the majority of the decision regarding where to go, when or if they would travel with their grandchild without the grandparents of th at child. One-third of respondents (32.7%) reported that they would allow the grandchild to make the majority of this decision and 16.8% reported that they would share equally in this deci sion with their grandchild (Table 19). When to Go More than two-thirds of respondents ( 65.1%) reported that they would dominate the decision regarding when to travel with th eir grandchild without the parents of that child. Close to one quarter (23.5%) of respondents said they would allow their grandchild to dominate this decision and 11.5% said they would split this decision 50/50 with their grandchild (Table 19).

PAGE 71

59 What to Do Close to half (50.5%) of the respondents re ported that the decision of what to do while traveling would be spilt equally betw een the grandparent and the grandchild. Thirty percent (29.9%) of respondents reported that they would dominate this decision and 19.6% said they would allow their grandch ild to be the dominant decision-maker of what to do while traveling (Table 19). What to Eat A little less than half (47.4%) reported th at they would split this decision equally with their grandchild. Almost one-third of respondents (32.5%) report ed that they would allow their grandchild to be the dominant deci sion-maker of what to eat while traveling and 20% of respondents reported that the gr andparent would be the dominant decisionmaker of what to eat (Table 19). How Much Money to Spend The large majority (88.1%) of respondents said that they would be the dominant decision-makers as to how much money to sp end while traveling. Only 9.8% said that they would spilt this decision evenly with thei r grandchild and even less (1.2%) said that they would allow their grandchild to be the dominant decision-maker of how much money to spend (Table 19). Where to Stay The majority (85.8%) of respondents said that they would be the dominant decision-makers of where to stay while trav eling with their grandchild. Only 11.6% of respondents would allow their grandchild to be the primary decision-maker as to where to stay and even less (2.6%) of respondents would split this decision evenly with their grandchild (Table 19).

PAGE 72

60 Table 19. Decision-making profile Decision Topic Frequency Valid Percent Where to go (n=196) Grandparent 99 50.5 Grandchild 33 16.8 Both 64 32.7 When to go (n=196) Grandparent 125 65.1 Grandchild 22 11.5 Both 45 23.4 What to do (n=194) Grandparent 58 29.9 Grandchild 38 19.6 Both 98 50.5 What to eat (n=194) Grandparent 39 20.1 Grandchild 63 32.5 Both 92 47.4 How much to spend (n=194) Grandparent 171 88.1 Grandchild 4 2.1 Both 19 9.8 Where to stay (n=190) Grandparent 163 85.8 Grandchild 5 2.6 Both 22 11.6 Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of Grandtravel? In order to determine the relationshi p between the different domains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) between each of the six IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel. Results indicated that there was no si gnificant relationship between any of the IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel (Table 20 and 21).

PAGE 73

61 Table 20. ONEWAY ANOVA for th e six domains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob. Freedom Squares Squares Affectual Between SS 2 0.216 .108 .468 .627 Within SS 116 26.777 .231 Consensual Between SS 2 0.264 .132 .703 .497 Within SS 132 24.729 .187 Structural Between SS 1 0.168 .168 .823 .366 Within SS 141 28.825 .204 Normative Between SS 2 0.429 .215 1.046 .354 Within SS 139 28.508 .205 Associational Between SS 2 1.169 .584 2.946 .056 Within SS 140 27.768 .198 Functional (Money) Between SS 2 .089 .045 .215 .807 Within SS 139 28.85 .205 Functional (Care) Between SS 2 .073 .036 .176 .839 Within SS 139 28.86 .208

PAGE 74

62 Table 21. Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for relationships between the six domains of intergenerational solida rity and likelihood of grandtravel. Factors Low Medium High M SD M SD M SD Affectional 1.95 0.62 2.05 0.46 2.03 0.28 (n=119) Consensual 1.96 0.53 2.06 0.42 2.00 0.32 (n=135) Structural 1.96 0.43 2.03 0.46 (n=143) Normative 1.96 0.54 2.10 0.44 2.02 0.36 (n=142) Associational 1.91 0.57 2.12 0.38 2.00 0.38 (n=143) Functional 2.00 0.45 2.05 .433 2.00 .492 (Money) (n=144) Functional 2 .00 .442 2.05 .445 2.00 .492 (Care) In order to better understand the relationshi ps between the six domains of IGS and likelihood of grandtravel, a stepwise regres sion was run between each of the six domains of IGS and likelihood of grandtravel. Resu lts of the indicated that there were no significant relationships between any of the IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel. Therefore, none of the six domains of IGS affect likelihood of grandtravel. What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past Experience with Grandtravel? When the domains of intergenerational solida rity were compared to past experience with grandtravel, results indicated that re spondents with the lo west levels of the intergenerational solidarity domains were th e most likely to have never traveled with their grandchild. Conversely, the results indica ted that those with the highest levels of the intergenerational solidarity domains were most likely to have traveled with their grandchild. This was true for all IGS domains excluding functiona l solidarity (Table 22).

PAGE 75

63 Table 22. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and past experience with grandtravel Solidarity Domain No Yes Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi square=5.04, p=0.08,n=210 63.6 57.7 45.2 36.4 42.3 54.8 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi square= 4.58, p=0.10, n=243 57.3 65.1 48.8 42.7 34.9 51.2 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square= 2.13, p=0.35, n=229 63.8 56.8 51.9 36.2 43.2 48.1 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square=2.63 p=0.11, n=243 64.3 53.5 35.7 46.5 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square=2.48 p=0.29, n=241 34.1 41.3 24.6 25.2 43.7 31.1 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square=3.00 p=0.22, n=241 29.7 45.7 24.6 20.4 48.5 31.1 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square=0.88 p=0.64, n=240 60.3 58.3 53.3 39.7 41.7 46.7 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 76

64 What is the Relationship Between th e Six Domains of IGS and Support of Grandtravel? In order to analyze the relationship be tween the intergenerational solidarity domains and support for grandtra vel, a oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. The results indicated that the affectional, consensual, normative and associational domains of solidarity were sign ificantly related to grandparent s support of grandtravel. A post hoc analysis using Tukey revealed that there were significant differences between those with low levels of affectual intergener ational solidarity and those with high levels of IGS. There was also a significant diffe rence between those with medium levels of affectual solidarity and high leve ls of affectual solidarity. For consensual solidarity, there was a signi ficant difference between those with low levels of solidarity and high levels of so lidarity. For normative solidarity, there was a significant difference between those with low le vels of solidarity a nd those with medium levels. There was also a significant relati onship between those with low levels of solidarity and high levels of so lidarity. Finally, for associational solidarity there was a significant difference between those with low levels of solidarity and those with high levels of solidarity (Table 23 and 24). Table 23. ONEWAY for the six domains of inte rgenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob. Freedom Squares Squares Affectual Between SS 2 27.914 13.957 8.795 .000** Within SS 215 341.205 1.587 Consensual Between SS 2 15.625 7.813 5.592 .004*

PAGE 77

65 Table 23. Continued Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob. Freedom Squares Squares Within SS 232 324.136 1.397 Structural Between SS 1 1.063 1.063 .732 .393 Within SS 248 359.881 1.451 Normative Between SS 2 30.731 15.366 11.380 .000** Within SS 244 329.463 1.350 Associational Between SS 2 14.032 7.016 4.701 .010* Within SS 248 370.167 1.493 Functional (Money) Between SS 2 1.104 0.552 0.465 .629 Within SS 242 287.345 1.187 Functional (Care) Between SS 2 0.186 0.093 0.078 .925 Within SS 242 288.262 1.191 ** significant at the .01 level ***significant at the .001 level Table 24. Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for significant relationships between the six domains of interg enerational solidarity and support of grandtravel. Factors Low Medium High Total M SD M SD M SD M SD Affectional 3.76(a) 1.56 4.16(a) 1.28 4.65(b) 0.88 4.20 1.30 (n=218) Consensual 3.87(a) 1.59 4.14 1.12 4.51(b) 0.75 4.19 1.20 (n=235)

PAGE 78

66 Table 24. Continued. Factors Low Medium High Total M SD M SD M SD M SD Normative 3.67(a) 1.41 4.27(b) 1.23 4.50(b) 0.81 4.17 1.21 (n=247) Associational 3.87(a) 1.60 4.20 1.10 4.46(b) 0.98 4.19 1.23 (n=251) Note: Matching superscripts indicate sign ificant differences. For example, with normative solidarity low levels of solidar ity significantly differ from medium levels of and low levels also differ si gnificantly from high levels of normative solidarity. Only significant re lationships were reported. In order to better understand the relationshi ps between the six domains of IGS and support of grandtravel, and stepwise regression was run between the six different domains and support of grandtrave l. Stepwise regression is a technique for estimating the relationship between a continuous dependent variable and two or more continuous of discrete independent variables. Results of the stepwise regression be tween IGS and support for grandtravel indicated that affectual solidarity was the IG S domain most likely to determine support of grandtravel. Affectual solidarity was the only IGS domain with a significant relationship on support of grandtravel. The regression lin e indicated that as affectual solidarity increased, support for grandtravel also increase d. The adjusted R square value indicated that 6% of support of grandtravel can be expl ained by affectual solidarity (Table 25). However, results cannot explain what infl uences the remaining 94% of support for grandtravel. This relationship is further examined in chapter V.

PAGE 79

67 Table 25. Model summary for intercorrelations for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error Square of estimate 1 .259a .067 .062 1.181 a. Predictors: (Constant), affec tional groups (low to high) Table 26. ONEWAY ANOVA for in tercorrelations between in tergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob. Freedom Squares Squares Regression 1 19.69 19.69 14.12 .000(a) Residual 197 274.74 1.40 Total 198 294.42 a. Predictors: (Constant), affec tional groups (low to high) Table 27. Coefficients for intercorrelations for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Model B Std. Error B Std. Error (Constant) 3.451 0.226 15.237 Affectual groups (low to high) 0.389 0.104 0.259 3.757 What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Decision-making behaviors Toward Grandtravel? Where to Go In the associational, structural, functional and normative domains of intergenerational solidarity, grandparents were most likely to domi nate the decision of where to go while traveling with their grandchi ld. This was true no matter if the level of solidarity for these domains was low, medi um or high. For both affectual and consensual solidarity, respondents with the hi ghest levels of the different IGS domains were most likely to let their gr andchild dominate the decision of where to go (Table 25).

PAGE 80

68 Within the different levels of solidarity, those with the lowest levels of the IGS domains were also the most lik ely to dominate in the decision of where to go. This was true for all domains of solidarity except for functional. This pattern was reversed in functional solidarity as respondents with the hi ghest levels of functional solidarity were the most likely to dominate in this decision (Table 28). Table 28. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and decision-making of where to go Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi-square=7.05, p=0.13, n=171 61.5 51.7 37.3 15.4 18.3 20.3 23.1 30.0 42.4 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi-square=2.57, p=0.63, n=196 56.1 46.7 50.0 10.5 20.0 18.8 33.3 33.3 31.3 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square=7.19. p=0.13, n=183 61.2 53.3 37.3 14.3 17.3 18.6 24.5 29.3 44.1 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square=1.97, p=0.37, n=195 46.8 56.5 19.0 13.0 34.1 30.4 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square=3.97, p=0.41, n=194 27.6 38.8 33.7 36.4 30.3 33.3 25.4 49.2 26.7 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square=4.64, p=0.33, n=194 23.5 42.9 33.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 20.6 54.0 25.4 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square=2.81, p=0.59, n=195 56.5 53.3 43.8 14.5 18.3 17.8 29.0 28.3 38.4 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 81

69 When to Go When deciding when to travel with their grandchild, across all solidarity domains, and all levels of solidarity within these domains, grandparents were most likely to dominate this decision. The second most dominant strategy was sharing the decisions between the grandparent and gr andchild, and the third most likely decision strategy was allowing the grandchild to be the dominant decision maker. These patterns were consistent throughout all the domai ns of solidarity and with eac h level of solidarity in the different domains (Table 29). Table 29. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and decision-making of when to go Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi-square=4.56, p=0.34, n=168 71.2 66.1 59.6 11.5 6.8 17.5 17.3 27.1 22.8 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi-square=3.22, p=0.52, n=192 62.5 66.2 66.1 7.1 12.2 14.5 30.4 21.6 19.4 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square=1.57, p=0.81, n=181 63.3 68.9 58.6 12.2 9.5 13.8 24.5 21.6 27.6 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square=0.23, p=0.89, n=191 63.9 66.7 12.3 10.1 23.8 23.2 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square=4.35, p=0.36, n=191 26.6 38.7 34.7 40.9 45.5 13.6 23.6 24.7 22.0 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square=4.65, p=0.33, n=191 21.8 43.5 34.7 36.4 50.0 13.6 26.7 44.4 28.9 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square=2.78, p=0.56, n=191 63.9 69.5 63.4 8.2 10.2 15.5 27.9 20.3 21.1 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 82

70 What to Do Grandparents and grandchildren were most likely to split the decision what to do while traveling. This was true for all six domains of solidarity no matter if respondents ranked as low, medium, or high on the six dom ains of IGS. A grandparent-dominated decision was the second most likely scenario across all IGS domains. For high levels of normative solidarity and medium levels of f unctional solidarity a grandchild-dominated decision was the second most likely deci sion-making scenario (Table 30). Table 30. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and decision-making of what to do Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi-square=0.47, p=0.98, n=169 34.6 32.2 29.3 19.2 20.3 19.0 46.2 47.5 36.6 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi-square=4.44, p=0.35, n=194 31.6 22.7 37.1 15.8 21.3 21.0 52.6 56.0 41.9 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square=5.21, p=0.27, n=183 34.7 32.4 20.3 22.4 20.3 16.9 42.9 47.3 62.7 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square=0.55, p=0.76, n=193 28.2 33.3 20.2 18.8 51.6 47.8 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square=5.04, p=0.28, n=193 26.3 36.8 36.8 18.4 52.6 28.9 33.7 38.8 27.6 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square=4.16, p=0.38, n=193 22.8 40.4 36.8 15.8 55.3 28.9 28.6 43.9 27.6 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square=6.21, p=0.18, n=193 27.9 36.7 26.4 18.0 11.7 27.8 54.1 51.7 45.8 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 83

71 What to Eat An evenly shared decision between the grandparent and the grandchild was the most likely scenario when deciding what to eat while traveling. This was true for all domains of solidarity no matter what the leve l. For all six IGS domains, those with medium levels of solidarity were the most likely to evenly shar e this decision. For associational, consensual, functional and nor mative solidarity, a grandchild-dominated decision was the second most likely scenario for all domains and levels of solidarity. Table 31. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and decision-making of what to eat Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi-square=6.75, p=0.15, n=169 28.8 20.0 37.1 25.0 33.3 24.1 46.2 55.0 40.4 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi-square=4.00, p=0.41, n=194 19.6 14.5 27.4 35.7 32.9 29.0 44.6 52.6 43.5 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square=7.00, p=0.14, n=183 28.6 17.3 11.9 34.7 28.0 35.6 36.7 54.7 52.5 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square=4.73, p=0.09, n=193 16.1 27.5 36.3 24.6 47.6 47.8 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square=3.37, p=0.50, n=193 26.3 31.6 42.1 30.2 44.4 25.4 27.2 42.4 30.4 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square=3.25, p=0.52, n=193 18.4 39.5 42.1 25.4 49.2 25.4 25.0 44.6 30.4 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square=5.29, p=0.26, n=193 23.0 21.3 16.9 32.8 23.0 40.8 44.3 55.7 42.3 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 84

72 For affectual and structural solidarity, those w ith the lowest levels of solidarity were most likely to be the second highest most li kely decision makers (Table 31). How Much Money to Spend and Where to Stay Due to small cell size, statistics were not viable for the six IGS domains versus the decision of how much money to spend and th e decision of where to stay (Table 32 and 33). Table 32. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and decision-making of how much money to spend Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=169 92.2 91.7 81.0 2.0 0.0 5.2 5.9 8.3 13.8 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=194 84.2 92.0 87.1 3.5 0.0 3.2 12.3 8.0 9.7 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=181 91.8 84.9 88.1 2.0 1.4 1.7 6.1 13.7 10.2 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square*, n=193 89.7 85.1 0.8 4.5 9.5 10.4 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=192 26.6 43.2 30.2 100.0 0.00 0.00 36.8 26.3 36.8 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=192 23.1 46.7 30.2 75.0 25.0 0.00 31.6 31.6 36.8 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=193 88.3 86.4 89.2 1.7 0.0 4.1 10.0 13.6 6.8 100% 100% 100% *Chi-square not completed due to cell size of less than 5.

PAGE 85

73 Table 33. The relationship between the six dom ains of intergenera tional solidarity and decision-making of where to stay Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total Affectual Low Medium High Chi-square* n=165 90.2 89.3 75.9 2.0 0.0 6.9 7.8 10.7 17.2 100% 100% 100% Associational Low Medium High Chi-square* n=190 90.6 86.5 81.0 3.8 0.0 4.8 5.7 13.5 14.3 100% 100% 100% Consensual Low Medium High Chi-square* n=178 91.5 80.8 86.2 2.1 2.7 1.7 6.4 16.4 12.1 100% 100% 100% Structural Low High Chi-square* n=189 88.4 80.9 0.8 5.9 10.7 13.2 100% 100% Functional (Money) Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=189 26.5 42.0 31.5 80.0 0.0 20.0 31.8 40.9 27.3 100% 100% 100% Functional (Care) Low Medium High Chi-square*, n=189 22.2 46.3 31.5 80.0 0.0 20.0 31.8 40.9 27.3 100% 100% 100% Normative Low Medium High Chi-square* n=189 89.8 89.7 80.6 1.7 0.0 5.6 8.5 10.3 13.9 100% 100% 100% *Chi-square not completed due to cell size of less than 5. l

PAGE 86

74 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this exploratory stud y was to examine the concept of intergenerational solidarity (IGS) as it re lates to grandtravel. Specifically, IGS was examined in relation to likelihood of grandt ravel, support for grandtravel, previous experience with grandtravel, and grandtravel decision-making. In order to develop an overview of respondents, demographic, travel -related, and decisionmaking profiles were presented. The organization of this chapter is as follows: (a) Summary of Procedures and Treatment of Data; (b) Summary of Findi ngs; (c) Conclusions; (d) Discussion and Implications; and (e) Recommendations for Future Research. Summary of Procedures and Treatment of Data A sample of 252 Villages residents was surveyed for this study. Participants were selected as a convenience sample of soci al club members, Life Long Learning College Students, and users of one of The Villages Recreation Centers. The instrument used for this study was a self-administered questi onnaire comprised of six sections: (a) intergenerational solidarity; (b) perceptions of grandtravel; (c) past experience with grandtravel; (d) likelihood of grandtravel; (e) decision maki ng; and (f) demographics. Profiles of intergenerational solidari ty (IGS), demographics, grandtravel tendencies, and decision-making tendencies were developed using frequencies. The relationships between IGS and past experi ence with grandtravel, and decision-making were determined using crosstabs and chi-squa red statistics. The relationships between

PAGE 87

75 IGS and likelihood of grandtravel IGS and s upport of grandtravel was determined using an analysis of variance. In order to be tter understand the relati onship between the six IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel and the relatio nship between the six IGS domains and support of grandtra vel, stepwise regression wa s run between the different variables. Summary of Findings The following section summarizes the orig inal research questions followed by the results. Areas discussed include: a profile of intergenerational solidarity, a respondent profile, the relationship between IGS and like lihood of grandtravel, IGS and experience with grandtravel, IGS and support of gra ndtravel, and IGS and decision-making as it relates to grandtravel. Intergenerational Solidarity Overall, grandparents indicated high levels of affectua l and consensual solidarity. These grandparents tended to contact their grandchildren (either in -person, phone, email, or letters) every 2-3 months. Moreover, over 62% of res pondents stated that their grandchild lived in a different region of th e country. Typically, grandparents provided 112 hours of childcare for their grandchild and usually provided between $101-500 in child support. Interestingly, this study indicated higher levels of psychic or emotional relations than functional relations. This may be explained by the fact that many grandchildren did not live close to their grandparents. Robert o, Allen and Blieszner (2001) found that the proximity of family households influences th e frequency of associa tion and exchange of assistance and support between grandfathers and grandchildren. The current study found that the majority of grandpa rents live in a different regi on of the country than their

PAGE 88

76 grandchild. However, this distance is not surprising because Florida is regarded as a retirement state and many middle aged and older adults relocate to the state each year. The highest percentages of respondents had medium levels of IGS for affectional, associational, and consensual solidarity. High levels of IGS were most common on structural (measured low or high) and norma tive solidarity. Finally, lower levels of solidarity were most likely for functional solidarity. These findings are similar to Cherlin and Furstenbergs (1992) companionate style of grandparenting. This style of grandpa rent described themselves as playful companions, and the givers and receivers of love and affection. These grandparents enjoyed being able to spend time with their grandchildren without having a large amount of responsibility for them. Similarly, grandpare nts in the current study indicated that they felt emotionally close to their grandchildren (r eceivers of love and a ffection) but they did not provide much financial s upport or childcare (responsib ility). In addition, these findings are consistent with Wearings study ( 1996) which found that as level the levels of responsibility for the gra ndchild increased, the amount th e grandmother considered the grandparent role leisure decreased. Respondent Profile The travel-related profile indicated that the majority of grandparents would consider traveling with their grandchildren, although more than half had never done so. The percentage of respondents who have travel ed with their grandchildren is consistent with Currys study (2001), which also found th at 43% of grandparent s had traveled with their grandchildren. The idea of traveling with grandchild was supported as 43% said they would strongly support this idea and 37.5% said they would support this idea. Although no previous studies have asked gra ndparents their opinions on grandtravel,

PAGE 89

77 studies have found that seniors consider spe nding time with their family an important reason to travel (Huang & Tsai, 2003). Almost two-thirds of respondents were females and the majority of favorite grandchildren were female. Also, the majo rity of favorite grandchildren were the children of daughters. While Mills, Wakema n, and Fea (2001) found that grandchildren feel emotionally closer to their maternal gr andparents than they do to their paternal grandparents, the current study suggests that perhaps grandparents also feel more emotional closeness toward their maternal grandchildren. The majority of grandparents had between two to five grandchildren with an average of five grandchildren. Almost all respondents were white and were married. The fact that almost all respondent s were white is a limitation sim ilar to those that have taken place in other grandparent studies (Dubas, 2001). Like these studies, the present study was unable to examine relationships between Af rican-Americans or Mexican Americans. The decision-making profile indicated that four of the decisions; where to go, when to go, how much money to spend, and where to stay, were most likely to be dominated by the grandparent. Of these decisions how mu ch money to spend was the most grandparent dominated followed by where to stay. When to travel was dominated by grandparents and where to go was dominated by grandparents. The remaining two decisions, what to do and what to eat were most likely to be sh ared between both parties. Overall, these findings indicate that the gra ndparent has the most say in decisions that involve large amounts of money (how much money to spe nd and where to stay) and less say in decisions involving food and activities. Thes e findings are consistent with previous decision-making studies (Nelson, 1979) that found children play a large role in deciding

PAGE 90

78 where to eat when going out to eat but parent s have the final say in how much money to spend. Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Likelihood of Grandtravel A One-Way Analysis of Variance indicat ed that there were no significant relationships between any of the six intergen erational solidarity domains and likelihood of grandtravel. Results of stepwise regr ession also indicated that the relationship between the individual domains of IGS and lik elihood of grandtravel are not significant. It is predicted that there may be variable s other than the IGS domains that affect a grandparents likelihood of grandtravel. First, respondents had a mean age of 66. We do not know how recently these individuals retired, but their ages indicate that they may have retired within the last five years. These grandparents may now be at th e age where they want to spend time taking part in activities that they were not able to take part in while they were working such as hobbies and social clubs. Additionally, The V illages is a retirement community with an immense amount of activities and social cl ubs in which resident s can take part. Respondents may be more likely to want to stay in The Villages taking part in these activities rather than traveling with their gr andchildren. Respondents may be considering their retirement years my time or our time as a couple, rather than time to baby sit their grandchildren. Several respondents stated that they would like their grandc hildren to visit or often have their grandchildren visit The Villages. Respondents stated that this is a perfect area for their grandchildren to visit because of the large numbers of activities and great weather. Instead of traveling with their grandchildre n, these grandparents may find that

PAGE 91

79 inviting their grandchildren to their homes and taking part in The Villages activities is as good of an experience as trav eling. Therefore, they may do not find it necessary to travel. Residents of The Villages are mostly c ouples that have moved to Florida from some other region of the country. Therefore, they may not be able to spend much time with their own children; the parents of their grandchildren. These grandparents may have high levels of the different IGS domains, but ma y not be interested in grandtravel because they would like all three generations to be together. These families may only have a few weeks out of the year to spend together, a nd instead of the gra ndparents spending this time alone with their grandchildren, these fam ilies may prefer to travel with grandparents, children, and grandchildren toge ther. This is similar to Shoemakers (1989) cluster of family travelers, and Backman, Backman and Silver bergs (1999) study, which found that older seniors want to vis it friends and relatives as the main purpose of their trips. Grandparents may not be in good enough hea lth or may be caring for a spouse who is not in good health, making it impossible to travel with their grandchildren. These grandparents may like to idea of grandtrave l, but are unable to do so. In addition, grandparents reasons for not traveling with their grandchildren may be due to the child, of the immediate family. For example, the ch ild may not be interested in this type of travel, or the child may be to busy with school or work activities. The parents of the child may not agree to this type of travel because they may consider the money spent on the trip to large of a gift, or the parents might be divorced with one parent not agreeing to the travel situation.

PAGE 92

80 Data were gathered during this study in the survey question what would prevent you from traveling with your grandchild? w ould help to answer this question, however data related to this question were not analy zed for the current study (see Appendix B). Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Past Experience with Grandtravel Cross-tabs indicated that those with the lo west levels of the six IGS domains were the least likely to travel with their grandch ildren. In contrast, those with the highest levels of the six domains of IGS were the most likely to travel with their grandchildren. This finding indicate that gr andparents with high levels of the different IGS domains are likely to have traveled with their grandch ildren and those with low levels of the IGS domains are not likely to have done so. Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Support of Grandtravel Results indicated that four of the six domains of in tergenerational solidarity, affectional, consensual, normative, and a ssociational, had a significant effect on grandparents support of grandt ravel. Significant differen ces between low levels of solidarity and high levels of solidarity were found on all f our domains. Significant differences were also revealed between me dium and high levels of IGS for affectual solidarity and low and medium levels of IGS for normative solidarity. These findings indicate that grandparents who feel emotionally closer to their grandchildren (affectual solidarity) are also more likely to support traveling with their grandchildren. Similarly, grandparents who feel they agree with their grandchild (consensual solidarity) and feel support from their grandchildren ( normative solidarity) are the most likely to support traveling with their grandchildren. Of the six domains of solidarity, these four domains (affectional, c onsensual, normative and associational) most

PAGE 93

81 closely describe how well grandparents get along with their grandchildren. Grandparents can provide high levels of financial support (f unctional solidarity) to their grandchildren or live close to their grandc hildren (structural solidarity) without necessarily getting along well or have a close relationship with the children. These findings are similar to those of Roberto, Allen and Blieszner ( 2001) who found smaller geographic distances between grandfathers and gr andchildren did not guarant ee the formation of a close relationship. In order to bettter understa nd the relationship between the six domains of IGS and support of grandtravel and step wise regression was run betwee n the different variables. Results indicated that affectual solidarity was the only IGS domain that had a significant relationship with support of grandtravel. The adjusted R squared valu e indicated that six percent of a grandparents support of grandt ravel can be explained by their level of affectual solidarity. These results however do not indicate what explains the remaining 94% of a grandparents support for grandtrave l. This is further discussed in the conclusions and discussion section. Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Decisionmaking Behaviors Toward Grandtravel Overall, no significant findings were discovered when co mparing intergenerational solidarity levels to decision-making patterns. However, some patterns were uncovered. For the decision of where to go, across four of the IGS domains grandparents were most likely to dominate in this decision. However, if grandparents had high levels of affectual solidarity or high levels of consensual solidarit y, they were most likely to evenly split this decision with their grandchild. No matter wh at the domain or level of IGS, grandparents were always the most likely to dominate in the decision of when travel. For both the

PAGE 94

82 decision what to do and what to eat, a sp lit decision was the most likely scenario. Similarly, previous literature indicated that children play si gnificant roles in the decisions of where to go to eat (Nelson, 1979) and what activities to take part in while on vacation (Nickerson & Jurowski, 2000). This was true no matter what the domain or level for the decision of what to do. However, grandparents with medium levels of solidarity were the most likely to split the decision of what to eat with their grandchild. Conclusions and Discussion Considerable amounts of research have ex amined senior travel in relation to likelihood of travel, reasons for travel, benefits sought from tr avel, locations of travel etc (Blazey, 1987; Gibson, 2002; Guinn, 1980; Shoemaker, 1989; Teaf & Turpin, 1996; Zimmer, Brayley & Searle, 1995). Similarly, studies have examined intergenerational solidarity as it relates to the gender of the grandparent, the relation of the grandparent, and the differences between grandparents vi ews and grandchildrens views (Roberto, Allen & Blieszner, 2001; Mills, Wakeman & Fea, 2001; Giarrusso, Feng, Silverstein & Bengston, 2001). However, there have not b een any studies that have looked at grandparents traveling with grandchildren a nd the relationship with intergenerational solidarity. This study revealed that there are so me significant relationships between intergenerational solidarity a nd support of grandtravel, spec ifically within affectional, consensual, normative, and associational solidari ty. Additionally, this study revealed that there are not statistically significant relati onships between any of the IGS domains and likelihood of or past experience with grandt ravel. Results did however indicate that grandparents with higher levels of the IGS domains were more likely to have traveled with their grandchildren. None of the intergenerationa l solidarity domains had a

PAGE 95

83 significant relationship with grandtrave l decision-making tendencies, although grandparents with higher levels of the IGS domains tended to allow their grandchildren to share more in the decision then those with low levels of the IGS domains. This is consistent with the decision-making studi es conducted by Nelson (1979) and Lackman and Lanasa (1993) the decision of what to ea t and what to do were the decisions most likely to be shared with grandchildren. Grandparents tended to rate the solidarity domains that involved feelings (affectual, consensual, and normative) higher and rate solidarity domains th at involved actions (associational, structural, and functional) lower. Perhaps th is is best explained by the issue of proximity, in that grandparents w ho live closer to their grandchildren may be more likely to associate with their grandchild ren. However, as stated by Roberto, Allen and Blieszner (2001) the amount of contact between grandpa rents and grandchildren does not guarantee the formation of a close relationship. Findings indicate that grandparents support or strongly support the idea of traveling with their grandchildren and say they are likely to do so, even though under half of grandparents have actually traveled with th eir grandchildren. Th e large majority of respondents indicated that they would consider taking part in grandtravel, and supported the idea of grandtravel. Prev ious studies have identified an interest in grandtravel, such as Maxwell (1998) who found that 16% of grandparents had vacationed with their grandchild in the past month. Consistent wi th these findings, the current study found that just under half of the responde nts indicated that they had previously taken part in grandtravel. These findings indi cate that there is definitely an interest and a market for

PAGE 96

84 travel providers interested in providing grandtravel. With such a large interest in grandtravel, there is also a n eed for further research examining this travel niche. Grandparents with high levels of a ffectional, consensual, normative and associational solidarity are more likely to support grandtravel than those with low levels of these IGS domains. Affectional, consen sual, and normative solidar ity are all forms of feeling close to your grandchild, not acting. This is consistent with support for grandtravel. Support is a feeling, not an acti on. Those with positive solidarity feelings are also likely to have positive feelings towards grandtravel. Grandparents with high levels of the IGS do mains are likely to travel with their grandchildren while grandparents with low leve ls of the IGS domains are not likely to do so. These findings may indicate that grandpa rents who feel close to their grandchildren are the most likely to want to spend time w ith their grandchildren. Grandparents with good relationships with thei r grandchildren would like to further enrich these relationships through spending time with thei r grandchildren. However, those who do not have strong relationships with their gr andchildren are not likely to improve this relationship through travel. The academic co mmunity will want to take note that generally high levels of the IGS domains resu lt in a higher likelihood of grandtravel. This may indicate that high levels of th e IGS domains result in other recreational activities with grandchildren. There is something to be said for the fact that many results were not significant. For example, there was no significant rela tionship between the IGS domains and past experience with grandtravel. This is an im portant finding for the tr avel industry. Travel providers may inherently assume that grandp arents traveling with their grandchildren

PAGE 97

85 have a close relationship. Although there is a trend, results indicate that this is not statistically true. Those provi ding grandtravel may want to be aware that there may not be as strong of a relationship between grandparents and gran dchildren as may have been assumed. The findings for likelihood of grandtravel and support of grandt ravel both indicated that the large majority of gr andparents either would like to travel or supp ort the idea of traveling with their grandchildren. Howeve r, when asked about past experience with grandtravel, more than half of grandpare nts said they had never done so. This demonstrates that grandparents like to think they would do something with their grandchild. However, actions are different then thoughts. Saying you support something or that you would like to do so mething is different than ac tually doing it. Again, this trend demonstrates that there is a di fference between actions and words. Grandparents tend to favor children of da ughters over children of sons. Results indicated that almost two thirds of respondent s stated that their fa vorite grandchild was the child of a daughter. This indicates that other research con cerning IGS may relate more to children of daughters than children of sons. Specific studies may be necessary to examine the relationship between grandparents and the children of their sons. There may be several reasons for this, fi rst in American society once sons are married, they tend to be emotionally pulled towa rd the families of their wives. This may mean that when the couple has to choice to spend a holiday or vacation with either the husbands parents of the wives parents, they will be most likely to spend the time with the wives parents. Results of this would m ean that grandparents with both sons and daughters might be more likely to spend time w ith the children of th eir daughters than the

PAGE 98

86 children of their sons. Therefore, grandparent s may feel closer relationships with these children, not necessarily because they consider them favorites but because they are able to see these children and interact with them more than the chil dren of their sons. Specific research may be necessary to examine relationships with children of sons. It is interesting to take note of the heav ily female dominated results of this study. Many of these results of predic table, including that fact that many more grandmothers took part in the study then gr andfathers did. Because men tend to die earlier than women, female participants dominate many studies on grandparenting and few studies have been conducted specifically on grandfathers (Robe rto, Allen & Blieszner, 2001). Even though the domination by grandmothers may be predicta ble, it was not predictable that more the majority of grandparents would state that th eir favorite grandchild was the child of a daughter. There are several considerations that may account for this. First of all, maybe mothers are more attached to their daughters and sense mostly grandmothers took part in the study, it would make sense that their favorite grandchild was the child of a daughter. Possibly, respondents had more female children than male children. Another explanation may be that when men get married and have children, they tend to go with their spouses to be close either physically or mentally with her parents. There is no exact explanation for this trend, but this may shed light, onto the issue of extended families. Overall, these findings are consistent with those of M ills, Wakeman and Fea (2001) who found that grandchildren feel emotionally closer to their maternal grandparents then they do to their paternal grandparents. The decision-making findings indicate that grandparents want to be, or at least think that they are, in control of all deci sions. There is no way to measure how much

PAGE 99

87 subconscious influence a child has on a grandpa rent. For example, a child may influence the grandparent to travel to Disney Worl d. Even though the child is not making this decision him/herself, there is a definite infl uence that is taking place. Grandparents may or may not be aware of the influential part their grandchild plays in making this, and other travel related decisions In this study, grandparents were asked how much of a decision they themselves make, versus the amount of the decision they allow their grandchild to make. Grandchildren be ing allowed to make a decision and grandchildren influencing the grandparent into making a decision may be two different concepts. If this study was reversed a nd the grandchildren we re asked how much influence they have on decisions, as in Ni ckerson and Jurowskis decision-making study (2000), results might be drastically different. This study indicated that grandparents dom inate the decision of where to go, when to go, how much to spend, and where to stay. They are evenly split on the decision what to do and what to eat. This demonstrates that for decisions invol ving the, grandparents are most likely to make the decision. Gra ndparents with high levels of the six IGS domains are more likely to share decisions wit h, or give a higher percentage of a decision to their grandchildren. Seve ral of the domains of solidar ity involve agreeing with your grandchild. This may indicate that grandparents with higher le vels of solidarity are likely to agree with their grandchild, and therefor e feel comfortable ha nding over large portions of travel related decisions to their grandchildren. Ho wever, there are no significant relationships between the six IGS domai ns and decision-making tendencies. Along with the above discussion, it must be noted that The Villages is an area populated by middle to high income white Amer icans. Grandparents of different race,

PAGE 100

88 ethnicity, and income may result in drama tically different outcomes. For example, Mexican-American families are known to have closer fam ily ties throughout different generations (Giarrusso, Feng, Silverstein & Bengston, 2001). Where the grandparents surveyed for this study live far away from their grandchildre n, Mexican-American grandparents may live in the same household as their grandchildren. This family structure is likely to dramatically effect support of, likelihood of and past experience with grandtravel. Similarly, data gathered from grandparents with lower income than those in The Villages would likely have a dramatic impact on results. Those likely to travel are also those with the highest inco mes (Hawes, 1998). Because The Villages is a high-income area, these grandparents may be more likely to support, be likely to take part in, and/or have past experien ce with grandtravel. Grandpa rents with lower incomes may not be able to spend the amount of money necessary to participate in grandtravel, therefore dramatically lowering their suppor t, likelihood of and pa st experience with grandtravel. These findings have several implications fo r the tourism industry. First, operators of grandtravel programs will want to take note that grandparents may not necessarily want to hold a large amount of responsibility over their grandchildren. Currently, several tour operators such as Elderhostel, based in Boston, MA and Holbrook Travel, based in Gainesville, FL expect that grandparents participating in grandtravel/intergenerational programs will take full responsibility over thei r grandchildren in terms of childcare. These findings associated with structural a nd functional solidarity may indicate that grandparents do not want this level of respons ibility. Therefore thes e tour operators may want to consider having a babysitter as pa rt of the travel package. These decision-

PAGE 101

89 related results indicate that marketers targ eting children may want to focus on vacation activities and meals because children are most likely to play a large part in these decisions. In contrast, marketers will want to keep materials relate d to how much money to spend, where to go, and where to stay focused on the grandparents. Recommendations for Future Research The following recommendations are made in regard to the need for more information dealing with grandparents tr aveling with their grandchildren. In order to best measure overall affect ual solidarity, it is recommended that all variables be measured on a sixpoint scale rather then measurements with varying scales. It is also recommended that all domains of Intergenerationa l Solidarity be measured using consistent scales. This would make compar ing the different IGS domains to a dependent variable such as grandtravel more viable. When asking grandparents about their grandchildren, it is recommended that future researchers do not use the term favorite gra ndchild. The researcher found that several grandparents were offended by this term, or si mply returned their surveys stating that they did not have a favorite grandchil d. Instead it is recommended that future researchers simply ask respondents to think of only one grandchild while responding to the questionnaire. A large amount of data was gathered for th is study that was not reported. Future studies should report other aspects of grandt ravel not presented in the current study such as where grandparents would like to travel, what would prevent them from traveling, what they would like to do etc (see Appendix B). This information would provide a better overall view of grandtravelers.

PAGE 102

90 Recognizing that this samp le is not representative of the entire population of grandparents, it is recommended that future st udies make an effort to study grandparents populations other than middle to high income white grandparents. Intergenerational solidarity and grandtravel tendencies may be vastly different from one demographic to the next. These differences are not accounted for in this study.

PAGE 103

91 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT Thank you for taking part in this survey. Pl ease only take part if you are a grandparent. Please answer all of the following questions th inking about one particular grandchild for the entire survey, possibly your favorite gr andchild. We understand most grandparents do not have favorites. This word is used only to ensure that respondents answer all questions thinking of only one grandchild. 1. How well do you get along with your favorite grandchild? (Circle one) Not at all well Not too well Somewhat well Pretty well Very Well Extremely Well 2. How well do you feel you understand your favorite grandchild? (Circle one) Not at all well Not too well Somewhat well Pretty well Very Well Extremely Well 3. How well do you feel this grandc hild understands you? (Circle one) Not at all well Not too well Somewhat well Pretty well Very Well Extremely Well 4. Overall, how well you do you and your favorite grandchild get along together at this point in your life? (Circle one) Not at all well Not too well Somewhat well Pretty well Very Well Extremely Well 5. How is communication between you and this grandchild exchanging ideas or talking about things that really concern you at this point in your life? (Circle one) Not at all good Not too good Somewhat goodPretty good Very good 6. Taking everything into consideration, how close do you feel is the relationship between you and your favorite grandchild? (Circle one)

PAGE 104

92 Not at all close Not too close Somewhat cl osePretty close Very close Extremely close 7. In the past year, approximately how many times were you in contact with your favorite grandchild? (Write number in blank) In person _________ Over the phone _________ Letters_________ Email _________ 8. In general how similar are your opinions and values about life to those of your favorite grandchilds at this point in time? (Circle one) Not at all similar Not too similar Somewhat similar Pretty similar Very similar Extremely similar 9. How close does your favorite grandchild live to you? ___ Within the same city ___ Within the same state ___ In the same region of the country (ex. Southeastern United States) ___ In a different region of the country ___ In a different country 10. In the past year, how much financial s upport have you provided for your favorite grandchild? None $50 or less $51 $100$101-$500$501$1000 Over $1001 Over $10,000 11. In the past year, how much childcare have you provided for your favorite grandchild? (Circle one) 1-12 hours 1-3 days 4-7 days 2-3 weeks 1 month 2-3 months 4-6 months More than 6 months 12. Looking toward the future how much do you expect that your favorite grandchild will feel a sense of family obligation toward you? (Circle one)

PAGE 105

93 None at all A little Some A good amount Quite a bit A great deal 13. What do you think about the idea of travel ing with your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child? 1. Do NOT support 2. Somewhat support 3. Neither support nor do not support 4. Support 5. STRONGLY support 14. If you were to travel with your favorite grandchild without the parents of this child, what would you like to do? 15. If you were to travel with your favorite grandchild withou t this childs parents, where would you like to go? 16. How long would you like such a tr ip to last? (Circle one) 1-2 nights 3-4 nights 5-6 nights 1 week 1 weeks2 weeks More than 2 weeks 17. What types of activities w ould you like to take part in during a trip with your grandchild without the pare nts of that child? (Pleas e check all that apply) 1. Sightseeing 2. Educational experiences 3. Visit an amusement park 4. Visit a place of historical signifi cance (such as Washington D.C.) 5. International travel 6. Visit family/friends 7. Sports 8. Arts and Crafts 9. Shows (Theater, dance, etc.) 10. Shopping

PAGE 106

94 11. Outdoor activities (canoeing, hiking etc.) 12. Other ____________________________ 18. Have you ever traveled with your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child? 1. Yes (go to question #19) 2. No (go to question #20) 19. If you answered yes to the above ques tion, did you enjoy yourself? (Circle one) None at all A little Some A good amount Quite a bit A great deal 20. If you answered no to question #18, would you consider traveling with your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child? (If you answered yes to question #18, skip to question #21) ___ Yes ___ No ___ Maybe 21. What would prevent you from traveling wi th your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child? 1. No interest in doing so 2. Not able to financially 3. Not enough time 4. Not in good enough health 5. Could not cope with the child by myself 6. Other _____________________________ 22. If you have traveled with your grandchild without the parents of that child, how many times have you done so? (Circle one) If you have not traveled with your grandchild, skip to question #28. Once Twice 3 times 4 times More than 4 times 23. If you have traveled with your grandchild without the parents of that child where did you travel? (Check all that apply) 1. Somewhere in the state

PAGE 107

95 2. Out of state, but in the same region of the country 3. To a different region of the country 4. Internationally 24. Please tell specifically what places you travel ed to with your grandchild without the parents. 25. Have you traveled with your favorite grandc hild without the parents of that child in the last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No 26. If you answered yes to the above questions, how long was your trip? 1-2 nights 3-4 nights 5-6 nights 1 week 1 weeks2 weeks More than 2 weeks 27. What was your favorite place that you trav eled to with your favorite grandchild without the parents of this child? 28. Of the following topics pl ease indicate the per cent of the decision you made, versus the percent of the decision you allowed or w ould allow your grandchild to make while traveling. Topic Deciding where to go ___%Grandparent (You) ___%Grandchild Deciding when to go

PAGE 108

96 ___%Grandparent (You) ___%Grandchild Deciding what to do while on the trip ___%Grandparent (You) ___%Grandchild Deciding what to eat ___%Grandparent (You) ___%Grandchild Deciding how much money to spend ___%Grandparent (You) ___%Grandchild Deciding where to stay ___%Grandparent (You) ___%Grandchild 29. What is your gender? Male or Female 30. What is the gender of your favorite grandchild? Male or Female 31. In what year were you born? _______ 32. How old are you? _________ 32. How old is your favorite grandchild? (Years) _______ 33. How many grandchildren do you have? _______ 34. What is your race/et hnicity? (Circle one) White White/Hispanic Black Black/Hispanic Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander Native American 35. What is your average year ly income? (Circle one) Less than $10,000 $10,00130,000 $30,00150,000 $50,001$100,000 $100,001$500,00 More than $500,000 36. What is your marital status? ___Single (never married) ___Married (first marriage)

PAGE 109

97 ___Widowed ___Divorced ___Remarried after divor ce or death of a spouse ___ Living together as if we were married 37. How is your favorite grandchild related to you? ___ Child of a son ___Child of a daughter ___Child of a son-in-law ___Child of a daughter-in-law You have now completed the survey. Thank you very much for taking part in this study!

PAGE 110

98 APPENDIX B UNUSED DATA Question #16 How long would you like such a [grandtravel] trip to last? Response n % 1-2 nights 28 12.2 3-4 nights 25 10.9 5-6 nights 11 4.8 1 week 68 29.7 1 weeks 18 7.9 2 weeks 48 21.0 More than 2 weeks 31 13.5 Question #17 What types of activities w ould you like to take part in [during grandtravel]? Response n % Sightseeing No 54 22.7 Yes 184 77.3 Education No 83 34.9 Yes 155 65.1 Amusement Park No 91 38.2 Yes 147 61.8 Historical No 102 42.9 Yes 136 57.1 International Travel

PAGE 111

99 Question #17 Continued Response n % No 176 73.9 Yes 62 26.1 Family/Friends No 134 56.3 Yes 104 43.7 Sports No 147 61.8 Yes 91 38.2 Arts/Crafts No 163 68.5 Yes 75 31.5 Shows No 114 47.9 Yes 124 52.1 Shopping No 133 55.5 Yes 105 44.5 Outdoor No 127 53.4 Yes 111 46.6 Question #19 Did you enjoy yourself [while traveling with your grandchild]? Response n % Not at all 1 0.9 A little 1 0.9 Some 1 0.9 A good amount 4 3.7 Quit at bit 25 22.9 A great deal 77 70.6

PAGE 112

100 Question #21 What would prevent you from tr aveling with your grandchild? Response n % No Interest Yes 9 4.8 No 177 95.2 Financial Yes 30 16.1 No 156 83.9 Time Yes 40 21.5 No 146 78.5 Health Yes 36 19.4 No 150 80.6 Cope with child Yes 9 4.8 No 177 95.2 Question #22 How many times have you traveled with your grandchild? Response n % Once 24 21.6 Twice 16 14.4 3 times 21 18.9 4 times 9 8.1 More than 4 times 41 36.9

PAGE 113

101 Question #23 Where did you travel [with your grandchild]? Response n % In state Yes 77 67.5 No 37 14.7 Out of state same region Yes 43 37.7 No 71 62.3 Different region Yes 37 32.5 No 77 67.5 Internationally Yes 9 7.9 No 105 92.1 Question #25 Have you traveled with your gra ndchild in the last 12 months? Response n % Yes 53 35.1 No 98 64.9

PAGE 114

102 Question #26 How long did the [grandtravel] trip last? Response n % 1-2 nights 14 26.9 3-4 nights 7 13.5 5-6 nights 3 5.8 1 week 15 28.8 1 weeks 3 5.8 2 weeks 5 9.6 More than 2 weeks 5 9.6

PAGE 115

103 APPENDIX C ADDENDUM After completing this study, and after careful consideration of th e statistical tests conducted and datum gathered for this study, severa l issues have been raised. First, it has become evident that there are several problem s with the questionnaire that was used to gather the datum for this study. First, all of the questions regarding affectual solidarity should have been measured on a six-point scale. The fact th at one question was measured on a five-scale was a mistake by the researcher. If all questions would have been measured on a six-point scale, the measur es for affectual solidar ity could have been added together and measured on a scale from 1-36. Second, the way the intergenerational solidarity data was analyzed may have caused problems. For example, the responses to the two survey questions rega rding functional solid arity (financial support and childcare) were added together and combined into one variable. This was not appropriate as financial support and childcare not correlated enough to be adde d together. Associational solidarity also had problems; the amount of contact over four different mediums (inperson, phone, email, and letters) was adde d together assuming that no one type of contact was more important than another. This may be a false assumption as more time is spent with a person when contacting them in-person than when contacting them via email. Statistical issues may have resulted from the sample size of this study. A sample size of 252 was gathered for this study. In se veral cases, statistical tests such as crosstabs and regressions could not be run due to small cell sizes. Additi onally, several

PAGE 116

104 questions such as likelihood of grandtravel were the result of directional questions. Before reaching the likelihood question on the survey, grandparents were asked about their past experience with gr andtravel. If they did not have past experience with grandtravel they were directed to the lik elihood question. If they did have past experience with grandtravel they were dir ected to skip the li kelihood question. This resulted in an even smaller sample size for the question of likelihood of grandtravel. The above issues may have caused several problems with the statistics associated with this study. Additionally, all six doma ins of intergenerational solidarity were collapsed into three categories; low, medium and high. This was done so that all six variables could be easily compar ed. However, doing this took away much of the variance within these different variable s. For example, responses re garding consentual solidarity showed that 36.2% of grandpare nts believed their opinions were pretty similar to their grandchildrens and 25.5% believed their opin ions were very similar. Over 61% of grandparents fell into these two categories, showing moderately high levels of consensual solidarity. However, when consensual solida rity was collapsed into low, medium, and high, 29.8% were low, 36.2% were medium and 34.0% were high. By looking at the collapsed results the previous statement th at over 61% of grandpa rents had moderately high levels of consensual solidarity is no longer evident. This problem is likely an issue for the other domains of intergenerat ional solidarity as well. Collapsing the intergenerational solidarity variables into lo w, medium, and high may not have only taken away variances; it may have also influenced the results of this study. If these variables were not collapsed, and different st atistical tests were conducted, results of the relationships between the diffe rent intergenerational solidarity domains,

PAGE 117

105 likelihood of, support of, and past experience with grandtravel may have been different. The current study indicated that there were ve ry few significant relationships between the intergenerational solidarity variables a nd the dependent variables. However, academicians and travel-professionals examini ng this study will want to be aware that this may not be the case. If the statistic s for this study were analyzed differently and different statistical tests were run, results may have show si gnificances that the current study does not. This study did not examine the relations hip that the different domains of intergenerational solidarity may have on each other. For example, normative solidarity may influence affectual solidarity and associa tional solidarity and affectual solidarity may influence associational solidarity. T ogether, these relationships may influence support of or likelihood of grandtravel. Statistical regression of the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel was conducted controlling for socio-demographic variables. This test indicated that socio-demogra phic variables (age of grandpa rent, gender of grandparent, income, marital status) explain nine percent of a grandparent s support of grandtravel. The socio-demographic variables were blocke d together; therefore we do not know which variables had the most influence. The regre ssion also indicated that 11% of support of grandtravel can be explained by normative solidarity. However, these results are questionable as normative solidarity is general umbrella term. Add itionally, this question asked grandparents how much obligation (filia l piety) they expected their grandchildren to feel toward them. Ideally, this ques tion should have asked how much family

PAGE 118

106 obligation or filial piety the grandparent felt toward the grandchildren. No other independent variables explaine d any amount of grandparents support for grandtravel. Logistical regression was conducted with the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel, cont rolling for socio-demographic variables. This test indicated that within functional solidarity, amount of fi nancial support provided to the grandchild was the only significant pred ictor of likelihood of grandtravel. No other independent variables showed a significant in fluence on likelihood of grandtravel. It should be reiterated that becau se likelihood of grandtravel of a directive question, the sample size was only 144. Additionally, for th is logistic regression the 16 maybe responses were thrown out resulting in a sample size of 128. Due to this small sample size not regressions had enough responses to crea te large enough cells to run the logistic regression. Although this study does suffer from the above issues related to the six domains of intergenerational solidarity, th ere are several findings presente d in this study that are not only statistically sound, but impor tant to academics and trav el professionals. These findings include descriptive statistics that prove a strong support of and likelihood of grandtravel. Additionally, decision-making re sults showed the large differences in the tendency to share or not share travel relate d decision with grandchildren. Grandparents strongly dominate in the deci sions of how much money to spend and where to stay but are likely to share with their grandchildren the decision of what to eat and what to do. It is disappointing that the results relating to intergenerational solida rity are not stronger, but other important results of this study should not be forgotten. Notes from the researcher

PAGE 119

107 With the completion of this thesis, I have learned that a thesis is not only about what you learn from the results of your study, but about the process you have to go through to get to the end. If I were to star t this project over ther e are several things I would do differently. I would pilot test my survey to pr esent respondent confusion. I would closely plan my statistic al analysis in conjunction with the development of my survey. This would prevent the majority of data analysis problems. I would work more closely with all professors on my committee to ensure that what was being done was what they wanted and expected which would prevent or minimize confusion at the end of the project. It has been men tioned that that for my the good of my future career I should know specifically how the different intergen erational solidarity domains effected grandtravel. I agree that this is important, unfortunately from our attempts at regression and with the data problems stated above, it looks like this will not be possible. However, intergenerational solidarity asid e, I have no doubt that my futu re career, and my future in general will be positively in fluenced the knowledge, experience and persistence I have learned from completing this project.

PAGE 120

108 LIST OF REFERENCES Backman, K., Backman, S., & Silverberg, K. (1999). An investigation into the psychographics of senior nature-based travelers. Tourism Recreation Research 24(1), 13-22. Berey, L., & Pollay, R. (1968). The influencing role of the child in family decisionmaking. Journal of Marketing Research 5(February), 70-72. Bengston, V., & Schrader, S. ( 1982). Parentchild relations in Mangen, D. & Berger, W. (eds) Research instruments in social gerontology, Minneapolis MN: Minneapolis Press. Blazey, Michael A. (1987). The difference betw een participants and non-participants in a senior travel program. Journal of Travel Research Summer, 7-12. Ceresole, P. (Dir) (1998). Medica l advances furthur the flight against disease. In D. Espar (Producer), Living Longer Boston, Mass: PBS. Cheeseman Day, J. (2000). National population projections (online) retrieved May 11, 2004. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/profile/95/2-ps.pdf Cherlin, C., & Furstenbrug Jr, F. (1992). The new American grandparent: A place in the family, a life apart. Cambridge MA: Harvard Press. Cox, E. (1975). Family purchase decisionmaking and the process of adjustment. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(May), 189-195 Crompton, J.L. (1981). Dimensions of the social group role in pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 3(4), 550-567 Curry, S.R. (2000). Grandtravel catches on. A dvertising Age (midwest region edition). 71(29), 2. Davis, H., & Rigaux, B. (1974). Perception of marital roles in decision processes. The Journal of Consumer Research 1(1), 51-62. Dubas, J. (2001). How gender moderates th e grandparent-grandchild relationship; A comparison of kin-keeper a nd kin-selector theories. Journal of Family Issues. 22(4), 478-492.

PAGE 121

109 Ekstrm, K., Tansuhaj, P., & Foxman, E. (1986) Childrens influence in family decisions and consumer socialization: a reciprocal view Advances in Consumer Research 14, 283-287. Fleischer, A., & Pizam, A. (2002). Tour ism constraints among Israeli seniors. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1), 106-23. Fleischer, A., & Seiler, E. (2002). Determinants of vacation travel among Israeli seniors: theory and evidence. Applied Economics 34(4), 421-430. Gardyn, R. (2001). The new family vacation. American Demographics 23(8), 42-47. Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. (2001). Grandparent-adult grandchild affection and consensus. Journal of Family Issues, 22(4), 456-477. Gibson, H. (2002). Busy travelers: Leisure-tr avel patterns and meanings in later life. World Leisure, 22, 11-20. Guinn, R. (1980). Elderly recreational vehi cle tourists: motivations for leisure. Journal of Travel Research Summer, 9-12. Hawes, D. (1988). Travel-related li festyle profiles of older women. Journal of Travel Research Fall, 22-32. Hetzel, L., & Smith, A. (2001). The 65 y ears and over population: 2000 Census 2000 Brief. (online) retrieved May 11, 2004 from U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbro1-10.pdf Hobbs, F., & Damon, B. (2001). 65 in the Unite d States (online) retrieved May 5, 2004 from U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p23-190.html Hong, G., Kim, S., & Lee, J. (1999). Travel ex penditure pattern of elderly households in the US. Tourism Recreational Research 24 (1), 43-52. Huang, L., & Tsai, H. (2003). The study of senior traveler behavior in Taiwan. Tourism Management 24(5), 561-574. Jeffrey, N., & Collins, S. (2001, November 2). Family: The grandparent industry. The Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition) pp W.1 Jenkins, R. (1979). The influence of children in family decision-making: Parents perceptions. Advances in Consumer Research 6, 413-418. Kennedy, G. (1991). Grandchildrens reasons for closeness with grandparents. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 6(4), 697-712. Kenney, G. (1992). Quality of grandp arent-grandchild relationships. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 35(2), 83-98.

PAGE 122

110 Kim, J., & Kerstetter, D., (2001). Family Vacation Decisions: Do Children Have an Influence? Travel and Tourism Re search Association. 32nd Conference Proceedings, 2001: A Tourism Odyssey, Ft. Meyers FL, 352-355. Kivett, V. (1991). The grandparent-grandchild connection. Marriage and Family Review 16, 267-290. Koenig, H., (2004) Very Special Vacati ons Exclusively for Grandparents and Grandchildren (online) retrieved May 11, 2004 from http://www.grandtrvl.com Lackman, C., & Lanasa, J. (1993). Family decision-making theory: An overview and assessment. Psychology & Marketing 10(2), 81-93. Lieux, E., Weaver, P., & McCleary, K. (1994). Lodging preferences of the senior tourism market. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 712-728. Mangen, D., Bengtson, V., & Landry Jr., P. (1988). Measurement of intergenerational relations. London: Sage Publications. Maxwell, N. (1998, September 14). Have gr andkids, will travel: Grandparents and grandchildren are the latest in touring companions. The Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition) p R18 Mills, T. (Editor) (2001). Two Volume Special Issue: Grandparent Grandchild Relationships Journal of Family Issues, 22(4/5), 403-679, May/July. Mills, T., Wakeman, M., & Fea, C. (2001) Adult Grandchildrens Perceptions of Emotional Closeness and Consensus W ith Their Maternal and Paternal Grandparents. Journal of Family Issues 22(4), 427-455. Nelson, J. (1979). Children as information sources in family decision to eat. Advances in Consumer Research 6, 419-423. Nicholas, C.M., & Snepenger, D.J. (1988) Family decision-making and tourism behavior and attitudes. Journal of Travel Research 26(4), 2-6. Nickerson, N., & Jurowski, C. (2000). The influence of children on vacation travel patterns. Journal of Vacation Marketing 7(1), 19-30. Orlando/Orange County Convention and Vis itors Bureau (2001) Research shows Orlando is #1 grandtravel destination (online) retrieved May 6, 2004 from www.familytravelnetwork.com/articles/grand_14.asp Pennington, L. (1994). The impact of socio-dem ographic and travel be havior variables on benefits sought by college-educated wo men who travel for pleasure. Masters thesis. University of Pennsylvania.

PAGE 123

111 Pennington, L., & Kerstetter, D. (1994). An exploratory study of the benefits sought by college-educated women traveling for pleasur e: Is there a genera tional effect? paper presented to National Recreation and Park Association Proceedings San Antonio, TX. Reuters, (2003). Study: People li ving longer, healthier; Trend toward fewer disabilities in old age likely to continue. (online) retrieved May 5, 2004 from http://www.msncb.msn.com/id/3077038 Roberto, K., Allen, K., & Blieszner, R. (2001). Grandfathers perceptions and expectations of relationships with their adult grandchild. Journal of Family Issues. 22(4), 407-426. Roberts, M., Wortzel, L., & Berkeley. R. ( 1981). Mother's attitudes and perceptions of childrens influence and their effect on family consumption. Advances in Consumer Research 3, 508-512. Schlosberg, J. (1990). Demogr aphics of grandparents. American Demographics 12(7), 33. Shoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal of Travel Research Winter, 14-21. Silverstein, M., & Marenco, A. (2001). How am ericans enact the gra ndparent role across the family life course. Journal of Family Issues 22(4), 493-522. Smith, D., (2002). The older population in the United States: March 2002, (online) retrieved April 2003 from U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-546.pdf Swinyard, W., & Sim, C. (1987). Perception of childrens influen ce on family decision processes. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 4(1) 25-38. Szybillo, G., & Sosaine, A.S. (1977). Fa mily decision making: husband, wife and children, Advances in Consumer Research 4, 46 49 Teaff, J., & Turpin, T. (1996). Travel and the elderly, Parks & Recreation 31(6), 16-19 Velkoff, V., & Kinsella, K., (2000). Worl ds older population growing by unprecedented 800,000 a month (online) retrieved May 5, 2004 from U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/release/arch ives/aging_population/000370.html Vincent, V., & de los Santos, G. (1990). Wi nter Texans: Two segments of the senior travel market. Journal of Travel Research 29, 9-12. Walt Disney World (2005). Magical gatherings Retreived Sept 20, 2005 from http://disneyworld.disney.go.com

PAGE 124

112 Ward, S., & Wackman, D. (1972). Childrens pu rchase influence attempts and parental yielding. Journal of Marketing Research 9(August), 316-319. Wearing, B. (1996). Grandmotherhood as leisure. World Leisure and Recreation, 38, 1519. Zimmer, Z., Brayley, E., & Searle, M. (1995). Whether to go and where to go: Identification of important influences on seniors decisions to travel, Journal of Travel Research 33(3), 3-10.

PAGE 125

113 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Catherine A. Palmieri graduated from Western Michigan University in 2003, receiving a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude with a double major in travel and tourism and public relations. In 2004 Pa lmieri received a certification in tour management from The International Guide Academy in Denver, Co lorado. With completion of this thesis in December 2005, Palmieri received a Master of Science in the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management from the Un iversity of Florida. She is currently employed by Holbrook Travel in Gainesvi lle, Florida, where she is the program coordinator of Elderhostel Programs taking pl ace in Central America, South America and Africa.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013406/00001

Material Information

Title: Intergenerational Solidarity as a Way of Understanding Grandtravel
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013406:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013406/00001

Material Information

Title: Intergenerational Solidarity as a Way of Understanding Grandtravel
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013406:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY
AS A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING GRANDTRAVEL


















By

CATHERINE A. PALMIERI


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Catherine A. Palmieri





























To my sister who became my survey-collecting partner. With her along, I never
minded the long drives to The Villages, and with her smiling face beside me, I was
able to attract more participants then I ever could have by myself. I am grateful for
the weeks and months it took me to collect this data, because these were weeks and
months I was able to spend and enjoy with my sister. Thank you Elizabeth.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my committee for their support in this process: my

chair, Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray, for the many hours she spent reviewing all parts of this

paper; Dr. Heather Gibson and Dr. Terry Mills who also spent many hours reading this

work and sharing with me their ideas and opinions. I thank them for their time and

support.

The Villages has been a vital part of this study. Without the assistance of Allison

Benszick and The Villages Recreation Department, this study would not have been

possible. Several social clubs generously opened their doors for me to collect surveys

during their meetings, including the Mulberry Recreation Center, Three C's Ohio Club,

La Hacienda Women's Club, Baby Boomers, Michigan Club, Kentucky Club, Clog-

Hoppers, Pimlico Social Club, and The College of Life Long Learning.

I would like to thank Dr. Eldor Quandt, Associate Professor at Western Michigan

University. It was his study on children and vacation/decision making that spawned the

idea for this thesis. Even though it has been several years since I sat in his classroom, his

love for travel and tourism, dedication and hard work live with me everyday.

I would like to thank my employer, Holbrook Travel for its patience and

understanding throughout this process.

Finally, I would like to thank my family who serve as the foundation of my life my

mother and father, sister Elizabeth, brother Matt, grandmother, and best friend

Genevieve. There is absolutely no way I can express my thanks, gratitude and love to










these individuals. I thank them for being there for me. I love them and thank God for


them .





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


IM Le

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............_...... .............. ix...


AB STRAC T ................ .............. xi


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Aging Population ................. ...............1.................
Grand travel .................. ...............2...
Theoretical Framework............... ...............4
Grand parenting Styles .............. ...............4.....
Inter generational Solidarity .................. .. .... ..._.. ........ .............
Link Between Intergenerational Solidarity and Grandtravel ................. ........._.._.. ..7
Ju sti fi cati on ................. ...............8..._._._ ....

Purpose .............. ...............9.....
Research Questions............... ...............9
Delimitations ........._..... ...._... ...............9...
Lim stations ........._..... ...._... ...............10.....


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........._.._.._ ...._... ...............12....


Senior Travel .............. ..........................1
Link Between Grandparenting and Leisure ......___ ...... ..___ ... ......_........1
Past Experience with Grandtravel .............. ...............18....
Decision-making and Grandtravel ................. ............... ...............19......
Perceptions of Grandtravel Held by the Grandchildren .............. ....................2
Intergenerational Relationships .............. ...............26....
Summary ........._..... ...._... ...............3 1....


3 IVETHODS .............. ...............33....


Data Collection .............. ...............33....
Survey Instrument................ ..............3
Independent Variable............... ...............3
Dependent Variable .............. ...............39....












Setting up the Data for Analysis ................. .... ... .. ........ ..... .. ......... ...... 4
Computing the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity ........._.._... .............41
Analysis of the Data. ........._.._... ......_.._. .. ........._.. ............4
What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like? ........._.._.. .....................44
What Does the Profile of Grandtravelers Look Like?....... ............___ .........___...44
Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of
G randtravel?............. .. .. .... ....................4
What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past
Experience with Grandtravel?............. .. ... ................4
What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Support of
G randtravel?............. .. .. .... ..................4
What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Decision-
making Behaviors Toward Grandtravel? ............. ...............45.....

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION................ ............4


R e sults.................. ........ ..._.._ .. .......... .. .... ...........4
What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like? ........._.._. ......._.. ........46
Affectual Solidarity ................. ......... ...............46......
Associational Solidarity .............. ...............47....
Consensual Solidarity............... ...............4
Structural Solidarity .............. ...............50....
Functional Solidarity ................. ......... ...............50.......
Normative Solidarity ................. ......... ...............51.......
Inter generational Solid arity ........._... ........._.._.._ ......_.._ .............5
What Does the Profile of Grandtravelers Look Like?............ ... .........___...53
Gender of Grandparent .....__.....___ ..........._ .............5
Gender of Grand child ............ .....___ ...............53..

Age of Grand parent ............ .....___ ...............54...
Age of Grand child ............ ..... .._ ...............54...
Number of Grandchildren .............. ...............54....
Race/Ethnicity .............. ...............55....
Average Yearly Income .............. ...............55....
M arital Status .............. ...............55....
Relation of Grandchild ............... .. .. ..____ ...... ...... .........5
What Does the Travel Related Profile Look Like? ............ .....................5
What Does the Decision-making Profile Look Like? ............ .....................5
W here to Go .............. ...............58....
W hen to Go .............. ...............58....
W hat to Do .............. ...............59....
What to Eat............... ... .. ..............5
How Much Money to Spend .............. ...............59....
W here to Stay ................ ... ..... ...........................5
Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of
G randtravel?............. .. .. .... ....................6
What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past
Experience with Grandtravel?............. ...............6












What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Support of
G randtravel?............. ...... .. .. .. ... .. .................6
What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Decision-
making behaviors Toward Grandtravel?............. ...............6
W here to Go .............. ...............67....
W hen to Go .............. ...............69....
W hat to Do .............. ...............70....
W hat to Eat............... ... .. .. ... ... .................7
How Much Money to Spend and Where to Stay ................. ............... ....72

5 DISCUS SION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........._.................74


Summary of Procedures and Treatment of Data. ........._.._..... ._ ........._.....74
Summary of Findings ............... ...............75....
Intergenerational Solidarity ........._.._.. ...._... ...._.._ ..........7
Respondent Profile .............. ........ .... .. ... ..........7
Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and
Likelihood of Grandtravel .............. ......_.. .... .... .. .. ... ............7
Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and
Past Experience with Grandtravel ............... .... ... ... .._ .. ... .. .._.. ...........8
Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and
Support of Grandtravel .............. .. .... ...... ............8
Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and
Decision-making Behaviors Toward Grandtravel .............. ....................8
Conclusions and Discussion .........._... ......___....... ............8
Recommendations for Future Research ....._._._ ..... ... .__ ....._. ...........8


APPENDIX


A SURVEY INSTRUMENT................ ..............9


B UNUSED DATA ........._._ ...... .... ...............98...


C ADDENDUM ........._._ ...... .... ...............103...


LI ST OF REFERENCE S ........._._ ...... .... ...............108..


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._._ ...... .__ ...............113...


















LIST OF TABLES

Table pg

1 Distribution of Responses for Different Areas of Data Collection .......................34

2 Intergenerational Solidarity Scale .............. ...............38....

3 Affectual solidarity responses (six-point scale) .............. ...............42....

4 Transforming of affectual solidarity scale response from a 5 to a 6 point scale
How is communication between you and this grandchild (n=249) .......................43

5 Reliability of affectual solidarity............... ...............4

6 Associational solidarity frequencies of the amount of contact with grandchild
in the past year ................. ...............47................

7 Associational solidarity frequencies combined .............. ...............48....

8 Total associational solidarity index ................. ...............49........... ...

9 Consensual solidarity responses ................. ...............49................

10 Structural solidarity responses .............. ...............50....

11 Functional solidarity responses financial support ........._..._.._ ........... ...........51

12 Functional solidarity responses childcare ................ .............. ......... .....51

13 Normative solidarity responses .............. ...............52....

14 Combined intergenerational solidarity profile .............. ...............52....

15 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents ............._. ......__ .............56

16 Frequencies of likelihood of grandtravel ................ ........... ........ ...........57

17 Frequencies of past experience with grandtravel ................. ......__. ........._.._.57

18 Frequencies of support for grandtravel .............. ...............58....

19 Decision-making profile............... ...............60










20 ONEWAY ANOVA for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
likelihood of grandtravel ................ ................ .................. ..........61

21 Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for relationships between the six
domains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel. ..................62

22 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and past
experience with grandtravel .............. ...............63....

23 ONEWAY for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of
grandtravel ........._..._... ...............64.._.._.. ......

24 Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for significant relationships between the
six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel. ................. .65

25 Model summary for intercorrelations for the six domains of intergenerational
solidarity and support of grandtravel ........._... ......_......._ ................67

26 ONEWAY ANOVA for intercorrelations between intergenerational solidarity
and support of grandtravel ........... ..... ._.._ ...............67....

27 Coefficients for intercorrelations for the six domains of intergenerational
solidarity and support of grandtravel ........._... ......_......._ ................67

28 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of where to go ...._.._.._ ........._.._......_ ...........6

29 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of when to go ......_..........._... ........._. ...._..........69

30 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of what to do ........._._. ...._... .. ...............70..

31 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of what to eat ..........._......__. ...._.._ ...........7

32 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of how much money to spend ......___ ........_.._ ........._......72

33 The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of where to stay ...._.._.._ .... ... ..._. ...._.._ ...........7
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree Master of Science

INTERGENERATIONAL SOLIDARITY
AS A WAY OF UNDERSTANDING GRANDTRAVEL

By

Catherine A. Palmieri

May 2006

Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray
Major Department: Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management

As the baby boomers reach old age, the senior population is growing at an

unprecedented rate. Characteristics of this population may include free time, willingness

to travel, and a desire to spend time with family, especially their grandchildren.

Combined, these characteristics create a strong case for grandtravel, grandparents

traveling with their grandchildren. Various researchers have examined senior travel

patterns, intergenerational relationships, and decision-making. However, there is

currently no research examining how intergenerational relationships influence

grandparents' tendencies toward grandtravel. This study contributes to the body of

academic knowledge by being one of the first studies to relate intergenerational solidarity

theory to the leisure Hield. This study looks at the concept of intergenerational solidarity

(IGS) and its relationship with likelihood of, support of, and past experience with

grandtravel. Intergenerational solidarity is also examined in relationship to grandtravel

related decision-making tendencies. Two hundred and fifty two (252) surveys were









collected from different clubs and social groups in the retirement community of The

Villages in Ocala, Florida. Results indicate that the maj ority of grandparents support the

idea of grandtravel (80%) and would like to take part in this form of travel (79%);

however, only 42% of grandparents had ever done so. No significant relationship

between IGS and likelihood of travel was found. However, a significant relationship

exists between four of the domains of IGS (affectual, consensual, normative and

associational) and support of grandtravel. Grandparents with the highest levels of IGS

were also the most likely to have traveled with their grandchildren. Those with the

lowest levels of IGS were the least likely to have taken part in grandtravel. No

significant relationship was found between IGS and grandtravel related decision-making

tendencies, although grandparents with the highest levels of IGS were also the most

likely to allow their grandchildren to take part in travel related decision making.

Grandparents dominated in the decisions of where to go, when to go, how much money

to spend and where to stay, and were most likely to evenly share with their grandchildren

the decisions of what to eat and what to do while traveling.

This study has several implications. Because there is a strong interest, but fewer

than half of grandparents have taken part in grandtravel, this is a strong travel niche that

should be further explored by travel professionals and researchers. Second, grandparents

with high levels of the six domains of IGS are more likely to support, likely to travel, and

have past experience traveling with their grandchildren. Finally, the decision-making

results of this study indicate that marketing relating to high-priced decision (where to

stay) should be targeted toward grandparents. Marketing that relates to less expensive

decisions (what to eat, what to do) should be marketed toward children.














CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Aging Population

Rapid changes in all areas of life have occurred over the past 100 years. Diseases

such as polio have been vanquished, smallpox has been virtually eradicated, and

incidences of cholera and tuberculosis have been severely reduced (Hobbs & Damon,

2001). Because of the invention and use of penicillin during World War II along with a

greater understanding of microbiology and advances in Western medicine and public

health, age-old diseases have been systematically tackled in the United States and

throughout the world (Hobbs & Damon).

Because of these advances, life expectancy around the world has risen faster during

the 20th century than ever before (Ceresole, 1999). In 1860, half the population of the

United States was under age 20, and most of the population was not expected to live to

age 65 (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). Since that time, life expectancy has been rising. In the

last two decades of the 20th century, life expectancy at birth increased by 4.7 years for

men, and 3.5 years for women (Reuters, 2003). Where life expectancy in 1993 was 76

years, by the year 2050 life expectancy is proj ected to be 82.6 years (Cheeseman Day,

2000).

Over the last fifty years, the world's population has increased over three times

(Ceresole, 1999). During the 21st century, the total population of the United States tripled

(Hobbs & Damon, 2001), with a large amount of this growth coming from longer life

expectancy. Data gathered by the 2000 U. S. census support the massive growth of the









elderly population. In 2000, 35 million people 65 years of age and over were counted in

the United States (Smith, 2002). This number demonstrates a sharp increase as 31.2

million older people were counted in 1990, a 12 percent increase (Hetzel & Smith, 2001).

Looking at the increase in age over a longer period of time, the number of persons 65

years of age and older has increased by a factor of eleven, from 3.1 million in 1900 to

33.2 million in 1994 (Hobbs & Damon, 2001).

Seventy-five million babies were born in the United States between 1946 and

1964 (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). The coming high growth of the elderly population will

be the result of the entrance of this Baby Boomer cohort into the 65 and over age

category (Hobbs & Damon). The sheer magnitude of this human tidal wave can be seen

when considering that those born between 1946 and 1964 totaled 70 percent more people

than were born during the previous two decades (Hobbs & Damon). Because of the large

number of baby boomers, the rate of growth of the elderly population will far exceed the

growth of the population of the country as a whole (Hobbs & Damon). While growth of

the elderly population from 1990 to 2010 will be steady, due to the medical advances

stated above, there will be a massive increase in this population between 2010 and 2030,

as these baby boomers reach old age (Hobbs & Damon, 2001). According to the U. S.

Census Bureau and the National Institute on Aging (NIA), overall, the world's population

age 65 and older is growing by an unprecedented 800,000 people a month (Velkoff &

Kensella, 2000).

Grandtravel

Couples and immediate families have traditionally been the focus of researchers

and marketers. In the tourism industry however, there are many overlooked and under-

served niches within this family travel market; one of the most significant of these is the









grandparent/grandchild niche (Gardyn, 2001). Grandparents vacationing with their

grandchildren, without the grandchildren' s parents have become one of the fast-growing

travel trends to date (Curry, 2000). The growing demand for grandtravel is indicated by

the fact that the business of grandtravel has increased 60% since 1996 (Jeffrey & Collins,

2001).

The concept of grandtravel was first put into practice by Helena T. Koenig. She

developed Grandtravel, a company which runs escorted tours for grandparents and

grandchildren. Grandtravel has received calls from over 15,000 people, without

advertising (Schlosberg, 1990). Schlosberg hypothesized that if 15,000 sought out

Grandtravel, thousands more would respond to advertising. Grandtravel, which is based

in Chevy Chase, Maryland, has been in operation for 18 years. Tours range from 7 to 15

days and take place in the U.S., Europe, Africa, and Australia. Koenig believes the

grandtravel experience draws grandparents and grandchildren closer together and helps

them relate to each other in remarkable ways. Grandtravel may be an exciting way to

expand the world of grandparent/grandchild relationships (Koenig, 2005). Recognizing a

lucrative market niche, companies besides Grandtravel are now developing special

grandparent/grandchild excursions.

The Walt Disney Corporation was another pioneer with the idea of grandparents

traveling with their grandchildren. In 1998, Disney recognized opportunities to attract

grandparents and grandchildren to Disney parks for vacations. It was at this time that

Disney began to offer special packages and travel arrangements specifically arranged for

grandparents with grandchildren. These packages continue to be offered today (Walt

Disney World, 2005).









While grandtravel trips take travelers all over the world, there is a strong interest

for grandtravel in the state of Florida. An independent telephone survey conducted in

February 1998 asked 521 grandparents what their first, second, and third choice in the

United States would be as a destination to take their grandchildren on vacation.

Consistently, respondents mentioned Orlando. Forty-five percent of respondents

mentioned Orlando in their top three choices, and 34 percent stated Orlando was their

number one choice. Other popular cities included Washington D.C., San Francisco, and

New York City. The Orlando/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau found

similar results in a study conducted one year earlier. In this study, 29 percent of

respondents had participated in grandtravel, with the top destination being Orlando and

its surrounding attractions (Orlando/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau,

2001).

The grandtravel trend appears to be "catching on." This type of travel is now part

of the schedule for many tour operators across the country including Elderhostel, a

company well known for its educational travel programs (Gardyn, 2001). The grandtravel

business may be one of the most lucrative travel niches available. Jerry Mallett, who

researches travel trends as head of the Adventure Travel Society Inc, remarked that:

"Grandtravel is the new cutting edge, for the first time in history we're going to see

grandparents taking the grandkids along as the next level of leisure activities" (Maxwell,

1988, p 18).

Theoretical Framework

Grandparenting Styles

With 69 million grandparents throughout the country and even more throughout the

world (Jeffery & Collins, 2001), grandparent/grandchild relationships may vary









drastically between different families, and even within the same family. Cherlin and

Furstenberg (1992) identified three styles of grandparenting: remote, companionate, and

involved. Grandparenting styles are classified by the degree of contact between the

grandparents and the grandchildren and the amount of influence the grandparents have

on the grandchildren and vice versa (Cherlin & Furstenberg). The three grandparenting

styles can be thought of as being on a continuum, ranging from remote to involved, and

not very involved to extremely involved.

At the first end of the continuum is the remote relationship. Remote grandparents

generally see their grandchildren so infrequently that they are unable to establish the

easygoing, friendly relationship that is necessary for the closer grandparenting styles.

Some remote grandparents live close to their grandchildren but still do not interact with

them enough to develop a close relationship. Perhaps this is due to the relationship

between the grandparent and the children, or various other factors. Remote grandparents

find it difficult to become more than a symbolic Eigure in their grandchildren' lives

(Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1992).

At the middle of the grandparenting continuum is the companionate style.

Cherlin and Furstenburg (1992) report that the companionate style of grandparenting is

the dominant style of grandparenting. These grandparents describe themselves as playful

companions, and the givers and receivers of love and affection. Companionate

grandparents enj oy taking part in emotionally satisfying, leisure-time activities with their

grandchildren. Being able to spend time with their grandchildren without having to deal

with the responsibilities of child rearing is a popular theme among companionate

grandparents. These grandparents care a great deal about, and enj oy being with their










grandchildren. However they also enj oy the fact they can "love them and send them

home" (p 56).

At the opposite end of the continuum is the involved style of grandparenting.

These grandparents take an active role in raising some, or all of their grandchildren.

These individuals are likely to act more as parents than traditional grandparents. Daily or

almost daily contact, often after a disruptive event such as an out of wedlock birth,

divorce, or death of a parent, characterizes the involved style of grandparenting. Much

like the companionate grandparent, involved grandparents can be spontaneous and

playful. However, these styles of grandparenting are different in that involved

grandparents exert substantial authority and impose definite and sometimes demanding

expectations upon their grandchildren.

Intergenerational Solidarity

The concept of intergenerational solidarity is based on the idea that the more you

see and interact with a person, the closer your relationship will be with that person.

Mangen, Bengston, and Landry (1998) suggest that intergenerational solidarity, or how

close you feel to someone, is a multidimensional construct comprised of dependent on six

distinct but interrelated constructs of solidarity. Solidarity refers to the nature of social

bonds or ties that link individuals in one group to another. Intergenerational solidarity

refers to how close your relationship is with those in different generations in your family.

Specifically, the constructs of intergenerational solidarity examine issues of warmth,

affection, attraction to, and interaction with one another and providing assistance when

needed. The term solidarity is used to examine the variable manifestations of

cohesiveness within the family group. These constructs include affectual, associational,

consensual, functional, normative, and structural solidarity (Bengston & Schrader, 1982).









These constructs have been used in various studies concerning different aspects of

grandparent/grandchild relationships.

Affectual solidarity involves the perceptions of feelings or emotional closeness

and sentiment for family members in another generation. Associational solidarity

involves the type and frequency of interactions shared between family members in

different generations. Consensual solidarity is the degree or perception of agreement in

opinions, values, and orientations between family members in different generations.

Functional solidarity is the giving, receiving, and exchanging of tangible assistance and

resources between family members in different generations. Normative solidarity

involves the expectations regarding intergenerational support and filial obligations.

Finally, structural solidarity is the "opportunity" structure for intergenerational

interactions. This reflects the number, gender, and geographic proximity of the

intergenerational family members (Mangen et al., 1988).

Link Between Intergenerational Solidarity and Grandtravel

Previous to this study, the link between grandtravel and intergenerational solidarity

had not been established in the literature. Most of the existing work on grandtravel

reports numbers concerning how many people travel, and where these people are

traveling. This research typically does not use a theoretical or conceptual basis to reveal

the causes and reasons for grandtravel. In contrast, this study explored the relationship

between the constructs of intergenerational solidarity and travel. In so doing perhaps it

would be possible to identify and explain what types of grandparents are more likely to

participate in grandtravel. What types of grandparents are most likely to take part in

grandtravel? What types of relationships these grandparents have with their

grandchildren? Information regarding these questions would enable travel professionals










to determine which grandparents are most likely to take part in grandtravel, and better

enable those involved with grandtravel to make the experience as enj oyable and

rewarding as possible.

Justification

The justification for this study lies in a number of areas. First, this study will

contribute to the academic body of literature. In this area it contributes as one of the first

studies to apply the concept ofintergenerational solidarity to the leisure field. In

addition, from an industry point of view, this study can help determine how to give

grandparents and grandchildren the best travel experience possible. This study is relevant

to all areas of the country, but especially to Florida. Although the elderly population is

increasing throughout the nation, the West and South regions have had the most growth

in total population and in the older population (Hetzel & Smith, 2001). The older

population is a particular concern for the state of Florida. In a report of the ten places of

100,000 of more population with the highest proportion of their population 65 years or

over, five of these cities are located in Florida and include, Clearwater, Cape Coral, St.

Petersburg, Hollywood, Miami, and Hialeah (Hetzel and Smith). This demonstrates a

huge need for studies relating to the older population in the state of Florida. Specific to

this study is the interest in those who have grandchildren. The large numbers of older

adults who are retired, have money and free time, and reside in Florida demonstrates the

need for a study such as this. In additional, these grandparents may be geographically

removed from their grandchildren and therefore travel to see their grandchildren or vice

versa.









Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the concept of intergenerational

solidarity and grandtravel. This study provides information on the likelihood of

grandtravel, support of grandtravel and past experience of grandtravel in relation to

intergenerational solidarity. In addition, this study looked at decision-making tendencies

during grandtravel in relation to intergenerational solidarity. This information revealed

what types of grandparents are most likely to take part in grandtravel and what types of

relationships they have with their grandchildren. This was accomplished by examining

grandtravel from a theoretical and conceptual point of view.


Research Questions

Six research questions guided this research:

1. What do the distinct domains of intergenerational solidarity look like?

2. What does the profile of grandtravelers look like?

3. What is the relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
likelihood of grandtravel?

4. What is the relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
past experience with grandtravel?

5. What is the relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
support of grandtravel?

6. What is the relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making behaviors in regards to grandtravel?



Delimitations

This study was delimited to grandparents who live in The Villages and took part

in some of recreational activity of club. The residents of the Villages are all middle class

to high-income individuals or families. This is a newly developed community with










mostly new large houses. The large maj ority of The Villages residents are white, which

resulted 98% of response coming from white grandparents. Also, residents of The

Villages have chosen to live in a place with a myriad of recreational activities, because

they chose to move to such a place residents are most likely to enj oy such activities.

Participants volunteered to take part in this study. It is possible that volunteers of a

study concerning grandchildren had a better relationship with their grandchildren than

those who were not willing to take part. This may have resulted in a skewed result in the

intergenerational solidarity results if compared to those that would have resulted if the

sample had been random. Because of these limitations, results are limited in terms of

generalizability to all grandparents but may be generalized to those grandparents who

have similar circumstances to those to took part in this study.

Limitations

There were a number of limitations to this study. First, the questionnaire was 37

questions long and many participants may have suffered from fatigue while filling out the

questionnaire. Several participants completed the questionnaire as quickly as possible,

which may have caused them to not thoroughly consider all the questions. There were

some issues within the questionnaire, which may have posed a threat to the validity of

this study, mainly unclear questions. For example, when asked about the amount of

financial support they provided for their grandchildren it was not made clear whether or

not this included gifts. Additionally, the question of childcare did not include a response

for "none," making it unclear whether or not those who did not answer this question did

so because they did not provide any childcare or because they simply skipped the

question.









An additional limitation of this study is the fact that it asked about a "favorite"

grandchild. A large number of respondents were offended by the word favorite and opted

to withdraw from the study after seeing this word.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW


There are several areas of literature that relate to the topic of grandtravel.

Literature on senior travel examines a variety of topics relating to the travel tendencies of

older adults. Past experience with grandtravel is examined from several different

sources. Decision-making processes of families and the effects of decisions made by

different members of the family are examined in literature on decision-making.

Perception of grandtravel held by grandchildren reveals the child' s view of grandtravel.

Finally, a review of the literature on intergenerational relationships introduces us to the

variety of issues affecting the relationships between grandparents and grandchildren.

These areas of literature are examined below.

Senior Travel

The senior travel market is not a new topic in the travel literature. One of the first

studies on this topic was by Guinn (1980) who examined the motivations for recreation

participation among older recreational vehicle tourists. Using data gathered from over

1,000 recreational vehicle tourists, Guinn found that the primary motivations for travel

included rest and relaxation, opportunities to meet and be with friends and family,

physical exercise, and learning experiences. Results revealed that leisure motives and

recreation participation were closely associated with age and socioeconomic variables.

Also, the motive of rest and relaxation was more important to those with higher

socioeconomic status. Providing a learning experience was found to become more










important with age. Participation in leisure activities with friends and family became

increasingly important with age and socioeconomic status. Finally, recreation

participation in games, sports, and nature appreciation activities decreased with age.

Participants and non-participants of group travel programs were studied by Blazey

(1987). He study examined travel interests, constraints to travel, and other relevant

characteristics regarding those aged 55 and older that participated or did not participate in

a group travel program. Blazey found that reluctance to drive in the dark, not being

interested in the trip, and difficulty registering for the program were the most frequently

cited reasons for not taking part in the travel program. Participants were significantly

more likely to be female than male. Participants were more likely than non-participants

to report having average to excellent health. There was no significant difference in race,

educational attainment, employment status, or marital status between participants and

non-participants.

The female segment of senior travelers was studied by Hawes (1988). Results

indicated that women aged between 55 and 59 had a high interest in traveling overseas.

Women who indicated they would be most likely to travel to foreign places were those

who had previous experience traveling to such countries. Three of the five age groups

identified by Hawes, including the 70-and-over group, were not primarily interested in

resting and relaxing on vacation. The general profile of women travelers showed that this

group consisted of those with higher education levels and higher income levels, smaller

household sizes, activeness, and acceptance of the uncertainty involved with travel.

Shoemaker (1989) surveyed members of the senior travel market and segmented

the market into smaller homogenous groups. He surveyed 407 Pennsylvania residents










aged 55 and older. Travelers were divided into three clusters, based on their reasons for

travel. Cluster 1 was considered family travelers. According to Shoemaker this group

enjoyed spending time with immediate family members; enjoyed playing golf and going

shopping. This group also enjoyed shorter trips and preferred to return to a destination

rather than visiting a new one. Family travelers also preferred things to just happen

rather then plan carefully. Cluster II was referred to as "active resters." This group

sought spiritual and intellectual enrichment; enjoyed meeting people, socializing, resting

and relaxing, escaping the everyday routine, engaging in physical exercise, and visiting

historic sites. Finally, cluster III, the "Older Set" consisted of travelers who were

generally older than those in cluster I or II. Cluster III travelers were most likely to stay

in resorts where everything was included. This group also liked to visit historic sites, tell

family and friends where they had traveled, and take part in trips filled with activity.

Shoemaker' s cluster analysis of senior travelers was used by Vincent and de los

Santos (1990) in their study of older winter travelers to Texas. Senior winter travelers to

Texas were found to fit into two clusters: (1) "active resters" and (2) "older set." These

travelers' preferred longer trips over shorter ones, and sought many incidental activities.

These two studies are slightly different in that while Shoemaker examined senior

travelers based in Pennsylvania, Vincent and de los Santos examined snow birds who

traveled to Texas or the winter.

Different groupings were determined by Leuix, Weaver, and McCleary in 1994.

Their study of lodging preferences of the senior tourism market helped to identify three

types of leisure-travelers among older adults. These categories were novelty seekers,









active enthusiasts attracted to physically active pursuits while on vacation, and reluctant

travelers who are older, less educated and have a lower income.

Determining the difference between participants and non-participants was

examined by Zimmer, Brayley, and Searle (1995). They explored the differences between

older adults who traveled and those who did not. Results indicated that as age increased

the tendency to travel decreased. Also, as education level increased, tendency to travel

increased, and as mobility decreased, tendency to travel decreased. Other important

indicators of likelihood of travel included health status, income level, ability to handle

money, number of chronic health conditions, and interest in spending money on

recreation. As health status, income level, ability to handle money, and interest in

spending money on recreation decreased, tendency to travel also decreased. As number

of chronic health problems increased, tendency to travel decreased.

Similarly, Teaff and Turpin (1996) studied the preferences of senior travelers.

Travelers over the age of 50 preferred non-hectic, pre-planned, group-based pleasure

travel for rest and relaxation and visiting relatives. In contrast, travelers aged under 50

who traveled for rest and relaxation were more likely to participate in outdoor recreation

activities or to visit man-made amusement facilities. Teaf and Turpin also found that

52% of respondents 65 years of age and older planned to take three to four trips per year

during retirement, and that when people retired the number one activity they wanted to

engage in was travel. Conclusions indicate that travel may "be a very important life-

enriching resource" (p. 16).

The differences between segments of the older adults were examined by Backman,

Backman and Silverberg (1999). The authors examined the senior nature-based travel









market by comparing "younger seniors" (aged 55-64) with "older seniors" (over the age

of 65). Older seniors were more likely than younger seniors to visit friends and relatives

as the maj or purpose of their trip. Older senior travelers stayed longer on their trips (8.46

nights) than younger seniors (6.95 nights). Younger seniors spent less time planning for

their trip than older seniors. Younger seniors were also more interested in relaxation than

older seniors.

Hong, Kim, and Lee (1999) used data from the 1995 Consumer Expenditure survey

to examine factors associated with the likelihood of taking a trip. Race, education,

marital status, economic factors, and home ownership determined whether or not the

elderly were not going to travel. Income was significantly related to both the likelihood

to travel and the level of travel expenditure. Current income was the only variable that

significantly affected both the likelihood to travel and the actual amount of money spent

on trips. Finally, young-old (55-64) travelers were most likely to spend more on trips

than other groups of the elderly, possibly because for many there are peak earning years

and for many who are parents no longer have financial responsibilities for their children

(Hong et al).

The decision of senior citizens in Isreal to travel was examined by Fleischer and

Pizam (2002) in a study of the Israeli senior travel market. The decision to take a

vacation by Israeli seniors aged 55 and older was dependent not only on the individual's

self assessed health condition but also income level. Age did not play a significant part

in the decision to travel. In addition, these authors found that the number of vacation

days taken increased until age 65, and then dropped after the age of 75, revealing that

those ages 61 to 70 years of age tended to take the longest vacations.









The study of the Israeli seniors was extended by Fleischer and Seiler (2002).

Findings focused on past experience and income. Seniors with past vacation experience

took longer vacations than those without past experiences. There was a significant

positive relationship between income and the likelihood of vacation travel.

Leisure-travel patterns and meanings in later life were examined by Gibson (2002)

who found that in the early years of retirement individuals are busy travelers. Traveling

to Europe, taking part in Elderhostel programs, and traveling throughout the US to visit

friends and family were the most popular forms of travel amongst respondents. The

maj ority of respondents also felt that leisure-travel was an important part of their lives

both for educational and spiritual reasons.

In a study of senior traveler behavior in Taiwan, Huang and Tsai (2003) found that

the maj ority of respondents traveled for rest and relaxation. Spending time with

immediate family was also an important reason for traveling. When looking at all-

inclusive packaged tours, convenience was rated as the most important attribute, followed

by help with unfamiliar sights, language problems, and help with travel safety. Senior

travelers preferred their trips to be 6-10 days long. Taiwanese senior travelers were most

attracted to historical places, beautiful places, culture and eco-tourism. The biggest

barrier to travel were issues of health related mobility problems.

As demonstrated by the above studies, the senior travel market has been researched

in a number of ways. Major findings include the primary motivations for travel being to

visit with family and friends (Guinn, 1980; Gibson, 2002; Huang & Tsai, 2003), older

travelers prefer non-hectic, pre-planned, group-based travel for rest and visiting relatives

(Teaf and Turpin, 1996), participants are likely to be female and be in excellent health,









base decision to travel on self-assessed health condition and income level (Blazey, 1987;

Fleisher & Pizam, 2002), and as income and health status increase, likelihood of travel

also increases (Zimmer, Brayley & Searle, 1995). Even with this large amount of

literature, research concerning older adults traveling with their grandchild was not found

in the extensive literature review. This study will expand the study of older adults to

include grandtravel.

Link Between Grandparenting and Leisure

Very few studies have looked at grandparenting as it relates to leisure activities.

However, this link was examined by Wearing in a 1996 study, which looked at whether

or not grandmothers considered grandmotherhood as leisure. Results from 20 qualitative

interviews indicated that over half of respondents were ambivalent in determining

whether or not they considered grandmotherhood leisure. Six respondents stated that

grandmotherhood was leisure and two respondents said it was not. One of the

determining factors of whether or not grandmothers considered this role leisure was the

amount of childcare grandparents were required to provide to their grandchildren. As the

amount of childcare increased, the fewer grandmothers considered grandparenting a

leisure activity. This study demonstrates that grandparenting can be considered leisure,

but it is dependent on how much responsibility grandparents are required to have for their

grandchildren.

Past Experience with Grandtravel

In the year 2000 America' s 60 million grandparents spent $36.6 billion on their

grandchildren (Curry, 2000). Escorted grandtravel trips through the Grandtravel

company range from $6,700 per adult for a 10-day Wild West tour, to $17,625 for a 12

day trip in China. (Maxwell, 1998). Twenty seven percent of grandparents aged 50 to










59, and 16% of grandparents aged 60-74 said they vacationed with their grandchildren in

a typical month. According to this information, if grandparents spent $500 per trip with

grandchildren, Curry estimates that grandtravel would be at least a $6.5 billion market.

The key to the popularity of the grandtravel experience may be that this type of trip

offers something for everyone involved, even the parents who are not involved.

Grandparents are able to spend quality time with their grandchildren without interference

from the parents. The parents are able to relax, as they know their children are away with

someone they know and trust (Maxwell, 1998). Currently, the most popular grandtravel

trips include theme parks and cultural centers like Washington D.C., New York, and

Orlando. Safaris are popular for those wanting more extensive travel.

Maxwell reported that the most difficult part for the grandparents may be

remembering how to deal with young children and being prepared for any problems

(carsickness, homesickness, etc.) However, many trips are pre-arranged in order to

alleviate these problems. Often in planned group travel, grandparents are offered breaks

from the grandchildren through separate arranged activities. As an example, on Hong

Kong trips, grandparents get a day off for shopping and sightseeing, while grandchildren

are taking a tram tour.

Decision-making and Grandtravel

One of the earliest studies to examine children in family decision-making was that

of Berry and Pollay (1968). This study focused on the influence of children on family

decision-making by investigating the hypothesis that "the more assertive the child, the

more likely the mother would purchase the child's favorite brand of breakfast cereal" (p.

71) and "the more child-centered the mother, the more likely she would purchase the

child's favorite brands of breakfast cereal" (p. 71). The study was unable to support









either of these hypotheses, showing that child-assertiveness and mother child-

centeredness may not be directly related to purchasing decisions.

In order to determine the effect children had on their mother' s purchases, Ward

and Wackman (1972) studied children' attempts to influence mothers' purchases of

various products, and the mother's giving in to these attempts. The children's influence

on purchases of certain products decreased with age, depending on the type of product.

However, mother' s agreement with the child' s request increased with age. This could

most likely be due to a perceived increase in the child's competence level, as they begin

to understand what they need. The products that mothers most likely agreed with were

food products.

Early family decision-making literature primarily focused on the husband-wife

dyad. Davis and Rigaux (1974) examined the perception of marital roles in the decision

process. Their study addressed specific questions: (1) do marital roles in consumer

decision-making differ by phase of the process? (2) to what extent do husbands and wives

agree in their perception of roles at various phases of the decision process? The study

determined that marital roles were found to vary in the decision process. Roles in

decision-making also varied depending on what type of decision was being made, or what

the decision was related to. For example decisions were found to be either husband

dominated, automatic, wife dominated, or syncratic. Syncratic decisions were

considered to be very specialized and had an equal amount of influence exerted by the

husband and the wife.

In the early years, research concerning family purchasing activities was limited

and tended to characterize the wife as the principle family-purchasing agent. However,









this varied throughout the family life cycle. For example, family decisions were thought

to take place differently during the early marriage stage versus the late marriage stage,

with early marriage being a time of intense negotiation, and late marriage being a time in

which everything tends to be in a stage of flux. Because of this, Cox (1975) suggested

that viewing family purchase decision-making in the context of the goal-oriented

behavior of a small group may be more satisfactory than examining it in terms of the

relative power of husband and wife.

Szybillo and Sosanie (1977), examined decisions capable of reflecting a full range

of family role structures, and decisions that could be generalized into the idea of "family

outings." Specifically, questions regarded having dinner out, and going on a one-day

family trip were examined. The dominance of different family members varied within

the decisions being made. Families visiting fast food restaurants indicated a high degree

of adult/child interaction throughout the entire decision-making process. Family

decisions for day trips were also characterized by adult and child interaction. However,

the interaction was not as pronounced as that of the fast food restaurant decision. A

significant number (34%) of the decisions for family trips were made by the husband-

wife dyad, not including the child. This lead to further research involving the child as a

family decision maker.

Children's influence on family decision-making has been examined in terms of

deciding where families go when they eat out. Children's involvement in this decision

was examined across six decision-making stages including, problem recognition,

providing information, deciding on restaurant type, deciding on particular restaurant,

deciding how much will be spent, and making the final decision. The results of this study









indicated that children over the age of five were as involved as the parents in four of

these stages, recognizing the problem, providing information, deciding on restaurant type,

and deciding on a particular restaurant. Parents were in total control of the other two

stages, making the final decision, and deciding how much money would be spent

(Nelson, 1979).

Other research on family decision-making found that the husband and the wife

may perceive the amount of influence the child has on decisions differently (Jenkins,

1979). Through focus group interviews it was determined that in general, husbands more

than wives perceived their children to be more influential in family decision making.

Also, children were perceived to exert more influence in vacation decisions and less

influence in maj or appliance decisions. The vacation decisions were considered "child

dominant." The types of activities the family would take part in while on vacation were

the most likely to be influenced by children. The amount of influence children had on

vacation decisions varied by the number of children in the family (the more children the

more influence the children had). Perceived influence of the child also varied depending

on the level of education of the husband and number of hours spent at work. As these

variables increased, the amount of child decision-influence decreased.

The amount of influence parents perceive their children to have in terms of family

consumption may be related to the mother' s attitudes. Roberts, Wortzel, and Berkeley

(1980) studied mothers' attitudes and perceptions of children' s influence and their effect

on family consumption. Two research questions were developed, (1) do mothers'

attitudes toward a variety of family-related and social issues, influence their perceptions

of the amount of influence their children have on their brand choices? (2) Does the









amount of influence children have affect the amount of family consumption in that

particular product category? Results indicated that three attitudinal dimensions,

economic, health-related, and liberal versus conservative affect the amount of influence

mothers' allow their children to have on family purchasing decisions. The higher the

amount of concern was in these three categories, the lower the level of influence.

In examining travel behaviors, it is important to consider who the person is

traveling with. Individuals are most likely to travel as part of a group. In a study of the

dynamics of travel groups, Crompton (1981) sought to determine how groups influence

an individual's travel behavior. Four concepts were found to have influenced the

decision to travel. First, the group had a direct influence on the destination selected.

Second, members of groups who had traveled to a certain location influenced other

members, through casual conversations. This is referred to as the normative influence of

social groups. Third, individuals were influenced by the history of a groups travel

experiences. For example, if a person traveled often as a child, they were more likely to

travel often as an adult. Finally, travelers were affected by the locational influence of

social groups, i.e. traveling to visit friends and relatives. Those who take part in

grandtravel are likely to be affected by all four of these group related travel influences.

Contrary to Berey and Pollay's (1968) study where children were thought to

influence parents, studies have also examined parents influences on children. This

concept focuses on the idea of socialization. Socialization refers to children's acquisition

of consumer habits from their parents. Reverse socialization is the opposite. The type of

socialization that takes place varies depending on the communication between parents

and children. Children in families whose communication patterns encourage children to









develop their own ideas tend to have more influence on parents than children in families

who avoid communication. (Ekstrom, Tansuhaj, & Foxman, 1986).

Children's influence on family purchasing decisions has also been studied in terms

of family vacations. According to Swinyard and Sim (1987) children are significant

participants in each stage of the decision-making process for a variety of products,

including vacations, outside entertainment, and restaurants. In fact, children were

involved in approximately 60 to 80% of all decision stages.

The family typically is the predominant social group in which people choose to

spend their free time. Travel makes up a large amount of this free time. When family

members travel together who makes the decisions for the vacation? Travel related

decisions within the family are frequently examined in three ways, husband-dominated,

wife-dominated, or joint decision between husband and wife. When examining families

traveling to Alaska, Nichols and Snepenger (1988) found a maj ority of families used the

joint decision-making mode, with the husband-dominated mode coming in second, and

the wife dominating mode coming third. This study indicated that marketing efforts

should appeal to both spouses. Even though this study did not mention the influence of

children, the joint decision-making mode showed that more than one person makes the

deci sion.

The idea of joint decision-making was supported by Lackman and Lanasa's (1993)

study on decision-making activities for goods and services within a family. They found

decisions appeared to be more of an outcome of joint decision making. The presence of

children within the family had the potential to affect decision-making within the husband-









wife dyad. In families that had children, children played more of a role in the decision-

making process.

Lackman and Lanasa (1993) found that children have an especially important

influence on the decision-making process in terms of vacation. When making vacation

and travel decisions, 60% of families reported adolescents had an influence on decisions.

Because of this, Nickerson and Jurowski (2000) examined the benefits of conducting

surveys on vacationing children. Results indicated that children's response rate is higher

than that of adults, children are slightly more satisfied with the destination, and children

provide an important perspective in terms of planning and developing a destination to

increase child satisfaction. The authors suggested, because children play a major role in

the decision-making processes of family vacations, it is important to listen to what these

young customers have to say. Word-of-mouth advertising is one of the largest forms of

advertising, which children play a large part in. Luckily, children are more willing and

likely than adults to fill out and return surveys so their important ideas may be easily

accessible.

In their study on family vacation decision-making, Kim and Kerstetter (2001)

sought to broaden the understanding of children' s influence on family decision-making in

the context of travel. Results indicated that children had an influence on various aspects

of the family vacation decision, and that children' s influence changed under different

family structures. This indicates that children may have a different form of influence in

the grandtravel situation.

Perceptions of Grandtravel Held by the Grandchildren

The steady increase in the popularity of grandtravel is demonstrated by the fact that

grandparent/grandchild travel accounted for one fifth of all trips taken with children in









2000 (Gardyn, 2001). This percentage is an increase of 13% from 1999. In his study on

grandparent travel, Gardyn found that 20% of grandparents had been on a trip with their

grandchildren in the past year. While these trips included the child's parent, 12% of

grandparents reported having been on a trip with children in their family without another

adult present. The demand for grandtravel is not coming exclusively from grandparents.

The maj ority of grandchildren (56 %) ages 6 to 17 say they would "really like" to travel

with their grandparents. The youngest grandchildren were the most enthusiastic about the

opportunity with 78% of grandchildren aged 6 to 8 responding that they would like to

travel with their grandparents.

Intergenerational Relationships

The constructs of intergenerational solidarity are used to measure many different

aspects of grandparent/grandchildren relationships. For example, structural,

associational, normative, and functional solidarity are used to show how geographic

distance influences the frequency of association and assistance between grandparents and

grandchildren (Kivett, 1991).

Grandfathers' relationships with their grandchildren develop as they take part in

joint activities, provide assistance to, support, and help their grandchildren face family

challenges (Roberto, Allen, & Blieszner, 2001). The proximity of family households

influences the frequency of association and exchange of assistance and support between

grandfathers and grandchildren. Greater geographical distance in grandfather-grandchild

relationships, especially during the early years of the grandchild' s life, increase the

likelihood that the relationship will be remote (Roberto et al., 2001). However, even if

geographic distances increases the amount of contact between grandchildren and

grandfathers, this does not guarantee the formation of a close relationship.









The constructs of intergenerational solidarity have also been used to measure adult

grandchildren's perceptions of emotional closeness and consensus with their maternal

and paternal grandparents (Mills, et al, 2001). This study focused on the constructs of

affectual and consensual solidarity; they found that grandchildren feel emotionally closer

to maternal grandparents then they do to paternal grandparents. Overall, the most

emotional closeness is held toward maternal grandmothers. Results indicated that

grandmothers received the highest scores on affect and consensus regardless of lineage.

This supports the idea of kin-keepers theories that are based on the idea that women are

more involved in family relationships then men are; hence they are kin-keepers and hold

the primary responsibility of keeping the family together (Dubas, 2001). Dubas found

that gender is related to both closeness and importance young adults place on

relationships with their grandparents. Also, relations with maternal grandparents were

described as more important then those with paternal grandparents. Aspects that may

include affect and consensus include enjoying the grandparent' s personality and shared

activities (Kennedy, 1991,1992).

Affectual and consensual solidarity were used to examine cross-ethical

grandparent/adult grandchildren relationships (Giarrusso, Feng, Silverstein, & Bengston

2001). This study demonstrated that when both grandparents and their grandchildren are

asked about their relationships with one another, grandparents tend to rate the

relationships higher in terms of affect and consensus. This is known as the

intergenerational stake phenomenon. This is most common with Euro-American

grandparent/grandchild dyads. However, this varies across different ethnicities. In









Mexican American grandparent-grandchildren dyads, feelings if affect may exhibit a

reversal of the pattern demonstrated by that of Euro-Americans (Giarrusso et al., 2001).

Associational, functional, and affective constructs of intergenerational solidarity

were used by Silverstein and Marenco (2001) to determine the different roles

grandparents play in the grandchild's life throughout different life stages. In general,

grandparent involvement was characterized by frequent contact, high rates of support and

activity, and a strong sense of accomplishment and meaning in the grandparent role. This

varies with the age of the grandchild however. Grandparents with younger grandchildren

tended to have more interaction with the grandchildren then those with older

grandchildren. While younger grandchildren accompanied their grandparents to fun

activities and religious events, older grandchildren discusses personal concerns with

grandparents, but interacted with them less (Silverstein & Marenco, 2001.)

It is obvious that the grandparent/grandchild relationship is very complex and can

be affected by many different factors. The constructs of intergenerational solidarity have

been used to determine how geographic distance effects association and assistance

between grandparents and grandchildren, perceptions of emotional closeness and

consensus, intergenerational stake phenomenon, and relationship differences between

different life cycles.

Grandparent/grandchild relationships share many characteristics, but some are

distinctively different. Studies have examined a variety of these relationships.

Particularly, interesting is a study which examined the role of the grandfather. In a 2001

study, Roberto et al., conducted a qualitative study on grandfathers to examine the

interactional dynamics occurring within families. They examined the influence of









interactional dynamics on quality, meaning, and maintenance of relationships as

grandparents (fathers) and grandchildren grow older. Similarly, Dubas (2001) examined

the influence of gender on grandparent/grandchild. Controversially however, this study

attempted to determine which grandparents (maternal of paternal, grandmothers or

grandfathers) grandchildren felt closest to. The above studies, while focusing on

different areas, all focus on the general grandparent/grandchild relationship. Few studies

have explored grandparent/grandchild relationships as they relate to specific life

occurrences, events, or activities.

One of the shortcomings of many studies looking at grandparents/grandchild

relationships is the fact that researchers are often only able to gather data from one side of

the relationship. For instance in a 2001 study conducted by Dubas and a separate study

conducted by Mills, Wakeman and Fea (2001), data were gathered using grandchildren's

ideas and opinions about their relationships with their grandparents. In addition a 2001

study conducted by Silverstein and Marenco used grandparents to gather the data. The

problem with these studies is that even though relationships occur between two groups of

people, we only become aware of thoughts and feelings from one end. Few studies have

been able to avoid this issue by gathering data from both the grandparents and the

grandchild. One such study is that Giarusso, Feng, Silverstein and Bengtson (2001) who

surveyed both grandparents and grandchildren on the intergenerational stake

phenomenon.

Another issue concerning studies of grandparent/grandchild relationships is the lack

of diversity. Illustrative of this, Roberto et al., (2001) studied grandfathers perceptions

and expectations of relationships with their grandchildren in a qualitative matter. This










sample was very homogeneous. Of the 11 grandfathers, all were white except for one

African American.

A similar issue appears in Dubas' (2001) study of how gender moderates

grandparent-grandchild relationships, of the 33 5 midwestern students used as a sample,

98% were white. Because of the imbalance of white respondents in these studies, results

cannot be generalized to other populations. This idea is supported by the 2001 study by

Giarrusso et al., which demonstrated the differences in affect and consensus between

grandparents and grandchild in the Euro-American and Mexican-American dyads. While

Euro-American grandparents tended to have more affection for their grandchildren than

their grandchildren have for them, this pattern is reversed in Mexican American dyads.

Hence, the variability of relationships between different ethnic groups can be extremely

different and makes it important to take into consideration.

Studies concerning grandparent/grandchild relationships have not been in

agreement as to whom they consider a grandparent. The main discrepancy comes in

terms of age, period of birth and cohort. The age used for samples involving

grandparents varies between study to study and also within studies. For example,

Silverstein and Marenco conducted a national telephone survey interviewing 920

grandparents, 3 1% of which were under the age of 55. Conversely, Giarrusso surveyed

and compared results between Euro-American grandparents and Mexican-American

grandparents. The Euro-American grandparents in this study were all age 55 or above,

while the Mexican-American grandparents were all age 65 or above. Even though all

respondents were grandparents the samples are not equivalent in terms of age and leaves










questions concerning how the age, period of birth or cohort the grandparent belongs to

may affect the grandparent/grandchild relationship.

The importance of grandparent age is demonstrated in a 2001 study by Silverstein

and Marenco, which focused on how the grandparenting role changes in meaning and

with the aging of the family unit as both grandparents, and grandchildren pass through

different life stages. Results indicated that the life stage of grandparents and

grandchildren is an important factor in determining how the grandparent role is enacted.

Older grandparents are less likely to interact and recreate with grandchildren, and are

more likely to provide money or gifts. Consequently, the age and mindset/attitude of the

grandparents is an important aspect to take into consideration when examining the

grandparent/grandchild relationship.

Summary


In summary, there are several areas of literature that lead us to the present study.

Previous studies of senior travel have examined senior travel motivations and

preferences. Different segments of the senior travel market have been studied, including

female travelers, travel participants and non-participants. Finally, senior travelers have

been examined in terms of their likelihood to travel, especially in relation to their past

travel experiences.

Decision-making has been studied in several different ways, specifically in terms

of the family. Most family decision-making literature has focused on the husband-wife

dyad. In more recent research, family decision-making has been examined in terms of

the entire group, specifically children's influence on parents and visa versa. Decisions

made while eating out are the most studied decisions made by families. Other studies









have examined a child's influence on the mother in terms of purchasing decisions. In

terms of vacations and travel, adolescents have a large influence on decision making.

This may have a strong influence on grandtravel, as grandchildren state a strong interest

in traveling with their grandparents. Even though there are numerous studies regarding

family decision making, there is currently little research examining the

grandparent/grandchild decision-making process, and no research examining decision-

making during grandtravel.

Although there is little information presently available regarding grandtravel, there

are a few known facts. First, grandparents are very likely to travel or want to travel with

their grandchildren. Second, grandparents are most likely to want to take their

grandchildren to theme parks or cultural centers, and finally, the most difficult part of the

trip for the grandparent may be making sure they keep up with their grandchild.

Finally, intergenerational relationships have been studied in a number of ways.

Studies have examined gender and race influence on intergenerational relationships.

Studies have also examined the effects of aging on intergenerational relationships.
















CHAPTER 3
METHOD S

Data Collection

Data for this study were gathered using a convenience sample of residents of The

Villages Retirement Community. Data were gathered through surveys that consisted of

37 questions and took about 15 minutes to complete. Questions consisted of Likert-type

answers, multiple-choice answers, write in the number answers, etc. Between June 1,

2005 and August 15, 2005, the researcher traveled to The Villages retirement community

in Lady Lake, Florida to collect data (Figure 1).


SI 11001n CIeEmpmr' CrP*rt Mlyers E leynten Her
50I mi
m2nos anlhpe in .,2006477VEC
Figure 1 The Villages distance (www.maps.yahoo. com)









The researcher visited different social clubs including the Three C's Ohio Club,

The Michigan Club, The Kentucky Club, The Baby Boomers Club, The La Hacienda

Women's Club, the Pimlico Community Club, and The Villages Clog Hoppers. The

researcher collected surveys during The Villages College of Life Long Leamning' s open

house and shared a table on Wednesday evenings with the College of Life Long Leamning

at the Villages Spanish Square. The researcher also spent four Saturdays from 9 am to 4

pm collecting surveys in the lobby of the Mulberry Grove Recreation Center. An article

was printed in The Villages Daily Sun and the researcher was interviewed on The

Villages radio station in an effort to recruit participants. A total of 252 surveys were

collected (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of responses for different areas of data collection
Location N_ %
Mulberry Recreation Center
(3 visits) 75 30.0
Three C's Ohio Club
(2 visits) 34 13.0
Life Long Leamning College 30 8.4
Baby Boomers 26 10.3
Kentucky Club 20 7.9
Michigan Club 18 7.1
La Hacienda Women's Club 18 7.1
Pimlico Neighborhood Social 11 4.4
Village Clog Hoppers 10 4.0
Spanish Square Table 10 4.0
Total 252 100%
Please note percentages may not add up to exactly 100% due to rounding.

Survey Instrument

The questionnaire consisted of five parts: intergenerational solidarity, likelihood of

grandtravel, past travel experience, perceptions of grandtravel, and decision-making

during grandtravel. Respondents were asked to complete the survey while thinking about

one particular favorite grandchild for the entire questionnaire. This has been done before










by Mills (2001). Because grandparents have different types of relationships with each of

their grandchildren, asking respondents to complete the survey referring to their favorite

grandchild controls for responses of multiple grandchildren. Without this, respondents

may or example answer question 1 referring to their oldest grandchild, question 2

referring to their youngest grandchild, etc.

It is predicted that higher levels of intergenerational solidarity will lead to higher

levels of grandchild decision-making, more favorable perceptions of grandtravel, and

higher levels of past experience with grandtravel. This in turn will lead to a higher

likelihood to take part in future grandtravel experiences.

Independent Variable

The independent variable of this study is intergenerational solidarity (IGS).

Through a variety of questions concerning the relationship with their grandchildren,

grandparent' s level of intergenerational solidarity with their favorite grandchild was

determined. Intergenerational solidarity was ranked on a three point scale 1 = high, 2 =

medium, 3 = low. Structural solidarity was measured as either high or low. By

comparing intergenerational solidarity to the answers given concerning likelihood to take

part in grandtravel, it was determined whether or not grandparents with higher levels of

intergenerational solidarity would likely exhibit differences in likelihood to take part in

grandtravel as compared with grandparents with lower levels of intergenerational

solidarity .

Intergenerational solidarity was measured using six distinct, but interrelated

constructs; affectional, associational, consensual, structural, normative, and functional

solidarity. In order to answer these questions, respondents were asked to do so referring

to one particular grandchild.









Affectual solidarity was measured using 6 questions (1) How well do you get along

with your favorite grandchild, (2) how well do you feel you understand your favorite

grandchild, (3) how well do you feel this grandchild understands you, (4) overall, how

well do you and your favorite grandchild get along together at this point in your life, (5)

how is communication between you and this grandchild exchanging ideas of talking

about things that really concern you at this point in you life and (6) taking everything into

consideration how close do you feel is the relationship between you and your favorite

grandchild? (Table 2).

Questions 1-4 were answered on a six-point scale including not at all well, not too

well, somewhat well, pretty well, very well and extremely well. Question 5 was

answered on a five-point scale including not at all good, not too good, somewhat good,

pretty good, and very good. Finally, question 6 was answered on a six-point scale

including not at all close, not too close, somewhat close, pretty close, very close, and

extremely close.

Associational solidarity was measured using a single question that asks, in the past

year approximately how many times have you been in contact with your favorite

grandchild. Respondents were asked to write a number next to the relevant response: in

person, over the phone, letters, and email.

Consensual solidarity was also measured with one question. In general, how

similar are you opinions and values about life to those of your favorite grandchild at this

point in time? Respondents completed this question by choosing one of six choices, not

at all similar, not too similar, somewhat similar, pretty similar, very similar, and

extremely similar.










Structural solidarity was measured in one question. Respondents were asked, what

is your gender, answered by circling male or female, and what is the gender of your

favorite grandchild, also answer by circling male of females. Next respondents are asked,

how close does your favorite grandchild live to you? Respondents select either within the

same city, within the same state, in the same region of the country, in a different region of

the county, or in a different country. In what year were you born determined the

respondent' s age, and was answered by writing the year in the blank. How old is your

favorite grandchild was answered by the respondent writing the number of years in the

blank.

Functional solidarity was measured in two questions. First, "In the past year how

much financial support have you provided for you favorite grandchild." Respondents

selected either none, $50 or less, between $51 and $100, between $101 and $500,

between $501 and $1000, over $1001, or over $10,000. The second question, "In the past

year how much childcare have you provided for your favorite grandchild," was answered

by respondents choosing either none, 1-12 hours, 1-3 days, 3-7 days, 2-3 weeks, 1 month,

2-3 months, 4-6 months, or more then 6 months.

Normative solidarity, the final construct, was measured using one question. This

question stated; looking toward the future how much do you expect that your favorite

grandchild will feel a since of family obligation toward you? Respondents chose either,

none at all, a little, some, a good amount, quite a bit, or a great deal.










Table 2. Intergenerational solidarity scale
Catergory Question Score
Affectional
1. How well do you get along with your favorite grandchild? 1 to 6
2. How well do you feel you understand your favorite
grandchild? 1 to 6
3. How well do you feel this grandchild understands you? 1 to 6
4. Overall, how well you do your favorite grandchild get along
together at this point in your life? 1 to 6
5. How is communication between you and this grandchild -
exchanging ideas or talking about things that really concern you
at this point in your life? 1 to 5
6. Taking everything into consideration, how close do you feel is
the relationship between you and your favorite grandchild? 1 to 6
Associational
7. In the past year, approximately how many times where you in
contact with your favorite grandchild? 1 to 4
Consensual
8. In general how similar are your opinions and values about life
to those of your favorite grandchild' s at this point in time? 1 to 6
Structural
9. How close does your favorite grandchild live to you? 1 to 5
Functional
10. In the past year, how much financial support have you
provided for your favorite grandchild? 1 to 7
11. In the past year, how much childcare have you provided for
your favorite grandchild? 1 to 8
Normative

12. Looking toward the future how much do you expect that your
favorite grandchild will feel a sense of family obligation toward
you? 1 to 6
Total 12 to 71










Dependent Variable

It is hypothesized that the level of intergenerational solidarity would be related to

several components of grandparent' s travel. Specifically, decision-making, perceptions

of grandtravel, and past experience with grandtravel were examined.

Perceptions of grandtravel were examined by five questions. The first question

asked, what do you think about the idea of traveling with your favorite grandchild

without the parents of that child? Answers included strongly support, support, neither

support or don't support, somewhat support, and do not support. Next, respondents were

asked, if you were to travel with your favorite grandchild without the parents of this

child, what would you like to do. This is asked as an open-ended question. Another

open-ended question followed, asking respondents where they would like to go. The

fourth question in this section was how long would you like to stay on such a trip?

Answers included 1-2 nights, 3-4 nights, 5-6 nights, one week, 1.5 weeks, or 2 weeks.

The last question in this section asked respondents what types of activities they would

like to take part in during a trip with their grandchild. Responses included sightseeing,

taking part in educational classes, sporting activities, crafts, shows (theater, dance, etc.),

shopping, or relaxing.

A number of questions were asked in order to determine respondents past

experiences with grandtravel. First, respondents were asked if they had ever traveled

with their grandchild without the parents of that child. This question was answered by

circling either yes or no. If the respondent answered yes, they were then asked how many

times they had traveled with their favorite grandchild without the parents of that child.

They were then asked where they traveled too. Respondents then chose in state, out of

state but the same region of the country, out of state in a different region of the country,









or internationally. For this question respondents were asked to check all answers that

applied. Next respondents were asked if this trip took place within the last 12 months

answers were either yes or no. The next question asked how long the trip was.

Respondents chose either 1-2 days, 3-5 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, or more then 2 weeks.

Finally, an open-ended question asked, what was your favorite place you traveled to with

your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child?

The final section of the survey examined the decision-making process between

grandparents and grandchildren while traveling. Respondents were asked to predict the

percentage of the decisions they made, and the percentage of the decision they allowed

their grandchild to make in relation to different aspects of the trip. The questions

included where to travel, when to travel, how much money to spend etc. Respondents

were asked about, where to travel, when to travel, what types of activities to take part in,

where to stay, and what to eat. For each of these questions respondents had a response

space for themselves and a space for the grandchild. Respondents placed a percentage in

each response space with the numbers adding up to 100%.

The decision-making framework utilized in the present study is a variation of

Jenkin's (1978) study on family decision making. The purpose of Jenkins' study was to

determine how families made vacation decisions. More specifically, Jenkins sought to

determine which members of the family decided where to go, where to stay, how long to

stay, how much to spend, and what to do.

For the present study, the framework was adjusted to use the

grandparent/grandchild dyad. Like the husband/wife dyad used by Jenkins, grandparents

were asked to record what percentage of the vacation subdecision was made by the










grandparent, and what percentage of the subdecision was made by the grandchild. The

decision was then categorized as either grandparent dominant, grandchild dominant or

shared equally by both. As with Jenkins' study, understanding how families or any sort

of traveling dyad makes decisions is important to travel agents, travel promoters and state

and local governments interested in attracting tourists. With the most influential member

identified for various decisions, marketers can focus their efforts on the member of the

dyad most likely to influence that decision.

Demographic questions included; race (White, Black, African American, American

Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Other pacific islanders, or some other

race), yearly income (less then $10,000, $10,000-30,000, $30,000-50,000, $50,000-

$100,000 or over $100,000), marital status (single (never married), married (first

marriage), widowed, divorced, remarried after divorce or death of spouse, or living to

together as if we were married) paternal versus maternal relationships (how is your

favorite grandchild related to you)? Respondents selected, child of a son, child of a

daughter, child of a son-in-law, or child of a daughter-in-law.

Setting up the Data for Analysis

Computing the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity

In order to respond to research questions #1 "What do the distinct domains of

intergenerational solidarity look like?" each domain was examined individually.

Responses to 5 of the 6 survey questions for affectual solidarity were measured on a six-

point scale. One item was measured on a five-point scale. To examine the affectual

solidarity variable that was measured on a 5-point scale the variable was arithmetically

transformed from a 5-point scale into a 6 point scale (Table 4). A reliability measure was

then run to determine the reliability between these 6 variables (Table 5). The six










variables were then added together and divided by six to create a single variable of

affectual solidarity.

Table 3. Affectual solidarity responses (six-point scale)
Response Not at all Not at Somewhat Pretty Very Extremely
well/good all well well well well well
% % % % % %


How well do you
get along with
your favorite
grandchild?
(n=251)

How well do you
feel you
understand your
favorite grandchild?
(n=251)

How well do you
feel this grandchild
understands you?
(n=250)

How well do you
and your favorite
grandchild get along
together at this point
in your life?
(n=251)


0.0 0.4


6.0 34.2


58.2


0.0 2.0


26.7 35.9


29.5


0.4 2.4






0.4 0 .8


14.0


36.4 31.6


15.2


1.6 13.1


38.6


45.4


How close do you feel
is the relationship
between you and your
favorite grandchild?
(n=250) 0.4 2.0


22.8


37.2


28.0


Total


0.2 1.5 6.4 21


35.5 35.2










Table 4. Transforming of affectual solidarity scale response from a 5 to a 6 point scale
How is communication between you and this grandchild (n=249)
Old Scale Item New Scale Item %
Not at all 1 1.2 1.2
Not too 2 2.4 5.2
Somewhat 3 3.6 16.9
Pretty 4 4.8 41.0
Ver 5 6.0 35.7


Table 5. Reliability of affectual solidarity
Response Corrected Item Alpha if Standardized Cronbach's
Total Correlation item Deleted Item Alpha Alpha Coeff.
1 (n=251) .70 .88 .90 .90

2 (n=251) .74 .87

3 (n=250) .71 .88

4 (n=251) .73 .88

5 (n=249) .70 .88

6 (n=250) .77 .87

To determine the level of associational solidarity, responses were recorded into

seven different variables; (1) once a year, (2) once every 6 months, (3) once every 2-3

months, (4) once a month, (5) once every 2-3 weeks, (6) once a week, and (7) everyday.

Frequencies were then run on each type of contact. To create one measure of

associational solidarity, the four different types of contact (in person, over the phone,

letters, and email) were added together on the assumption that no type of contact was

more important than the other. Frequencies were then run to show the frequency of

contact across all four variables (Table 7).

Frequencies were run on each of the two functional solidarity variables; financial

support and childcare. These two variables, were then added together to create an index

for one measure of functional solidarity.










Consensual, structural and normative solidarity were all measured with one

variable. Frequencies were run on each of these variables to determine what these

different domains of intergenerational solidarity look like.

Analysis of the Data

What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like?

Once the six domains of solidarity were collapsed into one variable for each

domain (as explained above), frequencies were run. Where possible each domain was

recorded into three groups; low, medium, and high. This created a consistent measure for

all six domains of solidarity. Because of the distribution of responses, structural

solidarity was recorded into only low and high.

What Does the Profile of Grandtravelers Look Like?

A profile of the grandtravelers was created by running frequencies on demographic

information. The profile also includes frequency statistics for likelihood of grandtravel,

past experience with grandtravel, support of grandtravel, and decision-making tendencies.

Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of
Grandtravel?

In order to determine if there was a relationship between IGS and likelihood of

grandtravel, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed between the responses of

the question "would you consider traveling with your grandchild" and the

intergenerational solidarity scale. In to determine which domain of IGS was most likely

to influence likelihood of grandtravel, a stepwise regression was run between these two

variables. The independent variable was IGS and the dependent variable was likelihood

of grandtravel. In order to determine which domain of IGS was most likely to influence










support for grandtravel, a stepwise regression was run between these two variables. The

independent variable was IGS and the dependent variable was support for grandtravel.

What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past Experience with
Grandtravel?

In order to determine if there was a relationship between IGS and past experience

with grandtravel, crosstabs were run between the responses of the question "have you

ever traveled with your grandchild" and the intergenerational solidarity scale.

What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Support of
Grandtravel?

The relationship between intergenerational solidarity and perceptions of grandtravel

was determined by running an analysis of variance (ANOVA). This ANOVA was

calculated using the mean of the responses to the question "what do you think about the

idea of traveling with your favorite grandchild without the parents of that child?"

(measured on a 5 point likert scale and the means of the combined intergenerational

solidarity scale.

What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Decision-making
Behaviors Toward Grandtravel?

In order to determine the relationship between intergenerational solidarity and

decision-making, cross-tabs were run between the different types of decisions and the

different domains of intergenerational solidarity. These cross tabs utilized the decision-

making variables that were recorded into grandparent-dominant, grandchild-dominant, and

both (equally shared decision).















CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Results

What Do the Distinct Domains of IGS Look Like?

Affectual Solidarity

For affectual solidarity, the most responses (58.2%) were received in the extremely

well category when grandparents were asked how well they got along with their favorite

grandchild. For the overall affectual domain, the highest percentage (35.5%) of

grandparents indicated that they would rate their affectual solidarity level in the "very

well" category, followed by the "extremely well" category with 35.26%. Fewer

respondents (21.0%) indicated that their affectual solidarity was "pretty well." Only

6.48% fell into the "somewhat well" category and even less (1.52% and .24%) were

classified and as to well or not at all well, respectively (Table 3).

The fifth question in the affectual solidarity responses was measured on a 5 point

scale rather than a 6 point scale. For this question regarding communication, the largest

percentage (35.7%) indicated that communication with their grandchild was pretty good.

Very good communication was reported by 3 5.7% of the sample. Somewhat good

communication was reported by 16.9% of the grandparents. Fewer respondents indicated

not too good and not at all good communication with 5.2% and 1.2%, respectively (Table

4).









Associational Solidarity

Associational solidarity was measured by the amount of contact grandparents had

with their grandchildren over the last year. This was measured by asking grandparents

how often they contacted their grandchildren in-person, over the phone, through letters,

and through emails. This construct was created by adding the items together under the

assumption that each method was weighted the same in importance. For in-person

contact, grandparents tended to have contact with their grandchild once every 2-3 months

(35.7%). With regards to phone contact, 20.5% of respondents contact their grandchild

over the phone once every 2-3 months and 20.5% contacted their grandchild over the

phone once a month. Grandparents tended to contact grandchildren by letters every 2-3

months (57.8%) or every 6 months (32.9%). Email was the least frequent method of

contact (37%); those who did use email tended to do so every 2-3 months (30.0%) (Table

6).

Table 6. Associational solidarity frequencies of the amount of contact with grandchild
in the past year
Type of Contact Frequency Valid Percent
_In Person (n=23 8)
Once a year 19 8.0
Once every 6 months 45 18.9
Once every 2-3 months 85 35.7
Once a month 35 14.7
Once every 2-3 weeks 29 12.2
Once a week 24 10.1
Everyday 1 0.4

Over the Phone (n=210)
Once a year 5 2.4
Once every 6 months 13 6.2
Once every 2-3 months 43 20.5
Once a month 43 20.5
Once every 2-3 weeks 63 30.0
Once a week 40 19.0
Everyday 3 1.4










Table 6. Continued
Type of Contact Frequency Valid Percent
Letters (n=82)
Once a year 6 7.3
Once every 6 months 27 32.9
Once every 2-3 months 31 37.8
Once a month 12 14.6
Once every 2-3 weeks 5 6.1
Once a week 1 1.2

Emails (n=90)
Once a year 7 7.8
Once every 6 months 10 11.1
Once every 2-3 months 27 30.0
Once a month 12 13.3
Once every 2-3 weeks 22 4.4
Once a week 11 12.2
Everyday 1 1.1

The index of contact or associational solidarity revealed a mean contact of 2.26

times whereby the maj ority of grandparents were in contact with their grandchildren

more than once every six months, but less then every 2-3 months (Table 7 and 8).

Table 7. Associational solidarity frequencies combined
Res onse (n=252) n % M
0.0 5 2.0 2.26
0.25 3 1.2
0.50 5 2.0
0.75 17 6.7
1.00 4 1.6
1.25 13 5.2
1.50 30 11.9
1.75 18 7.1
2.00 19 7.5
2.25 23 9.1
2.50 17 6.7
2.75 24 9.5
3.00 22 8.7
3.25 17 6.7
3.50 12 4.8











n % M
10 4.0
5 2.0
2 0.8
3 1.2
2 0.8
1 0.4


Consensual Solidarity

Responses for consensual solidarity revealed that over one-third (36.2%) of

respondents indicated that they felt their opinions and values about life were "pretty

similar" to those of their favorite grandchild. One quarter of respondents indicated that

their opinions and views were "very similar" to those of their grandchild. While, 17.9%

indicated that their opinions/views were "somewhat similar" to those of their grandchild,

and 10.6% indicated their opinion/views were "not too similar." Grandparents with

extremely similar opinions/views to their grandchild made of only 8.5% of respondents

and only 1.3% indicated that their views/opinions were not at all similar to their

grandchild (Table 9).

Table 9. Consensual solidarity responses
Response (n=235) n %
Not at all similar 3 1.3
Not to similar 25 10.6


Table 7. Continued
Response (n=252)
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.75
5.00
5.25


Table 8. Total associational solidarity index
Res onse (n=252
Less than 1
Between 1-2
Between 2.1-3
Between 3.1-4
Between 4. 1-5
More than 5


11.9
31.7
34.0
17.5
2.8
0.4


M
2.26









Table 9. Continued
Response (n=235) n %
Somewhat similar 42 17.9
Pretty similar 85 36.2
Very similar 60 25.5
Extremely similar 20 8.5


Structural Solidarity

Responses for structural solidarity indicated that 157 respondents (62.8%) live in a

different region of the country then their grandchild. Only 17.6% lived in the same

region of the country and 12.8% lived in the same state as their grandchild. Even less

(4.8%) of grandparents lived in the same city as their grandchild and 2% of respondents

lived in a different country then their grandchild (Table 10).

Table 10. Structural solidarity responses
Re ponse (n=250) n %
Within the same city 12 4.8
Within the same state 32 12.8
In the same region of the country 44 17.6
In a different region of the country 157 62.8
In a different country 5 2.0


Functional Solidarity

Two questions were asked to determine the level of functional solidarity. When

asked how much financial support they provided for their grandchild over the past year,

the results were bimodal. The largest percent (27.2%) answered $101-$500, while the

second largest percent (25.8%) indicated that they did not provide any financial support.

Responses were very similar for $51-$100, $501-$1000 and over $1000 with 13.7%,

13.7% and 12.9% respectively. Only 4.4% indicated that they provided $50 or less in

financial support and even less 1.2% reported that they provided over $10,000 in

financial support over the last year (Table 11).










Table 11. Functional solidarity responses financial support
Res onse (n=248) n %
None 64 25.8
$50 or less 11 4.4
$51-$100 34 13.7
$101-$500 70 27.2
$501-$1000 34 13.7
Over $1000 32 12.9
Over $10,000 3 1.2


With regards to hours of childcare, over one-quarter (28.9%) of respondents

indicated that they only provided 1-12 hours of childcare for their grandchild per year.

Close to 20% provided either 4-7 days of childcare (20.2%) or 2-3 weeks of childcare

(19. 1%). Fewer respondents (12.7%) provided 1-3 days of childcare. The greatest

amount of childcare received the lowest responses with 9.8% indicating that they

provided one month of childcare. Four respondents (2.3%) indicated providing more

than 6 months of childcare for their grandchild (Table 12).

Table 12. Functional solidarity responses childcare
Res onse n=173) n %
1-12 hrs 50 28.9
1-3 days 22 12.7
4-7 days 35 20.2
2-3 weeks 33 19.1
1 month 17 9.8
2-3 months 11 6.4
4-6 months 1 0.6
More than 6 months 4 2.3



Normative Solidarity

For normative solidarity, 3 1.2% of respondents indicated that they expected their

grandchild to feel a sense of family obligation toward them. Just over one fifth indicated

"some" level of normative solidarity, while 19.4% expected their grandchild would feel a










great deal of family obligation. Over 17% believed their grandchild would feel quite a bit

of obligation (Table 13).

Table 13. Normative solidarity responses
Response (n =247) n %
None at all 11 4.4
A little 14 5.7
Some 54 21.9
A good amount 77 31.2
Quite a bit 43 17.4
A great deal 48 19.4



Intergenerational Solidarity

The domains of intergenerational solidarity were recorded into three groups: low,

medium, or high. For affectual solidarity, associational solidarity, and consensual

solidarity the maj ority of grandparents fell into the medium IGS (34.9%, 3 5.5% and

36.2% respectively). Due to bimodal distribution, structural solidarity was measured as

either high or low. The majority (64.8%) fell into the high group. Finally, functional and

normative solidarity had the highest percentages of respondents (33.9% and 36.8%) in the

low group (Table 14).

Table 14. Combined intergenerational solidarity profile
Intergenerational Solidarity Frequency Valid Percent
Domain
Affectual (n=218)
Low 68 31.2
Medium 76 34.9
High 74 33.9
Associational (n=251)
Low 77 30.7
Medium 89 35.5
High 85 33.9
Consensual (n=235)
Low 70 29.8









Table 14. Continued
Intergenerational Solidarity Frequency Valid Percent
Domain
Medium 85 36.2
High 80 34.0
Structural (n=250)
Low 88 35.2
High 162 64.8
Functional money (n=248)
Low 75 30.2
Medium 104 41.9
High 69 27.8
Functional care (n=251)
Low 64 25.8
Medium 115 46.4
High 69 27.8
Normative (n=247)
Low 79 32.0
Medium 77 31.2
High 91 36.8

What Does the Profile of Grandtravelers Look Like?

In order to profile grandparents, the following variables were analyzed; gender of

grandparent, gender of grandchild, age of grandparent, age of grandchild, number of

grandchild, race/ethnicity of grandparent, average yearly income, marital status and

relation of grandchild. The results are presented in (Table 15).

Gender of Grandparent

Almost two thirds of respondents (68%) were female. The remaining 32% were

male (Table 15).

Gender of Grandchild

Close to half (52.5%) of respondents reported that their favorite grandchild was

female while 47.5% of respondents reported that their favorite grandchild was male

(Table 15).









Age of Grandparent

Over 80% of respondents were between the ages of 56 and 75. The largest

percentage of respondents (24.3%) were aged between 66 and 70. The next highest age

category was 61-65 years old (20.9%) followed closely behind by 71-75 years old

(20.4%) and 56-60 years old (19.6%). Seven respondents (3%) reported being 51-55

years old and seven respondents (3%) reported being in the youngest age category of 43-

50 years old. Finally, four respondents (1.7%) were 81 years of age or older. The mean

age of respondents was 66 years old (Table 15).

Age of Grandchild

More than a quarter (25.7%) of respondents reported that their favorite grandchild

was between the ages of 6 and 10. Close to a quarter (24.9%) of respondents reported

that this grandchild was between 11 and 15 years old. Next, 18% reported that their

favorite grandchild was between the ages of 1 to 5 years old. Fewer respondents had

older grandchildren with 11.4% reporting the grandchild was 21-25 years old, 5.3%

reporting the grandchild was 26-30 years old, and 2.4% reporting that their favorite

grandchild was over 31 years old. The youngest favorite grandchild was 1 year old and

the oldest grandchild was 40 years old. The mean age was 13 (Table 15).

Number of Grandchildren

Over half of the respondents reported that they had 2-5 grandchildren. The most

respondents (26.3%) reported that they had 2-3 grandchildren and 23.9% reported that

they had 4-5 grandchildren. Fewer respondents (15.8%) reported having 6-7

grandchildren. The two highest categories, 8-9 grandchildren and 10+ grandchildren

both had 1 1.7% of responses. The smallest group (10.5%) was grandparents with only

one grandchild. The mean number of grandchildren was 5 (Table 15).









Race/Ethnicity

The vast majority (98%) of respondents were white. Only 3 respondents (1.7%)

were white/Hispanic. One person (.4%) was black and one person (.4%) was Native

American (Table 15).

Average Yearly Income

Sixty-nine respondents (35.2) reported that their average yearly income was

between $30,001-50,000. This was followed closely behind by 68 respondents (34.7%)

who reported that their average yearly income was $50,001-100,000. Fewer respondents

(17.3%) reported that their average yearly income was $10,001-30,000 and even fewer

(10.7%) reported $100,001-500,000. The lowest income category of less than $10,000

had only 4 respondents (2.0%) (Table 15).

Marital Status

The maj ority of respondents (64.2%) were married. Fifty-four respondents (22%)

were remarried after a divorce or death of a spouse. Only 7.7% of respondents were

widowed/not remarried, 4.5 of respondents reported that they were divorced and 1.2%

reported that they had never been married. One respondent (0.4%) reported that they

were living with someone as if they were married (Table 15).

Relation of Grandchild

The maj ority of respondents (62.5%) reported that their favorite grandchild was

the child of a daughter. Fewer respondents (36.3%) reported that this grandchild was the

child of a son. Only 8.0% reported that their favorite grandchild was the child of a son-

in-law. Finally, one respondent (0.4%) reported that their favorite grandchild was the

child of a daughter-in-law (Table 15).












Valid Percent


Table 15. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents


Frequency


Socio-demographic
Characteri sti c
Gender of Grandparent (n=244)
Female
Male
Gender of Grandchild (n=236)
Female
Male
Age of Grandparent (n=23 5)
43-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
66-70
71-75
75-80
81+
Age of Grandchild (n=245)
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31+
Number of Grandchildren (n=247)

2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10+
Race/ethnicity (n=245)
White
White/Hi spanic
Black
Native American
Average Yearly Income (n=196)
Less than $10,000
$10,001-30,000
$30,001-50,000
$50,001-100,000
$100,001-500,000
Marital Status (n=246)
Single never married


166
78


68.0
32.0

52.5
47.5

3.0
3.0
19.6
20.9
24.3
20.4
7.2
1.7

18.0
25.7
24.9
12.2
11.4
5.3
2.4

10.5
26.3
23.9
15.8
11.7
11.7

98.0
1.2
0.4
0.4

2.0
17.3
35.2
34.7
10.7









Table 15. Continued
Socio-demographic Frequency Valid Percent
Characteri sti c
Married 158 64.2
Widowed 19 7.7
Divorced 11 4.5
Remarried 54 22.0
Living together 1 0.4
Relation of Grandchild (n=240)
Child of a son 87 36.3
Child of a daughter 150 62.5
Child of a son-in-law 2 8.0
Child of a daughter-in-law 1 0.4

What Does the Travel Related Profile Look Like?

The maj ority of respondents (79.2%) stated that they would consider traveling with

their favorite grandchild without the parents of the grandchild. Only 1 1.1% of

grandparents said "maybe" when asked if they would consider this type of travel and only

9.7% said they would not consider traveling with their grandchild without the parents of

that child (Table 16).

Table 16. Frequencies of likelihood of grandtravel
Res onse nI %
Yes 114 79.2
No 14 9.7
Maybe 16 11.1

When asked whether they had ever traveled with their favorite grandchild

responses were about split, though heavier on the "no" side. The largest percentage

(57. 1%) said they had not taken part in this type of travel while 42.6% said that they had

(Table 17).

Table 17. Frequencies of past experience with grandtravel
Res onse (n=245) n %
Yes 105 42.6
No 140 57.1










When asked what they thought about the idea of traveling with their favorite

grandchild without the parents of this child, 201 respondents said they either strongly

supported this idea (43.5% of respondents) or supported this idea (3 7.5% of respondents).

The amount of support decreased where 8. 1% said neither support nor not support, 6%

somewhat supporting the idea, and 4.8% reported not supporting the idea (Table 18).

Table 18. Frequencies of support for grandtravel
Re ponse (n=248) n %
Do not support 12 4.8
Somewhat support 15 6.0
Neither 20 8.1
Support 93 37.5
Strongly Support 108 43.5


What Does the Decision-making Profile Look Like?

Where to Go

Close to half (50.5%) of respondents reported that they made the maj ority of the

decision regarding where to go, when or if they would travel with their grandchild

without the grandparents of that child. One-third of respondents (32.7%) reported that

they would allow the grandchild to make the maj ority of this decision and 16.8% reported

that they would share equally in this decision with their grandchild (Table 19).

When to Go

More than two-thirds of respondents (65.1%) reported that they would dominate

the decision regarding when to travel with their grandchild without the parents of that

child. Close to one quarter (23.5%) of respondents said they would allow their

grandchild to dominate this decision and 11.5% said they would split this decision 50/50

with their grandchild (Table 19).









What to Do

Close to half (50.5%) of the respondents reported that the decision of what to do

while traveling would be spilt equally between the grandparent and the grandchild.

Thirty percent (29.9%) of respondents reported that they would dominate this decision

and 19.6% said they would allow their grandchild to be the dominant decision-maker of

what to do while traveling (Table 19).

What to Eat

A little less than half (47.4%) reported that they would split this decision equally

with their grandchild. Almost one-third of respondents (32.5%) reported that they would

allow their grandchild to be the dominant decision-maker of what to eat while traveling

and 20% of respondents reported that the grandparent would be the dominant decision-

maker of what to eat (Table 19).

How Much Money to Spend

The large maj ority (88. 1%) of respondents said that they would be the dominant

decision-makers as to how much money to spend while traveling. Only 9.8% said that

they would spilt this decision evenly with their grandchild and even less (1.2%) said that

they would allow their grandchild to be the dominant decision-maker of how much

money to spend (Table 19).

Where to Stay

The maj ority (85.8%) of respondents said that they would be the dominant

decision-makers of where to stay while traveling with their grandchild. Only 1 1.6% of

respondents would allow their grandchild to be the primary decision-maker as to where to

stay and even less (2.6%) of respondents would split this decision evenly with their

grandchild (Table 19).










Table 19. Decision-making profile
Decision Topic Frequency Valid Percent

Where to go (n=196)
Grandparent 99 50.5
Grandchild 33 16.8
Both 64 32.7
When to go (n=196)
Grandparent 125 65.1
Grandchild 22 11.5
Both 45 23.4
What to do (n=194)
Grandparent 58 29.9
Grandchild 38 19.6
Both 98 50.5
What to eat (n=194)
Grandparent 39 20.1
Grandchild 63 32.5
Both 92 47.4
How much to spend (n=194)
Grandparent 171 88.1
Grandchild 4 2.1
Both 19 9.8
Where to stay (n=190)
Grandparent 163 85.8
Grandchild 5 2.6
Both 22 11.6

Is There a Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Likelihood of
Grandtravel?

In order to determine the relationship between the different domains of

intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel, an analysis of variance

(ANOVA) between each of the six IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel. Results

indicated that there was no significant relationship between any of the IGS domains and

likelihood of grandtravel (Table 20 and 21).











Table 20. ONEWAY ANOVA for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
likelihood of grandtravel
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares Squares


Affectual
Between SS

Within SS

Consensual
Between SS

Within SS

Structural
Between SS

Within SS

Normative
Between SS

Within SS

Associational
Between SS

Within SS

Functional (Money)
Between SS

Within SS

Functional (Care)
Between SS

Within SS


0.216

26.777


0.264

24.729


0.168

28.825


0.429

28.508


1.169

27.768


.089

28.85


.073

28.86


.108

.231


.132

.187


.168

.204


.215

.205


.584

.198


.045

.205


.036

.208


.468





.703





.823





1.046





2.946





.215





.176


.627





.497





.366





.354





.056





.807





.839


2

139


2

139









Table 21. Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for relationships between the six
domains of intergenerational solidarity and likelihood of grandtravel.
Factors Low Medium High

M SD M SD M SD
Affectional 1.95 0.62 2.05 0.46 2.03 0.28
(n=119)
Consensual 1.96 0.53 2.06 0.42 2.00 0.32
(n=135)
Structural 1.96 0.43 2.03 0.46
(n=143)
Normative 1.96 0.54 2.10 0.44 2.02 0.36
(n= 142)
Associational 1.91 0.57 2.12 0.38 2.00 0.38
(n=143)
Functional 2.00 0.45 2.05 .433 2.00 .492
(Money)
(n= 144)
Functional 2.00 .442 2.05 .445 2.00 .492
(Care)

In order to better understand the relationships between the six domains of IGS and

likelihood of grandtravel, a stepwise regression was run between each of the six domains

of IGS and likelihood of grandtravel. Results of the indicated that there were no

significant relationships between any of the IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel.

Therefore, none of the six domains of IGS affect likelihood of grandtravel.

What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Past Experience with
Grandtravel?

When the domains of intergenerational solidarity were compared to past experience

with grandtravel, results indicated that respondents with the lowest levels of the

intergenerational solidarity domains were the most likely to have never traveled with

their grandchild. Conversely, the results indicated that those with the highest levels of

the intergenerational solidarity domains were most likely to have traveled with their

grandchild. This was true for all IGS domains excluding functional solidarity (Table 22).











Table 22. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
past experience with grandtravel
Solidarity Domain No Yes Total
Affectual
Low 63.6 36.4 100%
Medium 57.7 42.3 100%
High 45.2 54.8 100%
Chi square=5.04,
p=0.08,n=210
Associational
Low 57.3 42.7 100%
Medium 65.1 34.9 100%
High 48.8 51.2 100%
Chi square= 4.58,
p=0.10, n=243
Consensual
Low 63.8 36.2 100%
Medium 56.8 43.2 100%
High 51.9 48.1 100%
Chi-square= 2. 13,
p=0.35, n=229
Structural
Low 64.3 35.7 100%
High 53.5 46.5 100%
Chi-square=2.63
p=0. 11, n=243
Functional (Money)
Low 34.1 25.2 100%
Medium 41.3 43.7 100%
High 24.6 31.1 100%
Chi -square=2.48
p=0.29, n=241
Functional (Care)
Low 29.7 20.4 100%
Medium 45.7 48.5 100%
High 24.6 31.1 100%
Chi-square=3.00
p=0.22, n=241
Normative
Low 60.3 39.7 100%
Medium 58.3 41.7 100%
High 53.3 46.7 100%
Chi-square=0.88
p=0.64, n=240









What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Support of
Grandtravel?

In order to analyze the relationship between the intergenerational solidarity

domains and support for grandtravel, a oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used.

The results indicated that the affectional, consensual, normative and associational

domains of solidarity were significantly related to grandparents support of grandtravel. A

post hoc analysis using Tukey revealed that there were significant differences between

those with low levels of affectual intergenerational solidarity and those with high levels

of IGS. There was also a significant difference between those with medium levels of

affectual solidarity and high levels of affectual solidarity.

For consensual solidarity, there was a significant difference between those with low

levels of solidarity and high levels of solidarity. For normative solidarity, there was a

significant difference between those with low levels of solidarity and those with medium

levels. There was also a significant relationship between those with low levels of

solidarity and high levels of solidarity. Finally, for associational solidarity there was a

significant difference between those with low levels of solidarity and those with high

levels of solidarity (Table 23 and 24).

Table 23. ONEWAY for the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of
grandtravel
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares Squares

Affectual
Between SS 2 27.914 13.957 8.795 .000**

Within SS 215 341.205 1.587

Consensual
Between SS 2 15.625 7.813 5.592 .004*














































** significant at the .01 level
***significant at the .001 level


Table 24. Mean (M) and standard deviations (SD) for significant relationships between
the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel.
Factors Low Medium High Total

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Affectional 3.76(a) 1.56 4.16(a) 1.28 4.65(b) 0.88 4.20 1.30
(n=218)

Consensual 3.87(a) 1.59 4.14 1.12 4.51(b) 0.75 4.19 1.20
(n=235)


Table 23. Continued
Factors Degrees of
Freedom
Within SS 232


Sum of
Squares
324.136


1.063

359.881


30.731

329.463


14.032

370.167


Mean
Squares
1.397


1.063


F Ratio F Prob.


Structural
Between SS

Within SS

Normative
Between SS

Within SS


1

248


2

244


2

248


.732


.393


1.451


11.380


.000**


Associational
Between SS

Within SS

Functional (Money)
Between SS

Within SS

Functional (Care)
Between SS

Within SS


4.701


.010*


15.366

1.350


7.016

1.493


0.552


1.104


0.465


.629


242


287.345


1.187


0.093

1.191


0.186


0.078


.925


242


288.262









Table 24. Continued.
Factors Low Medium High Total

M SD M SD M SD M SD
Normative 3.67(a) 1.41 4.27(b) 1.23 4.50(b) 0.81 4.17 1.21
(n=247)

Associational 3.87(a) 1.60 4.20 1.10 4.46(b) 0.98 4.19 1.23
(n=251)
Note: Matching superscripts indicate significant differences. For example, with
normative solidarity low levels of solidarity significantly differ from medium
levels of and low levels also differ significantly from high levels of normative
solidarity. Only significant relationships were reported.

In order to better understand the relationships between the six domains of IGS and

support of grandtravel, and stepwise regression was run between the six different

domains and support of grandtravel. Stepwise regression is a technique for estimating the

relationship between a continuous dependent variable and two or more continuous of

discrete independent variables.

Results of the stepwise regression between IGS and support for grandtravel

indicated that affectual solidarity was the IGS domain most likely to determine support of

grandtravel. Affectual solidarity was the only IGS domain with a significant relationship

on support of grandtravel. The regression line indicated that as affectual solidarity

increased, support for grandtravel also increased. The adjusted R square value indicated

that 6% of support of grandtravel can be explained by affectual solidarity (Table 25).

However, results cannot explain what influences the remaining 94% of support for

grandtravel. This relationship is further examined in chapter V.









Table 25. Model summary for intercorrelations for the six domains of intergenerational
solidarity and support of grandtravel
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error
Square of estimate

1 .259a .067 .062 1.181
a. Predictors: (Constant), affectional groups (low to high)

Table 26. ONEWAY ANOVA for intercorrelations between intergenerational solidarity
and support of grandtravel
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares Squares

Regression 1 19.69 19.69 14.12 .000(a)

Residual 197 274.74 1.40

Total 198 294.42
a. Predictors: (Constant), affectional groups (low to high)

Table 27. Coefficients for intercorrelations for the six domains of intergenerational
solidarity and support of grandtravel
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error B Std. Error
(Constant) 3.451 0.226 15.237
Affectual groups
(low to high) 0.389 0.104 0.259 3.757

What is the Relationship Between the Six Domains of IGS and Decision-making
behaviors Toward Grandtravel?

Where to Go

In the associational, structural, functional and normative domains of

intergenerational solidarity, grandparents were most likely to dominate the decision of

where to go while traveling with their grandchild. This was true no matter if the level of

solidarity for these domains was low, medium or high. For both affectual and

consensual solidarity, respondents with the highest levels of the different IGS domains

were most likely to let their grandchild dominate the decision of where to go (Table 25).












Within the different levels of solidarity, those with the lowest levels of the IGS


domains were also the most likely to dominate in the decision of where to go. This was


true for all domains of solidarity except for functional. This pattern was reversed in


functional solidarity as respondents with the highest levels of functional solidarity were


the most likely to dominate in this decision (Table 28).


Table 28. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making. of where to go
Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total
Affectual
Low 61.5 15.4 23.1 100%
Medium 51.7 18.3 30.0 100%
High 37.3 20.3 42.4 100%
Chi-square=7.05,
p=0.13, n= 171
Associational
Low 56.1 10.5 33.3 100%
Medium 46.7 20.0 33.3 100%
High 50.0 18.8 31.3 100%
Chi-square=2.57,
p=0.63, n= 196
Consensual
Low 61.2 14.3 24.5 100%
Medium 53.3 17.3 29.3 100%
High 37.3 18.6 44.1 100%
Chi-square=7.19.
p=0.13, n= 183
Structural
Low 46.8 19.0 34.1 100%
High 56.5 13.0 30.4 100%
Chi-square= 1.97,
=037, n= 195
Functional (Money)
Low 27.6 36.4 25.4 100%
Medium 38.8 30.3 49.2 100%
High 33.7 33.3 26.7 100%
Chi-square= 3.97,
p=.41, n= 194
Functional (Care)
Low 23.5 33.3 20.6 100%
Medium 42.9 33.3 54.0 100%
High 33.7 33.3 25.4 100%
Chi-square=4.64, p=0.33,
n=194
Normative
Low 56.5 14.5 29.0 100%
Medium 53.3 18.3 28.3 100%
High 43.8 17.8 38.4 100%
Chi-square=2.81,
p=0.59, n= 195








69



When to Go


When deciding when to travel with their grandchild, across all solidarity domains,


and all levels of solidarity within these domains, grandparents were most likely to


dominate this decision. The second most dominant strategy was sharing the decisions


between the grandparent and grandchild, and the third most likely decision strategy was


allowing the grandchild to be the dominant decision maker. These patterns were


consistent throughout all the domains of solidarity and with each level of solidarity in the


different domains (Table 29).


Table 29. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making. of when to go
Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total
Affectual
Low 71.2 11.5 17.3 100%
Medium 66.1 6.8 27.1 100%
High 59.6 17.5 22.8 100%
Chi-square=4.56,
p=.34, n=168
Associational
Low 62.5 7.1 30.4 100%
Medium 66.2 12.2 21.6 100%
High 66.1 14.5 19.4 100%
Chi-square=3.22,
p=.52, n=192
Consensual
Low 63.3 12.2 24.5 100%
Medium 68.9 9.5 21.6 100%
High 58.6 13.8 27.6 100%
Chi-square=1.57,
p=0.81, n=181
Structural
Low 63.9 12.3 23.8 100%
High 66.7 10.1 23.2 100%
Chi-square=0.23,
p=.89, n=191
Functional (Money)
Low 26.6 40.9 23.6 100%
Medium 38.7 45.5 24.7 100%
High 34.7 13.6 22.0 100%
Chi-square=4.35,
p=.36, n=191
Functional (Care)
Low 21.8 36.4 26.7 100%
Medium 43.5 50.0 44.4 100%
High 34.7 13.6 28.9 100%
Chi-square=4.65, p=0.33,
n=191
Normative
Low 63.9 8.2 27.9 100%
Medium 69.5 10.2 20.3 100%
High 63.4 15.5 21.1 100%
Chi-square=2.78,
p=0.56, n=191








70





What to Do


Grandparents and grandchildren were most likely to split the decision what to do


while traveling. This was true for all six domains of solidarity no matter if respondents


ranked as low, medium, or high on the six domains of IGS. A grandparent-dominated


decision was the second most likely scenario across all IGS domains. For high levels of


normative solidarity and medium levels of functional solidarity a grandchild-dominated


decision was the second most likely decision-making scenario (Table 30).


Table 30. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making. of what to do
Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total
Affectual
Low 34.6 19.2 46.2 100%
Medium 32.2 20.3 47.5 100%
High 29.3 19.0 36.6 100%
Chi-square=0.47,
p=0.98, n=169
Associational
Low 31.6 15.8 52.6 100%
Medium 22.7 21.3 56.0 100%
High 37.1 21.0 41.9 100%
Chi-square=4.44,
p=0.35, n=194
Consensual
Low 34.7 22.4 42.9 100%
Medium 32.4 20.3 47.3 100%
High 20.3 16.9 62.7 100%
Chi-square=5.21,
p=0.27, n=183
Structural
Low 28.2 20.2 51.6 100%
High 33.3 18.8 47.8 100%
Chi-square=0.55,
p=0.76, n=193
Functional (Money)
Low 26.3 18.4 33.7 100%
Medium 36.8 52.6 38.8 100%
High 36.8 28.9 27.6 100%
Chi-square=5.04,
p=0.28, n=193
Functional (Care)
Low 22.8 15.8 28.6 100%
Medium 40.4 55.3 43.9 100%
High 36.8 28.9 27.6 100%
Chi-square=4.1 6,
p=0.38, n=193
Normative
Low 27.9 18.0 54.1 100%
Medium 36.7 11.7 51.7 100%
High 26.4 27.8 45.8 100%
Chi-square=6.21,
p=0.18, n=193








71



What to Eat


An evenly shared decision between the grandparent and the grandchild was the


most likely scenario when deciding what to eat while traveling. This was true for all


domains of solidarity no matter what the level. For all six IGS domains, those with


medium levels of solidarity were the most likely to evenly share this decision. For


associational, consensual, functional and normative solidarity, a grandchild-dominated


decision was the second most likely scenario for all domains and levels of solidarity.


Table 31. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of what to eat
Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total
Affectual
Low 28.8 25.0 46.2 100%
Medium 20.0 33.3 55.0 100%
High 37.1 24.1 40.4 100%
Chi-square=6.75,
p=0.15, n=169
Associational
Low 19.6 35.7 44.6 100%
Medium 14.5 32.9 52.6 100%
High 27.4 29.0 43.5 100%
Chi-square=4.00,
p=0.41, n=194
Consensual
Low 28.6 34.7 36.7 100%
Medium 17.3 28.0 54.7 100%
High 11.9 35.6 52.5 100%
Chi-square=7.00,
p=0.14, n=183
Structural
Low 16.1 36.3 47.6 100%
High 27.5 24.6 47.8 100%
Chi-square=4.73,
p=0.09, n=193
Functional (Money)
Low 26.3 30.2 27.2 100%
Medium 31.6 44.4 42.4 100%
High 42.1 25.4 30.4 100%
Chi-square=3.37,
p=0.50, n=193
Functional (Care)
Low 18.4 25.4 25.0 100%
Medium 39.5 49.2 44.6 100%
High 42.1 25.4 30.4 100%
Chi-square=3.25,
p=0.52, n=193
Normative
Low 23.0 32.8 44.3 100%
Medium 23.0 55.7 100%
High 21.3 40.8 42.3 100%
Chi-square=5.29, 16.9
p=0.26, n=193











For affectual and structural solidarity, those with the lowest levels of solidarity were most

likely to be the second highest most likely decision makers (Table 31).

How Much Money to Spend and Where to Stay

Due to small cell size, statistics were not viable for the six IGS domains versus the

decision of how much money to spend and the decision of where to stay (Table 32 and


33).

Table 32. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making. of how much money to spend
Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total
Affectual
Low 92.2 2.0 5.9 100%
Medium 91.7 0.0 8.3 100%
High 81.0 5.2 13.8 100%
Chi-square*, n=169
Associational
Low 84.2 3.5 12.3 100%
Medium 92.0 0.0 8.0 100%
High 87.1 3.2 9.7 100%
Chi-square*, n= 194
Consensual
Low 91.8 2.0 6.1 100%
Medium 84.9 1.4 13.7 100%
High 88.1 1.7 10.2 100%
Chi-square*, n=181
Structural
Low 89.7 0.8 9.5 100%
High 85.1 4.5 10.4 100%
Chi-square*, n=193
Functional (Money)
Low 26.6 100.0 36.8 100%
Medium 43.2 0.00 26.3 100%
High 30.2 0.00 36.8 100%
Chi-square*, n= 192
Functional (Care)
Low 23.1 75.0 31.6 100%
Medium 46.7 25.0 31.6 100%
High 30.2 0.00 36.8 100%
Chi-square*, n= 192
Normative
Low 88.3 1.7 10.0 100%
Medium 86.4 0.0 13.6 100%
High 89.2 4.1 6.8 100%
Chi-square*, n=193
*Chi-square not comp eted due to cell size of less than 5.











Table 33. The relationship between the six domains of intergenerational solidarity and
decision-making of where to stay
Solidarity Domain Grandparent Grandchild Both Total
Affectual
Low 90.2 2.0 7.8 100%
Medium 89.3 0.0 10.7 100%
High 75.9 6.9 17.2 100%
Chi-square*
n=165
Associational
Low 90.6 3.8 5.7 100%
Medium 86.5 0.0 13.5 100%
High 81.0 4.8 14.3 100%
Chi-square*
n= 190
Consensual
Low 91.5 2.1 6.4 100%
Medium 80.8 2.7 16.4 100%
High 86.2 1.7 12.1 100%
Chi-square*
n=178
Structural
Low 88.4 0.8 10.7 100%
High 80.9 5.9 13.2 100%
Chi-square*
n=189
Functional (Money)
Low 26.5 80.0 31.8 100%
Medium 42.0 0.0 40.9 100%
High 31.5 20.0 27.3 100%
Chi-square*, n=189
Functional (Care)
Low 22.2 80.0 31.8 100%
Medium 46.3 0.0 40.9 100%
High 31.5 20.0 27.3 100%
Chi-square*, n=189
Normative
Low 89.8 1.7 8.5 100%
Medium 89.7 0.0 10.3 100%
High 80.6 5.6 13.9 100%
Chi-square*
n=189
*Chi-square not comp eted due to cell size of less than 5.















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the concept of

intergenerational solidarity (IGS) as it relates to grandtravel. Specifically, IGS was

examined in relation to likelihood of grandtravel, support for grandtravel, previous

experience with grandtravel, and grandtravel decision-making. In order to develop an

overview of respondents, demographic, travel-related, and decision- making profiles were

presented. The organization of this chapter is as follows: (a) Summary of Procedures and

Treatment of Data; (b) Summary of Findings; (c) Conclusions; (d) Discussion and

Implications; and (e) Recommendations for Future Research.


Summary of Procedures and Treatment of Data

A sample of 252 Villages residents was surveyed for this study. Participants were

selected as a convenience sample of social club members, Life Long Learning College

Students, and users of one of The Villages Recreation Centers. The instrument used for

this study was a self-administered questionnaire comprised of six sections: (a)

intergenerational solidarity; (b) perceptions of grandtravel; (c) past experience with

grandtravel; (d) likelihood of grandtravel; (e) decision making; and (f) demographics.

Profiles ofintergenerational solidarity (IGS), demographics, grandtravel

tendencies, and decision-making tendencies were developed using frequencies. The

relationships between IGS and past experience with grandtravel, and decision-making

were determined using crosstabs and chi-squared statistics. The relationships between









IGS and likelihood of grandtravel IGS and support of grandtravel was determined using

an analysis of variance. In order to better understand the relationship between the six

IGS domains and likelihood of grandtravel and the relationship between the six IGS

domains and support of grandtravel, stepwise regression was run between the different

variables.

Summary of Findings

The following section summarizes the original research questions followed by the

results. Areas discussed include: a profile ofintergenerational solidarity, a respondent

profile, the relationship between IGS and likelihood of grandtravel, IGS and experience

with grandtravel, IGS and support of grandtravel, and IGS and decision-making as it

relates to grandtravel.

Intergenerational Solidarity

Overall, grandparents indicated high levels of affectual and consensual solidarity.

These grandparents tended to contact their grandchildren (either in-person, phone, email,

or letters) every 2-3 months. Moreover, over 62% of respondents stated that their

grandchild lived in a different region of the country. Typically, grandparents provided 1-

12 hours of childcare for their grandchild and usually provided between $101-500 in

child support.

Interestingly, this study indicated higher levels of psychic or emotional relations

than functional relations. This may be explained by the fact that many grandchildren did

not live close to their grandparents. Roberto, Allen and Blieszner (2001) found that the

proximity of family households influences the frequency of association and exchange of

assistance and support between grandfathers and grandchildren. The current study found

that the maj ority of grandparents live in a different region of the country than their









grandchild. However, this distance is not surprising because Florida is regarded as a

retirement state and many middle aged and older adults relocate to the state each year.

The highest percentages of respondents had medium levels of IGS for affectional,

associational, and consensual solidarity. High levels of IGS were most common on

structural (measured low or high) and normative solidarity. Finally, lower levels of

solidarity were most likely for functional solidarity.

These Eindings are similar to Cherlin and Furstenberg' s (1992) companionate style

of grandparenting. This style of grandparent described themselves as playful

companions, and the givers and receivers of love and affection. These grandparents

enjoyed being able to spend time with their grandchildren without having a large amount

of responsibility for them. Similarly, grandparents in the current study indicated that they

felt emotionally close to their grandchildren (receivers of love and affection) but they did

not provide much Einancial support or childcare (responsibility). In addition, these

Endings are consistent with Wearing' s study (1996) which found that as level the levels

of responsibility for the grandchild increased, the amount the grandmother considered the

grandparent role leisure decreased.

Respondent Profile

The travel-related profie indicated that the maj ority of grandparents would

consider traveling with their grandchildren, although more than half had never done so.

The percentage of respondents who have traveled with their grandchildren is consistent

with Curry's study (2001), which also found that 43% of grandparents had traveled with

their grandchildren. The idea of traveling with grandchild was supported as 43% said

they would strongly support this idea and 37.5% said they would support this idea.

Although no previous studies have asked grandparents their opinions on grandtravel,









studies have found that seniors consider spending time with their family an important

reason to travel (Huang & Tsai, 2003).

Almost two-thirds of respondents were females and the maj ority of favorite

grandchildren were female. Also, the maj ority of favorite grandchildren were the

children of daughters. While Mills, Wakeman, and Fea (2001) found that grandchildren

feel emotionally closer to their maternal grandparents than they do to their paternal

grandparents, the current study suggests that perhaps grandparents also feel more

emotional closeness toward their maternal grandchildren.

The maj ority of grandparents had between two to five grandchildren with an

average of five grandchildren. Almost all respondents were white and were married. The

fact that almost all respondents were white is a limitation similar to those that have taken

place in other grandparent studies (Dubas, 2001). Like these studies, the present study

was unable to examine relationships between African-Americans or Mexican Americans.

The decision-making profile indicated that four of the decisions; where to go, when

to go, how much money to spend, and where to stay, were most likely to be dominated by

the grandparent. Of these decisions how much money to spend was the most grandparent

dominated followed by where to stay. When to travel was dominated by grandparents

and where to go was dominated by grandparents. The remaining two decisions, what to

do and what to eat were most likely to be shared between both parties. Overall, these

findings indicate that the grandparent has the most say in decisions that involve large

amounts of money (how much money to spend and where to stay) and less say in

decisions involving food and activities. These findings are consistent with previous

decision-making studies (Nelson, 1979) that found children play a large role in deciding









where to eat when going out to eat but parents have the final say in how much money to

spend.

Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and
Likelihood of Grandtravel

A One-Way Analysis of Variance indicated that there were no significant

relationships between any of the six intergenerational solidarity domains and likelihood

of grandtravel. Results of stepwise regression also indicated that the relationship

between the individual domains of IGS and likelihood of grandtravel are not significant.

It is predicted that there may be variables other than the IGS domains that affect a

grandparent' s likelihood of grandtravel.

First, respondents had a mean age of 66. We do not know how recently these

individuals retired, but their ages indicate that they may have retired within the last Hyve

years. These grandparents may now be at the age where they want to spend time taking

part in activities that they were not able to take part in while they were working such as

hobbies and social clubs. Additionally, The Villages is a retirement community with an

immense amount of activities and social clubs in which residents can take part.

Respondents may be more likely to want to stay in The Villages taking part in these

activities rather than traveling with their grandchildren. Respondents may be considering

their retirement years "my time" or "our time as a couple," rather than time to "baby sit"

their grandchildren.

Several respondents stated that they would like their grandchildren to visit or often

have their grandchildren visit The Villages. Respondents stated that this is a perfect area

for their grandchildren to visit because of the large numbers of activities and great

weather. Instead of traveling with their grandchildren, these grandparents may find that









inviting their grandchildren to their homes and taking part in The Villages activities is as

good of an experience as traveling. Therefore, they may do not find it necessary to

travel .

Residents of The Villages are mostly couples that have moved to Florida from

some other region of the country. Therefore, they may not be able to spend much time

with their own children; the parents of their grandchildren. These grandparents may have

high levels of the different IGS domains, but may not be interested in grandtravel because

they would like all three generations to be together. These families may only have a few

weeks out of the year to spend together, and instead of the grandparents spending this

time alone with their grandchildren, these families may prefer to travel with grandparents,

children, and grandchildren together. This is similar to Shoemaker's (1989) cluster of

"family travelers," and Backman, Backman and Silverberg's (1999) study, which found

that older seniors want to visit friends and relatives as the main purpose of their trips.

Grandparents may not be in good enough health or may be caring for a spouse who

is not in good health, making it impossible to travel with their grandchildren. These

grandparents may like to idea of grandtravel, but are unable to do so. In addition,

grandparent' s reasons for not traveling with their grandchildren may be due to the child,

of the immediate family. For example, the child may not be interested in this type of

travel, or the child may be to busy with school or work activities. The parents of the

child may not agree to this type of travel because they may consider the money spent on

the trip to large of a gift, or the parents might be divorced with one parent not agreeing to

the travel situation.









Data were gathered during this study in the survey question "what would prevent

you from traveling with your grandchild?" would help to answer this question, however

data related to this question were not analyzed for the current study (see Appendix B).

Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Past
Experience with Grandtravel

Cross-tabs indicated that those with the lowest levels of the six IGS domains were

the least likely to travel with their grandchildren. In contrast, those with the highest

levels of the six domains of IGS were the most likely to travel with their grandchildren.

This finding indicate that grandparents with high levels of the different IGS domains are

likely to have traveled with their grandchildren and those with low levels of the IGS

domains are not likely to have done so.

Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Support
of Grandtravel

Results indicated that four of the six domains of intergenerational solidarity,

affectional, consensual, normative, and associational, had a significant effect on

grandparents support of grandtravel. Significant differences between low levels of

solidarity and high levels of solidarity were found on all four domains. Significant

differences were also revealed between medium and high levels of IGS for affectual

solidarity and low and medium levels of IGS for normative solidarity.

These Eindings indicate that grandparents who feel emotionally closer to their

grandchildren (affectual solidarity) are also more likely to support traveling with their

grandchildren. Similarly, grandparents who feel they agree with their grandchild

(consensual solidarity) and feel support from their grandchildren (normative solidarity)

are the most likely to support traveling with their grandchildren. Of the six domains of

solidarity, these four domains (affectional, consensual, normative and associational) most









closely describe how well grandparents get along with their grandchildren. Grandparents

can provide high levels of financial support (functional solidarity) to their grandchildren

or live close to their grandchildren (structural solidarity) without necessarily getting

along well or have a close relationship with the children. These findings are similar to

those of Roberto, Allen and Blieszner (2001) who found smaller geographic distances

between grandfathers and grandchildren did not guarantee the formation of a close

relationship.

In order to better understand the relationship between the six domains of IGS and

support of grandtravel and stepwise regression was run between the different variables.

Results indicated that affectual solidarity was the only IGS domain that had a significant

relationship with support of grandtravel. The adjusted R squared value indicated that six

percent of a grandparents support of grandtravel can be explained by their level of

affectual solidarity. These results however do not indicate what explains the remaining

94% of a grandparents support for grandtravel. This is further discussed in the

conclusions and discussion section.

Relationship between the Six Domains of Intergenerational Solidarity and Decision-
making Behaviors Toward Grandtravel

Overall, no significant findings were discovered when comparing intergenerational

solidarity levels to decision-making patterns. However, some patterns were uncovered.

For the decision of where to go, across four of the IGS domains grandparents were most

likely to dominate in this decision. However, if grandparents had high levels of affectual

solidarity or high levels of consensual solidarity, they were most likely to evenly split this

decision with their grandchild. No matter what the domain or level of IGS, grandparents

were always the most likely to dominate in the decision of when travel. For both the









decision what to do and what to eat, a split decision was the most likely scenario.

Similarly, previous literature indicated that children play significant roles in the decisions

of where to go to eat (Nelson, 1979) and what activities to take part in while on vacation

(Nickerson & Jurowski, 2000). This was true no matter what the domain or level for the

decision of what to do. However, grandparents with medium levels of solidarity were the

most likely to split the decision of what to eat with their grandchild.

Conclusions and Discussion

Considerable amounts of research have examined senior travel in relation to

likelihood of travel, reasons for travel, benefits sought from travel, locations of travel etc

(Blazey, 1987; Gibson, 2002; Guinn, 1980; Shoemaker, 1989; Teaf & Turpin, 1996;

Zimmer, Brayley & Searle, 1995). Similarly, studies have examined intergenerational

solidarity as it relates to the gender of the grandparent, the relation of the grandparent,

and the differences between grandparents views and grandchildren's views (Roberto,

Allen & Blieszner, 2001; Mills, Wakeman & Fea, 2001; Giarrusso, Feng, Silverstein &

Bengston, 2001). However, there have not been any studies that have looked at

grandparents traveling with grandchildren and the relationship with intergenerational

solidarity .

This study revealed that there are some significant relationships between

intergenerational solidarity and support of grandtravel, specifically within affectional,

consensual, normative, and associational solidarity. Additionally, this study revealed that

there are not statistically significant relationships between any of the IGS domains and

likelihood of or past experience with grandtravel. Results did however indicate that

grandparents with higher levels of the IGS domains were more likely to have traveled

with their grandchildren. None of the intergenerational solidarity domains had a









significant relationship with grandtravel decision-making tendencies, although

grandparents with higher levels of the IGS domains tended to allow their grandchildren to

share more in the decision then those with low levels of the IGS domains. This is

consistent with the decision-making studies conducted by Nelson (1979) and Lackman

and Lanasa (1993) the decision of what to eat and what to do were the decisions most

likely to be shared with grandchildren.

Grandparents tended to rate the solidarity domains that involved feelings (affectual,

consensual, and normative) higher and rate solidarity domains that involved actions

associationall, structural, and functional) lower. Perhaps this is best explained by the

issue of proximity, in that grandparents who live closer to their grandchildren may be

more likely to associate with their grandchildren. However, as stated by Roberto, Allen

and Blieszner (2001) the amount of contact between grandparents and grandchildren does

not guarantee the formation of a close relationship.

Findings indicate that grandparents support or strongly support the idea of traveling

with their grandchildren and say they are likely to do so, even though under half of

grandparents have actually traveled with their grandchildren. The large maj ority of

respondents indicated that they would consider taking part in grandtravel, and supported

the idea of grandtravel. Previous studies have identified an interest in grandtravel, such

as Maxwell (1998) who found that 16% of grandparents had vacationed with their

grandchild in the past month. Consistent with these Eindings, the current study found that

just under half of the respondents indicated that they had previously taken part in

grandtravel. These Eindings indicate that there is definitely an interest and a market for









travel providers interested in providing grandtravel. With such a large interest in

grandtravel, there is also a need for further research examining this travel niche.

Grandparents with high levels of affectional, consensual, normative and

associational solidarity are more likely to support grandtravel than those with low levels

of these IGS domains. Affectional, consensual, and normative solidarity are all forms of

feeling close to your grandchild, not acting. This is consistent with support for

grandtravel. Support is a feeling, not an action. Those with positive solidarity feelings

are also likely to have positive feelings towards grandtravel.

Grandparents with high levels of the IGS domains are likely to travel with their

grandchildren while grandparents with low levels of the IGS domains are not likely to do

so. These Eindings may indicate that grandparents who feel close to their grandchildren

are the most likely to want to spend time with their grandchildren. Grandparents with

good relationships with their grandchildren would like to further enrich these

relationships through spending time with their grandchildren. However, those who do

not have strong relationships with their grandchildren are not likely to improve this

relationship through travel. The academic community will want to take note that

generally high levels of the IGS domains result in a higher likelihood of grandtravel.

This may indicate that high levels of the IGS domains result in other recreational

activities with grandchildren.

There is something to be said for the fact that many results were not significant.

For example, there was no significant relationship between the IGS domains and past

experience with grandtravel. This is an important Einding for the travel industry. Travel

providers may inherently assume that grandparents traveling with their grandchildren









have a close relationship. Although there is a trend, results indicate that this is not

statistically true. Those providing grandtravel may want to be aware that there may not

be as strong of a relationship between grandparents and grandchildren as may have been

assumed.

The Eindings for likelihood of grandtravel and support of grandtravel both indicated

that the large maj ority of grandparents either would like to travel or support the idea of

traveling with their grandchildren. However, when asked about past experience with

grandtravel, more than half of grandparents said they had never done so. This

demonstrates that grandparents like to think they would do something with their

grandchild. However, actions are different then thoughts. Saying you support something

or that you would like to do something is different than actually doing it. Again, this

trend demonstrates that there is a difference between actions and words.

Grandparents tend to favor children of daughters over children of sons. Results

indicated that almost two thirds of respondents stated that their favorite grandchild was

the child of a daughter. This indicates that other research concerning IGS may relate

more to children of daughters than children of sons. Specific studies may be necessary to

examine the relationship between grandparents and the children of their sons.

There may be several reasons for this, first in American society once sons are

married, they tend to be emotionally pulled toward the families of their wives. This may

mean that when the couple has to choice to spend a holiday or vacation with either the

husband' s parents of the wives parents, they will be most likely to spend the time with

the wives parents. Results of this would mean that grandparents with both sons and

daughters might be more likely to spend time with the children of their daughters than the









children of their sons. Therefore, grandparents may feel closer relationships with these

children, not necessarily because they consider them "favorites" but because they are able

to see these children and interact with them more than the children of their sons. Specific

research may be necessary to examine relationships with children of sons.

It is interesting to take note of the heavily female dominated results of this study.

Many of these results of predictable, including that fact that many more grandmothers

took part in the study then grandfathers did. Because men tend to die earlier than women,

female participants dominate many studies on grandparenting and few studies have been

conducted specifically on grandfathers (Roberto, Allen & Blieszner, 2001). Even though

the domination by grandmothers may be predictable, it was not predictable that more the

maj ority of grandparents would state that their favorite grandchild was the child of a

daughter. There are several considerations that may account for this. First of all, maybe

mothers are more attached to their daughters and sense mostly grandmothers took part in

the study, it would make sense that their favorite grandchild was the child of a daughter.

Possibly, respondents had more female children than male children. Another explanation

may be that when men get married and have children, they tend to go with their spouses

to be close either physically or mentally with her parents. There is no exact explanation

for this trend, but this may shed light, onto the issue of extended families. Overall, these

findings are consistent with those of Mills, Wakeman and Fea (2001) who found that

grandchildren feel emotionally closer to their maternal grandparents then they do to their

paternal grandparents.

The decision-making findings indicate that grandparents want to be, or at least

think that they are, in control of all decisions. There is no way to measure how much









subconscious influence a child has on a grandparent. For example, a child may influence

the grandparent to travel to Disney World. Even though the child is not making this

decision him/herself, there is a definite influence that is taking place. Grandparents may

or may not be aware of the influential part their grandchild plays in making this, and

other travel related decisions. In this study, grandparents were asked how much of a

decision they themselves make, versus the amount of the decision they allow their

grandchild to make. Grandchildren being "allowed" to make a decision and

grandchildren influencing the grandparent into making a decision may be two different

concepts. If this study was reversed and the grandchildren were asked how much

influence they have on decisions, as in Nickerson and Jurowski's decision-making study

(2000), results might be drastically different.

This study indicated that grandparents dominate the decision of where to go, when

to go, how much to spend, and where to stay. They are evenly split on the decision what

to do and what to eat. This demonstrates that for decisions involving the, grandparents

are most likely to make the decision. Grandparents with high levels of the six IGS

domains are more likely to share decisions with, or give a higher percentage of a decision

to their grandchildren. Several of the domains of solidarity involve agreeing with your

grandchild. This may indicate that grandparents with higher levels of solidarity are likely

to agree with their grandchild, and therefore feel comfortable handing over large portions

of travel related decisions to their grandchildren. However, there are no significant

relationships between the six IGS domains and decision-making tendencies.

Along with the above discussion, it must be noted that The Villages is an area

populated by middle to high income white Americans. Grandparents of different race,









ethnicity, and income may result in dramatically different outcomes. For example,

Mexican-American families are known to have closer family ties throughout different

generations (Giarrusso, Feng, Silverstein & Bengston, 2001). Where the grandparents

surveyed for this study live far away from their grandchildren, Mexican-American

grandparents may live in the same household as their grandchildren. This family

structure is likely to dramatically effect support of, likelihood of, and past experience

with grandtravel. Similarly, data gathered from grandparents with lower income than

those in The Villages would likely have a dramatic impact on results. Those likely to

travel are also those with the highest incomes (Hawes, 1998). Because The Villages is a

high-income area, these grandparents may be more likely to support, be likely to take part

in, and/or have past experience with grandtravel. Grandparents with lower incomes may

not be able to spend the amount of money necessary to participate in grandtravel,

therefore dramatically lowering their support, likelihood of and past experience with

grandtravel .

These findings have several implications for the tourism industry. First, operators

of grandtravel programs will want to take note that grandparents may not necessarily

want to hold a large amount of responsibility over their grandchildren. Currently, several

tour operators such as Elderhostel, based in Boston, MA and Holbrook Travel, based in

Gainesville, FL expect that grandparents participating in grandtravel/intergenerational

programs will take full responsibility over their grandchildren in terms of childcare.

These findings associated with structural and functional solidarity may indicate that

grandparents do not want this level of responsibility. Therefore these tour operators may

want to consider having a "babysitter" as part of the travel package. These decision-