Citation
Intergenerational Solidarity as a Way of Understanding Grandtravel

Material Information

Title:
Intergenerational Solidarity as a Way of Understanding Grandtravel
Creator:
PALMIERI, CATHERINE A.
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Child psychology ( jstor )
Children ( jstor )
Grandchildren ( jstor )
Grandparents ( jstor )
Normativity ( jstor )
Older adults ( jstor )
Recreation ( jstor )
Solidarity ( jstor )
Travel ( jstor )
Vacations ( jstor )
City of Orlando ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Catherine A. Palmieri. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
7/24/2006
Resource Identifier:
496181024 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

palmieri_c ( .pdf )

palmieri_c_Page_035.txt

palmieri_c_Page_053.txt

palmieri_c_Page_002.txt

palmieri_c_Page_119.txt

palmieri_c_Page_118.txt

palmieri_c_Page_037.txt

palmieri_c_Page_052.txt

palmieri_c_Page_100.txt

palmieri_c_Page_083.txt

palmieri_c_Page_102.txt

palmieri_c_Page_027.txt

palmieri_c_Page_044.txt

palmieri_c_Page_108.txt

palmieri_c_Page_076.txt

palmieri_c_Page_033.txt

palmieri_c_Page_095.txt

palmieri_c_Page_039.txt

palmieri_c_Page_019.txt

palmieri_c_Page_036.txt

palmieri_c_Page_004.txt

palmieri_c_Page_011.txt

palmieri_c_Page_014.txt

palmieri_c_Page_006.txt

palmieri_c_Page_088.txt

palmieri_c_Page_072.txt

palmieri_c_Page_107.txt

palmieri_c_Page_084.txt

palmieri_c_Page_048.txt

palmieri_c_Page_110.txt

palmieri_c_Page_007.txt

palmieri_c_Page_124.txt

palmieri_c_Page_013.txt

palmieri_c_Page_057.txt

palmieri_c_Page_099.txt

palmieri_c_Page_056.txt

palmieri_c_Page_125.txt

palmieri_c_Page_065.txt

palmieri_c_Page_032.txt

palmieri_c_Page_092.txt

palmieri_c_Page_122.txt

palmieri_c_Page_096.txt

palmieri_c_Page_066.txt

palmieri_c_Page_001.txt

palmieri_c_Page_005.txt

palmieri_c_Page_028.txt

palmieri_c_Page_086.txt

palmieri_c_Page_061.txt

palmieri_c_Page_114.txt

palmieri_c_Page_034.txt

palmieri_c_Page_081.txt

palmieri_c_Page_071.txt

palmieri_c_Page_038.txt

palmieri_c_Page_104.txt

palmieri_c_Page_109.txt

palmieri_c_Page_043.txt

palmieri_c_Page_017.txt

palmieri_c_Page_113.txt

palmieri_c_Page_041.txt

palmieri_c_Page_111.txt

palmieri_c_Page_073.txt

palmieri_c_Page_051.txt

palmieri_c_Page_049.txt

palmieri_c_Page_070.txt

palmieri_c_Page_069.txt

palmieri_c_Page_082.txt

palmieri_c_Page_059.txt

palmieri_c_Page_025.txt

palmieri_c_Page_046.txt

palmieri_c_Page_077.txt

palmieri_c_Page_063.txt

palmieri_c_Page_123.txt

palmieri_c_Page_097.txt

palmieri_c_Page_087.txt

palmieri_c_Page_054.txt

palmieri_c_Page_012.txt

palmieri_c_Page_075.txt

palmieri_c_Page_040.txt

palmieri_c_Page_016.txt

palmieri_c_Page_008.txt

palmieri_c_Page_116.txt

palmieri_c_Page_078.txt

palmieri_c_Page_117.txt

palmieri_c_Page_026.txt

palmieri_c_Page_010.txt

palmieri_c_Page_094.txt

palmieri_c_Page_021.txt

palmieri_c_Page_015.txt

palmieri_c_Page_074.txt

palmieri_c_Page_018.txt

palmieri_c_Page_050.txt

palmieri_c_Page_029.txt

palmieri_c_Page_064.txt

palmieri_c_Page_089.txt

palmieri_c_Page_105.txt

palmieri_c_Page_062.txt

palmieri_c_Page_003.txt

palmieri_c_Page_023.txt

palmieri_c_Page_055.txt

palmieri_c_Page_093.txt

palmieri_c_Page_103.txt

palmieri_c_Page_091.txt

palmieri_c_Page_120.txt

palmieri_c_Page_042.txt

palmieri_c_Page_030.txt

palmieri_c_Page_024.txt

palmieri_c_Page_080.txt

palmieri_c_Page_067.txt

palmieri_c_Page_098.txt

palmieri_c_Page_112.txt

palmieri_c_Page_009.txt

palmieri_c_pdf.txt

palmieri_c_Page_115.txt

palmieri_c_Page_022.txt

palmieri_c_Page_085.txt

palmieri_c_Page_047.txt

palmieri_c_Page_031.txt

palmieri_c_Page_101.txt

palmieri_c_Page_060.txt

palmieri_c_Page_079.txt

palmieri_c_Page_020.txt

palmieri_c_Page_045.txt

palmieri_c_Page_058.txt

palmieri_c_Page_121.txt

palmieri_c_Page_106.txt

palmieri_c_Page_090.txt

palmieri_c_Page_068.txt


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-




Full Text

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.