Grandfather Involvement: Contact Frequency, Participation in Activities, and Commitment

Grandfather Involvement:
Contact Frequency, Participation in
Activities, and Commitment
Notwithstanding the recent growth in scholarship about grandparents and the sus-
tained interest in fatherhood, there has been limited attention paid to the study of
grandfathers. Few strides have been made to understand grandfathering behaviors
and attitudes, and little is known about the relationships grandfathers develop and
maintain with grandchildren. We suggest one reason for this trend is the lack of the-
oretical and conceptual groundwork needed to assist scholars engaged in grand-
parent-grandchild research. To address this issue, we propose the construct
grandfather involvement and define it as having three critical components: Contact
frequency, participation in activities, and commitment. These components have been
previously explored in the grandparent literature and in other literatures as essen-
tial elements of the development of meaningful and healthy relationships. Until now,
however, they have not been formulated into a usable framework. Having a clear def-
initional understanding of grandfather involvement will allow scholars to utilize the
concepts to increase empirical and theoretical scholarship on grandfathers.
Keywords: activities, commitment, contact frequency, generative grandfathering,
grandfather-grandchild relationships, grandfather involvement
The volume of scholarship on grandparenting, grandparenthood, and grandparent-grand-
child relationships has grown substantially over the past four decades and provides evi-
dence that emotionally close intergenerational relationships benefit grandparents and
grandchildren (Copen & Silverstein, 2007; Ruiz & Silverstein, 2007; Oyserman, Radin, &
Benn, 1993; Sellers & Milton, 2007). The patterns of relations also lend strong support to
the notion that contemporary families value meaningful multigenerational bonds (Bengtson,
305
JAMES S. BATES* and ALAN C. TAYLOR**
THE JOURNAL OF MEN’S STUDIES, VOL. 21, NO. 3, FALL 2013, 305-322.
© 2013 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.mensstudies.com
jms.2103.305/$15.00 • DOI: 10.3149/jms.2103.305 • ISSN/1060-8265 • e-ISSN/1933-0251
* The Ohio State University.
** East Carolina University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to James S. Bates, Ohio State University Extension,
Family & Consumer Sciences, 151C Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Ave., Columbus, OH 43210. Email:
bates.402@osu.edu

1975; Silverstein & Marenco, 2001; Taylor, Robila, & Lee, 2005). Despite these empirical
developments, there remains a persistent problem with the grandparent literature: There is
limited theorizing specifically about grandfathers and what their participation in family life
means for the development of relationships with grandchildren.
Theory construction is a major preoccupation of family studies scholars (Taylor & Bagdi,
2005) because theory is essential for building a cumulative and organized body of knowl-
edge about a given area of study (Bengtson, 2005). Theory facilitates the discovery of new
knowledge by providing scholars with conceptual tools to study the generative potentiali-
ties of a phenomenon (Knapp, 2009). Without efforts to theorize, which is the process of sys-
tematically organizing ideas to understand a particular phenomenon (Doherty, Boss,
LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993), scholars are left without conceptual guidance to
more comprehensively understand it. In fact, scholars may even misrepresent the phenom-
enon in their work. This has been particularly true regarding the study of grandfathers,
where the lack of theorizing has inhibited the development of conceptual tools and has con-
tributed to a sense of passivity in studying this population (Bates, 2009a). Although the rea-
sons for the lack of theory construction indigenous to grandfather research are not clear,
others have made similar observations about the more encompassing grandparent literature
(e.g., Szinovacz, 1998).
Of the hundreds of articles published in peer-reviewed journals about grandparents since
1990 (see Bates & Taylor, 2012b), we know of only four (that we mention here only briefly)
in which scholars have proposed unique conceptual frameworks (i.e., theories, models)
about grandparents. First, Reese and Murray (1996) proposed a theory of transcendence
derived from extensive interview data collected from 16 low-income great-grandmothers
(50% African American, 50% Caucasian) living in a large city in the American Midwest.
Second, Strom and Strom (1997) proposed and then tested their theory of grandparent de-
velopment with a large and ethnically diverse (African American, Caucasian, Hispanic)
sample of grandmothers (n = 776) and grandfathers (n = 341) in the American Southwest.
Third, Nehari, Grebler, and Toren (2007) proposed a model of grandparents’grief derived
from qualitative interviews conducted with Israeli grandmothers (n = 6) and grandfathers
(n = 4) whose grandchild had died of cancer. Finally, Bates (2009a) proposed the genera-
tive grandfathering conceptual framework, which was derived from reviews of the grand-
father and grandparent literatures and supported by narratives from grandchildren and
grandfathers. This theoretical framework is specifically focused on grandfathers and the re-
lationships aging men develop with grandchildren. Of the four, to our knowledge, Strom and
Strom’s (1997) theory has been cited once and Bates’s framework has been cited four times;
the other two theories have not been cited. Hence, most theories about grandparents have
not gained traction in the field as viable to building a cumulative and organized body of
knowledge.
In recent decades, as the grandparent literature was coming into its own, scholarship about
fathers was also taking shape. The fatherhood literature developed quickly and has gained
recognition for its theoretical advancements. The fatherhood literature, grounded primarily
in developmental psychology and family studies, has provided scholars with a number of
theoretical frameworks, drawing both criticism and acclaim (for a review see Day, Lewis,
O’Brien, & Lamb, 2005). Indeed, what the grandparent and grandfather literatures lack in
theory development, the fatherhood literature is relatively strong. However, even though
men with children and grandchildren continue in their paternal and grandpaternal roles,
306
BATES & TAYLOR

often concurrently throughout their lives (Goodsell, Bates, & Behnke, 2011; Russell, 1986),
the fatherhood literature has contributed relatively little to advancing theoretical scholarship
on either aging fathers or grandfathers (cf. Snarey, 1993).
Thus, our purpose is to outline a conceptual framework of grandfather involvement that
is informed primarily by research on grandfathers. Given the lack of empirical scholarship
in some areas we also rely on grandparent research generally and make note of other theo-
retical traditions that apply to this topic. We strenuously avoid comparing grandmothers
and grandfathers because doing so typically puts one in a better light than the other. Fur-
thermore, we avoid pointing out the uniqueness of grandmothers and grandfathers because
in many ways their qualities and efforts are complementary and overlapping. Additionally,
in proposing a conceptual framework about grandfathers, we do not want to take away from
grandmothers, we simply want to draw attention to grandfathers. To be sure, this frame-
work is a descriptive formulation of what we see in the current literature and it offers a new
lexicon of concepts which scholars can utilize to examine and explain grandfathers’ efforts
to develop relationships with grandchildren, with the end toward eventually building a co-
hesive body of scholarship.
We propose and define grandfather involvement and describe and define three compo-
nents of involvement: contact frequency, participation in activities, and commitment. Ad-
ditionally, because scholarship indicates that having contact with, participating in activities
with, and being committed to family members are each key to relationship-building, we in-
corporate into a process model (see Figure 1) the conceptual and empirical relations be-
tween the components of grandfather involvement and two grandfather-grandchild
relationship outcomes, namely, relationship quality and relationship satisfaction. Indeed,
the development of meaningful relationships is beneficial to grandchildren (Silverstein &
Ruiz, 2006) and to grandfathers (Bates & Taylor, 2012a; Taylor & Bates, in press). By cit-
ing evidence of relations to outcome factors, we broaden the theoretical relevance of this tri-
partite involvement framework.
SCHOLARSHIP ON GRANDFATHERS
There has been very little empirically-based research conducted specifically on grandfa-
thers. Extensive searches of the literature supplied only twelve empirical, peer-reviewed
307
GRANDFATHER INVOLVEMENT
Commitment
Relationship
Quality
Relationship
Satisfaction
Participation in
Activities
Contact
Frequency
Figure 1. Components of grandfather involvement and links to relationship outcomes.

studies published since 1985 where data solely from traditional, non-caregiving grandfathers
was collected and reported (i.e., Baranowski, 1990; Bates & Taylor, 2012a; Fruhauf, Orel,
& Jenkins, 2009; Kivett, 1985, 1991; Kivnick, 1986; Lesperance, 2010; Mann & Leeson,
2010; Roberto, Allen, & Blieszner, 2001; Scraton & Holland, 2006; Tarrant, 2010; Waldrop
et al., 1999) and only six empirical, peer-reviewed articles where data solely from caregiv-
ing grandfathers was collected and reported (i.e., Bullock, 2005; Bullock, 2007; Bullock &
Thomas, 2007; Chan, 2007; Kolomer & McCallion, 2005; Okagbue-Reaves, 2005). Inter-
estingly, all but one of these studies are described by their authors as “exploratory,” most
are qualitative, all but one are stand-alone studies not systematic investigations, and only one
of the quantitative studies has more than 110 grandfather participants.
These search outcomes are not surprising given that the majority of peer-reviewed re-
search on grandparent-grandchild relationships is based on grandchild, parent, or grand-
mother reports (Bates, 2009a; see also Mann, 2007 for a discussion on this topic), in part
because of higher mortality rates of men than women and a general lack of attention in the
gerontological literature paid to aging men (Kosberg & Mangum, 2002). In studies where
grandfathers are included, they are often only a minority of the sample and their responses
are frequently either compared against those of grandmothers or are combined with data
from grandmothers and reported as findings from “grandparents” (e.g., Drew & Smith,
1999; Kaufman & Elder, 2003; Mueller & Elder, 2003; Thomas, 1989; Uhlenberg & Ham-
mill, 1998). Unfortunately, these methodological strategies conceal grandfathers’contribu-
tions to grandchildren’s lives and have precluded a deeper understanding of the intricacies
of the role of grandfathers.
Although empirical research on grandfathers has yet to move beyond small-scale, ex-
ploratory studies, the findings from these works are valuable for their descriptive content
and have laid the foundation for current and future research. There is, however, much to
learn about grandpaternal engagement and questions of relationship development are best
addressed when scholars operate within the grandfathering paradigm (Bates, 2009a) which
centers on the interactive, behavioral, and social-cognitive aspects of intergenerational re-
lationship growth and enhancement.
The study of grandparenting and of grandparent-grandchild relationships is complex due
to the demographic (e.g., age of grandchild, age of grandfather, sex of grandchild, ethnic-
ity, biological vs. step), individual (e.g., health of grandfather, personality traits), and familial
(e.g., lineage, quality of parent-grandparent relationship) factors that influence the extent to
which intergenerational interaction occurs. While these factors, acting perhaps as mediators
and/or moderators, somewhat like a complex process model, are important in determining
the extent to which men engage in grandfathering efforts, we explicitly exclude them from
consideration because of the limited theoretical guidance and empirical support (Szinovacz,
1998). Rather, consistent with scholars working from the grandfathering paradigm, we focus
here on three interactive aspects of grandfathering because they are the fundamental build-
ing blocks of intergenerational relationships.
To avoid confusion in future research, we define the grandfather involvement as the de-
gree of engagement in the process of building and maintaining relationships with grand-
308
BATES & TAYLOR

children. Grandfather involvement entails behaviors, social cognitions that guide behavior,
and interactions between grandfather and grandchild. For analytic purposes, we find it help-
ful to think of grandfather involvement in terms of three components: (1) the face-to-face
and non-face-to-face frequency of contact between the grandfather and his grandchild, (2)
the extent of the grandfather’s participation in activities with his grandchild, and (3) the
grandfather’s degree of commitment to the grandchild (see Figure 1). Because these three
concepts describe engagement in building intergenerational relationships it is thus expected
that contact, activities, and commitment would be theoretically related to relationship-based
outcomes. In the grandparenting literature scholars have identified two main relationship-
based outcomes: relationship quality (also called emotional closeness) and relationship sat-
isfaction. After describing each component of the grandfather involvement conceptual
framework, we review literature that reports on relations with the two outcomes.
Contact Frequency
The frequency of intergenerational contact is one of the most commonly studied aspects
of grandparent-grandchild relationships (Sheehan & Petrovic, 2008). Contact frequency is
typically operationalized in grandparent research as the amount of face-to-face (e.g., visits)
and non-face-to-face contact (e.g., letters, phone calls, email) (Block, 2000; Geurts, Poort-
man, van Tilburg, & Dykstra, 2009) with a grandchild. Contact frequency is measured at an
ordinal level with scales that typically range from “daily contact” to “once-a-year contact.”
Although much of the existing assessments have centered on more traditional types of con-
tact, such as frequency of visits to the grandparent’s home or via telephone calls, there have
been recent attempts to assess the frequency of various forms of electronic contact such as
texting, instant messaging, and video telephone communication (e.g., Skype). Future re-
search should consider the frequency of these now-common methods of contact.
Scholarly interest in contact frequency is in part due to the emphasis family sociologists
have placed on the structural components of intergenerational relationships (Bengtson,
2001), stemming, in part, from historical changes in residential living patterns in modern so-
ciety over the past century (Bengtson, 1987; LeVine & White, 1987). Before the establish-
ment of federal Social Security retirement policy, many elderly grandparents who were no
longer able to work in paid employment and who could not maintain their own household
(either because of costs or poor health) lived with their children and grandchildren in their
children’s home (Gratton & Haber, 1996). These living arrangements provided opportuni-
ties for consistent, daily interaction between grandparents and grandchildren. In addition to
parents, grandparents often served as additional authority figures for the younger genera-
tion and exerted direct influence in grandchildren’s lives. Social Security retirement income
made it possible for older adults (grandparents) to maintain their own households and con-
sequently made it possible for parents of grandchildren to retain residential independence
from their parents. These living arrangements made face-to-face intergenerational contact
less frequent and grandparents lost status as authority figures (Smith & Drew, 2002). As a
structurally-based factor in involvement, the frequency of contact between grandfathers and
grandchildren is a basic premise of the development of intergenerational relationships.
The frequency of intergenerational contact gained theoretical status when it was included
in Bengtson and Black’s (1973) intergenerational solidarity model, and applied to grand-
309

parent-grandchild relationships (see Hammarström, 2004). In their model, contact frequency
was conceptualized as making up only part of associational solidarity, a concept which was
operationalized as “the type and frequency of activities that constitute intergenerational in-
teraction” (Bengtson & Schrader, 1982, p. 132). This conceptual definition as well as the
operational definition (see Bengtson & Schrader, 1982, p. 155) confound, both conceptu-
ally and operationally, contact frequency and participation in activities, two concepts that
we present here as being distinctly measureable. Our view of contact is consistent, however,
with Bengtson’s view of contact in associational solidarity; that is, it reflects structural fea-
tures of family life, such as the geographic distance/proximity between grandparents and
grandchildren.
Contact frequency is not only important as a structural component of intergenerational
family relationships, but it is also a relational component because it provides the founda-
tional opportunity by which relationship development occurs. That is, in order for a grand-
father to participate in relationship-building activities with his grandchild he must first have
contact with the grandchild. The converse is possible however; a grandchild could visit the
home of his or her grandfather but not participate in any activities together. The assessment
of contact frequency does not assume that a grandfather participates in a given activity with
his grandchild. When the frequency of contact is measured, the instrument should not con-
found the measurement of contact with the assessment of participation in a given activity.
Relationship Quality and Relationship Satisfaction as Outcomes of Contact Frequency
Studies document positive associations between grandparents’ frequency of contact with
grandchildren and relationship quality (or emotional closeness) (Kennedy, 1992b) and re-
lationship satisfaction (Creasey, 1993). Data from a nationally representative sample of
older adults found that grandparents who had more contact with grandchildren tended to de-
velop more emotionally closer relationships than grandparents with less contact (Silver-
stein & Marenco, 2001). Similarly, with data from a large longitudinal study of rural families
in Iowa, King and Elder (1995) found that contact and relationship quality were positively,
albeit modestly, related. Analyses also revealed that in almost every case, high levels of
contact precluded poor-quality relationships. In a study using structural equation modeling
techniques, Bates and Taylor (2008) found that grandfather-grandchild contact frequency
was significantly associated with relationship quality and relationship satisfaction, although
the model estimates were small.
Participation in Activities
Participation in activities refers to the extent to which a grandfather engages in various in-
person interactive activities with or performs indirect support behaviors for a grandchild.
This component of the grandfather involvement framework is grounded in nurturing be-
haviors. An appropriate theoretical basis for participation in activities is Erikson’s (1963)
developmental stage of generativity. Generativity refers to adults’ motivation and interest
in caring for, establishing, and contributing to subsequent generations and the behavioral
manifestations of those drives (Erikson, 1950). Consistent with Erikson’s thinking, the re-
cently proposed generative grandfathering framework (Bates, 2009a) assumes that grand-
310
BATES & TAYLOR

fathers engage in various activities with and for grandchildren to contribute to their devel-
opmental needs and to build relationships. Although originally Erikson does not specifi-
cally name grandparenthood as a part of the generative stage, in his later work he does
suggest that older adults who participate in generative activities with children maintain a
“grand-generative function” for healthy development (Erikson, 1982, p. 63; italics in orig-
inal). Later, Erikson, Erikson, and Kivnick (1986) elaborated further on generativity in old
age and argued that the grandparent role offered older adults opportunities for development
through “the possibility of caring for the newest generation” (p. 91). Recently, researchers
have begun to study empirically generativity among grandparents (Thiele & Whelan, 2008).
Generativity in the context of participation in activities with or for grandchildren is con-
ceptualized as generative work where grandfathers are actively engaged in caring for, es-
tablishing, and nurturing their grandchildren. The generative grandfathering framework was
not proposed as a comprehensive theory of involvement and did not explicitly consider con-
tact and commitment. The notion of grandfatherwork, however, “is defined as the effort, en-
ergy, time, and resources grandfathers put forth to care for, serve, meet the developmental
needs of, and maintain relationships with their descendants” (Bates, 2009a, p. 338). The
concepts comprising the framework are based on extrapolations from the grandparenting lit-
erature regarding well-established grandparenting behaviors that represent domains of ac-
tivities. The framework originally consisted of six concepts or work domains: lineage work,
mentoring work, spiritual work, recreation work, family identity work, and investment work.
We expand this list in proposing a new concept, character work, subdivided from spiritual
work (see Bates & Goodsell, 2013). These concepts and their definitions should not be con-
fused with those of generative fathering (see Dollahite & Hawkins, 1998), notwithstanding
the similar stylistic nomenclature. Following is a review of each work ethic.
Lineage work. Lineage work refers to the participation of grandfathers in providing a
road map of people, places, and information so that grandchildren learn their family heritage
(Waldrop et al., 1999). Grandfathers perform lineage work in response to grandchildren’s
needs to be connected to ancestral roots, to know from whom and from where they came,
and to be acquainted (at least in name) with progenitors (Bates & Goodsell, 2013; Weber
& Absher, 2003). Lineage work creates a link between the past and the present. Through lin-
eage work grandchildren gain a sense of lineage consciousness, or an awareness of family
relationships across the generations (Taylor, 1998). Grandfathers perform lineage work be-
cause of their desire to connect grandchildren with the family’s history. Lineage work is a
type of re-involvement with a man’s personal past (Kivnick, 1985, 1986) and carries im-
plications for his “immortality” through grandchildren as they carry on the family line
through names and in memories (Thomas, 1989). Grandfathers bring the past to life in lin-
eage work by recounting family events, telling their own life stories (Sellers & Milton,
2007), reciting names and dates, and by showing and discussing with grandchildren the
family tree (Weber & Absher, 2003). Indeed, grandfathers are grandchildren’s living link to
their own family’s history.
Mentoring work. Mentoring work is concerned with a grandfather’s desire to pass on
his knowledge and learning to the next generation (Bugental & Grusec, 2006) and refers to
the time and energy grandfathers put forth to teach, instruct, and coach their grandchildren
311

in practical knowledge and skills (Bates & Goodsell, 2013; Kennedy, 1992a; Waldrop et al.,
1999). Skills and knowledge largely reflect a grandfather’s occupation, education, training,
and hobbies (Goodsell et al., 2011). Skills taught may not actually be learned by grand-
children and may not become useful in grandchildren’s lives, however, from the grandfa-
ther’s perspective, the teaching of these skills is important to relationship development
(Mueller, Wilhelm, & Elder, 2002) and to the personal growth and development of the
grandchild.
Spiritual work. Spiritual work refers to the time, energy, compassion, and patience grand-
fathers express in response to the needs of grandchildren for direction, advice, encourage-
ment, physical affection, emotional comfort, and love (Bates & Goodsell, 2013). In spiritual
work, grandfathers may offer advice about everyday sorts of problems or purvey comfort
in times of crisis (King & Elder, 1999; Tinsley & Parke, 1988). Spiritual work may occur
during family rituals with a group of family members (Kivett, 1985) or occur in one-on-one
situations between grandfather and grandchild (Sellers & Milton, 2007). For some grand-
fathers’ spiritual work may be grounded in religious principles and practices (Taylor &
Bates, in press), whereas for others guidance and comfort is not associated with religion
(Waldrop et al., 1999).
Character work. Intimations of character work can be found in the first iteration of
Bates’s (2009a) conceptualization of spiritual work. We believe there is enough conceptual
differentiation between spiritual work (as it is defined in the previous paragraph) and char-
acter work to warrant further clarification. Character work refers to grandfathers’ efforts to
nurture and shape the character and personality of grandchildren in addressing grandchil-
dren’s needs to be ethical and responsible members of society (Bates & Goodsell, 2013).
Grandparents report that they not only have a responsibility to discuss with grandchildren
high morals and values, such as integrity and courtesy (Nussbaum & Bettini, 1994), but to
work to pass them on to their grandchildren (AARP, 1999, 2002). Furthermore, although we
know that grandparents are clued in to general aspects of grandchildren’s personalities (see
Fingerman, 1998), there is also evidence showing that grandparents identify aspects of all
of the Big Five personality domains as characteristics they desire to help grandchildren de-
velop (AARP, 1999; Hanks, 2001). Performing character work activities may involve grand-
fathers acting as moral guides or being role models of behaviors they want grandchildren
to develop (Kornhaber, 1996).
Recreation work. Recreation work refers to the effort grandfathers make to organize, fa-
cilitate, or participate in enjoyable and fun activities with grandchildren (Kivett, 1991; Neu-
garten & Weinstein, 1964). Recreation work responds to grandchildren’s interest in and
need for diversion and leisure. Imagination and creativity are often required in recreation
work. The types of recreation work performed by grandfathers are often related to the grand-
child’s age (Taylor et al., 2005), personality characteristics (Fingerman, 1998), and personal
interests (Tinsley & Parke, 1988). Grandfathers may participate in sporting activities with
grandchildren, watch TV or videos together, eat out, attend family gatherings with grand-
children, or go fishing or hunting together (AARP, 2002; Bates & Goodsell, 2013; Kennedy,
1992a; Kivett, 1985).
312
BATES & TAYLOR

Family identity work. Family identity work refers to grandfathers’efforts to teach grand-
children how to be a family in the present. Grandfathers respond to family members’needs
for strong familial bonds, relational stability, continuity, discipline, and communication.
Family identity work occurs in response to the need for lasting, trusting relationships
(Bowlby, 1969; Erikson, 1963). Grandchildren identify with their family as a result of a
grandfather’s efforts to teach how the family does or should operate (Bates & Goodsell,
2013). Grandfathers may share with grandchildren the family’s ethnic or racial culture to
help grandchildren develop a sense of cultural identity and unity with the family (McAdoo
& McWright, 1994; Wiscott & Kopera-Frye, 2000). Family identity work may include re-
inforcing parental authority (Neugarten & Weinstein, 1964), even when the grandfather
may disagree with the parents on certain issues (Katz & Kessel, 2002). Family identity work
may be prompted by a family crisis such as a parental divorce (Hilton & Macari, 1997), teen
pregnancy and three-generational living arrangements (Oyserman et al., 1993), or surro-
gate caregiving in the absence of the parents (Kolomer & McCallion, 2005).
Investment work. Investment work refers to the time, energy, and financial resources in-
vested in the grandchild’s future (Neugarten & Weinstein, 1964). Although investment work
may not necessarily be an in-person activity, it may be a supportive activity where grand-
fathers invest in their descendant’s future to address their needs for and interests in educa-
tional, occupational, and material success. Grandfathers empower their grandchildren with
various types of capital (e.g., family [Goodsell & Seiter, 2011], social, human, and finan-
cial) and through various forms of assistance and support (King & Elder, 1997; Roberto et
al., 2001). For example, grandfathers may put money aside so grandchildren can afford to
attend college (AARP, 2002; Bates & Goodsell, 2013). They may also connect grandchil-
dren to occupational networks to help the grandchild gain employment (Bates & Goodsell;
Neugarten & Weinstein, 1964). Investment work continues to be realized even after the
grandfather has passed away through inheritances, memories, and personal legacies.
Relationship Quality and Relationship Satisfaction as Outcomes of Participation in
Activities
Researchers have consistently identified grandparental participation in activities with
grandchildren as being important in promoting high-quality grandparent-grandchild rela-
tionships (Kivett, 1991; Smith & Drew, 2002) and in intergenerational relationship satis-
faction (Taylor et al., 2005). In early research on grandfathers, Kivett (1985) found that
approximately 88% of grandfathers in her sample felt very close to the grandchild with
whom they had the most interaction and that perceptions of closeness increased with par-
ticipation in activities. Wiscott and Kopera-Frye (2000) found a weak but significant asso-
ciation between participation in shared activities (e.g., looking at family photos together,
telling stories, cooking together) and relationship quality. Similarly, Bates (2009b) found that
grandfathers’lineage, spiritual, and recreation work were each positively associated with re-
lationship quality. Interestingly, in that study mentoring work was negatively related to re-
lationship quality. With regard to relationship satisfaction, Taylor et al. (2005) found that
grandchildren reported increased satisfaction in relationships with grandparents who acted
as nurturers, family historians, and role models. Similarly, Bates and Taylor (2008) found
313

that a composite variable of the six original generative grandfathering work domains was
modestly and positively associated with relationship satisfaction.
COMMITMENT
Classic studies of grandparent-grandchild relations have all shown variations in grand-
parenting interaction styles (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1985, 1986; Mueller & Elder, 2003;
Mueller et al., 2002; Neugarten & Weinstein, 1964). In all of these studies a portion of the
sample (typically a minority of the sample) is found to be distant, remote, or detached while
the rest of the grandparents in the study are much more interactive and participatory. This
raises the question: Why are some grandparents distant or detached and others not? Con-
textual factors such as geographic distance, the quality of the parent-grandparent relation-
ship, and the health of the grandparent sometimes factors into engagement with
grandchildren (Silverstein & Marenco, 2001; Sellers & Milton, 2007; however, see Taylor,
1998, for data dispelling the geographic distance hypothesis). We believe, however, there
is a social-cognitive factor not often considered in intergenerational relationship research
that impacts how grandparents, in this case grandfathers, think about and then enact their
grandfathering role. We believe that factor is the degree to which a grandfather is commit-
ted to his grandchild and to building and maintaining a relationship with that grandchild.
Commitment is broadly defined as “a psychological state that represents attachment to a
partner and a desire to maintain the relationship” (Kurdek, 1995, p. 261), with emphasis
often placed on the continuation of the relationship (Johnson, 1999). Commitment, however,
is not just a “psychological state,” it is also a social-cognitive process because in order for
attachment to develop and for continuation to occur, interested parties must behave in pur-
poseful ways that preserve the health, integrity, and quality of the relationship. As such,
commitment is goal-directed toward the outcome of continuation.
Particularly salient to commitment in intergenerational relationships is Johnson’s (1999;
Kapinus & Johnson, 2003) concept of personal commitment. Johnson has argued that there
are three components of personal commitment: (1) personal dedication to the partner (com-
mitment to the grandchild), (2) personal dedication to the relationship (commitment to the
grandfather-grandchild relationship), and (3) relationship identity (the extent to which a
particular grandfather-grandchild relationship is incorporated into his identity and self-con-
cept) (Johnson, Caughlin, & Huston, 1999). Regarding this third component, it would fol-
low from symbolic interactionism that aging men actively construct a grandpaternal
identity—through interaction with a particular grandchild—to which meaning is ascribed
(LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993; Reitzes & Mutran, 2004).
Although commitment has received increasing attention in theoretical, empirical, and clin-
ical scholarship on couple relationships (see Johnson, 1973; Kapinus & Johnson, 2003;
Kurdek, 2008; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002), aside from
our recent research, personal commitment has yet to be measured explicitly in grandparent-
grandchild relationships. Nevertheless, consistent with the definitions of commitment dis-
cussed previously, various sources in the grandparent literature indicate that commitment is
evidenced by grandfathers giving of their time, financial resources, physical and emotional
energy, and by sacrificing personal goals, even goals related to retirement (Bates & Good-
sell, 2013; Burton, 1992; Fingerman, 1998; Goodsell et al., 2011; Hagestad, 1985; King &
Elder, 1999; Kolomer & McCallion, 2005; Silverstein & Long, 1998; Silverstein &
314
BATES & TAYLOR

Marenco, 2001). Commitment is also intimated in Erikson’s (1950) original writings about
the generativity vs. stagnation stage as being essential to human development. Recent the-
orizing about generativity likewise highlights long-term commitment as vital to living a
generative life (McAdams, 2001). Indeed, commitment is an important factor in the moti-
vation to choose to maintain contact with grandchildren and to participate in activities with
them. Nevertheless, contact and participation in activities may also lead grandfathers to in-
creased levels of commitment to the grandchild and to their relationship.
Relationship Outcomes of Commitment
Although personal commitment may accurately describe many grandparents’ motives to
develop, maintain, improve, and/or enhance relationships with grandchildren (Erikson,
1963; Kornhaber, 1996; Kornhaber & Woodward, 1981), because grandparent scholars have
yet to consider the commitment construct, there is little empirical evidence on possible as-
sociations with relationship-based outcomes. There is, however, some initial evidence in-
dicating that grandfathers’ levels of commitment significantly predict relationship
satisfaction (Bates & Taylor, 2008) and relationship quality (Bates, 2009b). Research out-
side the grandparent literature suggests that people who report high levels of commitment
in their intimate relationships are more likely to report being happy in that relationship
(Stanley et al., 2002), and that levels of commitment reported at initial assessment predicted
the long-term effects on relationship satisfaction seven and thirteen months later (Frank &
Brandstätter, 2002). These studies outside the grandparent literature highlight the importance
of commitment in relationships between family members and make plausible the claim that
commitment would also play an important role in the development of intergenerational re-
lationship quality, relationship satisfaction, and other relational and individual outcomes. Fu-
ture research is needed in this area.
CONCLUSION
For several decades, theory building about grandfathers has eluded the purview of schol-
ars notwithstanding the empirical growth in the broader grandparent literature. In this arti-
cle, we set ourselves the task of defining the construct of grandfather involvement and of
outlining a framework of concepts we believe will ultimately generate growth in both the-
oretical and empirical research on grandfathers and facilitate the development of a mean-
ingful and coherent body of scholarship. The famine of nuanced theoretical and conceptual
thinking about grandfathers may in part be addressed by this effort to expand the genera-
tive potentialities (Knapp, 2009) of understanding and describing the complexities of grand-
fathering and grandfather-grandchild relationships.
Notwithstanding the initial interest in grandfathers extending back to the mid-1980s,
grandfather research remains in its infancy. It seems only appropriate that a framework of
concepts be proposed at this point in the ontogenetic development of the grandfather liter-
ature to ground future scholarship in this area. Contact frequency, a structural-relational
concept, and participation in activities, a behavioral-interactional concept, are both explic-
itly found in the grandparent and grandfather literatures. The introduction of commitment,
a social-cognitive concept that guides and motivates behavior, to the study of grandfather-
ing and grandfather-grandchild relationships represents an expanded approach to thinking
315

about intergenerational relationships. The combination of these three concepts into this
framework will provide scholars with theoretically and empirically grounded tools to ex-
plore a broader array of intergenerational relationship processes and relationship outcomes.
Future research opportunities utilizing this framework could include explorations of step-
grandfathering, great-grandfathering, foster-grandfathering, grandfathers as fictive kin, and
grandfathers raising grandchildren. In addition, scholars can begin to explore how grand-
paternal involvement influences grandchild developmental outcomes.
Community professionals working with older adult males or intergenerational families
might utilize this involvement framework to help grandfathers and their grandchildren be-
come more cohesive and stronger or to overcome shortcomings they may feel exist within
their relationship. Human service workers and family life educators working directly with
grandfathers, parents, and grandchildren can instruct them on how grandfathers can be more
involved in regards to showing more commitment, having more frequent contact of various
types and participating in a range of activities that meet the needs and interests of both the
grandfathers and grandchildren. Facilitators of grandparenting support groups or educa-
tional classes could use the three core principles of this framework as the core of strength-
ening and improving grandfather involvement. Discussions that might have been more
grandmother-centered can now expand to include grandfather-related activities. In addi-
tion, this framework would be helpful to mental health practitioners who are working with
older adult men suffering from depression or other chronic mental challenges. A therapist
might develop a treatment plan, with this framework as the underpinning that involves
strategies and approaches in becoming more involved with their grandchildren. Recent re-
search indicates that more highly involved grandfathers reported greater positive affect and
fewer depressive symptoms than disengaged grandfathers (Bates & Taylor, 2012a).
Never before in U.S. history has there been an aging population as numerous as what cur-
rently exists (see Kinsella & Velkoff, 2001). Scholars should take advantage of opportuni-
ties to more fully embrace the study of grandfathers as critical members of the extended
family network. Many grandfathers today do not fit the distant, silent patriarch model of
decades-past popular culture, and as men live longer scholarship should not only reflect the
changing demography (Cherlin, 2010) but also the cultural and social changes in attitudes
about men’s engagement in supporting, caring for, and nurturing grandchildren.
REFERENCES
AARP. (1999). The AARP grandparenting survey: The sharing and caring between mature
grandparents and their grandchildren. Retrieved on July 28, 2010, from http://assets.aarp.org/
rgcenter/general/grandpsurv.pdf
AARP. (2002). The grandparent study 2002 report. Retrieved on January 9, 2007, from http://as-
sets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/gp_2002.pdf
Baranowski, M.D. (1990). The grandfather-grandchild relationship: Meaning and exchange.
Family Perspective, 24, 201-215.
Bates, J.S. (2009a). Generative grandfathering: A conceptual framework for nurturing grand-
children. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 331-352.
316
BATES & TAYLOR

Bates, J.S. (2009b). Generative grandfathering, commitment, and contact: How grandfathers
nurture relationships with grandchildren and the relational and mental health benefits for aging
men. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Bates, J.S., & Goodsell, T.L. (2013). Male kin relationships: Grandpas, grandsons, and genera-
tivity. Marriage and Family Review, 49, 26-50.
Bates, J.S., & Taylor, A.C. (2008). Generative grandfathering: How grandfathers nurture grand-
children. Paper presented at the National Council on Family Relations annual meeting. Little
Rock, Arkansas.
Bates, J.S., & Taylor, A.C. (2012a). Grandfather involvement and aging men’s mental health.
American Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 229-239.
Bates, J.S., & Taylor, A.C. (2012b). Taking stock of the theory-research connections in grand-
parent research. In M.A. Fine & F.D. Fincham (Eds.), Handbook of family theories: A content-
based approach (pp. 51-70). New York, NY: Routledge.
Bengtson, V.L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Socio-
logical Review, 40, 358-371.
Bengtson, V.L. (1987). Parenting, grandparenting and intergenerational continuity. In J.B. Lan-
caster, J. Altman, A.S. Rossi, & L.R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial
dimensions (pp. 435-456). New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Bengtson, V.L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenera-
tional bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1-16.
Bengtson, V.L. (2005). My view: Theory as puzzle-building. In V.L. Bengtson, A.C. Acock, K.R.
Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D.M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research
(p. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bengtson, V.L., & Black, K.D. (1973). Intergenerational relations and continuities in socializa-
tion. In P.B. Baltes & K.W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality
and socialization (pp. 208-234). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bengtson, V.L., & Schrader, S.S. (1982). Parent-child relations. In D.J. Mangen & W.A. Peter-
son (Eds.), Research instruments in social gerontology, Volume 2: Social roles and social par-
ticipation (pp. 115-185). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Block, C.E. (2000). Dyadic and gender differences in perceptions of the grandparent-grandchild
relationship. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 51, 85-104.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic.
Bugental, D.B., & Grusec, J.E. (2006). Socialization processes. In W. Damon & R.M. Lerner
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 366-428). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bullock, K. (2005). Grandfathers and the impact of raising grandchildren. Journal of Sociology
& Social Welfare, 32, 43-59.
Bullock, K. (2007). Grandfathers raising grandchildren: An exploration of African American
kinship networks. Journal of Health & Social Policy, 22, 181-197.
Bullock, K., & Thomas, R.L. (2007). The vulnerability for elder abuse among a sample of cus-
todial grandfathers: An exploratory study. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 19, 133-150.
Burton, L. (1992). Black grandmothers raising grandchildren of drug-addicted parents: Stres-
sors, outcomes, and social service needs. The Gerontologist, 32, 744-751.
Chan, Z.C.Y. (2007). The grandfather-grandson relationship in Hong Kong. International Jour-
nal of Men’s Health, 6, 115-126.
Cherlin, A.J. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403-419.
Cherlin, A.J., & Furstenberg, F.F., Jr. (1985). Styles and strategies of grandparenting. In V.L.
Bengtson & J.F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 97-116). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
317

Cherlin, A.J., & Furstenberg, F.F., Jr. (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in the
family, a life apart. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Copen, C., & Silverstein, M. (2007). Transmission of religious beliefs across generations: Do
grandparents matter? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 38, 497-510.
Creasey, G.L. (1993). The association between divorce and late adolescent grandchildren’s re-
lations with grandparents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 513-529.
Day, R.D., Lewis, C., O’Brien, M., & Lamb, M.E. (2005). Fatherhood and father involvement:
Emerging constructs and theoretical orientations. In V.L. Bengtson, A.C. Acock, K.R. Allen,
P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D.M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp.
341-365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doherty, W.J., Boss, P. G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., & Steinmetz, S.K. (1993). Family the-
ories and methods: A contextual approach. In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R.
Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual
approach (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Plenum.
Dollahite, D.C., & Hawkins, A.J. (1998). A conceptual ethic of generative fathering. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 7, 109-132.
Drew, L.A., & Smith, P.K. (1999). The impact of parental separation/ divorce on grandparent-
grandchild relationships. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 48, 191-216.
Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E.H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E.H., Erikson, J.M., & Kivnick, H.Q. (1986). Vital involvement in old age. New York,
NY: Norton.
Fingerman, K.L. (1998). The good, the bad, and the worrisome: Emotional complexities in grand-
parents’ experiences with individual grandchildren. Family Relations, 47, 403-414.
Frank, E., & Brandstätter, V. (2002). Approach versus avoidance: Different types of commit-
ment in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 208-221.
Fruhauf, C.A., Orel, N.A., & Jenkins, D.A. (2009). The coming-out process of gay grandfathers:
Perceptions of their adult children’s influence. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 5, 99-118.
Geurts, T., Poortman, A-R., van Tilburg, T., & Dykstra, P.A. (2009). Contact between grand-
children and their grandparents in early adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1698-1713.
Goodsell, T.L., & Seiter, L. (2011). Scrapbooking: Family capital and the construction of fam-
ily discourse. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(3), 318-341.
Goodsell, T.L., Bates, J.S., & Behnke, A.O. (2011). Fatherhood stories: Grandparents, grand-
children, and gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 134-154.
Gratton, B., & Haber, C. (1996). Three phases in the history of American grandparents: Author-
ity, burden, companion. Generations, 20, 7-12.
Hagestad, G.O. (1985). Continuity and connectedness. In V.L. Bengtson & J.F. Robertson (Eds.),
Grandparenthood (pp. 31-48). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Hammarström, G. (2004). The construct of intergenerational solidarity in a lineage perspective:
A discussion on underlying theoretical assumptions. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 33-51.
Hanks, R.S. (2001). “Grandma, what big teeth you have!”: The social construction of grandpar-
enting in American business and academe. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 652-676.
Hilton, J.M., & Macari, D.P. (1997). Grandparent involvement following divorce: A comparison
in single-mother and single-father families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 28, 203-224.
Johnson, M.P. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. The So-
ciological Quarterly, 14, 395-406.
318
BATES & TAYLOR

Johnson, M.P. (1999). Personal, moral, and structural commitment to relationships: Experiences
of choice and constraint. In J.M. Adams, & W.H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
commitment and relationship stability (pp. 73-87). New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
Johnson, M.P., Caughlin, J.P., & Huston, T.L. (1999). The tripartite nature of marital commitment:
Personal, moral, and structural reasons to stay married. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
61, 160-177.
Kapinus, C.A., & Johnson, M.P. (2003). The utility of family life cycle as a theoretical and em-
pirical tool: Commitment and family life-cycle stage. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 155-184.
Katz, S., & Kessel, L. (2002). Grandparents of children with developmental disabilities: Per-
ceptions, beliefs, and involvement in their care. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing,
25, 113-128.
Kaufman, G., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (2003). Grandparenting and age identity. Journal of Aging Stud-
ies, 17, 269-282.
Kennedy, G.E. (1992a). Shared activities of grandparents and grandchildren. Psychological Re-
ports, 70, 211-227.
Kennedy, G.E. (1992b). Quality in grandparent/grandchild relationships. International Journal
of Aging & Human Development, 35, 83-98.
King, V., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (1995). American children view their grandparents: Linked lives
across three rural generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 165-178.
King, V., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting: Childhood experiences with
grandparents and current involvement with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 59, 848-860.
King, V., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (1999). Are religious grandparents more involved grandparents? The
Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 54B, S317-S328.
Kinsella, K., & Velkoff, V.A. (2001, November). An aging world: 2001. International Population
Reports, P95/01-1. Washington, DC: International Programs Center, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.
Kivett, V.R. (1985). Grandfathers and grandchildren: Patterns of association, helping, and psy-
chological closeness. Family Relations, 34, 565-571.
Kivett, V.R. (1991). Centrality of the grandfather role among older rural black and white men.
Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 46, S250-S258.
Kivnick, H.Q. (1985). Grandparenthood and mental health: Meaning, behavior, and satisfaction.
In V.L. Bengtson & J.F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 151-158). Beverly Hill, CA:
Sage.
Kivnick, H.Q. (1986). Grandparenthood and a life cycle. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19,
39-55.
Knapp, S. J. (2009). Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal
of Family Theory and Review, 1, 133-145.
Kolomer, S.R., & McCallion, P. (2005). Depression and caregiver mastery in grandfathers car-
ing for their grandchildren. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 60, 283-
294.
Kornhaber, A. (1996). Contemporary grandparenting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kornhaber, A., & Woodward, K.L. (1981). Grandparents-grandchildren: The vital connection.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Kosberg, J.I., & Mangum, W.P. (2002). The invisibility of older men in gerontology. Gerontol-
ogy & Geriatrics Education, 22, 27-42.
319

Kurdek, L.A. (1995). Assessing multiple determinants of relationship commitment in cohabiting
gay, cohabiting lesbian, dating heterosexual, and married heterosexual couples. Family Rela-
tions, 44, 261-266.
Kurdek, L.A. (2008). Differences between partners from Black and White heterosexual dating
couples in a path model of relationship commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 25, 51-70.
LaRossa, R., & Reitzes, D.C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In P.G. Boss,
W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theo-
ries and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135-166). New York, NY: Plenum.
Lesperance, D. (2010). Legacy, influence and keeping the distance: Two grandfathers, three sto-
ries. Journal of Men’s Studies, 18, 199-217.
LeVine, R.A., & White, M. (1987). Parenthood in social transformation. In J.B. Lancaster, J.
Altman, A.S. Rossi, & L.R. Sherrod (Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimen-
sions (pp. 271-293). New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Mann, R. (2007). Out of the shadows?: Grandfatherhood, age and masculinities. Journal of Aging
Studies, 21, 281-291.
Mann, R., & Leeson, G. (2010). Grandfathers in contemporary families in Britain: Evidence
from qualitative research. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 8, 234-248.
McAdams, D.P. (2001). Generativity in midlife. In M.E. Lachman (Ed.), Handbook of midlife de-
velopment (pp. 395-443). New York, NY: Wiley.
McAdoo, H.P., & McWright, L.A. (1994). The roles of grandparents: The use of proverbs in
value transmission. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 19, 27-38.
Mueller, M.M., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (2003). Family contingencies across the generations: Grand-
parent-grandchild relationships in holistic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65,
404-417.
Mueller, M.M., Wilhelm, B., & Elder, G.H., Jr. (2002). Variations in grandparenting. Research
on Aging, 24, 360-388.
Nehari, M., Grebler, D., & Toren, A. (2007). A voice unheard: Grandparents’grief over children
who died of cancer. Mortality, 12, 66-78.
Neugarten, B.L., & Weinstein, K.K. (1964). The changing American grandparent. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 26, 199-204.
Nussbaum, J.F., & Bettini, L.M. (1994). Shared stories of the grandparent-grandchild relation-
ship. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 39, 67-80.
Okagbue-Reaves, J. (2005). Kinship care: Analysis of the health and well-being of grandfathers
raising grandchildren using the Grandparent Assessment Tool and the Medical Outcomes Trust
SF-36 TM Health Survey. Journal of Family Social Work, 9, 47-66.
Oyserman, D., Radin, N., & Benn, R. (1993). Dynamics in a three-generational family: Teens,
grandparents, and babies. Developmental Psychology, 29, 564-572.
Reese, C.G., & Murray, R.B. (1996). Transcendence: The meaning of great-grandmothering.
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10, 245-251.
Reitzes, D.C., & Mutran, E.J. (2004). Grandparent identity, intergenerational family identity,
and well-being. The Journals of Gerontology, 59B(4), S213-S219.
Roberto, K.A., Allen, K.R., & Blieszner, R. (2001). Grandfathers’ perceptions and expectations
of relationships with their adult grandchildren. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 407-426.
Ruiz, S.A., & Silverstein, M. (2007). Relationships with grandparents and the emotional well-
being of late adolescent and young adult grandchildren. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 793-808.
Rusbult, C.E., & Bunnk, B.P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interde-
pendence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.
320
BATES & TAYLOR

Russell, G. (1986). Grandfathers: Making up for lost opportunities. In R.A. Lewis & R.A. Salt
(Eds.), Men in families (pp. 233-259). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Scraton, S., & Holland, S. (2006). Grandfatherhood and leisure. Leisure Studies, 25, 233-250.
Sellers, D.M., & Milton, M. (2007). The influence of a grandfather’s disease process and death
on the formation of personal identity in a granddaughter. Journal of Aging Studies, 21, 229-238.
Sheehan, N.W., & Petrovic, K. (2008). Grandparents and their adult grandchildren: Recurring
themes from the literature. Marriage & Family Review, 44, 99-124.
Silverstein, M., & Long, J.D. (1998). Trajectories of grandparents’perceived solidarity with adult
grandchildren: A growth curve analysis over 23 years. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60,
912-923.
Silverstein, M., & Marenco, A. (2001). How Americans enact the grandparent role across the
family life course. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 493-522.
Silverstein, M., & Ruiz, S. (2006). Breaking the chain: How grandparents moderate the trans-
mission of maternal depression to their grandchildren. Family Relations, 55, 601-612.
Smith, P.K., & Drew, L.M. (2002). Grandparenthood. In M.H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Vol. 3: Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 141-172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Snarey, J. (1993). How fathers care for the next generation: A four decade study. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Stanley, S.M., Markman, H.J., & Whitton, S.W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commit-
ment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family
Process, 41, 659-675.
Strom, R., & Strom, S. (1997). Building a theory of grandparent development. International
Journal of Aging & Human Development, 45, 255-286.
Szinovacz, M.E. (1998). Research on grandparenting: Needed refinements in concepts, theories,
and methods. In M.E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on grandparenthood (pp. 257-288). West-
port, CT: Greenwood.
Tarrant, A. (2010). Constructing a social geography of grandparenthood: A new focus for inter-
generationality. Area, 42(2), 190-197.
Taylor, A.C. (1998). Perceptions of intergenerational bonding: A comparison between grandfa-
thers and their adult grandchildren. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacks-
burg, VA.
Taylor, A.C., & Bagdi, A. (2005). The lack of explicit theory in family research: A case analysis
of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1990–1999. In V.L. Bengtson, A.C. Acock, K.R.
Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D.M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research
(pp. 22-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, A.C., & Bates, J.S. (in press). Activities that strengthen relational bonds between Latter-
day Saint grandfathers and their adult grandchildren. Journal of Religion, Spirituality, and
Aging.
Taylor, A.C., Robila, M., & Lee, H.S. (2005). Distance, contact, and intergenerational relation-
ships: Grandparents and adult grandchildren from an international perspective. Journal of Adult
Development, 12, 33-41.
Thiele, D.M., & Whelan, T.A. (2008). The relationship between grandparent satisfaction, mean-
ing, and generativity. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 66, 21-48.
Thomas, J.L. (1989). Gender and perceptions of grandparenthood. International Journal of Aging
& Human Development, 29, 296-281.
321

Tinsley, B.J., & Parke, R.D. (1988). The role of grandfathers in the context of the family. In I.B.
Weiner (Series Ed.) & P. Bronstein, & C.P. Cowan (Vol. Eds.), Fatherhood today: Men’s
changing role in the family (pp. 236-250). New York, NY: Wiley.
Uhlenberg, P., & Hammill, B.G. (1998). Frequency of grandparent contact with grandchild sets:
Six factors that make a difference. The Gerontologist, 38, 276-285.
Waldrop, D.P., Weber, J.A., Herald, S.L., Pruett, J., Cooper, K., & Juozapavicius, K. (1999). Wis-
dom and life experience: How grandfathers mentor their grandchildren. Journal of Aging and
Identity, 4, 33-46.
Weber, J.A., & Absher, A.G. (2003). Grandparents and grandchildren: A “Memory Box” course
assignment. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 24, 75-86.
Wiscott, R., & Kopera-Frye, K. (2000). Sharing of culture: Adult grandchildren’s perceptions of
intergenerational relations. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 51, 199-
215.
322
BATES & TAYLOR

Grandfather Involvement: Contact Frequency, Participation in Activities, and Commitment

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Grandfather Involvement: Contact Frequency, Participation in Activities, and Commitment

Similar to Grandfather Involvement: Contact Frequency, Participation in Activities, and Commitment (20)

More from Jonathan Dunnemann

More from Jonathan Dunnemann (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Grandfather Involvement: Contact Frequency, Participation in Activities, and Commitment