56
Oya Hazer & M. Serhat Öztürk
The scale developed by Mangen, Bengtson and Landry (1988) was used to examine the
intergenerational emotional solidarity in the families.
The question of intergenerational conventional solidarity in families was used as used by
Bengtson and Roberts (1991).
In order to measure the intergenerational normative solidarity in the family, the scale de-
veloped by Netzer (1994) from the previous studies was used. (Brody et al., 1984; Brody
et al., 1983, Heller, 1976, Seelbach, 1977, Seelbach and Sauer, 1977, Brackbill and Kitch,
1991)
Evaluation and Analysis of Data
Multiple Regression Analysis was applied to determine whether the socio-demographic
characteristics of the individuals and the other dimensions of the intergenerational sol-
idarity in the families (structural solidarity, relational solidarity, functional solidarity, con-
ventional solidarity, emotional solidarity) were significantly predictive of the intergenera-
tional normative solidarity dimension in the families.
Findings and Discussion
In the study, general information regarding the participation was given (Table 1) and
the effect of socio-demographic factors (socio-economic levels of participants, parent/
grandparents they responded about, gender of participants, age, marital status, educa-
tion and employment status, number of siblings, family type, family income perceived by
the participants, age groups, employment and education status of participants’ parents/
grandparents) and relational, functional (provide support, get support), emotional, conven-
tional and structural solidarity (the number of people in the family, geographic distance from
parent/grandparent, health status of parent/grandparent and the participant) on intergener-
ational normative solidarity in the families and the directions of these effects were tested by
Multiple Regression Analysis (Table 2).
General Findings Regarding Participants
When the age groups of participants included in the study are examined; 30.4% among
the 15-19 age group, 34.9% among the 20-24 age group, and 34.6% among the 25-29
age group. 60.4% of participants were female, 39.6% were male. Regarding the educa-
tional status of the participants, it is seen that more than half (64.6%) of the participants
continue to university or graduated from university. When the level of income perceived
by the participants was examined, it was determined that the income level perceived by
the majority was medium (75.1%). As shown in Table 1, 81.3% of the participants were
single, while 18.7% were married. When the family type of the participants is examined;
while the majority (70%) consisted of families with children; they were followed by those
with large family type with 11.6% (Table 1).
