Ambivalence About Ambivalence: Reply to Pillemer and Suitor

Abstract

T HIS reply is being coauthored because the issues raised link to an ongoing collaborative project. We welcome the opportunity to reply to the comment from Pillemer and Suitor (this issue, pages S394–S396) on the research reported by Ward (2008). Pillemer and Suitor’s work has made important conceptual and empirical contributions to understanding the complexities of parent–adult child relations and within-family differentiation in those relations, and their work has been very influential on our own thinking. Their very positive remarks about the line of thinking and research entailed in the Ward article are certainly appreciated. Here we speak to their very thoughtful comments on conceptual and measurement issues in that work. Pillemer and Suitor ask about the definition and conceptual meaning of collective ambivalence, a term introduced by Ward. This appears to rest on two considerations: First, their discussion implies (and other work says more explicitly) that ambivalence should have a structural meaning rooted in contradictions, whether within a dyadic relationship or at some higher level from family to society. Second, ‘‘collective’’ ambivalence should refer to a collectivity, in this instance the family group as a whole, rather than to individual or dyadic elements composing that collectivity. Pillemer and Suitor conclude on the basis of these considerations that Ward is ‘‘stretching the concept to the point where it loses its meaning’’ (p. S240). It must be admitted that the concept of collective ambivalence, as developed and operationalized by Ward, indeed stretches the meaning of ambivalence as it has been used in the existing literature. It may seem more aggregate than structural in its nature and sources, and its indicators more as ‘‘inconsistencies’’ than ‘‘contradictions.’’ However, the intent in the Ward article is to call attention to important within-family dimensions as a first step, using collective ambivalence as an analogous concept that is more illustrative and sensitizing rather than conclusive. Reflecting this exploratory approach, collective ambivalence is defined somewhat loosely (as Pillemer and Suitor note), as ‘‘mixed feelings across multiple children’’ and ‘‘mixed and negative relations’’ (p. S245). This is intended to capture variation across parent–child relations within a family that yield inconsistent or contradictory relations; more specifically, relations that are more positive with one or some children and less positive with others. This definition refers to collective processes and experiences, and the reference to ambivalence captures the mixed nature and negative undertones of those experiences. In doing so, does ambivalence lose its meaning? To the contrary, we would argue that collective ambivalence has structural sources and can itself be viewed as a structural feature of family networks, reflecting differentiation in the relations among multiple children. Furthermore, it can be employed to extend profitably the meaning and outcomes of ambivalence as it has been applied to parent–child relations. Collective ambivalence can be viewed as a product of particular parent–child relationships and the ambivalence within them. It is also a product of structural characteristics of the family in which those relations are embedded; for example, in our work we have found that it is related to family size (number of siblings) and to the presence of adult stepchildren (Ward, Spitze, & Deane, in press). In turn, collective ambivalence of the sort described and assessed by Ward can be viewed as a source of the sort of ambivalence in ‘‘family life’’ suggested by Pillemer and Suitor. This may at least in part account for its effects on parent well-being. Ambivalence or ‘‘inconsistency’’ of relations across children may yield feelings of ambivalence about one’s family life as a whole or about one’s performance and gratifications as a parent. This is similar to Pillemer and Suitor’s example of a teacher with positive and negative relations with students that may affect that teacher’s feelings about the class or about teaching. The inconsistency across multiple children reflected in Ward’s term collective ambivalence can thereby be seen as a collective feature of a family. Contrast, for example, families that have consistently high or low affect in parent–child relations with families that have more differentiation among ‘‘favorites’’ and ‘‘black sheep.’’ How do these different constellations of relationships affect parents, or children for that matter? These are examples of the kinds of questions raised when thinking about the patterns reflected in collective ambivalence. Pillemer and Suitor also raise issues of measurement, suggesting that Ward’s use of a measure of closeness aggregated across multiple children ‘‘does not embody the contradictory feelings’’ entailed in ambivalence. Clearly there is a need for Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL SCIENCES Copyright 2008 by The Gerontological Society of America 2008, Vol. 63B, No. 6, S397–S398