Abstract
This article investigated the relationship between religiosity and intergenerational solidarity in Germany, with a focus on differences between eastern and western regions that have maintained unique religious profiles that trace back to before unification. Based on data from Wave 6 (2013-2014) of the German Family Panel ( pairfam), 8,637 reports from 4,622 adult children about their relationships with mothers and fathers were analyzed. Using an index comprising four dimensions of the intergenerational solidarity model (distance, contact, closeness, and support), hierarchical linear regression demonstrated general support for the hypothesis that having a religious denomination is positively associated with the strength of intergenerational relations in Germany. However, this positive association is stronger in the more religious western part of Germany than in the highly secularized eastern part. These results emphasize the importance of taking social context and political history into account when studying core institutions of religion and families.
Highlights
Similar to almost all Western nations, Germany is an aging society due to its declining fertility rate and increased life expectancy (Grünheid & Scharein, 2011)
We sought to test this proposition in Germany and capitalize on its east–west political and cultural division to examine how context modified the role religion plays in how intergenerational relationships are maintained
We used German data to answer the question whether the positive association between religion and intergenerational relations could be found in a society more secularized than the United States
Summary
Similar to almost all Western nations, Germany is an aging society due to its declining fertility rate and increased life expectancy (Grünheid & Scharein, 2011). Based on theories from social psychology, the solidarity paradigm codified the following principal dimensions to represent cohesion between generations (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991): (1) structure (opportunity for interactions, such as geographic distance), (2) association (frequency and pattern of contact), (3) affect (feelings of emotional closeness, affirmation, and intimacy), (4) consensus (extent of agreement in attitudes and values), (5) function (exchanges of emotional, instrumental, and financial support), and (6) norms (strength of filial obligation) This multidimensional model has guided much of the research studying adult intergenerational relationships (e.g., Fingerman, Sechrist, & Birditt, 2013; Kalmijn, 2014; Swartz, 2009; Zarit & Eggebeen, 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
