Introduction
Late-life repartnering is one of the consequences of increased life expectancy leading to changes in family structures, such as complex stepfamilies constructed in old age (Koren and Lipman-Schiby, Reference Koren and Lipman-Schiby2014). It refers to widowed or divorced men and women, who were previously in a lifelong marital relationship, raised a family with offspring, and repartnered after retirement. They were either living apart together (LAT), cohabiting, or remarried (de Jong Gierveld, Reference de Jong Gierveld2004). In societies such as Israel, located between tradition and modernity, neither form is accepted as a normative option in old age (Koren and Eisikovits, Reference Koren and Eisikovits2011). This might explain why it is not recorded in the Statistical Abstract of Israel (CBS, 2014). Late-life repartnering has emerged as a social phenomenon among functionally independent older persons, especially with mid/high socioeconomic status (SES) (Davidson, Reference Davidson2002) and is likely to develop further. It is perceived as a chance for renewal, assisting older persons to maintain an optimistic self-image by experiencing being in love, having fun, and enjoying life together. It is also perceived as a way to cope with loneliness, to preserve autonomy, and to avoid dependency on adult children (Koren, Reference Koren2011). However, the possibility of needing caregiving in old age because of health deterioration, or physical and cognitive decline (Davies, Reference Davies2011), cannot be ignored. Caregiving is a phenomenon commonly associated with old age and dependency on others (Pyke, Reference Pyke1999), decreased well-being (Quinn et al., Reference Quinn, Clare and Woods2010), and becoming a burden on family members (Cahill et al., Reference Cahill, Lewis, Barg and Bogner2009). It is considered an undesirable situation either as receiver or provider (Pyke, Reference Pyke1999). When viewed as opposing experiences in old age, we ask what is likely to happen to the experience of late-life repartnering when caregiving becomes a necessity.
The aim of this paper is to explore the partner's experience when the need for caregiving arises in late-life repartnering. An intergenerational approach is taken, with heuristic use of the life course perspective (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006). The reason for choosing this perspective is that it refers to ties and relationships with significant others, as well as perceiving phenomena and events in the lives of individuals in social and historical contexts. According to this approach, appropriate times and ages for important life transitions are referred to by “on-time” for phenomena commonly experienced at a certain age, and by “off-time” for phenomena uncommonly experienced at a certain age (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006). Hence, caregiving associated with decline is considered as “on-time” in old age and late-life repartnering associated with renewal is considered as “off-time.”
Caregiving in late-life relationships
The following review refers to two aspects; the cultural and the relational. The cultural aspect addresses differences between traditional and modern features regarding caregiving. The relational aspect compares issues that influence caregiving expectations and motivations in lifelong marriages with late-life repartnering including partners and offspring.
Cultural aspect
In traditional cultures, caregiving is motivated by moral obligation derived from feelings of reciprocity, strong family bonds, loyalty to family, and interdependency between family members (Quinn et al., Reference Quinn, Clare and Woods2010), including non-biological family and in-laws (Yarry et al., Reference Yarry, Stevens and McCallum2007). However, in modern societies, caregiving is provided mainly out of feelings of attachment to the older family member recipient (Quinn et al., Reference Quinn, Clare and Woods2010). Cultural similarities were also found. In both modern and traditional cultures, spousal caregiving in lifelong marriages was found to be motivated by marital commitment, love, and willingness for self-sacrifice for the sake of a spouse (Kabitsi and Powers, Reference Kabitsi and Powers2002). However, expectations regarding who would become the primary caregiver differed between cultures. In traditional cultures, adult children assume this role, even when both parents are alive and married to each other (Yarry et al., Reference Yarry, Stevens and McCallum2007), whereas in modern cultures, the spouse (Yarry et al., Reference Yarry, Stevens and McCallum2007) and/or the state (Guberman et al., Reference Guberman, Lavoie, Blien and Olazabal2012) take on this role. According to the life course principle of agency (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006), older partners are unable to control loss and declining health, but are able to choose and plan caregiving decisions in advance.
Baby boomer adult children in an age of individualization no longer perceive themselves as sole caregivers for older parents and expect formal services to be provided by the state (Guberman et al., Reference Guberman, Lavoie, Blien and Olazabal2012). Accordingly, parents in individualist cultures do not wish to disrupt the lives of their adult children and become a burden on them, whereas traditional parents make no reference to the concept of burden (Cahill et al., Reference Cahill, Lewis, Barg and Bogner2009). The advantage is that aging parents in individualist families have greater power than those in collectivist families because they are not dependent on their children (Pyke, Reference Pyke1999).
Regarding late-life repartnering, one advantage indicated by partners in Israel was autonomy, releasing them from dependence on adult children for possible caregiving (Koren, Reference Koren2011). This is consistent with the life course principle of agency (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006), which refers to how partners and family members choose to deal with caregiving needs. In addition, some things are outside their control, such as the inability to prevent decline in old age or to decide whether parents and grandparents will repartner. Finally, from the life course perspective regarding the cultural principle of time and place (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006), we ask how practicing collectivist alongside individualist familial norms influences caregiving in stepfamilies constructed in old age.
Relational aspect
Motivations for entering lifelong marital relationships and late-life repartnering are different. Most people enter a lifelong marriage to raise a family, but enter late-life repartnering to enjoy life while still possible (Koren, Reference Koren2011). The latter might influence caregiving if the need arises. Caregiving in late-life repartnering was provided out of choice, whereas partners cared for a lifelong marital spouse out of obligation (Koren, Reference Koren2011). Caregiving choices in late-life repartnering were also found to relate to offspring. For instance, wives remarried to husbands in need of caregiving received more help from their own offspring than from their husband's offspring (Sherman, Reference Sherman2012). This might be explained by the life course principle of timing (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006); caregiving is influenced by late-life repartnering at a stage of life when older partners and their stepfamily members have less shared than unshared history, resulting in weak familial ties (Ganong and Coleman, Reference Ganong and Coleman2014). However, when offspring took charge of caregiving decisions, the healthy partner felt alienated (Sherman, Reference Sherman2012), a situation which might be explained by the life course principle of linked lives (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006); for instance, when a stepfamily member's decision influences the experience of other stepfamily members.
In lifelong marriages, caregiving was dependent on the caregiver's good health, positive interactions between spouses, relationship reciprocity, resilience, forgiveness, and continued commitment to the relationship by the caregiver (Wright, Reference Wright1994) and spouse (Davies, Reference Davies2011) alike. Low marital happiness and low commitment to the future of the relationship were found to influence institutionalizing a spouse in a nursing home (Wright, Reference Wright1994). Time since impairment onset (Wright, Reference Wright1994) and stage of impairment (Davies, Reference Davies2011) were not found to influence caregiving in lifelong marriages. Enduring commitment was found to assist in preserving an “us identity” (Davies, Reference Davies2011), perceived as a test to the marital bond. Yet, dealing with loss and adjustment to changes in the marital relationship was nonetheless required (LoboPrabhu et al., Reference LoboPrabhu, Molinari, Arlinhhaus, Barr and Lomax2005). Although recent findings indicate that LAT partners who were actually confronted with caregiving needs did provide care (de Jong Gierveld, Reference de Jong Gierveld2015), other findings indicate anxiety regarding possible future health deterioration and its potentially detrimental impact on the late-life repartnering relationship (Koren, Reference Koren2015). This coincides with the life course principle of agency (Elder, et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006), when partners are able to control their own reaction to physical and cognitive decline but not the reaction of their partner or of other stepfamily members. Research questions: (1) what might be expected to happen to the experience of late-life repartnering when caregiving becomes a necessity – (a) from an intergenerational perspective, and (b) in a society located between tradition and modernity where collectivist and individualist familial norms are practiced alongside each other?
Method
This paper is based on data from a larger qualitative study, conducted from 2011 to 2014. The qualitative paradigm was used to examine and understand inductively the meaning of late-life repartnering from an intergenerational and multicultural perspective. We used the principles of grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, Reference Strauss and Corbin1990) for individual-level analysis and identifying patterns. We used dyadic analysis principles (Eisikovits and Koren, Reference Eisikovits and Koren2010) adapted to families in qualitative research to learn about the phenomenon from an intergenerational perspective based on three generations in each family.
The research team included a principle investigator (PI – i.e. the first author) and three research assistants (RAs – i.e. the other authors). The second author and RA was a social worker studying for her MA, the third author was studying for an MA social work, specializing in family therapy, and the fourth author and RA had an MA in social work and previous experience conducting qualitative interviews with couples.
Participants and sample
The chosen definition of older person was based on objective criteria of chronological age according to the Statistical Abstract of Israel (CBS, 2014) which determines the official retirement age in Israel. When the participants in this study retired, the compulsory retirement age was 65 years for men and 60 years for women. The sample was based on the following criteria: families with at least three generations in which the man was 65 years or older and the woman 60 years or older when repartnering. Repartnering had to follow a lifelong marital relationship in which they had raised a family, including adult children and young adult grandchildren, who were sufficiently articulate to respond to a semi-structured interview.
The actual sample included 19 stepfamily units constructed in old age composed of six individuals, three from each family. Each unit included two multigenerational families – the man's and the woman's families, composed of three individuals from three generations: the older person, one of his/her children, and one grandchild (offspring of the adult child who participated in the study). In 13 of the stepfamily units, all six family members participated. In five of the family units, only five family members participated because the grandchildren were too young to be interviewed. In one of the family units, only four family members participated – the woman's three-generational family and her partner, whose children and grandchildren resided abroad. Thus, the study included 38 late-life repartnered persons, 37 adult children, and 32 grandchildren, totaling 107 participants.
The entire sample consisted of nine cohabiting couples, nine LAT, and one remarried. The age of the older generation ranged from 66 to 89 years for men and from 65 to 82 years for women. Length of repartnering ranged from 1 to 16 years. Four couples had been in the repartnered relationship for 14 to 16 years, four couples for 7 to 10 years, five couples for 3 to 5.5 years, and six couples for 1 to 2 years. Most were widowed and only seven participants were divorced. The time between the loss of the lifelong spouse and repartnering varied among the study participants: 18 participants repartnered between 1 month and 2 years after the loss of the lifelong spouse, 10 repartnered after 3 to 10 years, and 11 repartnered after 11 to 35 years. Most were secular, in good to very good perceived health, had 12 or more years of education, and middle to high perceived financial status. The SES of the repartnered participants in our study was mid/high, similar to Davidson's (Reference Davidson2002) findings. The age of the adult children ranged from 29 to 60 years, and the age of the grandchildren ranged from 10 to 34 years. Most of the grandchildren were older than 18 years, nine were younger, and most were single. The SES, religiosity, and health of the children and grandchildren were similar in range to those of the older generation. The majority of the offspring generations were born in Israel (32 children out of 37, and 31 grandchildren out of 32), whereas nearly 50% of the older generation were born in Israel (16 out of 38). Their birth places include Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania), the FSU (Russia, Ukraine), Western Europe (Germany, Holland, France, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland), South America (Uruguay), and the United States. Residing in Israel for several decades had given the older generation the opportunity to absorb the interplay between tradition and modernity (Lavee and Katz, Reference Lavee and Katz2003) within a multicultural society, thereby influencing their behavior and attitudes.
Recruitment
The PI and one of the RAs (the fourth author) located participants through professional colleagues throughout the country. The families recruited through welfare agencies did not belong to their clientele; they participated in activities offered by social clubs run by the municipality under the supervision of the unit caring for older persons. After being located, the PI or one of the RAs (the fourth author) contacted the older repartnered persons by phone and explained about the study. We asked demographic questions for screening purposes to ensure that potential participants met the study criteria. After both older partners agreed to participate, they each contacted one of their children. The criteria for choosing their children were willingness and ability to participate, and having young adult children who were the older persons’ grandchildren, and were able and willing to participate. After receiving consent from all six participants, interviews were scheduled separately for each participant at a convenient time and location, which was usually in their home.
Research instruments and analysis
The PI and one of the RAs (the fourth author) collected data through face-to-face semi-structured interviews with each participant separately to enable each family member to express his/her personal perceptions of the phenomenon (Eisikovits and Koren, Reference Eisikovits and Koren2010). Interviews lasted from approximately 50 minutes to one and a half hours. We used a semi-structured interview guide for each generation, based on the purpose of the study.
Interview guide
We developed an interview guide for the larger study, including the same topics and opening question for each of the three generations, asking participants to tell their own/their parent's/their grandparent's story of late-life repartnering from an intergenerational family perspective. For each content area within each of the three versions, we asked probing, meaning, and contrast questions (Kvale and Brikmann, Reference Kvale and Brikmann2008). The relevant content area of the interview guide for this paper was caregiving expectations. To learn more about dyadic and intergenerational relationships among family and stepfamily members within the Israeli cultural context, we asked each of the participants the following question: “At present, you and your partner/your parent and parent's partner/your grandparent and grandparent's partner are functionally independent. What do you expect will happen if one of you/them will be in need of permanent caregiving because of health and functionality deterioration?” When preparing the interview guide, we deliberately excluded additional questions related to caregiving because this was not the primary aim of the study. However, based on qualitative interviewing tradition (Kvale and Brikmann, Reference Kvale and Brikmann2008), during the actual interviewing process, we asked additional questions related to caregiving according to each participant's responses. We audio-recorded and verbatim transcribed all of the interviews.
Data analysis
The unit of analysis was the stepfamily. The 19 stepfamily units were divided among the research team for analysis. Data analysis was based on the method developed for dyadic units (Eisikovits and Koren, Reference Eisikovits and Koren2010). A software program, named Dedoose Version 4.8 (2013), was used, which assisted the organization of large amounts of data and enabled multiple users to work on the same project simultaneously. The initial stage of the analysis process for the larger study was identical to the qualitative analysis of individual units (Strauss and Corbin, Reference Strauss and Corbin1990). The first step included simultaneous reading and listening to the interview, and writing general impressions. The second step was open coding of the interview content (Strauss and Corbin, Reference Strauss and Corbin1990). The software program enabled each of us to add codes, which were then visible to the entire team. Disagreements were discussed online via email or face-to-face at periodic team meetings held by the PI, and changes were made accordingly. The third step was writing the stepfamily unit summary, which included the relationship between partners, between family members, and between stepfamily members, including caregiving issues based on open coding.
In one of the periodic team meetings, we decided to proceed with analyzing caregiving expectations. Data analysis procedures to derive the findings presented in this paper were as follows: First, a table was prepared according to stepfamily units comprised of two columns, one for members of the man's family and one for members of the woman's family, in which excerpts related to caregiving issues were entered. Such a table enabled us to examine responses vertically, on the intergenerational level, and horizontally between partners and between members of the stepfamily. After arranging the excerpts of members of a stepfamily in the table, we wrote a stepfamily summary describing contrasts and overlaps regarding past and present experiences, as well as expectations for future caregiving regarding who, why, when, and how. We held a team meeting to derive themes and subthemes. We then rearranged data in a new table according to the themes and subthemes identified, while preserving a stepfamily unit perspective. After this stage, we continued to reduce the themes to the two presented in the findings section.
We labeled stepfamily members as follows: man-CM, man's daughter-DM, man's son-SM, man's granddaughter-GDM, man's grandson-GSM, woman-CW, woman's daughter-DW, woman's son-SW, woman's granddaughter-GDW, woman's grandson-GSW. For example, woman's daughter of Family3 is labeled: Stepfamily3DW.
Trustworthiness: validity and reliability
We achieved trustworthiness (Kvale and Brikmann, Reference Kvale and Brikmann2008) by documenting all stages, starting from memos including thoughts, emotions, and ideas that arose, audio-recordings of interviews, and verbatim transcriptions. We used Dedoose Version 4.8 software (2013) to organize and assist in data analysis. The PI held periodic team meetings with the research assistants. We used the principles of dyadic analysis adapted to families as another way of ensuring trustworthiness. This simultaneously enriched and limited the perception of the phenomenon. It is enriched by combining six perspectives within a stepfamily unit of analysis, and is limited because of the need to consider each individual family member's interpretations (Eisikovits and Koren, Reference Eisikovits and Koren2010).
Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Experiments on Humans of the University of Haifa Research Authority, approval number: 224/11. Each participant signed a letter of consent that explained the purpose of the study and ensured confidentiality. If the grandchild was a minor, parents provided consent. Several unique ethical considerations are relevant to a family research unit in which each participant is interviewed separately (Eisikovits and Koren, Reference Eisikovits and Koren2010). For example, it is important to avoid favoring one family member's version over another's, or disclosing to one family member information provided by another. In the presentation of responses, family members’ interview excerpts are placed alongside each other, which might threaten confidentiality. This problem was overcome by indicating to participants that the chosen excerpts are representative, to demonstrate whole or partial themes, and that they might belong to several participants who expressed the same idea in different ways. In addition, personal details such as names, places, occupation, as well as gender when theoretically possible, were changed, to maintain confidentiality.
Results
Our findings indicate two themes related to expectations regarding the partner's future caregiving role in late-life repartnering: caregiving commitment and caregiving decision making. According to qualitative research principles, the families and the quotes illustrated were chosen according to data richness and are representative of the other families not illustrated here.
Caregiving commitment expectations
The theme of caregiving commitment expectations of the healthy partner includes partner history with caregiving, strengthening of the relationship due to caregiving, moral values, and relationships within the stepfamily.
Stepfamily2 illustrates partner history with caregiving and strengthening of the relationship due to caregiving. Three stepfamily members’ illustrative quotes are presented and followed by analysis.
The man had experience with caregiving for his first wife, who died of cancer. His perspective is as follows:
When she [my current partner] became sick, she said to me: “Perhaps you don't want to, one time was enough,” but I said: “It's an agreement for better or for worse.” (Stepfamily2CM, widowed age 83, 1 year prior to repartnering, LAT, 14 years)
The woman's perspective:
I went through radiation, but I told my partner: “Listen, I don't think you need such a punishment, to deal twice with such a story, you had your share, keep your distance, you don't have to,” and he said: “There's no such thing, it's for better or for worse.” So there is also beauty in late-life repartnering, it's not shallow, and you know, in the course of time, if he'll need it, I'll be there. I won't be there instead of his children. When he had to have a catheterization, I was with him; when he goes to the doctor, I go with him. I don't believe in withdrawal of responsibility in late-life repartering. I'm there with his children. That's my opinion. (Stepfamily2CW, age 77, widowed 10 years prior to repartnering, LAT 14 years)
The perspective of the woman's daughter:
In the beginning, she [my mother] said: “I don't want to marry again; what do I need it for? . . . .I didn't have to take care of your father, so now I have to start caregiving for someone else? Thanks and no thanks.” That was in the beginning, but now I see that when he's ill, she goes to him, they keep very close to each other. [. . .regarding the future] I'm not sure he'll be there. I hope she won't need it, but I don't count on him to be there. . .it's those type of things that I don't know how to define (Stepfamily2DW, age 51, mother's age 77, widowed 10 years prior to repartnering, LAT 14 years).
The man's and the woman's previous experiences were different; the man provided caregiving in the past and is committed to possible future caregiving. The woman lacks caregiving experience and does not want to commit herself to the future, although in practice, she is involved in one-time complex situations as well as in minor day-to-day circumstances. The man's present behavior and future commitment statement change the relationship from casual to serious, which causes the woman to change her initial intentions of avoiding future commitment. Despite the partners’ behaviors and statements, the woman's daughter does not view the past and the present as indications for the future and perceives herself as responsible for her mother's care. The added value of such intergenerational perspectives illustrates how past and present caregiving experiences construct future expectations differently for each family member.
Stepfamily12 illustrates moral values, and relationships within the stepfamily. The man is not officially diagnosed, but family members sense the change in his behavior. They are faced with issues concerning loyalty and commitment, illustrating the complexity of such late-life relationships. Quotes from stepfamily members are presented, beginning with offspring and ending with the woman's perspective.
The perspective of the man's son:
It [late-life repartnering] is different because it [lifelong marriage] includes a home, family and children, there are things that are shared [. . .] And here [late-life repartnering] this [shared history] is lacking. There is this feeling that the day will come when he doesn't function anymore, and she will simply say that it doesn't suit her anymore and will put him back in our care. [. . .], yes, that's what we say will be. She told me this; it hangs over us [. . .]. If she picks up the phone and asks for help, we are like good soldiers, no problem, we are there at her command. (Stepfamily12SM, age 50, father's age 83, widowed for 1 year prior to repartnering, cohabiting 15 years)
The man's granddaughter:
I don't know how much of the partner relationship is left the way we know and imagine [. . .] I believe her family sees that she is now his caregiver and no longer his partner. I believe a kind of anti is developing toward our family. It's a hunch; not such a pleasant situation. It seems like a burden and she's not young anymore. She expresses the difficulty. She still has her independence and her abilities so it might be convenient for her to step down from it [caregiving] before it gets worse. It's not convenient for us as a family and not for her [. . .] (Stepfamily12GDM, age 25, grandfather's age 83, widowed for 1 year prior to repartnering, cohabiting 15 years)
The perspective of the woman's daughter:
I try not to be judgmental, but there's something very convenient [for his children] that my mother takes care of him. She complains a lot [. . .], she goes to her activities but his functioning is deteriorating. Something has to be thought of regarding what to do with him; it seems like they are ignoring it, it's convenient for them [. . .] So what should we do now? Take him and put him somewhere? He's not an object [. . .], he's not my father, I don't always have to, it's a real conflict because I don't feel like taking care of him; it really troubles us. [. . .] They [my children/my mother's grandchildren] are not obligated. He's their grandmother's partner, not their grandfather, and I don't know where to draw the line, I really don't know, it bothers me. It wouldn't be an issue if I felt that his children were more involved. (Stepfamily12DW, age 48, mother's age 80, widowed for 12 years prior to repartnering, cohabiting 15 years)
All three excerpts raise the issue of possible abandonment of the partner in need of caregiving. Such an option is not characteristic of lifelong marriages. The option of abandoning an old person contradicts basic moral expectations of relating to people as human beings rather than as objects. It raises questions such as: Can one abandon an ill person? Does one have to stay at any price? Where should one draw the line? Should expectations in late-life repartnering be similar to those in lifelong marriages? Each of the participants raises different arguments regarding possible abandonment. The man's son justifies the option of abandonment by emphasizing the lack of shared family experiences in late-life repartnering among the partners and stepfamily members in comparison to shared life history of lifelong marriages. This lack has not facilitated the establishment of a strong stepfamily commitment. The man's granddaughter justifies abandonment by stating a shift in the nature of the relationship from partner to caregiver. As long as caregiving is temporary, it is tolerated. However, when caregiving becomes a chronic situation, the relationship is tested. Furthermore, even if the partner is still functionally active and independent, the caregiving role might be too demanding. She might be too young to give up having fun in life, yet too old to provide caregiving. The woman's daughter reinforces this by weighing up the importance of her mother's activities versus taking care of her functionally deteriorating partner. Another issue is that she senses an obligation but is not actually obligated by filial responsibility, whereas the partner's offspring, who do have an obligation, are not behaving accordingly. Two points strengthen this experience of the woman's daughter. One relates to the subtext from the son's statement: “. . . put him back in our care,” indicating that he is not currently in their care. The other is that being a soldier illustrates passivity and lack of initiative, and places the woman as the sole commander in charge, with no-one to share the responsibility. The woman's daughter, like the man's granddaughter, senses the tension that has arisen in the stepfamily relationship because of the new caregiving situation, and feels uncomfortable with it. Criticizing the man's children serves as an account for not providing caregiving to her mother's partner. It allows her to complain without feeling guilty about abandoning a sick old man. If his children are not taking care of him, then why should she?
The woman's perspective:
My daughter says that it all rests on me. It makes her angry; she says I should also have some time off [. . .] I say, as long as I can, I do everything.
Interviewer: Is late-life repartnering a different kind of commitment?
Woman: I don't know.
Interviewer: Do you have any thoughts?
Woman: I don't know.
Interviewer: What are the considerations?
Woman: I don't know, I don't know what to tell you, I do not know what lies ahead. My children will also not be willing; I know they will insist [. . .]. Actually, from a certain stage, I'm responsible for him, everything. (Stepfamily12CW, age 80, widowed for 12 years prior to repartnering, cohabiting 15 years)
The woman is in a sensitive position as primary caregiver. All the issues raised by others, including possible abandonment, are directed toward her. As such, she experiences conflict that is illustrated in three ways regarding abandonment: (1) “I say, as long as I can, I do everything;” (2) When asked her opinion, she repeats “I don't know” three times, and (3) She brings her children's opinions rather than her own. It is possible that she voices their reservations about them staying together to avoid appearing as the “bad guy.” This might be her way of coping with the intense emotional complexity of the situation.
Decision making expectations
Making decisions regarding caregiving responsibility was found to be a central issue, as illustrated by Stepfamily3. The son's perspective is as follows:
Although we'll be there and do what has to be done, she will also help [. . .]. The burden will be divided and that's significant [. . .]. It would ease the caregiving, but with decision making it might be more complicated [. . .]. If there are disagreements, I try to think of all kinds of things that are important and critical. I say: “Why does she interfere?” Perhaps if she had enough wisdom to say that she'll take care of what has to be done and leave the decision making to his son—after all, the close family has to make the decisions. But you can never know. (Stepfamily3SM, age 48, father's age 78, widowed for 1 month prior to repartnering, LAT 5.5 years)
The man's perspective:
Because I can't completely rely on my daughter-in-law, I left a letter for my partner and my children that if I get to a stage that I lose my [cognitive] ability, I want them to consult my partner. Not because I don't trust them, but because I've been living with my partner for several years and she knows exactly what suits me. I want to clarify; it's not a financial matter. She has no financial interest; she is not in my legal will, just as I am not in hers. It's a letter I gave to my partner, which I hope will not have to be used. (Stepfamily3CM, age 78, widowed for 1 month prior repartnering, LAT 5.5 years)
An intergenerational gap is identified regarding the late-life partner's place in decision making. In contrast to what is acceptable in families of lifelong marriages, the son does not perceive his father's late-life partner as entitled to take part. Although decision making will have a significant impact on the partner's life, she is expected to be a helper without having an influence. This might explain why the man felt the need to write advance directives, which could indicate possible conflict unique to complex stepfamilies constructed in late-life. Not having financial interests in late-life repartnering, his partner is the ideal person to protect his interests. The late-life partners perceive themselves as a unit that takes precedence over family members, whereas their families grant themselves greater decision making rights, which might explain the intergenerational gap. The gap raises questions regarding whether a late-life partner could ever become one of the family and if at all, under which conditions.
Discussion
Our findings refer to the partner's place regarding caregiving in late-life repartnering from an intergenerational family perspective. In comparison to lifelong marriages (Koren, Reference Koren2011), levels of commitment and decision making in late-life repartnering are unclear. This reality is discussed in reference to the partners’ life course in the past, present, and future.
The past
Personal caregiving history involves widowhood. Among older Israelis (men aged 65 years and women aged 60 years) whose lifelong marriage had ended, more were widowed (30.3%) than divorced (8.9%; CBS, 2014), including the repartnered. Therefore, it is very likely that they had been involved in caregiving for their deceased spouse, an experience that potentially influences willingness for future caregiving. Although spousal death is perceived as one of life's most traumatic events, it might serve as an opportunity for growth (e.g. Carr, Reference Carr2004), strengthening the ability to cope with similar future events (e.g. Stepfamily2CM). However, because a motivation for repartnering is to enjoy life (Koren, Reference Koren2011), prior caregiving experience might have a negative influence on future caregiving motivation, raising doubts about the relevance of the relationship. Such a situation coincides with the life course principle of agency (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006), when individuals choose how to react to a reality forced upon them.
Timing of repartnering within the life course
In contrast to lifelong marriages, repartnering within the life course of individuals occurs when most of the partners’ past experiences occurred before they repartnered, thereby potentially limiting the depth of their mutual commitment. It also occurs when the partners’ offspring no longer reside with them, resulting in very little involvement between the offspring and the parent's partner (Ganong, and Coleman, Reference Ganong and Coleman2014). Therefore, the phenomenon of late-life repartnering coincides with the life course principle of timing, and with development as a process continuing into old age (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006). Consequently, stepfamily members might perceive themselves as not having to be involved in caregiving, and might object when their healthy parent serves as caregiver to a partner. Lack of stepfamily network support was found to influence partners’ caregiving motivation (e.g. Stepfamily12), and could influence the caregiver's well-being (Sherman, Reference Sherman2012), leading to a sense of inability to continue the caregiver role. This is an illustration of the life course principle of linked lives (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006).
The present
Ongoing permanent caregiving situations require emotional and physical reorganization, accompanied by a sense of loss of the partner relationship as it used to be (LoboPrabhu et al., Reference LoboPrabhu, Molinari, Arlinhhaus, Barr and Lomax2005), potentially threatening the relationship in the future (e.g. Stepfamily12). However, another finding indicated that partners’ and family members’ experiences of caregiving in the present resulted in strengthening the partner bond, enhancing a sense of security that reinforced future caregiving commitment (Stepfamily2CW). Thus, present experiences might influence future caregiving expectations.
Furthermore, present caregiving situations lead to interactions between offspring of both sides of the stepfamily. Such an opportunity was not necessarily enabled prior to caregiving, because stepfamily members of late-life repartnering do not usually perceive themselves as family (Koren and Lipman-Schiby, Reference Koren and Lipman-Schiby2014). Therefore, relationships developing among offspring within the stepfamily cannot be taken for granted. Collaboration between offspring of both sides might encourage partner caregiving (e.g. Stepfamily2), whereas lack of collaboration might discourage it (e.g. Stepfamily12). When adult children of a healthy partner provide caregiving for a parent's sick partner, they do this to assist their parent rather than the parent's partner (e.g. Stepfamily12). This strengthens findings from previous studies, which indicated that biological ties are stronger than stepfamily ties (Ganong and Coleman, Reference Ganong and Coleman2014). Thus, future caregiving does not necessarily refer only to a partner but also to offspring, which is consistent with the life course principle of linked lives (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006). However, linked lives also create complexities. For example, the status of the partner within the complex stepfamily is a unique issue concerning decision making in late-life repartnering caregiving situations (e.g. Stepfamily3; Sherman, Reference Sherman2012). This might be because of the informality of the relationship status in comparison to lifelong marriages (Davidson, Reference Davidson2002).
The future
Lifelong marital spouses and their families have developed familial norms of behavior for a range of life situations based on cultural norms, including caregiving in old age (Ganong and Coleman, Reference Ganong and Coleman2014). Norms include three principles: collective evaluations of behavior, collective expectations of behavior, and reaction to the behavior. A norm creates uniformity of behavior, shares a specific frame of reference, expresses social commitment, and includes sanctions against those who fail to comply. Norms assist in understanding, interpreting, and the ability to expect human social behavior (Gibbs, Reference Gibbs1965). Norms within stepfamilies constructed in old age following late-life repartnering are lacking. This might be because late-life repartnering is “off-time,” practiced by healthy independent older persons (Davidson, Reference Davidson2002), and is a relatively new and developing phenomenon in which caregiving is even newer.
Lack of caregiving norms for late-life reparnering relationships causes ambiguity and a range of behaviors regarding the partner's role within complex stepfamilies (e.g. Stepfamily3). Without norms, caregiving depends on personal variations and interpretations that are influenced by the benefits of the relationship for the partners and their family members (Koren and Simhi, Reference Koren and Simhi2015), previous familial norms (e.g. Stepfamily3), past (e.g. StepfamilyCM2), and present (e.g. StepfamilyCW2) caregiving experience, gratitude to the partner for the good years, and the relationship among offspring of both sides of the stepfamily (e.g. Stepfamily12). The range of behaviors enables choice, illustrating the agency principle of the life course (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006).
Such a situation raises three types of concerns: moral dilemmas of abandonment, potential conflicts within complex stepfamilies constructed in old age (e.g. Stepfamilies3, 2, 12), and potential risk for partners when caregiving is needed, the latter coinciding with the life course principle of time and place (Elder et al., Reference Elder, Johnson, Crosnoe, Mortimer and Shanaham2006) related to culture. For example, stepchildren might think that caregiving is the role of biological children (Ganong and Coleman, Reference Ganong and Coleman2014), and biological children might think it is the partner's role (Yarry et al., Reference Yarry, Stevens and McCallum2007) or the state's role, as is common in modern cultures (Guberman et al., Reference Guberman, Lavoie, Blien and Olazabal2012). The partner might perceive it as the role of all family members, as is common in traditional cultures (Yarry et al., Reference Yarry, Stevens and McCallum2007), or prefer institutionalization (Wright, Reference Wright1994), as is common in modern cultures. In addition, partners have yet to define their duties, which might differ from those in lifelong marriages (e.g. StepfamilyCW2).
We wish to emphasize, however, that once norms are established, uniformity of behavior is required and sanctions are implemented against noncomplying family members (Gibbs, Reference Gibbs1965). As such, late-life repartnering might lose its appeal for older persons, who perceive old age as a period that enables a release from normative constraints (Koren and Eisikovits, Reference Koren and Eisikovits2011).
Limitations and empirical implications
Despite providing a wide, in-depth view of late-life repartnering from a three-generational perspective, this study has limitations. One is that the participating offspring were chosen by their parents or grandparents, preventing their other offspring from expressing their opinions, which might differ from those of the participant offspring. In addition, caregiving expectations based on the quality of the late-life-repartnering relationship among all stepfamily members are yet to be studied. These expectations might be based on various factors, such as relationship length, in which a short time since repartnering does not always enable development of an emotional bond. Another limitation is that most of the caregiving experiences were based on temporary caregiving situations. Finally, the prevalence of late-life repartnering is not recorded in the Statistical Abstract of Israel (CBS, 2014), and therefore, the extent of our sample's representativeness is unknown. However, findings of qualitative research, in general, and the findings on caregiving expectations presented in this paper, in particular, provide a basis for further investigation. Late-life repartnering is a new and developing phenomenon, and caregiving in this situation is an even newer phenomenon in societies located between tradition and modernity such as Israel, as well as in modern cultures. The findings of the present study can contribute to realizing the importance of negotiating caregiving issues in these stepfamilies. One aspect recommended for further study is how such negotiations are carried out.
Conflict of interest
None.
Description of authors’ roles
C. Koren designed the study, supervised the data collection and data analysis, participated in the data collection and the data analysis, and initiated and wrote the paper. S. Simhi helped with data analysis and with writing the results and discussion sections. S. Lipman-Schiby assisted with data analysis and with writing the literature review. S. Fogel, collected the data. C. Koren and S. Simhi revised the paper.
Acknowledgments
The research reported in this paper was funded by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) grant #1583/11.
