____________________________________

Trans-Generational Family Relations

________

A volume in
Perspectives on Human Development
Dieter Ferring, Jaan Valsiner, and Conchita D’Ambrosio, Series Editors

_____________________________________

Trans-Generational Family Relations

Investigating Ambivalences

________

edited by

Isabelle Albert

University of Luxembourg

Emily Abbey

Ramapo College of New Jersey

Jaan Valsiner

Aalborg University

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

   A CIP record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

       http://www.loc.gov

ISBN: 978-1-64113-082-0 (Paperback)

           978-1-64113-083-7 (Hardcover)

           978-1-64113-084-4 (ebook)

Copyright © 2018 Information Age Publishing Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission
from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Series Editor’s Foreword

General Introduction: Looking at Relations Across Generations: Ambivalence in Context

Isabelle Albert, Emily Abbey, and Jaan Valsiner

Part I

Conceptual Issues: Ambivalence and Its Study

1     Tensegrity as Existential Condition: The Inherent Ambivalence of Development

Luca Tateo

2     The Research Act: Creating Knowledge From the Not (Yet) Known

Eugenia Gouvedari

PART II

Lifespan and Transgenerational Focus

3     Multilevel Approach to Ambivalence in Family Sphere: Changing Structures, Roles, and Relationships

Kairi Kasearu, Kadri Raid, and Dagmar Kutsar

4     Ambivalence in the Family Transmission of Values: Asumming Similarity and Recognizing Differences

Daniela Barni and Silvia Donato

5     Anticipatory Recognition: Creating a Cycle of Flexible Meanings in Intergenerational Relations

Elsa de Mattos

6     Ambivalence Toward Parents During the Process of Individuation: Being Caught Between Autonomy and Relatedness?

Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring

7     Dynamic Relations Between Perceived Parental Responsiveness, Experiences of Ambivalence, and Self-Esteeem Development in Adolescence

Annekatrin Steinhoff and Marlis Buchmann

8     Emotional Ambivalence in Adult Children of Care-Dependent Older Parents: Heuristic Impulses From Cognitive-Motivational Emotion Theories

Thomas Boll

Part III

Experiencing Ambivalence: Focus on Phenomena

9     Ambivalence When Family Values Change: Development of New Values in the Perspective of Sociocultural Global “Advancement”

Maliina Lyberth

10    Transgenerational Ambivalence in the Time to Come: How Meanings Regulate Being Pregnant and Facing Miscarriage

Vívian Volkmer Pontes and Lívia Mathias Simão

11    Saudade: A Unique Feeling Within the Lusitanian Soul

Stephanie Barros and Gaby Marinho Ribeiro

12    Desired Ambiguities and Dealing With Ambivalences in the Context of Social Work

Mogens Jensen

13    Your Duty Toward My Right: Ambivalent Traps of Rights and Duties

Kevin R. Carriere

Part IV

Measuring Ambivalence

14    Attachment Ambivalence: The Concept, Psychological Importance, and Measurement Issues

Katarzyna Lubiewska

PART V

General Conclusions

15    Transcending Ambivalence: Overcoming the Ambiguity of Theory and Practices

Jaan Valsiner, Isabelle Albert, and Emily Abbey

About the Contributors

Series Editor’s Foreword

As the title tells us, this book looks at relations across generations, with a focus on ambivalences that may be experienced in these relationships. One could put it more simply—but certainly not easier—and say that this book is about love. The editors are not afraid to state this in the first sentences of their introduction. Love is still a neglected topic within psychology—not to speak of the social sciences in general. This may still be considered a consequence of positivist models and their underlying motive to measure, calibrate, and chart the quality of human relationships. At the level of phenomena and their underlying needs and motives, only few needs seem so strong than the need for love. A sound analysis of this phenomenon cannot exclude that love in family (and other) relations is joined with other feelings and cognitions that may represent antagonists of such an emotion. This is where the concept of ambivalence comes into play. In the psychological view, ambivalence is about the coexistence of feelings and thoughts about a person or an object; the sociological perspective highlights ambivalence as an inherent characteristic of a social role.

The concept is thus shared by several theoretical approaches, and the editors rightly choose to analyze this phenomenon based on several disciplinary and methodological perspectives. The reader will find contributions elaborating perspectives of cultural and developmental psychology as well as sociological theories and social work on ambivalence. Moreover, she or he finds quantitative and qualitative approaches in the description and conceptual deconstruction of the phenomenon. The book also covers different periods of the life course, focusing on adolescence and youth, adulthood, and old age. This brief overview conveys that ambivalence happens throughout the human life course and constitutes a universal and basic experience of the human condition. Given all this, one may ask why this concept is not more prominent across social sciences, and this puts it into close relationship with the treatment that the phenomenon of love received in psychological theory and research.

My impression is that the study of these phenomena is neglected because it does not follow the linear logic that has become part of psychological theory-building and the basis of a corresponding methodology. In such a linear conception, factors or independent variables or predictors influence a criterion or dependent variable at a given time. This implies a unidirectional causal sequence that will allow us to change or modify dependent variables by changing the independent ones. Such an approach is not only linked to the experimental procedure; you will find it in nearly all research following a nomothetic approach. Although epistemologies highlight probabilistic and reciprocal dynamics underlying relationships, it seems to me that the linear approach still predominates in psychology theory. Ambivalence as the coexistence of feelings and cognitions that may even be antagonistic withdraws itself from such a linear logic. To feel ambivalence—at least in the beginning—may also withdraw from a conscious reflection and/or open communication both within and between persons.

A person may feel love and hate toward one person at the same time, whether he or she is a parent, child, or partner; at the same time, he or she may forbid her or himself to have this negative feeling because one “ought not” to feel this way. Thus, a person may tend to deny the experience of ambivalence following the paradoxical notion that you first have to perceive a phenomenon to deny it. Furthermore, a person will have difficulties expressing ambivalence to others given that he or she is motivated to deny or blunt this experience. This has evident consequences for research on ambivalence, and one may ask whether a phenomenon that a person is not aware of or that he or she denies can be assessed at all. It is not for nothing that ambivalence gets evident in therapeutic interactions and dialogues where both partners coconstruct and agree on the meaning of such an experience. All this has consequences for measurement and assessment as well, and the volume editors consequently address this notion and deliver further insights here.

Taking all this together, the present book captures a phenomenon that is an essential part of the human condition but substantial challenges theory and research. The editors and authors of this volume know about this, and they took up this challenge. This book thus contributes to theory-building and developing and broadening measurement in interpersonal relations. One of the best things one could say about a book contribution to an ongoing discourse is that it renders new insights and inspires new ideas. The editors of this volume have clearly achieved this goal by joining junior and senior researchers and giving them space to elaborate their ideas.

—Dieter Ferring
Luxembourg

General Introduction

Looking at Relations Across Generations

Ambivalence in Context

Isabelle Albert, Emily Abbey, and Jaan Valsiner

We love our parents and our grandparents. We honor our ancestors. Our feelings about our families across generations may give us much strength in “feeling ourselves.” Yet in everyday relations with our beloved family members, we may encounter misunderstandings, frustrations, and even explicit conflicts. We cannot understand how our parents and grandparents do not understand our contemporary needs, and they do not understand ours. Yet we keep loving them—and they us. The mutuality of transgenerational family relations is inherently ambivalent. We live it in our deep feelings.

The interest in the concept of ambivalence has grown considerably in the last years in family research, as documented by an increasing number of publications, workshops, and symposia around the topic. Scientifically used for the first time by the psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler in his work on schizophrenia (Bleuler, 1910, 1914; see also Tateo, Chapter 1, this volume, for a historical overview) and highly prominent in psychoanalysis (Freud, 1919; McGregor, 2010), the concept of ambivalence was introduced into family research mainly by Lüscher and Pillemer (1998). In their seminal article, they proposed it as “a new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life” in response to the solidarity paradigm (see Bengtson & Roberts, 1991), which failed to acknowledge that positive and negative aspects in intergenerational relationships can occur at the same time.

The Concept of Ambivalence:
Its History and Structure

The concept of ambivalence also has a long tradition in social psychological research, such as the approach-avoidance conflict as described by Lewin (1935), cognitive dissonance by Festinger (1957), or further works on attitudinal ambivalence (e.g., Kaplan, 1972). It has also been closely studied in the framework of cultural psychology in the last years (Abbey, 2004; Abbey & Valsiner, 2005). We are all familiar with the experience of ambivalences to some extent, as particularly inherent in human nature1 due to the capacity of hypothetical thinking, imagination, anticipation, and perspective taking. However, conception and reception of ambivalence seem to vary considerably, and it might be more salient for some than for others. Ambivalence is a complex phenomenon that has been studied in different ways and is not always conceptually clear. Thus, what exactly do we mean by ambivalence?

Commonly, when we hear the word “ambivalence,” we are tempted to think of a relationship comprised of polar opposites. However, as outlined herein, that is but one of an array of ways to conceptualize the term. Most basically, ambivalence can be defined as a tension produced by a system entailing a kernel and at least two vectors that are nonisomorphic in size and direction. In such a system, ambivalence can occur under all conditions except for the one where the vectors are exactly the same size and direction (see Figure I.1D). Figure I.1A represents the most typical understanding of ambivalence described previously, that is, the polar opposition of two equally strong forces pulling the individual in opposite directions. In the current framework, this could be referred to as the maximum degree of ambivalence. Figures I.1B and I.1C produce ambivalence that is weaker yet present nonetheless. In Figure I.1B, although the two forces are not completely opposing, they create a tension between two different orientations. Figure I.1C depicts the discrepancy in strength of forces that creates ambivalence. We could refer to these as moderate strengths of ambivalence.

Figure I.1    Forms and strengths of ambivalence.

This way of defining ambivalence created by vectors of different sizes and directions borrows from Lewin’s (1936) topological psychology, in which he offers the notion of a life space filled with forces that are of different degrees of attraction and repulsion. Although Lewin focused his work on the description of forces that were either exclusively positive or negative, it is also possible to consider combining them to create the idea of ambivalence. In this latter case, the life space is composed of forces that pull him or her in differing if not outright opposing directions.

According to Lüscher and colleagues (2017), the ambivalence concept refers to “the experience of vacillating (‘oscillating’) between polar contradictions of feeling, thinking, wanting or social structures in the search for the meaning of social relationships, facts and texts, which are important for facets of the self and agency” (p. 41).

Whereas the polar contradiction of two forces that point exactly in opposite directions constitutes the constellation of maximum ambivalence that has been most often referred to when studying ambivalence, as outlined earlier further levels of ambivalence are possible (see also Abbey, 2012, in her semiotic analysis about the emergence of signs). In fact, apart from polarity between two opposite forces, one could also think of less strong contradictions that might be experienced as ambivalence. In a broader sense, one could consider A and non-A as a starting point for describing the field of ambivalence, implying the tension between what is and what could be.

A maximum level of ambivalence—two polar opposites—could, for example, entail love and hate toward a parent. As Abbey (2012) suggests, such a strong experience of ambivalence could be followed by a monologization (i.e., choosing either opposite) as the tension between both becomes too strong for the individual. The result would be the creation of strong signs that are more unambiguous, either love or hate, thus navigating toward a harmonious or conflicting relationship (see also Ferring, Michels, Boll, & Filipp, 2009, regarding the dynamic nature of intergenerational relationships). Another possibility would be that one leaves the situation as already described by Lewin, turning to the null condition in Abbey’s words. This could mean that one dissociates from the parents altogether, reducing contact to a minimum, or that one leaves the situation temporarily. Although the latter could be a relief from tensions in the short run, it would probably entail a reappearance of ambivalences at the next encounter.

A moderate level of ambivalence would then refer to two forces that are in different directions but not in polar opposition. Ambivalence would again arise if these two forces are experienced as incompatible by the individual, in the sense that choosing one possibility would mean that you cannot choose the other (interestingly, in his lifespan developmental approach, Baltes, 1987, noted this interplay between gains and losses as inherent in developmental processes). However, in contrast to the first condition, because these vectors are not in polar contradiction, such incompatibility might be easier to overcome by finding a way to reconcile the two forces. An example could be a man who wants to be a good father and a good worker. These two aims might be experienced as incompatible even if not exactly opposed to each other. Different scenarios are thinkable here as to how this dynamic could evolve. One possibility would be that the man searches for a solution on how to reconcile both goals with a possible end state where he would find common ground and therefore not experience being a good father and a good worker as contradiction anymore. In contrast, such states of ambivalence might last longer (compared with the first condition of maximum level of ambivalence) because they could be easier to tolerate by an individual. In fact, the man might continue to oscillate between these two goals and thus continue to experience moderate levels of ambivalence (see also Lüscher and Hoff’s, 2013, notion of captivation).

A further form of ambivalence could even contain two vectors that show in the same direction but are of different strength. For instance, in principle one might be willing to be a caring child and support aging parents but oscillate between possibilities regarding the amount of such support. One might also want to be a good mother but struggle with the decision as to how strongly to dedicate life to family and children.

All these constellations would be incompatible in the sense that when choosing A, one cannot choose not-A. However, this exclusiveness would have to be experienced as incompatible by the individual to create the experience of ambivalence that entails the oscillation or vacillation between different forces. As soon as one would find these different forces as compatible, they could become polyvalences, and the oscillation or vacillation between them would stop. Maybe, in fact, one idea on how to deal with ambivalences would be trying to turn ambivalence into polyvalence.

In summary, one common feature between the just described different levels of the experience of ambivalence might be its experience as being irreconcilable, and it could depend on the constellation between the two forces as to how strong the ambivalence is felt or perceived. Thus, ambivalence might refer to experienced contradictions of different strength within the same as well as between different areas of psychological functioning—cognitions, emotions, or behavioral tendencies. Examples are opposing ways of thinking about the same object (in the case of family relations; e.g., a parent) such as like and dislike, contradictory behavioral tendencies such as approach and avoidance, conflicting emotions such as love and hate, approaching behaviors accompanied by feelings of disgust, and so on. Importantly, the time perspective also seems to play a crucial role because there might be contradictions in past, present, and future imaginations of self and others (see e.g., Pontes & Simão, Chapter 10, this volume). In view of the different facets, it seems that a multidimensional conception and more fine-grained view of ambivalence(s) would make sense (see also Boll, Chapter 8, this volume; Gouvedari, Chapter 2, this volume).

Hereby, it should be made clear that ambivalence does not mean polyvalence, which would describe different meanings and valences of an object that would not be experienced as contradictory and incompatible. In the same way, ambiguity is not equal to ambivalence. Instead, ambiguity can be a precondition for the experience of ambivalence (see also Jensen, Chapter 12, this volume). In fact, we should distinguish between potentially ambivalent situations that create opportunities for the experience of ambivalence and the actual experience of ambivalence.

Levels of Ambivalence

Different levels of ambivalence have been described. A widely held distinction is the one between sociological (structural) and psychological ambivalence (for a summary, see Connidis, 2015). Sociological ambivalence refers to contradictions on the societal level, for instance, regarding role expectations that are difficult to reconcile. As said before, we might identify situations or contexts that are characterized by contradictory aspects bearing the potential of being experienced as ambivalent. These structural contradictions also might give rise to the subjective experience of ambivalences at the individual level, for instance, in the form of inner conflicts between internalized norms and personal wishes. As the world becomes more complex—especially in times of transition and social change—rules might be less clearly defined, and as a consequence more opportunities for ambivalences occur (Kasearu, Raid, and Kutsar, Chapter 3, this volume; Lyberth, Chapter 9, this volume).

Ambivalences might also derive from the family level as proximal context, in which interpersonal relations can be embedded. Specific family cultures generally entail rules and norms that are more or less shared by family members. Ambivalences might arise if family values are more cherished by some family members than by others (who could, however, feel obliged to follow them despite different personal preferences or needs) or if rules within the family are not clear. Because family bonds are, in principle, unsolvable and enduring, ambivalences can find a fertile ground because stopping these relations might not be an option (Lüscher & Hoff, 2013; also Van Gaalen, Dykstra, & Komter, 2010).

Ambivalence has often been said to occur in times of social or individual transition (see also Mattos, Chapter 5, this volume). To understand ambivalences inherent in these transitional phases, we could also make use of the concept of liminality, which describes the state of being in between, entailing disorientation but also new possibilities (see Hagestad, 2016; Turner, 1964). Ambivalence might serve as a catalyzer that helps dissolve the state of liminality and further develop in one direction or the other (Cabell & Valsiner, 2014; Carriere, Chapter 13, this volume).

Ambivalence in Social Relations

Social relations in general—and probably family relations even more so —are particularly prone to the experience of ambivalences because of the dialectic tensions inherent in interpersonal relations and human communication (e.g., Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Human communication is never unambiguous and entails the possibility of misunderstandings as the message passes through several filters—of the sender and the receiver—leaving much space for (mis)interpretations and changes in meaning during the processes of externalization and internalization (Kuczynski, Marshall, & Schell, 1997; Valsiner, 1997; see also Barni & Donato, Chapter 4, this volume). Certainly, expectations and misperceptions play a crucial role here. Further, the message of the sender might not be clear in itself, such as described by Bateson, Jackson, Haley, and Weakland (1956) with the term of double bind (i.e., an ambiguous way of communicating, where what the sender says is not compatible with how it is said; see also Abbey, 2004).

Differential View

As mentioned previously, one has to distinguish the potential of ambivalence as created by structural conditions that might set the stage for the occurrence of ambivalence, but how this is actually experienced also depends on the individual. In fact, some persons might be more sensitive to the experience of ambivalence than others depending on different personality traits, cognitive styles, expectations, meta-perceptions, and the like. In the end, ambivalences might occur either due to “objectively” ambiguous situations that are experienced as such or imagined ambiguities. In that sense, we might even think of situations where ambivalences are experienced, although the situation is not characterized by specific favoring features (actually, for some people, the experience of ambivalence could even become an automated reaction to certain cues, sometimes even pathological; see also rumination, e.g., Koster, Fang, & Marchetti, 2015) and, vice versa, of persons being completely unaware of potential ambivalences occurring around them (i.e., not getting any cue). Certainly, processes in the individual development of each person might play a role here, notably also early (and later) experiences within the family as primary socialization agent (see also Lubiewska, Chapter 14, this volume).

Consequences of Ambivalence

Although ambivalence has had a rather negative connotation in the past, recent approaches have shifted to a more neutral view, which regards ambivalence rather as a catalyzer and, as such, inherent in all developmental processes (Cabell & Valsiner, 2014; see also Lüscher, 2016). It might thus trigger developmental processes and can be useful in decisional processes. However, if the experience of ambivalence is lasting too long—and we would still have to define the threshold—it might become a nuisance, hampering our achievements as it binds cognitive resources that might prolong our decisional processes and influence aspects of subjective well-being such as self-esteem (Steinhoff & Buchmann, Chapter 7, this volume).

On the cognitive level as well as regarding accompanying emotions, inter- and intraindividual differences may exist about how ambivalence is actually experienced. For some individuals, the experience of ambivalence might be rather unpleasant, whereas for others it might be more motivating or again something in between.2 To illustrate this more closely, we might look at the phenomenon of saudade, a bittersweet feeling of suffering that is also pleasant and even searched for and can motivate further action (see Barros and Ribeiro, Chapter 11, this volume).

In summary, in contrast to earlier research and lay conceptions, we might not be able to say from the start whether ambivalences should be seen as positive or negative. Rather, most importantly, we should look at how ambivalences are dealt with because this might make the difference with regard to the impact on subjective well-being (see Jensen, Chapter 12, this volume).

Dealing With Ambivalence in Family Relations

With regard to family relations, different dynamics are possible depending on situational factors and opportunity structures as well as the stage in the family life cycle (see also Albert & Ferring, Chapter 6, this volume). Although some families with close and frequent contact might have recurrent opportunities for experiencing ambivalence, others might experience it especially in situations where they come together (exceptionally). In a dynamic perspective, when dealing with ambivalence, families might move from a rather ambivalent pattern to a more amicable or harmonious one, they might end up in conflict, or they might become more distant by reducing contact as a reaction to ambivalence. How ambivalent relations might be turned into other forms can be nicely illustrated following the earlier conceptualization of Abbey (2012) (see also Ferring et al., 2009). In this sense, ambivalence might serve as the previously mentioned catalyzer that helps the relationship to develop and, at best, mature. Lüscher and Hoff (2013) proposed a fourfold model to describe several strategies regarding the handling of ambivalences within family relations, namely, “solidarity” (i.e., underlining cohesion in the family by stressing commonalities in the relation and intergenerational support), “emancipation” (i.e., acknowledging ambivalences openly and negotiating the relationship while preserving relatedness), “captivation” (i.e., being captured in ambivalent relations without resolving them), or “atomization” (i.e., developing into tense and conflict-laden relations or even separation). Interestingly, one can also think of a temporary leaving of the relationship in which ambivalences are occurring, without actually dealing with them and separating completely from each other, namely, by leaving the situation in the sense of going out of the field (see also Lewin, 1935). Take, for example, an emerging adult who leaves the parental home—and a maybe highly ambivalent parent-child relation—to temporarily study in another city. This “break” in the relationship might be beneficial for the moment, but ambivalences might reoccur at the next meeting, say, during the Christmas holidays. In the same vein, when (young) adult children move, for whatever reason, back to the parental home after some time of (relative) independence, this seems to be fertile ground for the experience of ambivalence—even more so if coupled with the economic difficulties and problems young adults face when entering the job market, as recently described in particular for Southern European countries due to the economic crisis (see Coimbra, Ribeiro, & Fontaine, 2013).

In these cases, leaving the ambivalent parent-child relation temporarily might signify a “break” in the individuation process in which autonomy and relatedness are negotiated. If potential sources for ambivalence have not yet been tackled, then a reappearance and restart of the individuation process might reoccur when the relation is becoming closer again after a longer break, when these issues were simply not salient. This might partly explain why transitions that entail changes in intergenerational relations (e.g., when parents become old and frail, needing care) (see also Boll, Chapter 8, this volume) have often been described as particularly prone to ambivalence. In fact, taking into consideration the just outlined “break” in intergenerational relationship regulation, it seems that when relations become closer again after a longer period of independence, unresolved issues might come to the fore again, giving rise to the experience of ambivalence. This might then be a catalyzer that triggers further developmental processes, which can thus turn out to be positive for the relationship regulation; in other cases, it might be rather negative (see also Van Gaalen et al., 2010, who distinguish between positive and negative ambivalence).

Measurement

As already said, a differentiation should be made between the potential of ambivalence (i.e., structural conditions that may raise the possibility for the occurrence of ambivalences) and the actual experience of ambivalence. In a quantitative design, a closely related question is then whether direct or indirect measures should be used, the former asking explicitly for contradictory feelings or cognitions, the latter being based on the post-hoc combination (mostly done by researchers) of positive and negative ratings on different scales evaluating the same object. Further, in social psychological research, reaction times have been used as implicit measures for ambivalence (e.g., Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010), and one could certainly think of further indicators such as different physiological markers, arousal state, and so on. Apart from these quantitative approaches, qualitative approaches might be helpful to get a deeper insight into context-specific aspects or developmental aspects, for instance, inferring ambivalences from narrations (Albert & Steinhoff, 2016). Rather than a mere variable, ambivalence might then serve as a “sensitizing concept” or heuristic guiding the analysis (see Lüscher, 2016).

Linked to these measurement issues is also the question of whether one actually needs to be aware of ambivalence occurring or whether it can be indirectly inferred (see also Lubiewska, Chapter 14, this volume). Finally, we could also ask when the ability to experience ambivalence starts (i.e., from which developmental age can ambivalence be experienced). More precisely, do we need the capacity for hypothetical thinking, perspective taking, and imagination? Not least, the individual life course phase in the family life cycle and cultural aspects need to be considered (Valsiner, 2007).

The Present Volume

The present volume has developed out of a workshop, Ambivalence in Intergenerational Family Relationships: New Perspectives on Methodology,3 held in Remich, Luxembourg, in June 2014. The workshop brought together researchers on ambivalence from different disciplines and led to fruitful and vivid discussions around the topic. The present volume picks up this discussion and sheds further light on the concept and phenomena of ambivalence from different disciplinary perspectives, also taking into account qualitative and quantitative approaches alike. Focusing on ambivalences in intergenerational family relations, it combines rather theoretically oriented articles regarding conceptual issues, empirical studies (both quantitative and qualitative) that deal with ambivalences in different phases of the life course and transgenerationally, as well as specific phenomena and measurement questions.

Starting with conceptual issues, the first two chapters trace the roots of the concept of ambivalence back to early works aiming to answer how we can approach the concept of ambivalence and how we can define it.

In Chapter 1, “Tensegrity as Existential Condition: The Inherent Ambivalence of Development,” authored by Luca Tateo, the concept of ambivalence is illuminated, starting with historical as well as current conceptions about ambivalence, thereby focusing mostly on works from psychology. Tateo states that ambivalence and uncertainty are basically inherent in all developmental processes. To capture this fact, he introduces the concept of tensegrity, substituting the more common homeostatic models of development. More precisely, he proposes to “reverse the picture and . . . assume that ambivalence is an existential condition of tension generated by the inherently ambiguous nature of experiencing.” He also underlines that ambivalence might be regarded in terms of catalytic processes rather than causalities. In this view, if tension is a constitutive element of a system, then it might be more important to determine how to deal with ambivalences rather than trying to resolve them; in line with this, one might also ask how much ambivalence a system allows for.

In Chapter 2, “The Research Act: Creating Knowledge From the Not (Yet) Known,” Eugenia Gouvedari shares the view of ambivalence as central in developmental processes and human agency. After summarizing the debate among scholars who advocate the ambivalence view or the solidarity-conflict model, she focuses from a meta-perspective on the process of research development as entailing ambivalence due to the “conscious striving to reach the not yet there.” As she states, “researching ambivalences is indeed an ambivalent process itself.” She also underlines that ambivalence is multifaceted. Hence, she prefers ambivalences in the plural form, which can take into account occurrences of ambivalence at different levels of experience and meaning making based on different theoretical and methodological approaches.

In the next part of this book, we take a lifespan and transgenerational perspective. Thus, in Chapter 3, “Multilevel Approach to Ambivalence in the Family Sphere: Changing Structures, Roles, and Relationships” by Kairi Kasearu, Kadri Raid, and Dagmar Kutsar, the view is shifted from a more general perspective on ambivalence to a specific context, namely, the family in which ambivalence might occur. The authors start again with a historical view on family, delineating how norms have determined the individual behavior in the past and how development turned toward more individualization coupled with increasing freedom and shrinking societal guidance. Starting with the concept of ambivalence as used in sociology in the early works, namely, as mostly referring to contradictory roles, the authors state that sociological and psychological ambivalence should be considered in a combined way, referring also to contradictions between social structures and the individual. With the example of changing family patterns, they outline that in contexts where norms become less clear, there is more room for ambivalence along with multiple possibilities. Thus, structural ambivalences at the macrolevel have an impact at the individual level due to interactions between structural opportunities and cultural values, personal needs, and preferences.

In Chapter 4, “Ambivalence in the Family Transmission of Values: Assuming Similarity and Recognizing Differences,” Daniela Barni and Silvia Donato focus on the interesting question of how innovation and distinctiveness might be reconciled with connectedness among family members of different generations in the process of intergenerational value transmission. In general, the degree to which parents and their children give similar importance to certain values seems to be an important outcome for the value transmission process. However, the perception of such similarity may actually be rather biased or accurate, and the chapter focuses on this topic. Drawing on ideas from interpersonal perception research, the authors aim to introduce bias and accuracy as sources of ambivalence from the parents’ perspective. Thereby, they advocate that, in line with the ambivalence framework, bias and accuracy might not be regarded in a dualistic but rather in a dialectical manner. In such a view, bias and accuracy give each other their meaning, and their coexistence enables negotiation between social partners and change in social relations.

After this more general look at intergenerational family relations, the next three chapters focus more explicitly on a specific time in the family life cycle, namely, adolescence and young adulthood. Claiming that adolescence and young adulthood are particularly prone for the experience of intergenerational ambivalences, we focus here on ambivalences occurring in relations between adolescents/young adults and significant others, drawing on empirical data from qualitative interviews as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal quantitative studies.

In Chapter 5, “Anticipatory Recognition: Creating a Cycle of Flexible Meanings in Intergenerational Relations,” Elsa de Mattos concentrates on self-other relations and the dialogical self during adolescents’ transition to adulthood. She suggests that the process of exploration during this transitional phase might entail breaks in adolescents’ sense of continuity of the self, which trigger internal semiotic regulatory processes, such as a reorganization and (re)construction of identity. According to the author, ambivalences occurring within the self might be negotiated in the interaction with significant others. Drawing on the principle of linking lives, the author develops a semiotic-dialogical perspective of youth transitions, in which she describes how individuals are embedded in social relationships over the lifespan and how intergenerational relations support young people’s life transitions. She introduces the concept of “anticipatory recognition” as part of intergenerational relations between young people and significant others that might promote a process of internal regulation and foster the emergence of flexible signs in the self-system of young people, thereby enhancing creative meaning-making and the integration of life experiences over time. She illustrates the reconfiguration of the self-system during transitions with the case example of a young woman who negotiates significant meanings of herself and her world over a developmental period of seven years.

In Chapter 6, “Ambivalence Toward Parents During the Process of Individuation: Being Caught between Autonomy and Relatedness?” Isabelle Albert and Dieter Ferring look at specific characteristics of the parent-child relation that might correlate with the experience of ambivalence from the perspective of late adolescents and emerging adults. Starting from the perspective of individuation theory, they focus on the roles of parental acceptance and control during the negotiation of autonomy and relatedness between youth and their parents. In their cross-sectional data, they find evidence for a link between parenting dimensions and ambivalences, which also differs depending on the phase in the developmental process, pointing to the importance of continued parental support but also parents’ adaptation to autonomy needs of their children in the process of individuation.

In Chapter 7, “Dynamic Relations Between Perceived Parental Responsiveness, Experiences of Ambivalence, and Self-Esteem Development in Adolescence,” Annekatrin Steinhoff and Marlis Buchmann make use of a longitudinal quantitative dataset to examine the antecedents of ambivalence in the parent-child relations as well as a supposed outcome, thereby focusing on self-esteem development. More precisely, they take ambivalence as an outcome of parenting characteristics and an antecedent of self-esteem development. Acknowledging the empirically shown link between ambivalence and self-esteem in cross-sectional studies, the authors suggest that theoretically outcomes of ambivalences might depend on the ways in which ambivalences are dealt with. Therefore, their aim is to study different trajectories of ambivalences in adolescence and their outcomes in a longitudinal perspective. As far as developmental trajectories are concerned, their findings confirm the hypothesis that ambivalences are rather prevalent in mid-adolescence but then decline. They also advocate the function of ambivalences as catalyzer and find evidence that ambivalences might, but do not necessarily have to, have a negative impact on self-esteem depending on whether adolescents remain in a permanent state of confusion.

In Chapter 8, “Emotional Ambivalence in Adult Children of Care-Dependent Older Parents: Heuristic Impulses From Cognitive-Motivational Emotion Theories” authored by Thomas Boll, we move further into the family life cycle. The author provides a fine-grained analysis of the emergence of ambivalent emotions of adult children toward the care situation for their older parents in a cognitive-motivational approach. Starting from a definition of emotional ambivalence as copresence of positive and negative emotions toward a multifaceted care situation, he takes a closer look at the problems an adult child might encounter in such situation and how this might influence the subjective appraisals with regard to the care situation, entailing comparisons of desires and beliefs. Desires that are fulfilled are supposed to lead to positive emotions, whereas desires that are seen as frustrated by an individual should lead to negative emotions; however, desires might also be perceived as fulfilled in some respects but not in others, or there might be conflicting desires, all of which can entail ambivalent emotions. After a more general outline of these mechanisms, the practical relevance is demonstrated by a closer look at a specific care transition, namely, the parent’s moving into a nursing home. Ambivalence might also be inherent in specific phenomena, and these phenomena are the focus of Part III of the book.

Maliina Lyberth takes a closer look at times of social change in Chapter 9, “Ambivalence When Family Values Change: Development of New Values in the Perspective of Sociocultural Global “Advancement.” Her example of Greenland as a rapidly changing society over the last years demonstrates impressively how value change affects individuals differently at different stages in their lifespan, and how these intergenerational differences are negotiated within families. Her ideas revolve around a case study of a mother-daughter dyad living in Greenland and their experience of and dealing with intergenerational ambivalences linked to changed family values. On the background of social representations theory, she develops a theoretical view of how family values change from one generation to the next and how individuals make sense of these transitions, thereby trying to preserve their intergenerational relatedness.

Chapter 10 by Vívian Volkmer Pontes and Lívia Mathias Simão, “Transgenerational Ambivalence in the Time to Come: How Meanings Regulate Being Pregnant and Facing Miscarriage,” is dedicated to the phenomenon of ambivalences regarding pregnancy and miscarriage. They refer to unwritten rules in families, such as the importance of the status of being a mother, which might entail intergenerational ambivalences with regard to the I-Other-World relationship in the transition to motherhood. To discuss their theoretical outline, they present a case study of a woman whose trajectory to motherhood is marked by successive spontaneous abortions. For this woman, being a mother seems to be part of the “normal” pace of life (i.e., constituting a normative event in her subjective life course theory), and not becoming a mother becomes a nonevent that also raises conflicts with the partner. Thereby, past experiences are crucial for the interpretation of present events and imaginations of the future, and hence the prime importance of imaginations, temporality, as well as hypothetical thinking for the experience of ambivalence.

Elements of ambivalence can also be found in culture-specific phenomena and concepts. This is what Stephanie Barros and Gaby Marinho Ribeiro focus on in Chapter 11, “Saudade: A Unique Feeling Within the Lusitanian Soul.” After outlining the cultural and historical origins of this culture-specific phenomenon, they examine the different emotional components of saudade in an empirical study to find out which features are linked to the phenomenon in the point of view of Portuguese immigrants living in Luxembourg, also comparing views of different generations, namely, born in the country of origin or host country. Thereby, they are able to shed light on aspects of the intergenerational transmission of the meaning of saudade as well as on the change in meaning from one migrant generation to the next.

Ambivalences might also occur in social relations between older and younger generations outside the family, and these are highlighted in Chapter 12, “Desired Ambiguities and Dealing With Ambivalences in the Context of Social Work.” Mogens Jensen goes beyond intergenerational family relations and looks at relations of nonrelated adults and adolescents, namely, in the setting of social work. Ambivalence might be inherent in such relations as the social worker—who represents the social system that forces the adolescent into this situation—has to establish a relation toward the adolescent, who often has a relational history of neglect and disturbed attachment. Jensen draws on the establishment of mutual trust relations and looks at ambivalences as a part of the meaning-making process, being important for agency. He distinguishes between the cognitive aspects of mere ambiguity, which he characterizes as neutral, on the one hand, and ambivalence as containing contradictory feelings and behavioral tendencies, on the other hand. Most important, the dealing with ambivalences seems to make the difference regarding positive or negative outcomes, and he outlines along two case studies how ambivalence can be used to establish a dialogue or initiate relationship dynamics in relations that are stuck in negative aspects.

In Chapter 13, “Your Duty Toward My Right: Ambivalent Traps of Rights and Duties,” Kevin Carriere starts from the theoretical perspective of semiotic cultural psychology and elaborates the mechanism of a “semiotic trap” when focusing on the negotiation between rights and duties in intergenerational family relations and the inherent ambivalences in this process using multiple illustrative examples. He finally suggests the idea of a mechanism-based cultural psychology, including mediators and regulators that allow for a clearer understanding of psychological processes.

This brings us to Part IV of the book focusing on measurement issues. In Chapter 14, “Attachment Ambivalence: The Concept, Psychological Importance, and Measurement Issues,” Katarzyna Lubiewska outlines how attachment theory might provide explanations to the questions of how and why some individuals are more prone than others to the experience of ambivalence in their close relations. Starting with a close description of attachment theory and how ambivalence is conceptualized within this framework, she makes a strong point for a differential view of ambivalence, also pointing to differential outcomes depending on how ambivalence is dealt with. The author then focuses on the important question of how ambivalence might be measured, outlining both explicit and implicit ways of measuring ambivalence and discussing direct and indirect measurements. Thereby, she also raises the question of how far researchers might actually trigger ambivalent feelings when asking study participants about it.

In summary, the present contributions might help to clarify and further develop the concept of ambivalence by shedding further light at different aspects illustrated by case examples as well as by focusing on specific phenomena which contain ambivalences. Apart from different situations and constellations, such as times of transition and social change as well as life course-specific phases that might be more or less prone to the experience of ambivalence, differential psychological considerations are also provided with regard to the emergence of and dealing with ambivalences.

The authors use different approaches—quantitative and qualitative studies—and their different theoretical perspectives enrich the present book by highlighting different aspects of the concept of ambivalence to contribute to its clarification.

Acknowledgments

This book was prepared in the framework of the IRMA-project (“Intergenerational Relations in the light of Migration and Ageing) which was funded by a grant from the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (FNR, 2013-2016; PI: Dr. Isabelle Albert; Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Dieter Ferring; Mentor: Prof. Dr. Jaan Valsiner).

Notes

1. We might note here, however, that ambivalent reactions have also been described in Pavlov’s experiments when exposing dogs to stress.

2. Notably, already Bleuler (1910) agreed with C. G. Jung that the guiding force would not be the ambivalence but the affectivity.

3. This workshop was co-sponsored by The Leir Luxembourg Program-Clark University (LLP-CU); Integrative Research Unit on Social and Individual Development (INSIDE), Université du Luxembourg; and the Niels Bohr Centre of Cultural Psychology, Aalborg Universitet, Denmark.

References

Abbey, E. (2004). Circumventing ambivalence in identity: The importance of latent and overt aspects of symbolic meaning. Culture & Psychology, 10(3), 331–336.

Abbey, E. (2012). Ambivalence and its transformations. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 989–997). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Abbey, E., & Valsiner, J. (2005). Emergence of meanings through ambivalence. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research
.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/515/1114

Albert, I., & Steinhoff, A. (2016). Intergenerationelle Ambivalenz in Eltern-Kind-Beziehungen im Jugend- und jungen Erwachsenenalter: Theoretische Reflexionen und Möglichkeiten der quantitativen Analyse [Intergenerational ambivalence in parent-child relationships during adolescence and young adulthood: Theoretical reflections and possibilities of quantitative analysis]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation [Journal for Sociology of Education and Socialization], 36(2), 178–194.

Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626.

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251–254.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford.

Bengtson, V. L., & Roberts, R. E. L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53, 856–870.

Bleuler, E. (1910). Vortrag von Prof. Bleuler über Ambivalenz. Aus Vereinen und Versammlungen. Ordentliche Winterversammlung des Vereins schweizerischer Irrenärzte in Bern. 26–27 November 1910. Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse (1911), 1, 266–268.

Bleuler, E. (1914). Die Ambivalenz [Ambivalence]. In U. Zürich (Ed.), Festgabe zur Einweihung der Neubauten (pp. 94–106). Zürich, Switzerland: Schultheiss.

Cabell, K., & Valsiner, J. (2014). The catalyzing mind: Beyond models of causality. New York, NY: Springer.

Coimbra, S., Ribeiro, L., & Fontaine, A. (2013). Intergenerational solidarity in an ageing society: Socio-demographic determinants of intergenerational support to elderly parents. In I. Albert & D. Ferring (Eds.), Intergenerational relations: European perspectives on family and society (pp. 205–222). Bristol, England: Policy Press at the University of Bristol.

Connidis, I. A. (2015). Exploring ambivalence in family ties: Progress and prospects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 77–95.

Ferring, D., Michels, T., Boll, T., & Filipp, S.-H. (2009). Emotional relationship quality of adult children with ageing parents: on solidarity, conflict and ambivalence. European Journal of Ageing, 6, 253–265.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Freud, S. (1919). Totem and taboo (A. A. Brill, Trans.). London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1913).

Hagestad, G. (2016). Her and his? Exploring gender in intergenerational patterns. Keynote at the 8th Congress of the European Society on Family Relations (ESFR), August 31–September 3, 2016, TU Dortmund University, Germany.

Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Review, 77, 361–372.

Koster, E. H. W, Fang, L., & Marchetti, I. (2015). Self-regulation through rumination: Consequences and mechanisms. In G. H. E. Gendolla, M. Tops, & S. L. Koole (Eds.), Handbook of biobehavioral approaches to self-regulation (pp. 371–383). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

Kuczynski, L., Marshall, S., & Schell, K. (1997). Value socialization in a bidirectional context. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and the internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 227–256). New York, NY: Wiley.

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lüscher, K. (2016). Sozialisation und Ambivalenzen. Bausteine eines Vademecums [Socialisation and ambivalences]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation [Journal for Sociology of Education and Socialization], 36(2), 118–136.

Lüscher, K., & Hoff, A. (2013). Intergenerational ambivalence: Beyond solidarity and conflict. In I. Albert & D. Ferring (Eds.), Intergenerational relations: European perspectives on family and society (pp. 39–64). Bristol, England: Policy Press at the University of Bristol.

Lüscher, K., & Pillemer, K. (1998). Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent–child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 413–425.

Lüscher, K., Hoff, A., Klimczuk, A., Lamura, G., Renzi, M., de Salles Oliveira, P., Sánchez, M., . . . Canatan, A. (2017). Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy: A multilingual compendium [White paper]. Universität Konstanz. Retrieved from http://www.generationen-compendium.de/downloads/
Kompendium_12sprachig_05-04-2017.pdf

McGregor, I. (2010). Ambivalence. Cosini Encyclopedia of Psychology, pp. 1–2.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 450–468.

Turner, V. W. (1964). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites de passage. In J. Helm (Ed.), The Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society: Symposium on New Approaches to the Study of Religion (pp. 4–20). Seattle, WA: American Ethnological Society.

Valsiner, J. (1997). Constructing identity: A theoretical problem for social sciences. Presentation at the Workshop “Identitätsdiskusionen in der Psychologie,” in the framework of the Graduiertenkolleg “Identitätsforschung” of Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, April 18, 1997.

Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Van Gaalen, R., Dykstra, P. A., & Komter, A. E. (2010). Where is the exit? Intergenerational ambivalence and relationship quality in high contact ties. Journal of Aging Studies, 24(2), 105–114.