Intergenerational Effects of Grandparent Alcohol Use Disorder: Consequences for Closeness Between Grandparents and Grandchildren

• In Event: Extended family roles, parenting, and child development

Abstract

Involvement of grandparents in their grandchildren’s lives is important for grandchild wellbeing (Ruiz & Silverstein, 2007), especially when parents are impaired by substance use disorders (SUDs; Kroll, 2006). Studies have demonstrated that parents act as “gatekeepers” in that closer grandparent-parent relationships facilitate closer grandparent-grandchild relationships (Barnett et al., 2010). However, no research has examined whether grandparent SUD disrupts intergenerational relationships. This is important because grandchildren may not benefit from closeness with grandparents who are affected by SUD, even if recovered. This study tested whether: (a) Grandparents (termed “G1” for ‘generation 1’) with lifetime alcohol use disorder (AUD) had poorer relationships with their young-adult children (termed “G2” for ‘generation 2’) and grandchildren (termed “G3” for ‘third generation’) (b) poorer G1-G2 relationship quality predicted worse G1-G3 relationship quality, and (c) effects of G1 AUD on G1-G3 closeness were explained by G1-G2 relationship quality.

Participants were 263 G2 parents and their oldest G3 child from a larger longitudinal study oversampled for familial AUD. G1 DSM diagnosis of lifetime AUD (either parent) was assessed at Wave 1, when G2s were adolescents. At Wave 4 (5 years later), young-adult G2s reported on levels of stress and support in their relationships with each of their G1 parents. At Wave 6 (10 years from baseline), G2s reported on their G3 child’s closeness to each of their grandparents. Mediation models were estimated in MPlus, accounting for clustering at the G2 sibling level. Covariates were grandchild gender, ethnicity (Caucasian vs Latinx), and custodial G2 parent SUD. Separate models were estimated for maternal grandparents/mothers and paternal grandparents/ fathers.

Direct effects in the maternal model are in Table 1. G1 AUD predicted greater stress in the G1 mother-G2 daughter relationship. Greater mother-daughter stress and support were associated with higher grandmother-grandchild closeness, and greater father-daughter stress and support were related to higher grandfather-grandchild closeness. There was an indirect effect of G1 AUD on grandmother-grandchild closeness through stress in the relationship between G1 grandmother and G2 daughter (B=.152, 95% CI: .005, .300). However, there were no indirect effects of G1-G2 social support or stress on grandfather-grandchild closeness. Direct effects of the paternal model are in Table 2. G1 AUD predicted greater mother-son and father-son stress and support. Only father-son support was associated with greater grandfather-grandchild closeness. There was an indirect effect of G1 AUD on grandfather-grandchild closeness through lowered G1 father-G2 son social support (B=-.138, 95% CI: -.238, -.037), but no indirect effects of G1 mother-G2 son stress or support on grandmother-grandchild closeness.

Results demonstrate intergenerational effects of parental AUD on family relationships and support the hypothesis that parents act as “gatekeepers” in the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Moreover, grandfather-grandchild relationships appear more sensitive to disruption than do grandmother-grandchild relationships (as has been reported for grandparent divorce). Interestingly, grandparent AUD increased stress in the G1 mother-G2 daughter relationship, but this predicted greater closeness between grandmother and grandchild. Perhaps G2 adult daughters provide greater care for their G1 mothers in the context of grandparent AUD, which promotes greater closeness between G1 grandmother and G3 grandchild.

Authors

• Austin Blake, Arizona State University
  Presenting Author

• Ariel Sternberg, Arizona State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Laurie Chassin, Arizona State University
  Non-Presenting Author