Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Feb 29.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Process. 2021 Sep 23;61(3):1287–1304. doi: 10.1111/famp.12725

Reciprocal associations between affectual, associational, and normative solidarity with parents during children’s early to established adulthood

Woosang Hwang 1, Jeung Hyun Kim 2, Kent Jason Cheng 3, Maria T Brown 4, Merril Silverstein 5
PMCID: PMC10904150  NIHMSID: NIHMS1966973  PMID: 34555863

Abstract

Intergenerational solidarity has become increasingly important to understand, as close family members mobilize the provision of social support across generations and contribute to family wellbeing. However, less is known about continuity and change in normative (eldercare norms), affectual, and associational solidarity with mothers and fathers as children emerge into full or established adulthood. Therefore, we focused on reciprocal associations between three dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (normative, affectual, and associational) as reported by young-adult children from their early twenties to late thirties. Data were derived from respondents in the Longitudinal Study of Generations: daughters reported about relationships with 291 mother–father pairs and sons reported about relationships with 309 mother–father pairs in 2000, 2005, and 2016. Autoregressive cross-lagged models prospectively predicted mutual influences among the three dimensions of solidarity across daughter-parent and son-parent relationships. In addition, multiple group analysis was conducted to examine the children’s gender difference. We found that normative solidarity and emotional closeness with mothers were mutually reinforcing in daughters’ and sons’ parental relationships. However, normative solidarity predicted emotional closeness with fathers in both daughter-parent and son-parent relationships. The study concludes that sons and daughters establish eldercare norms based on emotional components of solidarity with mothers, and suggest that filial duty is a key reason why mother-child relations become close over the family life course.

Keywords: adulthood, autoregressive cross-lagged model, gender difference, intergenerational solidarity, parent–child relationships

INTRODUCTION

Intergenerational family relationships have been widely investigated in recent decades, as increasing longevity has resulted in adult children and older parents co-surviving for longer periods of time (Bengtson, 2013; Kalmijn, 2007). In 2019, adults aged 65 and older made up 16% of the U.S. population (World Bank, 2020). This population disproportionately experiences functional and cognitive impairments requiring long-term care services and support from family members, especially adult children (Nguyen, 2017; Silverstein et al., 1995; Wettstein & Zulkarnain, 2017). Therefore, it is important to understand the earlier family conditions that predispose children to provide eldercare and how children establish and maintain intergenerational solidarity with their parents through time, while considering the gendered nature of these relationships.

The quality and functioning of intergenerational relationships have been documented as being important to the well-being of older family members through the provision of social support and care (Qualls, 2000; Silverstein et al., 2006). In light of their increased availability over the family life course and growing practical importance in service to older parents, adult children have taken on added significance in the support portfolio of older parents. In addition, more parents engage with their adult children’s lives as can be seen from the general increase in parental support, contact, and co-residency from early to established adulthood (Arnett & Schwab, 2012; Fingerman et al., 2009; Mehta et al., 2020). Lingering parental support as children transition to adulthood is principally driven by societal and cultural changes that have delayed education and caused young adults to postpone or forego marriage and childbearing (Fingerman, 2017). Therefore, it is important to understand how parent-child relations evolve over time.

The most popular conceptual model used in the study of intergenerational relations in aging families is the multidimensional construct of solidarity (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Silverstein et al., 1997). Empirical tests have shown that the dimensions of intergenerational solidarity can distinctly “characterize the behavioral and emotional dimensions of interaction, cohesion, sentiment and support between parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, over the course of long-term relationships” (Bengtson, 2013, p. 8). However, less is known about relationships among key dimensions of intergenerational solidarity experienced by young adult children in the transition to full or established adulthood, where most of the literature has focused solely on middle-aged children in relation to their older parents (Lawton et al., 1994; Lowenstein, 2007; Luo & Zhan, 2012). Moreover, researchers point out that most empirical studies have used cross-sectional data which fail to account for the temporality and direction of influence within interplay of intergenerational solidarity constructs (Hogerbrugge & Komter, 2012; Steinbach et al., 2020). In addition to its dynamic nature, intergenerational solidarity manifests as a gendered phenomenon (Fingerman et al., 2020; Silverstein et al., 1997). Yet, the majority of studies of intergenerational solidarity have focused on parent-child dyads independent of parents’ gender (Hogerbrugge & Komter, 2012; Lee et al., 2016; Silverstein et al., 2006), and relatively little attention has been devoted to the interdependence between children’s relationships with mothers and fathers. There are several investigations of how gender combinations are associated with solidarity between parents and children (Lindsey & Caldera, 2006; Stroud et al., 2011). However, few studies consider intergenerational solidarity in parent-child gender combinations from a longitudinal perspective. For instance, research has found a reciprocal relationship between children’s affection and contact with their parents in child-mother relationships but not in child-father relationships (Lawton et al., 1994). Given that the nature of earlier intergenerational relationships influences exchanges of intergenerational assistance over time (Parrott & Bengtson, 1999), the current study addresses a gap in the literature by considering gender differences in the progression of intergenerational solidary over time.

In this investigation, we aimed to fill these gaps in the literature by examining which types of solidarity are mobilized in support of older mothers and fathers, as daughters and sons transition from young adulthood to established adulthood. With this approach, we contribute to the study of aging families by examining gender-specific changes in solidarity across segments of the lifespan when adult roles are established and parents have aged in their later years (Seltzer et al., 2005; Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). Specifically, we employed data from a multigenerational and multi-time-point study to explore whether three dimensions of intergenerational solidarity—normative, affectual, and associational—as reported by young-adult children, were reciprocally related to each other over time, and the extent to which these relationships differed according to children’s and parents’ gender. We considered elder-care norms as a specific form of normative solidarity that predicts and is predicted by relational dimensions as measured by emotional closeness and social interaction with parents.

BACKGROUND

Affectual, associational, and normative solidarity in intergenerational relations

The construct of intergenerational solidarity is theoretically rooted in classical social psychology, and family sociology theories (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991). Early studies developing measurement models of intergenerational solidarity differentiated the construct into its constituent dimensions, some of which include affection (emotional closeness), association (contact frequency), and norms (filial responsibility; Bengtson et al., 1976; Bengtson & Schrader, 1982). Subsequent studies refuted the idea that intergenerational solidarity is best represented as a unidimensional construct and concluded that its dimensions be considered independently (Roberts & Bengtson, 1990) or as comprising socio-emotional and behavioral-structural sub-constructs (Silverstein et al., 1997).

Research shows that affectional and associational dimensions of intergenerational solidarity are empirically related (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Roberts & Bengtson, 1990; Silverstein et al., 1997), but the direction of this relationship has yet to be established in a longitudinal context (Lawton et al., 1994). The line of reasoning for a mutually influential relationship between affection and association stems from Homans’ (1950) theory of small group cohesion, proposing that empathy for others grows out of shared interactive experiences, that further increase positive sentiments among group members.

Unlike affectual and associational solidarity, normative solidarity represents an intergenerational dimension that is not strictly relational but describes the extent of generalized familial obligation defined as “attitudes about the centrality or primacy of family life” (Parrott & Bengtson, 1999, p. 76). Filial responsibility becomes behaviorally manifest when adult children provide assistance to older parents (Hamon & Blieszner, 1990; Silverstein et al., 2006). Although generally associated with sustained contact, feelings of closeness, and supportive intergenerational family relations (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Hogerbrugge & Silverstein, 2015), filial responsibility is conceptually distinct from these relational dimensions of solidarity, but remain associated with them (Lee et al., 1994; Swartz, 2009). Filial norms of children are also related to support provided to parents, as children tend to act on their self-expectations to care for their aging parents (Lee et al., 1994; Silverstein et al., 2006).

Despite robust scholarly attention devoted to associations among these dimensions of solidarity, associations have only occasionally been investigated dynamically to establish directions of influence. In a German panel study, Steinbach et al. (2020) found that frequency of contact and degree of emotional closeness remained stable across almost a decade despite increasing geographic mobility among family members. A panel analysis on a Dutch longitudinal sample found that geographic proximity between adult children and parents influenced intergenerational contact and support provision over time (van der Pas et al., 2007). Similarly, changes in the proximity between parent and child were associated with changes in contact frequency with their parents in U.S. families across two waves of panel data (Ward et al., 2014). In another Dutch study, Hogerbrugge and Komter (2012) showed that support for parents by adult children is related to children’s affection and association with their parents, finding that these three dimensions mutually reinforce one another over time. However, this research did not find that normative solidarity predicted future levels of affectual and associational solidarity.

The perspective of family system theory is informative with regard to examining solidarity in a triadic family system, as relationships of children with mothers and fathers are interdependent with each other (Minuchin, 1985). Considering parent-child dyads as independent units of analysis ignores how the relationship with one parent may influence the relationship with the other parent (Lindsey & Caldera, 2006; Stroud et al., 2011). Therefore, we address inter-relationships among affectual, associational, and normative solidarity by simultaneously considering child-mother and child-father relationships, with the child serving as informant within an ego-centered triadic family system.

Gender differences

Studies of intergenerational relationships suggest that the nexus among affection, association, and norms of familism differs based on parents’ and children’s gender. In terms of parents’ gender, different parent-child relationships can be explained by parenting practices of mothers and fathers (Russell et al., 1998). Extensive work has shown that women, at an early age, are socialized to serve as kin-keepers who foster communication, promote contact and intra-family exchange of resources, nurture and care for family members and oversee family relationships (Arendell, 2000; Hagestad, 1986). Mothers tend to engage in warmer and more supportive parenting practices, but fathers tend to provide more directional and results-oriented parenting (Buchanan et al., 2016); this can be interpreted as mothers inspiring more associational and affectual solidarity than fathers. Therefore, young-adult children are more likely to be emotionally bonded with their mothers than with their fathers (Shearer et al., 2005). As a result, affection for older mothers tends to motivate adult children, regardless of gender, to provide support for their mothers (Albert et al., 2013; Parrott & Bengtson, 1999; Silverstein et al., 1995).

With regard to children’s gender, the differential socialization experiences of daughters and sons over the life course are associated with variations in patterns of intergenerational relations (Brewer, 2001). For example, daughters are socialized to have more emotional ties with family members than sons, and this pattern is unlikely to change in the transition to adulthood (Proulx & Helms, 2008). It is likely that a history of affection between children and parents—more so for mothers than fathers—facilitates reciprocal support exchanges and increases the likelihood of help will be exchanged (Parrott & Bengtson, 1999). Affection and similarities in values predict whether daughters provide support to their mothers, with affection being the strongest motivator to elicit support (Albert et al., 2013). However, filial obligation, more than affection or association, drives sons to care and provide support for older parents (Silverstein et al., 1995). These gender differences highlight that daughters’ assistance provided to parents is based more on altruism, whereas sons tend to be driven more by filial duty (Finley et al., 1988; Parrott & Bengtson, 1999; Silverstein et al., 1995).

With respect to gender of parents, a study of college-aged young adults found that they expressed greater filial obligation and closeness to their mothers than to their fathers, possibly owing to the observation that mothers tend to play a more central role in transmitting filial obligation and are more active in maintaining kin relations (Stein, 1992). However, Albert and Ferring (2018) found that reciprocity and the quality of emotional relationships predicted functional support provided by adult children to both older mothers and fathers. In the case of parent-child gender combinations, children have a stronger connection with the parent of the same gender than the opposite gender parent (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998).

Transitions from young adulthood to established adulthood

The successful transition to adulthood is to a large degree shaped by relationships maintained with parents who can influence developmental outcomes. This influence takes place over the family lifecycle. For example, continuous parental support and monitoring of children has been found to reduce young adults’ criminal behavior (Johnson et al., 2011). Among college-educated young adults, harmonious and strong positive ties with parents are associated with greater competence and better wellbeing (Dubas & Petersen, 1996). Additionally, young adult’s romantic relationships are impacted by whether they have distant or close relationships with their mothers and fathers (Seiffge-Krenke et al., 2010). Marital conflict or dissolution of parents may lead to more negative relations between young adult children and their parents, particularly in father-child relationships (Riggio, 2004).

Intergenerational relations are found to shift during life-course transitions in young adulthood (Bucx et al., 2008, 2010). Between ages 18 and 34, young adults who enter marriage tend to reduce their contact with parents. However, frequency of contact with parents increases as young adults become parents themselves (Bucx et al., 2008). Intergenerational differences regarding family ideologies such as marriage, cohabitation, divorce, and gender role division inside the union, grow once young adults move away from their parental home. However, this trend reverses as young adults become parents themselves (Bucx et al., 2010). These life-course patterns vary according to individual and contextual factors. A study done in Switzerland found that married and employed young adults were more likely to contact their parents than their non-married and unemployed counterparts; further, regions with stronger familism norms had more obligated family relationships (Bertogg, 2020). However, a Dutch study found no life-stage differences in intergenerational filial responsibility across life-stages in young adulthood (Bucx et al., 2010). Given inconsistent findings across various dimensions of intergenerational solidarity in predicting filial eldercare norms, more studies are needed to identify what shapes young adults’ evolving views on supporting aging parents.

The current study

The purpose of this study is to examine reciprocal dynamic relationships between normative, affectual, and associational solidarity as reported by young-adult children in relationship to their mothers and fathers, as the children age from young adulthood to midlife and the parents age into later life. In the current investigation, we revisit relationships among three central dimensions of solidarity between children and parents by considering (1) longitudinal associations among the dimensions, (2) gender of child as a conditioning factor, and (3) interdependence between relationships with mothers and relationships with fathers.

Based on theories suggesting that social familiarity and attachment are mutually reinforcing, we hypothesized that normative, affectual, and associational solidarity were mutually and prospectively predictive of each other (see Figure 1). Further, we hypothesized that relationships between normative, affectual, and associational solidarity will differ according to parents’ and children’s gender: We expect stronger associations between affectual and associational solidarity in mother-daughter and father-son relations compared to mother-son and father-daughter relations. Finally, we expect stronger associations between normative and affectual solidarity in mother-child relations, and stronger associations between normative and associational solidarity in father-son relations.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Autoregressive cross-lagged model of normative, affectual, and associational solidarity with parents. Note. Control variables and correlations between error terms of normative, affectual, and associational solidarity in each wave are not present for clarity

METHOD

Sample

Data for this study were derived from the Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), a multipoint and multigenerational study of 3681 respondents nested within 328 families from 1971 (Wave 1) to 2016 (Wave 9). The LSOG includes four-generation families consisting of grandparents (G1), parents (G2), grandchildren (G3), and great-grandchildren (G4). The LSOG began in 1971 as a cross-sectional study, and the original sample families were generated from grandparents (G1s) randomly selected in 1971 from Southern California’s largest health maintenance organization of 840,000 members. This sample pool at that time primarily consisted of White, middle- and working-class, economically stable families in the Southern California area. Data were collected by mailed-back questionnaires from grandparents, parents, and grandchildren in these families (for more details, see Bengtson, 2013; Silverstein & Bengtson, 2019). The LSOG became a longitudinal study in 1985, and great-grandchildren (G4s) as young as 16 years old were added in 1991. In 2016, the LSOG started data collection using both online and paper survey platforms.

In the present investigation, we selected a subsample of 600 out of 701 young-adult children nested in 401 families in the G4 generation who participated in the 2000 survey (T1) and up to two additional surveys in 2005 (T2) and 2016 (T3), and who responded to normative, affectual, and associational solidarity items for either surviving mothers or fathers. We began with the 2000 survey as baseline because this is the wave with the largest number of G4 respondents. The retention rate of G4 children was 63.6% at T2 and 52.5% at T3. In our analyses we stratify the sample by children’s gender daughters’ and sons’ relationships with their mothers and fathers: ndaughters = 309; nsons = 291. On average adult children were 24 years old at T1 (2000), 29 years old at T2 (2005), and 40 years old at T3 (2016). The majority (92%) identified as White and 45% were married or cohabitating at T1, and the average number of siblings was 2.2. In the 2016 survey (T3), approximately 62% had at least a college education and the average annual personal income was between $60,000 and $70,000.

Measures

Normative solidarity

Filial norms were considered as eldercare norms—the obligation of adult children to provide for older parents—and measured by responses to six questions in 2000 (T1), 2005 (T2), and 2016 (T3): “Regardless of the sacrifices involved, how much responsibility should adult children with families of their own have to” (1) provide companionship or spend time with elderly parents who are in need, (2) help with household chores and repairs and/or provide transportation for elderly parents who are in need, (3) listen to the problems and concerns of elderly parents and provide advice and guidance, (4) provide for the personal and health care needs of elderly parents (for example, bathing, grooming, medication, etc.), (5) provide financial support and/or assist in the financial and legal affairs of elderly parents who are in need, and (6) provide housing for elderly parents who are in need. Respondents answered on a 5-point scale ranging from (1) none to (5) total. An average score was calculated from the six items, with higher scores reflecting greater feelings of filial obligation. Reliability α was 0.88–0.91 in daughters’ reports and 0.90–0.91 in sons’ reports across the three measurements considered.

Affectual and associational solidarity

Children’s perceived affectual solidarity was measured by responses to one item in 2000 (T1), 2005 (T2), and 2016 (T3): Taking everything into consideration, how close do you feel is the relationship between you and your mother/father at this point in your life. Respondents answered on a 6-point scale ranging from (1) not at all to (6) extremely, with higher scores reflecting greater emotional closeness.

Children’s reported associational solidarity was measured by responses of frequency of in-person contact with each parent in each of the three time points (2000, 2005, and 2016). Respondents answered on a 6-point scale ranging from (1) not at all to (6) daily, with higher scores reflecting more frequent contact.

These single-item measures of affectual and associational solidarity have effectively been used in previous studies based on the LSOG (Peng et al., 2018; Silverstein et al., 1995, Silverstein & Bengtson2019) as well as other studies, such as the Population Study of Chinese Elderly in Chicago Study (Li et al., 2019), German Family Panel Study (Hank & Steinbach, 2018), and Netherlands Kinship Panel Study (Hogerbrugge & Komter, 2012). Nevertheless, we acknowledge that using a single-item measure precludes an assessment of reliability of measurement.

Control variables

Guided by the literature, we controlled for respondents’ demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, income, number of siblings) and parents’ characteristics (parents’ marital status and relationship status with children) (Hwang et al., 2019; Baxter et al., 2006; Kalmijn, 2007; Silverstein et al., 1997; Steinbach, 2008). Baseline control variables derived from 2000 (T1) were coded as follows: age in years, race (1 = white, 0 = others), number of siblings, relationship status of parents (1 = biological/adoptive parents; 0 = step parents), and parents’ marital status (1 = married; 0 = others). Time-variant control variables were measured at each period. These included adult children’s educational level measured by an ordinal variable ranging from 1 (8th grade or less) to 8 (post-graduate degree), marital status measured by a binary variable (1 = married/cohabitate, 0 = others), and annual personal income measured by 21 ordered categories of income (1 = under $10,000, 21 = $200,000 or more).

Analytic strategy

We began by conducting descriptive analyses with independent samples t-tests between sons and daughters and bivariate correlations among all study variables using SPSS 25. We then analyzed the data using autoregressive cross-lagged models (ACLM) in AMOS 25 to examine the reciprocal associations between normative, affectual, and associational solidarity over 16 years. ACLM is useful for identifying causal relationships between variables across time points (Selig & Little, 2012). To examine the extent of non-independence of observations due to sibling clustering, we estimated intraclass correlations with multilevel linear mixed effect models. Intraclass correlation represents the degree of correspondence within clusters or groups; thus an intraclass correlation (ρ) of <0.05 indicates that observations are nearly independent (Heck, 2001). Our results showed that all intraclass correlations were <0.01, indicating that multilevel models would not be recommended (Heck, 2001). In addition, approximately 40% of young-adult children in the sample were singletons. As a result, family nesting was infrequent enough for us not to consider a multilevel or clustered approach in the analysis.

Before testing for group differences between daughters and sons, we conducted autoregressive cross-lagged models for daughter and son groups separately to test for invariance of paths over time. We conducted a test of structural invariance (with control variables) to determine whether regression coefficients for each dimension of solidarity—normative, affectual, and associational—were stable over time. We compared a model with equality constraints on autoregressive effects to a constrained model for daughter and son groups for parental relationships of daughters and parental relationships of sons. Table 3 shows that for each gender group the difference in the Comparative Fit Index between a constrained model (Model 2 for daughters and Model 4 for sons) and an unconstrained model (Model 1 for daughters and Model 3 for sons) was negligible at <0.01, and chi-square differences between the models indicated no significant worsening of model fit due to imposing quality constraints on successive coefficients (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

TABLE 3.

Model fit statistics for autoregressive cross-lagged models

Model/model description χ2 df CFI RMSEA
Mother-father-daughter group (n = 309)
 Model 1. Unconstrained model 307.38 175 0.95 0.05
 Model 2. Cross-lagged and stability paths were constrained to be equal 335.60 200 0.95 0.05
Mother-father-son group (n = 291)
 Model 3. Unconstrained model 228.49 175 0.98 0.03
 Model 4. Cross-lagged and stability paths were constrained to be equal 261.03 200 0.98 0.03
Open in a new tab

In order to determine how the magnitude of effects of autoregressive paths differ between daughters and sons, we conducted a multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged model, testing whether reciprocal relationships between normative, affectual, and associational solidarity with mothers and fathers varied by children’s gender (Brown, 2006). A chi-square difference test between an equality constrained model and an unconstrained model was used to assess whether an effect was the same or different between the two groups.

Model fit for all models was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; a value >0.95 indicates a good fit) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; a value <0.06 indicates a good fit) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In each analysis based on children’s gender, the three dimensions of solidarity at T2 and T3 were regressed on the same solidarity dimensions as measured in the immediately prior wave, along with baseline control variables (age, race, number of siblings, the nature of parent-child relationship, and parents’ marital status) and time-variant control variables (education, annual income, and marital status). Full information maximum likelihood estimation was used in the analysis to account for the missing data.

RESULTS

Descriptive and correlation analyses

Results of the descriptive analysis of control and study variables are presented in Table 1. Daughters reported higher normative solidarity and affectual solidarity with mothers across all time points, compared to sons, except for normative solidarity at T3. Sons reported higher associational solidarity with fathers at T1, compared to daughters, but associational solidarity with fathers at T2 and T3 were not significantly different. Associational solidarity with mothers and affectual solidarity with fathers were not significantly different between daughters and sons at any time points. Results of the correlation analysis among study variables are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 1.

Descriptive results among control and study variables

Range Daughters (n = 309)
 Sons (n = 291)
 t-test
M (SD) M (SD)
Control variables
 Age T1 24.17 (5.32) 23.79 (6.11)   0.81
 White T1 (vs. others)   0–1   0.91 (0.27)   0.92 (0.25) −0.49
 Number of siblings T1   2.22 (1.62)   2.17 (1.35)   0.39
 Biological mothers T1 (vs. step/adoptive)   0–1   0.91 (0.28)   0.91 (0.28) −0.05
 Biological fathers T1 (vs. step/adoptive)   0–1   0.84 (0.36)   0.89 (0.31) −1.92
 Married parents T1 (vs. others)   0–1   0.96 (0.18)   0.91 (0.28)   2.60**
 Education T1   1–8   4.77 (1.38)   4.27 (1.58)   4.07***
 Education T2   1–8   5.34 (1.16)   5.22 (1.32)   0.85
 Education T3   1–8   5.76 (1.17)   5.71 (1.40)   0.34
 Annual income T1   1–21   2.89 (1.84)   3.75 (3.00) −3.51***
 Annual income T2   1–21   4.08 (2.70)   4.58 (3.82) −1.32
 Annual income T3   1–21   6.02 (4.37)   8.81 (4.91) −5.01***
 Married/cohabitate T1 (vs. others)   0–1   0.46 (0.49)   0.43 (0.49)   0.73
 Married/cohabitate T2 (vs. others)   0–1   0.67 (0.46)   0.60 (0.49)   1.45
 Married/cohabitate T3 (vs. others)   0–1   0.77 (0.42)   0.84 (0.36) −1.62
Study variables
 Normative solidarity T1   1–5   3.78 (0.62)   3.61 (0.71)   3.16**
 Normative solidarity T2   1–5   3.73 (0.67)   3.50 (0.73)   3.17**
 Normative solidarity T3   1–5   3.52 (0.65)   3.45 (0.75)   0.83
 Affectual solidarity with mothers T1   1–6   4.73 (1.27)   4.34 (1.23)   3.76***
 Affectual solidarity with mothers T2   1–6   4.88 (1.23)   4.44 (1.29)   3.41**
 Affectual solidarity with mothers T3   1–6   4.56 (1.32)   4.07 (1.19)   3.40***
 Associational solidarity with mothers T1   1–6   4.26 (1.50)   4.33 (1.62) −0.56
 Associational solidarity with mothers T2   1–6   4.03 (1.36)   4.01 (1.47)   0.14
 Associational solidarity with mothers T3   1–6   3.68 (1.25)   3.57 (1.28)   0.78
 Affectual solidarity with fathers T1   1–6   3.87 (1.52)   3.88 (1.44) −0.09
 Affectual solidarity with fathers T2   1–6   3.93 (1.58)   4.00 (1.51) −0.41
 Affectual solidarity with fathers T3   1–6   3.84 (1.54)   3.64 (1.40)   1.16
 Associational solidarity with fathers T1   1–6   3.80 (1.65)   4.13 (1.73) −2.36*
 Associational solidarity with fathers T2   1–6   3.53 (1.49)   3.81 (1.59) −1.73
 Associational solidarity with fathers T3   1–6   3.26 (1.34)   3.19 (1.46)   0.40
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: T, time point.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

TABLE 2.

Bivariate correlations among study variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Normative solidarity T1 — 0.50*** 0.35*** 0.27*** 0.17* 0.19* 0.11 −0.02 0.01 0.22*** 0.14* 0.06 0.13* 0.04 0.08
2. Normative solidarity T2 0.40*** — 0.47*** 0.27* 0.29*** 0.22* 0.18* 0.10 −0.01 0.37*** 0.31*** 0.21* 0.24** 0.18* 0.18
3. Normative solidarity T3 0.44*** 0.52*** — 0.25** 0.16 0.28** 0.17* 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.08 0.23** 0.20* 0.05 0.14
4. Affectual solidarity with mothers T1 0.19** 0.17* 0.26** — 0.44*** 0.33*** 0.32*** 0.26** 0.11 0.44*** 0.25** 0.05 0.22*** 0.22** 0.09
5. Affectual solidarity with mothers T2 0.19** 0.19** 0.37*** 0.61*** — 0.44*** 0.30*** 0.47*** 0.17 0.21** 0.37* 0.05 0.19* 0.09 0.04
6. Affectual solidarity with mothers T3 0.18* 0.15 0.35*** 0.49*** 0.43*** — 0.26** 0.25** 0.40*** 0.22** 0.10 0.43*** 0.24** 0.20* 0.28**
7. Associational solidarity with mothers T1 −0.01 0.10 0.15 0.24*** 0.16* 0.22** — 0.49*** 0.16 0.19* 0.19* 0.13 0.76*** 0.38*** 0.19*
8. Associational solidarity with mothers T2 0.14* 0.12 0.21* 0.28*** 0.35*** 0.19* 0.47*** — 0.36*** 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.33*** 0.58*** 0.20*
9. Associational solidarity with mothers T3 0.15 0.10 0.15* 0.22** 0.20* 0.42*** 0.36*** 0.47*** — −0.04 −0.06 0.08 0.03 0.14 0.48***
10. Affectual solidarity with fathers T1 0.23** 0.13 0.22** 0.38*** 0.29*** 0.26** 0.11 0.05 0.28** — 0.68*** 0.59*** 0.47*** 0.52*** 0.46***
11. Affectual solidarity with fathers T2 0.15* 0.13 0.18* 0.19* 0.35*** 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.11 0.68*** — 0.68*** 0.48*** 0.52*** 0.52***
12. Affectual solidarity with fathers T3 0.29*** 0.25** 0.26** 0.18* 0.15 0.37*** 0.07 0.14 0.19* 0.65*** 0.61*** — 0.39*** 0.57*** 0.65***
13. Associational solidarity with fathers T1 −0.02 0.08 0.19** 0.16** 0.09 0.17* 0.70*** 0.33*** 0.34*** 0.49*** 0.39*** 0.38*** — 0.65*** 0.42***
14. Associational solidarity with fathers T2 0.14 0.08 0.15 0.21** 0.23** 0.11 0.37*** 0.65*** 0.39*** 0.45*** 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.56*** — 0.67***
15. Associational solidarity with fathers T3 0.20** 0.07 0.17* 0.14 0.10 0.18* 0.26** 0.31** 0.65*** 0.49*** 0.36*** 0.53*** 0.55*** 0.63*** —
Open in a new tab

Note: The upper right part is the mother-father-son group and the bottom left part is the mother-father-daughter group. Abbreviation: T, time point.

*

p < 0.05.

**

p < 0.01.

***

p < 0.001.

Testing autoregressive cross-lagged model

Model fit statistics for autoregressive cross-lagged models are presented in Table 3. All models reported a good fit to the data. In both daughter and son groups, the difference in the CFI between the constrained model and the unconstrained model was <0.01. These results indicate that cross-lagged and stability paths were not significantly different across three waves within both daughter and son groups.

Results from the multiple group analysis showed that two cross-lagged paths, from affectual solidarity with fathers to associational solidarity with fathers (Δχ2(1) = 19.17, p < 0.05) and from associational solidarity with fathers to associational solidarity with mothers (Δχ2(1) = 15.91, p < 0.05), were significantly different between daughter and son groups. However, other cross-lagged and stability paths were not significantly different between the two groups.

For ease of interpretation, Figure 2 shows structural estimates from the constrained multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged model (all cross-lagged and stability paths were constrained to be equal between daughter and son groups except the two cross-lagged paths described above). The autoregressive stability paths were all significant in both groups, indicating continuity in each solidarity variable over time. The cross-lagged paths indicate that normative solidarity and affectual solidarity with mothers reciprocally influenced each other across time intervals among daughters and sons (b = 0.08, p = 0.025 in normative solidarity → affectual solidarity with mothers; b = 0.14, p < 0.001 in affectual solidarity with mothers → normative solidarity). That is, emotional closeness with mothers increased subsequent normative solidarity and normative solidarity increased subsequent emotional closeness with mothers regardless of children’s gender. In addition, normative solidarity positively predicted affectual solidarity with fathers in both daughter and son groups (b = 0.14, p = 0.029). This result indicates that stronger normative solidarity expressed in early adulthood is related to greater emotional closeness with mothers and fathers in established adulthood regardless of children’s gender. We also found that affectual solidarity with mothers positively predicted associational solidarity with mothers (b = 0.17, p < 0.001) and associational solidarity with fathers positively predicted affectual solidarity with fathers (b = 0.23, p < 0.001) in both son and daughter groups. However, results diverged across children’s gender with respect to affectual and associational solidarity with fathers. Affectual solidarity with fathers predicted associational solidarity with fathers in both son and daughter groups but cross-lagged effects were significantly higher among sons (b = 0.25, p < 0.001) than among daughters (b = 0.12, p < 0.01). In addition, associational solidarity with fathers positively predicted associational solidarity with mothers among daughters (b = 0.11, p = 0.037), but not among sons (b = −0.03, p = n.s.). Further, all results reported were consistent across the five-year (2000–2005) and eleven-year (2005–2016) intervals.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Results of multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged model. Note. All cross-lagged and stability paths were constrained to be equal between daughter and son groups excepting path from affectual solidarity for father to associational solidarity for father and associational solidarity for father to associational solidarity for mother. Unstandardized coefficients are presented. Solid line represents that a path is significant for both groups. Dashed line represents that a path is significantly different between two groups (mother-father-daughter group/mother-father-son group). Non-significant paths, control variables, and correlations between error terms of normative, affectual, and associational solidarity in each wave are not present for clarity. T, time point. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001

DISCUSSION

We began this investigation by suggesting that young-adult children’s perceived normative, affectual, and associational solidarity with mothers and fathers had longitudinal and reciprocal relationships following the transition to adulthood and beyond. Based on this idea, we estimated autoregressive cross-lagged models which tested whether children’s reports of these three dimensions of solidarity were predictive of each other over time as children aged from their early adulthood to early midlife. In addition, we tested the above model in gender-specific relationships to assess whether these associations varied by children’s and parents’ gender.

We found that children’s perceived affectual, associational, and normative solidarity are stable over the family life course. These results point to consistency in intergenerational relationships during a period of life associated with many life transitions such as marriage, parenthood, geographic mobility, and career building.

The major finding of this study was that among young adults in the LSOG sample, normative solidarity, and affectual solidarity with mothers reciprocally reinforced each other regardless of children’s gender. These findings echo Swartz’s (2009) findings that attitudes about caregiving and emotional closeness with parents are closely related to each other. In other words, emotional experiences with mothers strengthen generalized social responsibility for the older generation. There is some importance to this finding regarding elder-norms, since parents of the children represented in the study aged into their late-40s and early-60s over the study period. These results suggest that personal relations with mothers are connected to pro-social attitudes toward older adults in general at a time when parents were reaching an age when they may have started needing support from children. Indeed, affectual, associational, and normative forms of solidarity have been identified as important predictors for adult children providing support to their older parents (Lee et al., 1994; Silverstein et al., 1995, 2019).

We also found evidence that normative solidarity predicted affectual solidarity in both mother-child and father-child relations. These results indicate that filial duty, as a formal element of family life, may be a key motive for children being closer to their mothers and fathers in later life. However, rather than finding a reciprocal relationship between normative solidarity and affectual solidarity, as we did in relationships with mothers, affectual solidarity in relationships with fathers did not predict children’s normative solidarity over time. Given that adult children are less likely to have cohesive relations with fathers than with mothers (Silverstein et al., 1997), our findings suggest that children had different relational pathways with mothers and fathers for establishing filial responsibility for parents.

Another major finding of this study was that affectual and associational solidarity reciprocally reinforced each other in father-child relations. As suggested by social psychological theories regarding the interconnection between empathy and collective experiences (Homans, 1950), familiarity with those in older generations—as indicated by social contact—induced stronger emotional intimacy, and emotional intimacy—as indicated by feelings of closeness—induced greater contact. In addition, the association between affectual and associational solidarity differed based on child’s gender. Affectual solidarity predicted associational solidarity in both father-daughter and father-son relations, but the size of impact was significantly higher in father-son relations than father-daughter relations. In other words, compared to daughters, earlier emotional closeness of sons with fathers more strongly predicted subsequent frequency of contact with those fathers. This result is supported by previous studies showing that fathers and sons tend to be closer than fathers and daughters in part because fathers and sons are more apt to share activities and interests (Aquilino, 1994; Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998).

In mother-child relations, affectual solidarity predicted associational solidarity, whereas associational solidarity did not predict affectual solidarity. Considering that children are more emotionally bonded to their mothers than to their fathers (Silverstein et al., 1997), it might not be surprising that affectual solidarity serves as a stronger motivator of social connection to mothers. In contrast, only in relations with fathers was associational solidarity predictive of future affectual solidary. As children are less emotion-focused in their relationships with fathers, social interaction—which is more contingent with fathers than with mothers—may serve as a pre-condition for emotional closeness to fathers.

Among daughters, but not among sons, associational solidarity with fathers predicted associational solidarity with mothers. Given that daughters have more frequent contact than sons with their parents (Lye, 1996), greater contact with fathers may incidentally lead to greater contact with mothers. However, affectual and associational solidarity with one parent were not associated with affectual and associational solidarity with the other parent.

Strengths and limitations

While many studies have investigated the intergenerational solidarity paradigm over the course of middle and later adulthood, this study sought to advance our understanding of how young-adult children develop affectual, associational, and normative solidarity with mothers and fathers as they transition to established adulthood. Our findings can help guide family therapists, clinical researchers, and social workers in assessing the determinants and strength of care resources available to older adults that emerge over the family life course (Fine & Norris, 1989). It is well known that the family can be a site of interventions aimed at improving the quality of life of older adults (Qualls, 2000; Silverstein et al., 2006). Understanding how adult children in established adulthood treat their older parents based on earlier emotional closeness, amount of contact, and sense of filial obligation can assist practitioners in addressing strained relations in the aging family. For instance, that normative solidarity in emerging adulthood plays an important role in strengthening affectual solidarity with parents suggests that it may be productive to sensitize adult children to their filial responsibilities in their early adult years.

However, our results should be understood in the context of the study’s limitations. First, our analysis relied on children’s self-reports of affectual and associational solidarity with each of their parents, as the LSOG does not provide reciprocal reports from parents. Consequently, we considered only children’s perspectives on these dyadic relationships, recognizing that children tend to underestimate intergenerational cohesion compared to their parents. Second, we relied on a generalized measure of filial norms and did not consider direct responsibility felt for each parent. Third, our sample underrepresents minority and lower-income families, and overrepresents white, middle- and working-classes, and economically stable families. As such, our study did not capture cultural or social class variation in filial norms and interpretations of filial solidarity. Given that one out of four children under age 18 live with a single parent in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2018), additional research is required to examine associations among solidarity dimensions in the families of single parents. Fourth, as we discussed, affectual and associational solidarity with parents were measured using one item each, a noteworthy limitation of this investigation. Finally, although study participants in our analysis were not geographically restricted, their parents disproportionately resided in California, limiting our ability to generalize results to the larger population of families in the United States.

CONCLUSION

Our findings have implications for societal adaptations to population aging and the proliferation of aging families. In 2018, the United States had the third largest population of older adults in the developed world (World Bank, 2020), many of whom needed access to long-term services and supports. As families, especially adult children, remain the primary source of long-term services and supports for older adults (Nguyen, 2017), it is important to understand the process by which children establish and maintain intergenerational solidarity with their parents, and how their attitudes toward eldercare are shaped.

We suggest that future studies focus on how early relationship patterns influence adult child caregiving behaviors when aging parents require instrumental assistance. Intergenerational relations during the transition to adulthood may establish relational contexts that accentuate the gender gap in caregiving and that disadvantages fathers. Such a possibility is suggested by our finding that the emotional component of intergenerational relations—which dominates in mother-child relationships—strengthens filial norms toward eldercare, and arguably may extend to whether care is actually provided.

Funding information

The project described was supported by Award Numbers 61457 by John Templeton Foundation and R21AG064512 by National Institute on Aging.

REFERENCES

  1. Albert I, & Ferring D (2018). Intergenerational solidarity in adulthood: The role of family norms in intergenerational support and ambivalence. Drustvena Istrazivanja, 27(1), 5–25. 10.5559/di.27.1.01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albert I, Ferring D, & Michels T (2013). Intergenerational family relations in Luxembourg: Family values and intergenerational solidarity in Portuguese immigrant and Luxembourgish families. European Psychologist, 18(1), 59–69. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000125 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arendell T. (2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1192–1207. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01192.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett JJ, & Schwab J (2012). The Clark University poll of emerging adults. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aquilino WS (1994). Later life parental divorce and widowhood: Impact on young adults’ assessment of parent-child relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(4), 908–922. 10.2307/353602 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Baxter LA, Braithwaite DO, & Bryant LE (2006). Types of communication triads perceived by young-adult stepchildren in established stepfamilies. Communication Studies, 57(4), 381–400. 10.1080/10510970600945923 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bengtson VL (2013). Families and faith: How religion is passed down across generations. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bengtson VL, Olander EB, & Haddad AA (1976). The generation gap and aging family members: Toward a conceptual model. In Gubrium JF (Ed.), Time, roles, and self in old age (pp. 237–263). Human Sciences Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bengtson VL, & Roberts REL (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 856–870. 10.2307/352993 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bengtson VL, & Schrader SS (1982). Parent-child relations. In Mangen DJ, & Peterson WA (Eds.), Research instruments in social gerontology Volume 2: Social roles and social participation (pp. 115–186). University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bertogg A. (2020). Regional chances, regional constraints? Transition to adulthood and intergenerational ties in regional context. Emerging Adulthood, 8(2), 159–167. 10.1177/2167696818797529 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brewer L. (2001). Gender socialization and the cultural construction of elder caregivers. Journal of Aging Studies, 15(3), 217–235. 10.1016/S0890-4065(01)00020-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown TA (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Buchanan T, McFarlane A, & Das A (2016). A counterfactual analysis of the gender gap in parenting time: Explained and unexplained variances at different stages of parenting. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 47(2), 193–219. 10.3138/jcfs.47.2.193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bucx F, Raaijmakers Q, & Van Wel F (2010). Life course stage in young adulthood and intergenerational congruence in family attitudes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 117–134. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00687.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bucx F, Van Wel F, Knijn T, & Hagendoorn L (2008). Intergenerational contact and the life course status of young adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 144–156. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00467.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheung GW, & Rensvold RB (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dubas JS, & Petersen AC (1996). Geographical distance from parents and adjustment during adolescence and young adulthood. New Directions for Child Development, 71, 3–19. 10.1002/cd.23219967103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fine M, & Norris JE (1989). Intergenerational relations and family therapy research: What we can learn from other disciplines. Family Process, 28(3), 301–315. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1989.00301.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fingerman KL (2017). Millennials and their parents: Implications of the new young adulthood for midlife adults. Innovation in Aging, 1(3), 1–16. 10.1093/geroni/igx026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fingerman KL, Huo M, & Birditt KS (2020). Mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons: Gender differences in adults’ intergenerational ties. Journal of Family Issues, 41(9), 1597–1625. 10.1177/0192513X19894369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fingerman KL, Miller L, Birditt K, & Zarit S (2009). Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(5), 1220–1233. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00665.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Finley NJ, Roberts MD, & Banahan BF (1988). Motivators and inhibitors of attitudes of filial obligation toward aging parents. The Gerontologist, 28(1), 73–78. 10.1093/geront/28.1.73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hagestad G. (1986). The family: Women and grandparents as kin keepers. In Pifer A, & Bronte L (Eds.), Our aging society (pp. 141–160). Norton. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hank K, & Steinbach A (2018). Intergenerational solidarity and intragenerational relations between adult siblings. Social Science Research, 76, 55–64. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.08.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hamon RR, & Blieszner R (1990). Filial responsibility expectations among adult child–older parent pairs. Journal of Gerontology, 45(3), P110–P112. 10.1093/geronj/453.P110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Heck RH (2001). Multilevel modeling with SEM. In Marcoulides GA, & Schumacher RE (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (1st ed., pp. 89–127). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hogerbrugge MJA, & Komter AE (2012). Solidarity and ambivalence: Comparing two perspectives on intergenerational relations using longitudinal panel data. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(3), 372–383. 10.1093/geronb/gbr157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hogerbrugge MJA, & Silverstein MD (2015). Transitions in relationships with older parents: From middle to later years. Journals of Gerontology – Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 70(3), 481–495. 10.1093/geronb/gbu069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Homans GC (1950). The human group. Harcourt, Brace and Company. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hwang W, Yoon J, Silverstein M, & Brown MT (2019). Intergenerational affectual solidarity in biological and step relations: The moderating role of religious similarity. Family Relations, 68(5), 549–564. 10.1111/fare.12397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Johnson WL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, & Longmore MA (2011). Parent-child relations and offending during young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(7), 786–799. 10.1007/s10964-010-9591-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kalmijn M. (2007). Gender differences in the effects of divorce, widowhood and remarriage on intergenerational support: Does marriage protect fathers? Social Forces, 85(3), 1079–1104. 10.1353/sof.2007.0043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kaufman G, & Uhlenberg P (1998). Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 924. 10.2307/353635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lawton L, Silverstein M, & Bengtson V (1994). Affection, social contact, and geographic distance between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(1), 57–68. 10.2307/352701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee CYS, Dik BJ, & Barbara LA (2016). Intergenerational solidarity and individual adjustment during emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 47(10), 1412–1432. 10.1177/0192513X14567957 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee GR, Netzer JK, Coward RT, & Netzer JK (1994). Filial responsibility expectations and patterns of intergenerational assistance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3), 559–565. 10.2307/352867 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Li M, Guo M, Stensland M, Silverstein M, & Dong XQ (2019). Typology of family relationship and elder mistreatment in a US Chinese population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67, S493–S498. 10.1111/jgs.15892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lindsey EW, & Caldera YM (2006). Mother-father-child triadic interaction and mother-child dyadic interaction: Gender differences within and between contexts. Sex Roles, 55(7–8), 511–521. 10.1007/s11199-006-9106-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lowenstein A. (2007). Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: Testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on quality of life for older family members. Journals of Gerontology – Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62(2), 100–107. 10.1093/geronb/62.2.S100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Luo B, & Zhan H (2012). Filial piety and functional support: Understanding intergenerational solidarity among families with migrated children in rural China. Ageing International, 37(1), 69–92. 10.1007/s12126-011-9132-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lye DN (1996). Adult child–parent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 79–102. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.79 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mehta CM, Arnett JJ, Palmer CG, & Nelson LJ (2020). Established adulthood: A new conception of ages 30 to 45. American Psychologist, 75(4), 431–444. 10.1037/amp0000600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Minuchin P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56(2), 289–302. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00106.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Nguyen V. (2017). Long-term support and services – AARP fact sheet. AARP Public Policy Institute Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2017-01/FactSheetLong-TermSupportandServices.pdf.
  47. Parrott TM, & Bengtson VL (1999). The effects of earlier intergenerational affection, normative expectations, and family conflict on contemporary exchanges of help and support. Research on Aging, 21(1), 73–105. 10.1177/0164027599211004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Peng S, Silverstein M, Suitor JJ, Gilligan M, Hwang W, Nam S, & Routh B (2018). Use of communication technology to maintain intergenerational contact: toward an understanding of ‘digital solidarity’. In Neves BB, & Casimiro C (Eds.), Connecting families? Information & communication technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 159–180). Policy Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pew Research Center. (2018, April). The changing profile of unmarried parents. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents
  50. Proulx CM, & Helms HM (2008). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of change and continuity in their relationships with young adult sons and daughters. Journal of Family Issues, 29(2), 234–261. 10.1177/0192513X07307855 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Qualls SH (2000). Therapy with aging families: Rationale, opportunities and challenges. Aging and Mental Health, 4(3), 191–199. 10.1080/713649925 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Riggio HR (2004). Parental marital conflict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 99–114. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00073.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Roberts REL, & Bengtson VL (1990). Is intergenerational solidarity a unidimensional construct? A second test of a formal model. Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 45(1), S12–S20. 10.1093/geronj/45.1.S12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Russell A, Aloa V, Feder T, Glover A, Miller H, & Palmer G (1998). Sex-based differences in parenting styles in a sample with preschool children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50(2), 89–99. 10.1080/00049539808257539 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Seiffge-Krenke I, Overbeek G, & Vermulst A (2010). Parent-child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 159–171. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Selig JP, & Little TD (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In Laursen B, Little TD, & Card NA (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 265–278). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  57. Seltzer JA, Bachrach CA, Bianchi SM, Bledsoe CH, Casper LM, Chase-Lansdale PL, DiPrete TA, Hotz VJ, Morgan SP, Sanders SG, & Thomas D (2005). Explaining family change and variation: Challenges for family demographers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 908–925. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00183.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Shearer CL, Crouter AC, & McHale SM (2005). Parents’ perceptions of changes in mother-child and father-child relationships during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(6), 662–684. 10.1177/0743558405275086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Silverstein M, Bengtson VL, & Lawton L (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460. 10.1086/231213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Silverstein M, & Bengtson VL (2019). Longitudinal study of generations, California, 1971, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2005 [Data file and codebook]. Retrieved from https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NACDA/studies/22100
  61. Silverstein M, Gans D, & Yang FM (2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of Family Issues, 27(8), 1068–1084. 10.1177/0192513X06288120 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Silverstein M, & Giarrusso R (2010). Aging and family life: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1039–1058. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Silverstein M, Parrott TM, & Bengtson VL (1995). Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters to provide social support to older parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 465–475. 10.2307/353699 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Stein CH (1992). Ties that bind: three studies of obligation in adult relationships with family. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 525–547. 10.1177/0265407592094004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Steinbach A. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and ambivalence: Types of relationships in German families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(1), 115–127. 10.3138/jcfs.39d.115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Steinbach A, Mahne K, & Klaus D (2020). Family relations across two decades: Findings from the German ageing survey, 1996–2014. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(4), 899–906. 10.1093/geronb/gbz027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Stroud CB, Durbin CE, Wilson S, & Mendelsohn KA (2011). Spillover to triadic and dyadic systems in families with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(6), 919–930. 10.1037/a0025443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Swartz TT (2009). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: Patterns, variations, and implications in the contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 191–212. 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134615 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. van der Pas S, van Tilburg T, & Knipscheer K (2007). Changes in contact and support within intergenerational relationships in the Netherlands: A cohort and time-sequential perspective. Advances in Life Course Research, 12(07), 243–274. 10.1016/S1040-2608(07)12009-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Ward R, Deane G, & Spitze G (2014). Life-course changes and parent-adult child contact. Research on Aging, 36(5), 568–602. 10.1177/0164027513510325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Wettstein BG, & Zulkarnain A (2017). How much long-term care do adult children provide? How much care is provided? What is the burden on caregivers? Center for Retirement Research of Boston College, 17–11. Retrieved from http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/IB_17-11.pdf [Google Scholar]
  72. World Bank (2020). World development indicators. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES