Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 6.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2023 Mar 23;37(6):853–863. doi: 10.1037/fam0001087

Intergenerational Solidarity of Adult Children With Parents From Emerging to Established Adulthood

Woosang Hwang 1, Jeung Hyun Kim 2, Maria T Brown 3,4, Merril Silverstein 2,4,5
PMCID: PMC10917569  NIHMSID: NIHMS1966970  PMID: 36951715

Abstract

Although researchers have focused on adult children’s intergenerational solidarity with their parents following the transition to adulthood, less is known about continuity and change in the multiple dimensions of solidarity as children transition from emerging to established adulthood. Therefore, we focused on reciprocal longitudinal associations between dimensions of latent forms of solidarity (normative and affectual solidarity) and manifest forms of solidarity (associational and functional solidarity) as reported by young adults at three stages from emerging to established adulthood. Data were derived from young adult children participating in the Longitudinal Study of Generations who reported about 260 daughter–mother, 214 son–mother, 244 daughter–father, and 205 son–father relationships in 2000 (18–29 years old), 2005 (23–34 years old), and 2016 (34–45 years old). Multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged models prospectively predicted reciprocal influences among the dimensions of solidarity across four parent–child gender groups. Results showed that young adults’ perceived intergenerational solidarity with parents was stable across three-time points. In addition, young adults’ perceived associational solidarity with parents in emerging adulthood (2000 survey) predicted functional solidarity with parents (receiving support from parents and providing support to parents) in intermediate young adulthood (2005 survey), and in established adulthood (2016 survey). However, parents’ and children’s gender differences were not identified in the above associations. The study concludes that frequent contact with parents in emerging adulthood is a key factor in establishing intergenerational solidarity with parents from early-to-middle stage of adulthood regardless of parents’ and children’s gender.

Keywords: intergenerational solidarity, emerging adulthood, established adulthood, autoregressive cross-lagged model

In past decades, research on intergenerational solidarity—cohesion and social integration between adult children and their parents (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991)—has gained importance amid growing concerns about the decline of the family system stemming from the rise of divorce, the decline in marriage, and low fertility (Adsera, 2005; S. L. Brown & Lin, 2012; McQuillan et al., 2012). Simultaneously, increased longevity has altered family life by extending the amount of time different generations cosurvive each other (Kalmijn, 2014). As older parents and their adult children share more years of life, intergenerational relationships play a significant role in support and care provision both up and down the generational ladder (Silverstein et al., 2006). Thus, it is not surprising that scholars have focused on the determinants of intergenerational solidarity over the life course (Silverstein et al., 2012).

Research on intergenerational solidarity has tended to focus on relationships between middle-aged children and their older parents (e.g., Hogerbrugge & Komter, 2012; Steinbach et al., 2020). However, little attention has been paid to the intergenerational relationships of adult children during emerging adulthood—a demographically dense period of life during which young adults undergo multiple transitions, such as completing education, obtaining a job, establishing stable partnerships, and forming a family. As a result, less is known about how intergenerational solidarity with parents unfolds from emerging adulthood to established adulthood. Adult children and their parents may reciprocally support each other at all stages of life, including in later life when middle-aged children may receive help from older parents for household needs or child care (Fingerman et al., 2013). However, the flow of intergenerational assistance may increasingly shift upward as parents begin to experience challenges arising from the aging process. The emergence of health problems and widowhood, for example, are major contributors to intergenerational dynamics and lead adult children to provide care to their older parents (Silverstein et al., 2006). Emotional attachment plays a role in how this role reversal occurs, as having a history of attachment with parents predisposes adult children to move into a caregiving role (Parrott & Bengtson, 1999). Thus, it is important to understand how early intergenerational solidarity with parents—and its various dimensions—is maintained over time as both children and parents grow older.

The period of emerging adulthood has transformed over the past decades due to demographic changes and economic instabilities that have delayed the transition to full adulthood of more contemporary young adults. A highly useful terminology developed by Arnett (2000, 2015) and Mehta et al. (2020) differentiated two developmental stages in young adulthood consisting of emerging adulthood (between late teens and late twenties) and established adulthood (between early thirties and midforties). We employ this conceptual division of life stages but add a liminal stage of intermediate young adulthood that lies between mid-20s and mid-30s. The goal of this study is to investigate the reciprocal relationships among dimensions of intergenerational solidarity between parents and young adults from emerging to established adulthood in order to understand the formation of intergenerational solidarity across developmental stages not often considered in the empirical literature. In addition, although there is a consensus that intergenerational solidarity differs across parents’ and children’s gender combinations (Fingerman et al., 2020; Silverstein et al., 1997), many studies on intergenerational solidarity tend to disregard cross-generational gender contexts (Baykara-Krumme & Fokkema, 2019; C. Y. S. Lee et al., 2016; Lowenstein, 2007). Consequently, we take gender into account by disaggregating the analysis into mother–daughter, mother–son, father–daughter, and father–son groups in assessing change and stability in intergenerational solidarity.

Intergenerational Solidarity

Intergenerational solidarity is a central concept in family science to itemize and understand the ties that bind intergenerational relationships. Initial studies (e.g., Bengtson & Roberts, 1991) proposed a theoretical model of intergenerational solidarity based on six dimensions: affection (emotional closeness), association (contact frequency), consensus (value similarity), normative (filial obligation), functional (social support and exchanges), and structural (geographic proximity) solidarity. Further refinement of the solidarity model divided the elements of solidarity into two general domains: latent solidarity representing cognitive-emotional factors and manifest solidarity representing behavioral or functional factors (Silverstein et al., 1997), both of which are dynamically interconnected (Silverstein, 2016). Most studies of adult intergenerational relations have selectively used only several compositional dimensions of solidarity (e.g., Baykara-Krumme & Fokkema, 2019; Daatland & Lowenstein, 2005; Szydlik, 2008) including those focusing on earlier stages of adulthood (e.g., Bucx et al., 2008; Hank & Steinbach, 2018; C. Y. S. Lee et al., 2016). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have investigated reciprocal relationships among the full complement of dimensions of intergenerational solidarity in emerging and established adulthood.

Across periods of adulthood, we expect that adult children’s relationships with their parents may adapt as new needs emerge and different roles are assumed in both generations. In this study, we focus less on how each life event or marker of adulthood shapes intergenerational ties. Rather, we descriptively focus on how intergenerational ties remain stable or change as children move from emerging to established adulthood.

Intergenerational Solidarity in Emerging Adulthood

The transitional state of emerging adulthood was developed by Arnett (2000, 2015) as a stage of life characterized by “neither adolescence nor young adulthood but is theoretically and empirically distinct from them both” (p. 469). Emerging adulthood is considered a pivotal time for young adults with regard to reformulating relationships with parents, as newly minted adults enter a new phase of life characterized by independent living, career building, entering partnerships, marriage, and parenthood (Arnett, 2007). However, emerging adults in recent decades have faced difficulties achieving these life transitions. Delayed transitions in emerging adulthood, related to completing education, securing a job, and moving out of the parental home have fundamentally altered intergenerational ties (Gillespie, 2020; Leopold, 2012; Tosi, 2017). These delays result from rising costs of independent living, stagnation of wages, and decreasing employment opportunities for young adults (Fry, 2017; J. Lee et al., 2020; Min et al., 2022). Consequently, today’s emerging adults have become more economically and socially dependent on their parents than in past generations (Fingerman, 2017).

Enhanced and extended dependency on parents during emerging adulthood and beyond can have positive as well as negative developmental consequences for young adult children. While emerging adult children can be supportive to their parents (Napolitano, 2015), intergenerational support is more often provided from parents to children during this period of life (Bucx et al., 2012; Fingerman et al., 2016). For example, parents’ financial support to children in emerging adulthood positively influences their children’s identities in terms of how they recognize themselves as autonomous adults and enter stable partnerships and work roles (Padilla-Walker et al., 2012).

Emotional and practical support from parents help children to navigate emerging adulthood, (Oliveira et al., 2020). Support provided by mothers protects young adult children from adopting internalizing symptoms of depression, withdrawal, and anxiety (Moore & Shell, 2017). However, parents who exert too much control over their young adult children have been found to undermine internal self-control (Cui et al., 2022). Therefore, emerging adults can potentially benefit or face liabilities from having close and supportive intergenerational ties with their parents during this transitional phase of adulthood.

Although parents’ support may delay their adult children’s full transition to adulthood, it also helps children become more successful when they make that transition (Hwang & Kim, 2016). For instance, emerging adults who received financial support from parents are more economically successful than those who do not receive such support (Schoeni & Ross, 2005), strengthening other forms of intergenerational solidarity such as generating gratitude in children and enhancing their ability to reciprocate (Fingerman, 2017). Although children who receive support from their parents during emerging adulthood tend to maintain positive intergenerational relationships, we know less about how these relationships change in their totality as children and parents advance in age. Changes in relationships following life transitions have been observed. For instance, after marrying or partnering, adult children tend to receive less emotional support from their parents, particularly from their mothers, and also provide less emotional support to their parents (Min et al., 2022). When adult children become parents themselves, they are less likely to provide emotional and instrumental support to their parents (Min et al., 2022). Such evidence suggests how intergenerational solidarity is reshaped with opportunities and challenges occurring in early adulthood.

Intergenerational Solidarity in Established Adulthood

Established adulthood (roughly ages 30–45 years) is conceptualized by Mehta et al. (2020) as distinct from emerging adulthood and midlife in terms of being a stable period of life but with unique family demands and obligations. Adult children in established adulthood may rely on parents for daily needs including grandchild care (Fingerman et al., 2013) as well as become involved in caregiving roles for their older parents who are experiencing challenges related to declining health and widowhood (Gans & Silverstein, 2006; Mehta et al., 2020). Given that adult children’s provision of support and care to their parents is partially rooted in earlier familial experiences (Silverstein et al., 2002), forms of intergenerational solidarity with parents are expected to continue and trigger other forms of solidarity from emerging to established adulthood. For instance, adult children who left their childhood home later in their adult lives were more likely to reside nearer to their parents and have more frequent contact with them compared to those who left earlier (Leopold, 2012; Tosi, 2017).

Several studies have demonstrated that the dimensions of intergenerational solidarity are interrelated with each other in young adulthood and middle age. For example, in the United States, Hwang et al. (2022) found that baby boomers’ normative solidarity in young adulthood predicted the strength of intergenerational solidarity with their parents in midlife. A Dutch longitudinal study found that adult children’s affectional, associational, and functional solidarity with parents were reciprocally related to each other over time from their late thirties to early forties (Hogerbrugge & Komter, 2012). Consequently, we expect to find reciprocal relationships between dimensions of latent and manifest solidarity among young adults as they transition from emerging to established adulthood.

Gender Differences in Intergenerational Solidarity

Parents’ and children’s gender play important roles in shaping intergenerational relationships (Brewer, 2001). Studies have shown that mothers are more involved in all aspects of children’s lives than fathers, and daughters provide more social support to parents than sons (Fingerman et al., 2020; Silverstein et al., 1997). Daughters express stronger normative responsibility for older parents than do sons, ostensibly because daughters are socialized to caretaking roles within their families (Gans & Silverstein, 2006). Parents’ gender is also an important conditioning factor in how solidarity dimensions are interrelated. Research by Lawton et al. (1994) found a reciprocal relationship between associational and affectual solidarity in mother–adult child relations but not in father–child relations. Adult children who received financial support from mothers in early adulthood provided more social support to them several decades later, but this association was not observed in father–child relations.

The importance of independently examining parent–child gender combinations is reinforced by Nauck and Steinbach (2010) who suggest a gendered rank order in the strength of ties between generations, with the strongest bond in mother–daughter relationships followed by mother–son, father–daughter, and father–son relationships. Research has shown that mother–daughter relations are more closely bonded than father–son relations across different dimensions of contact and support (Fingerman et al., 2020; Silverstein et al., 1997) and those adolescent daughters reported closer relationships with their mothers than with their fathers (Shearer et al., 2005). Adult children who had close relationships with their mothers were more likely to live nearby and return to the parental home, trends more pronounced for daughters than for sons (Gillespie, 2020).

Although less is known regarding differences between parent–child gender combinations in associations between dimensions of intergenerational solidarity, the studies cited above provide clues on which to build expectations. Based on these findings, it is likely that there are similar gender differences in reciprocal associations between intergenerational solidarity dimensions from emerging to established adulthood.

Aims of the Present Study

In this present study, we aim to investigate whether young adults’ intergenerational solidarity with parents remains stable from emerging to established adulthood and which dimensions reinforce other dimensions over time. Importantly we incorporate all dimensions of latent and manifest solidarity in our analyses: normative, affectual, associational, and functional solidarity. Drawing on theories by Homans (1950) concerning the reciprocal relationship between social contact and intimacy in small groups, we hypothesized that solidarity dimensions would be predictive of each other from emerging to established adulthood. In addition, we aimed to examine whether the rank-order hypothesis regarding gender combinations holds with respect to stability and change of dimensions of intergenerational solidarity. Thus, we hypothesized that the autoregressive and cross-lagged associations between solidarity dimensions would differ according to parents’ and children’s gender.

Method

We report how we determined our sample size and all measures in the study. This study is not preregistered.

Sample

We addressed our hypotheses using data from the Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), a study of 3,681 individuals from 418 four-generation families. Initial sample members were generated from the families of grandfathers randomly selected in 1971 from the membership of a large prepaid health maintenance organization in the Southern California area. Self-administered questionnaires were mailed to grandfathers and their spouses (G1s), their adult children and spouses (G2s), and their grandchildren (G3s). The LSOG began as a cross-sectional study in 1971, but it became a longitudinal study in 1985 (Wave-2). To date, the LSOG has been collected another seven times at various intervals through 2016 (Wave-9), with retention rates from 70% to 80%. Great-grandchildren (G4s) were added in 1991 (Wave-4) when they reached at least 16 years old, and an online survey format was added in 2016. The sample pool was generally inclusive of working- and middle-class White families across four generations.

We used the 2000 (Wave-7), 2005 (Wave-8), and 2016 (Wave-9) surveys. We note that the present study used publicly available secondary data (https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/22100) and was exempted from institutional review board review. The subsample for this study is comprised of young adults (G4s) who participated in the 2000 survey and had at least one parent surviving to the 2016 survey. We chose the 2000 survey as the baseline because the largest number of young adults participated in this wave (n = 701) compared to the previous wave in 1997 (n = 464). Because the goal of this study was to examine continuity and change in young adults’ intergenerational solidarity with parents from emerging adulthood (aged between 18 and 29 years old in 2000) to established adulthood (aged between 30 and 45 years old in 2016), we selected 510 out of 701 young adults aged between 18 and 29 years old in 2000. As a result, 192 young adults aged under 18 years or over the age of 29 years old were excluded from the study. Next, we constructed four overlapping samples: daughters responding about their relationships with surviving mothers (n = 260) and surviving fathers (n = 244), and sons responding about their relationships with surviving mothers (n = 214) and surviving fathers (n = 205). Across the four parent–child groups, the mean ages of the young adults in 2000, 2005, and 2016 were 23, 28, and 39 years, respectively, and the mean ages of their parents were 48, 53, and 64 years old, respectively. In addition, the majority of young adults were White and were biologically related to their parents.

Measures

Affectual Solidarity

Affectual solidarity with mothers and fathers was measured by three items in 2000, 2005, and 2016: (a) Taking everything into consideration, how close do you feel the relationship is between you and your mother/father at this point in your life? (b) How is communication between you and your mother/father-exchanging ideas or talking about things that really concern you at this point in your life? (c) Overall, how well do you get along with your mother/father at this point in your life? Six response options for each item ranged from not at all well to extremely well. The mean score in each wave was calculated from the three items, with higher scores reflecting stronger affection with parents. Cronbach’s α of three items ranged from .89 to .93 in four parent–child gender groups in 2000, 2005, and 2016.

Associational Solidarity

Associational solidarity was measured by frequency of in-person and phone contact with mothers and fathers in 2000, 2005, and 2016: Six response options for each item ranged from not at all to every day. The mean score was calculated from the two items, with higher scores reflecting more frequent contact with parents.

Functional Solidarity

Functional solidarity with mothers and fathers was measured with two scales, one for receiving support from parents and one for providing support to parents in 2000, 2005, and 2016. Five types of instrumental support were measured: household chores, transportation, information and advice, financial support, and help when she/he is sick. In the LSOG, receiving support from parents was assessed using a checklist (0 = no, 1 = yes) in 2000, 2005, and 2016. Similarly, providing support to parents was assessed with a checklist (0 = no, 1 = yes) in 2000 and 2005. However, providing support to parents was assessed with eight response options ranging from not at all to daily in 2016. Therefore, we dichotomized these response options into (0) received no support and (1) received any support. Using five items of providing support to parents and five items of receiving support to parents, we created two ordinal variables ranging from (0) received no support from parents to (5) received all support from parents, and (0) provided no support to parents to (5) provided all support to parents.

Normative Solidarity

Normative solidarity with parents is the only generalized dimension of solidarity and was measured with six items in 2000, 2005, and 2016: Regardless of the sacrifices involved, how much responsibility should adult children with families of their own have to (a) provide companionship or spend time with older parents who are in need, (b) help with household chores and repairs and/or provide transportation for older parents who are in need, (c) listen to the problems and concerns of older parents and provide advice and guidance, (d) provide for the personal and health care needs of older parents (e.g., bathing, grooming, medication, etc.), (e) provide financial support and/or assist in the financial and legal affairs of older parents who are in need, and (f) provide housing for older parents who are in need. Five response options for each item ranged from none to total. The mean score was calculated from the six items, with higher scores reflecting stronger filial norms with parents. Cronbach’s α of six items ranged from .88 to .91 in four parent–child groups in 2000, 2005, and 2016.

Control Variables

Previous studies have found that adult children’s demographic characteristics are closely related to intergenerational solidarity with their parents (Hwang et al., 2019; Silverstein et al., 1997). Therefore, we included controls for the following demographic factors measured in 2000: young adults’ age in years, race (0 = others, 1 = White), and relationship status with each parent (0 = biological parent, 1 = stepparent), and each parent’s marital status (0 = others, 1 = married). In addition, demographics measured in 2000, 2005, and 2016 were controlled including young adults’ marital status (0 = others, 1 = married or cohabitate), education (1 = 8th grade or less, 8 = postgraduate degree), presence of children (0 = no, 1 = yes), coresidence with parents (0 = no, 1 = yes), and income (1 = under $10,000, 21 = $200,000 or more). Descriptive results of intergenerational solidarity measures and control variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Mean Differences Among Control and Study Variables by Parent-Child Groups

Variable Range A. Mother-daughter (n = 260)
 B. Mother-son (n = 214)
 C. Father-daughter
(n = 244)
 D. Father-son (n = 205)
 ANOVA
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F Post hoca
Control variables
 Age in 2000 18–29 23.07 (3.10) 22.83 (3.28) 23.13 (3.16) 22.64 (3.27) 1.12 —
 White in 2000 0–1 .91 (.28) .92 (.26) .92 (.27) .91 (.27) .06 —
 Education in 2000 1–8 4.89 (1.20) 4.43 (1.28) 4.89 (1.21) 4.38 (1.29) 11.54*** A > B. D; C > B. D
 Education in 2005 1–8 5.37 (1.22) 5.28 (1.39) 5.36 (1.20) 5.22 (1.37) .41 —
 Education in 2016 1–8 5.73 (1.19) 5.62 (1.53) 5.70 (1.21) 5.63 (1.51) .16 —
 Married/cohabitate in 2000 0–1 .44 (.49) .45 (.49) .44 (.49) .40 (.49) .32 —
 Married/cohabitate in 2005 0–1 .67 (.47) .67 (.47) .68 (.46) .64 (.48) .21 —
 Married/cohabitate in 2016 0–1 .77 (.41) .87 (.33) .79 (.40) .84 (.36) 1.83 —
 Presence of children in 2000 0–1 .25 (.43) .22 (.41) .26 (.44) .19 (.39) 1.48 —
 Presence of children in 2005 0–1 .44 (.49) .41 (.49) .45 (.49) .41 (.49) .34 —
 Presence of children in 2016 0–1 .77 (.41) .74 (.43) .79 (.40) .69 (.46) 1.28 —
 Coresidence with parents in 2000 0–1 .19 (.39) .28 (.45) .18 (.38) .27 (.44) 3.60* B > A. C; D > A. C
 Coresidence with parents in 2005 0–1 .09 (.29) .10 (.30) .05 (.22) .11 (.32) 1.53 —
 Coresidence with parents in 2016 0–1 .05 (.22) .07 (.27) .04 (.21) .02 (.16) 1.00 —
 Annual income in 2000 1–21 5.17 (4.17) 5.42 (4.12) 5.29 (4.15) 5.37 (4.20) .13 —
 Annual income in 2005 1–21 5.92 (4.21) 6.01 (4.21) 6.00 (4.26) 5.80 (4.31) .06 —
 Annual income in 2016 1–21 11.07 (5.79) 11.54 (5.27) 11.23 (5.84) 11.10 (5.44) .16 —
 Married parent in 2000 0–1 .96 (.19) .97 (.17) .97 (.17) .98 (.14) .37 —
 Stepparent in 2000 0–1 .05 (.22) .05 (.22) .11 (.31) .08 (.28) 2.76* C > A. B
Solidarity with parents
 Normative solidarity in 2000 1–5 3.78 (.62) 3.61 (.72) 3.77 (.61) 3.59 (.71) 5.00** A > B. D; C > B. D
 Affectual solidarity in 2000 1–6 4.77 (1.18) 4.53 (1.07) 4.16 (1.34) 3.94 (1.33) 19.57*** A > B. C. D; B > C. D
 Associational solidarity in 2000 1–6 4.56 (1.07) 4.45 (1.11) 4.00 (1.30) 4.10 (1.39) 10.52*** A > C. D; B > C
 Receiving support in 2000 0–5 2.73 (1.57) 2.53 (1.68) 1.95 (1.60) 2.13 (1.71) 11.58*** A > C. D; B > C
 Providing support in 2000 0–5 2.08 (1.44) 2.01 (1.44) 1.32 (1.37) 1.61 (1.42) 14.64*** A > C. D; B > C. D
Solidarity with parents
 Normative solidarity in 2005 1–5 3.73 (.67) 3.48 (.74) 3.71 (.68) 3.50 (.73) 5.46** A > B. D; C > B
 Affectual solidarity in 2005 1–6 4.83 (1.21) 4.39 (1.29) 4.19 (1.45) 4.07 (1.44) 9.96*** A > B. C. D
 Associational solidarity in 2005 1–6 4.55 (1.06) 4.28 (1.26) 3.88 (1.28) 4.03 (1.36) A > C. D; B > C
 Receiving support in 2005 0–5 2.31 (1.50) 1.80 (1.50) 1.37 (1.25) 1.54 (1.39) 15.08*** A > B. C. D
 Providing support in 2005 0–5 1.75 (1.36) 1.34 (1.37) 1.00 (1.18) 1.01 (1.06) 13.54*** A > B. C. D
 Normative solidarity in 2016 1–5 3.51 (.64) 3.44 (.81) 3.49 (.65) 3.46 (.81) .27 —
 Affectual solidarity in 2016 1–6 4.43 (1.26) 4.16 (1.02) 3.94 (1.39) 3.85 (1.29) 5.70** A > C. D
 Associational solidarity in 2016 1–6 4.14 (1.05) 3.89 (1.02) 3.47 (1.22) 3.41 (1.32) 12.26*** A > C. D; B > C. D
 Receiving support in 2016 0–5 1.86 (1.58) .98 (1.29) 1.14 (1.32) .86 (1.16) 15.01*** A > B. C. D
 Providing support in 2016 0–5 2.09 (1.39) 1.87 (1.55) 1.35 (1.35) 1.31 (1.34) 10.34*** A > C. D; B > C. D
Open in a new tab

Note. ANOVA = analysis of variance.

a

.05 significance level.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

Analytic Strategy

We began by conducting a one-way analysis of variance between four parent–child groups to compare mean differences of five measures of latent and manifest solidarity (normative solidarity, affectual solidarity, associational solidarity, receiving support from parents, and providing support to parents) using SPSS 25. In addition, we conducted a bivariate correlation analysis in order to examine associations among intergenerational solidarity dimensions. We then analyzed the data using multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged models in AMOS 25 to examine reciprocal associations between five measures of intergenerational solidarity in four parent–child groups over time (Selig & Little, 2012). Although there are siblings in the data set, we did not consider a multilevel approach to identify family random effects. In the baseline (2000 survey), 90% of young adults reported that they have siblings (the average number of siblings was 2.15). However, less than 30% of the siblings participated in the 2000 survey. In addition, all intraclass correlations between intergenerational solidarity variables were less than .01, indicating that multilevel modeling was not appropriate (Heck, 2001). Given that intergenerational solidarity measures included multiple indicators, we initially tested the autoregressive cross-lagged model with latent variables of intergenerational solidarity. However, since the model fit was poor, we examined the autoregressive cross-lagged model using single-item indicators as represented by mean scale scores of solidarity dimensions as an alternative.

Before testing for group differences between four parent–child groups, we conducted single-group autoregressive cross-lagged models of intergenerational solidarity for mother–daughter, mother–son, father–daughter, and father–son groups separately to evaluate the fit of each group model (T. A. Brown, 2006). Next, we conducted a multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged model, testing whether reciprocal relationships between five dimensions of intergenerational solidarity varied by parents’ and children’s gender combinations. A chi-square difference test between an equality constrained model (all cross-lagged and stability paths constrained to be equal across four parent–child groups) and a fully unconstrained model assessed whether an effect was the same or different between the four gender groups. Model fit for all models was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; a value > .90 indicates a good fit) and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; a value < .06 indicates a good fit; Kline, 2005). In terms of control variables, five measures of solidarity in 2000 were regressed on young adults’ age, race, education, marital status, presence of children, coresidence with parents, annual income, parents’ marital status, and step relations in 2000. In addition, five measures of solidarity at in 2005 and 2016 were regressed on young adults’ education, marital status, presence of children, coresidence with parents, and annual income in 2005 and 2016, respectively. To account for missing values, full information maximum likelihood estimation was used in all analyses as a default option (materials and analysis code for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

Results from the descriptive analysis of the five measures of intergenerational solidarity and the control variables are presented in Table 1. We found that young adults’ education level, annual income, marital or cohabitating status, and parental status increased from emerging adulthood (2000) to established adulthood (2016), whereas coresidence with parents decreased over time. In terms of intergenerational solidarity with parents by gender combinations, the mother–daughter group reported higher solidarity compared to other parent–child groups in 2000, 2005, and 2016. Results of bivariate correlation analyses among solidarity dimensions across four parent–child groups are presented in Supplemental Material 1.

Testing Single and Multigroup Autoregressive Cross-Lagged Models

Model fit statistics for single and multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged models are presented in Table 2. Regarding multigroup analyses with control variables, each of the four parent–child groups (Models 1–4) showed a good fit to the data. In terms of the multigroup analysis with control variables, the chi-square difference test between the unconstrained model (Model 5) and the constrained model (Model 6) indicated these models were not significantly different, Δχ2(150) = 179.76, p > .05. This result indicates that all cross-lagged and stability regression coefficients were not significantly different across four parent–child groups. We additionally compared the unconstrained model (Model 5) with a multigroup model that constrained all paths to be equal across four parent–child groups (Model 7). Results showed that the chi-square difference test between the two models was not significant. We also compared the unconstrained and constrained models without control variables (Models 8 and 9). Similarly, the chi-square difference test between the two models was not significantly different. Consequently, we identified no gender differences in the autoregressive cross-lagged model regardless of whether control variables were included.

Table 2.

Results of Single and Multigroup Analyses

Model χ2(df) CFI RMSEA Model comparison Δχ2 Δdf p value
Single-group analysis with control variables
 M1: Mother-daughter group (n = 260) 284.46 (215) .97 .04
 M2: Mother-son group (n = 214) 331.78 (215) .93 .05
 M3: Father-daughter group (n = 244) 357.45 (215) .93 .05
 M4: Father-son group (n = 205) 330.73 (215) .94 .05
Multigroup analysis with control variables
 M5: Unconstrained model 1,304.51 (860) .94 .02
 M6: Constrained model A (autoregressive and cross-lagged paths) 1,484.27 (1,010) .94 .02 6 versus 5 179.76 150 >.05
 M7: Constrained model B (all paths including control variables) 1,774.36 (1,295) .94 .02 7 versus 5 469.85 435 >.05
Multigroup analysis without control variables
 M8: Unconstrained model 162.84 (100) .98 .03
 M9: Constrained model 344.63 (250) .98 .02 9 versus 8 180.79 150 >.05
Open in a new tab

Note. df = degrees of freedom; M = model; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.

For ease of interpretation, the autoregressive and cross-lagged path coefficients from the multigroup constrained model (Model 6) are presented in Figure 1. The autoregressive stability paths were all significant in four parent–child groups, indicating continuity in each solidarity variable over time. All stability paths had medium effect size (β is greater than .20 but less than .50; Fey et al., 2023) except for the path of affectual solidarity between 2000 and 2005 (strong effect size: β is greater than .50) and the path of providing support between 2005 and 2016 (weak effect size: β is less than .20).

Figure 1. Results of the Multigroup Autoregressive Cross-Lagged Model (Model 6).

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Note. Standardized coefficients are presented. A dot line indicates the significant stability path in all parent–child groups. A solid line indicates the significant cross-lagged path in all parent–child groups. Nonsignificant paths, control variables, and correlations between error terms of all solidarity variables in each wave are not presented.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

In terms of cross-lagged paths between 2000 and 2005 surveys, normative solidarity in 2000 did not predict other solidarity dimensions. However, affectual solidarity in 2000 predicted greater associational solidarity in 2005 (β = .29, p < .01) and receiving support from parents in 2005 (β = .08, p < .05). Associational solidarity in 2000 predicted greater normative solidarity in 2005 (β = .11, p < .05), receiving support from parents in 2005 (β = .08, p < .05), and providing support to parents in 2005 (β = .13, p < .001). Receiving support from parents in 2000 predicted greater affectual solidarity in 2005 (β = .15, p < .01) and associational solidarity in 2005 (β = .15, p < .05). At last, providing support to parents in 2005 predicted greater receiving support from parents in 2005 (β = .10, p < .05).

Regarding cross-lagged paths between the 2005 and 2016 surveys, normative solidarity, receiving support from parents, and providing support to parents in 2005 did not predict other solidarity dimensions. However, affectual solidarity in 2005 predicted greater associational solidarity in 2016 (β = .14, p < .01). In addition, associational solidarity in 2005 predicted greater affectual solidarity in 2016 (β = .17, p < .01), receiving support from parents in 2016 (β = .11, p < .01), and providing support to parents in 2016 (β = .16, p < .01). All cross-lagged paths had weak effect size except for the path from affectual solidarity in 2000 to associational solidarity in 2005 (medium effect size). The regression coefficients of control variables in Model 7 (constrained all paths to be equal across four parent–child groups) are presented in Supplemental Material 2. In addition, the results of an autoregressive cross-lagged model without control variables (Model 9) are presented in Supplemental Material 3.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to understand how dimensions of intergenerational solidarity with parents were reciprocally associated as young adult children matured across emerging, intermediate, and established stages of adulthood, and to explore variations in those associations across parent–child gender combinations. To address these aims, we used multigroup autoregressive cross-lagged models, which tested whether young adults’ reports of latent dimensions of solidarity (normative, affectual) and manifest dimensions of solidarity (associational, functional) were predictive of each other across 16-year time interval, and whether the above associations differed across mother–daughter, mother–son, father–daughter, and father–son relations.

Stability Effects

These results provide partial support for the first hypothesis that solidarity dimensions would be predictive of each other from emerging to established adulthood. In terms of stability effects, we found that young adults’ perceived intergenerational solidarity with parents was stable across three-time points (2000, 2005, and 2016 surveys). This finding adds to our knowledge about intergenerational solidarity by suggesting that intergenerational solidarity with parents in established adulthood is robust and can be traced to solidarity in emerging adulthood.

Cross-Lagged Effects Between Emerging Adulthood and Intermediate Young Adulthood

In terms of cross-lagged effects between emerging adulthood (2000 survey) and intermediate young adulthood (2005 survey), we found that young adults’ perceived affectual solidarity with parents predicted associational solidarity with parents. This finding is consistent with the assumption of the intergenerational solidarity model (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Roberts et al., 1991) that emotional closeness with parents is a precondition of future contact with parents. In addition, we found that young adults’ perceived affectual solidarity with parents in emerging adulthood predicted receiving support from parents in intermediate young adulthood. This validates other research (Hartnett et al., 2013) showing how emotional attachment reinforces support receipt in young adulthood and extends our understanding of this relationship as a dynamic process by accounting for antecedent family factors and prospective outcomes.

We also found that young adults’ reported associational solidarity with parents in emerging adulthood predicted normative and functional solidarity in intermediate young adulthood. Our finding provides new evidence that greater frequency of young adults’ contact with parents in emerging adulthood can trigger or motivate them to strengthen forms of latent solidarity (normative solidarity) and other forms of manifest solidarity (exchanges of support) with their older parents in intermediate young adulthood. In other words, frequent contact with parents in the early stage of adulthood may be a key selective factor explaining why some young adults provide assistance to their parents in later life.

In terms of functional solidarity, young adults who received more support from parents in emerging adulthood expressed greater affectual and associational solidarity with parents in intermediate young adulthood. This result supports the investment mechanism in intergenerational relations (Silverstein et al., 2002). Parental support received in emerging adulthood strengthens emotional and social bonds with parents in the future and can be considered a return on earlier investments made by parents.

At last, we found a relationship between providing support to parents in emerging adulthood and receiving support from parents in intermediate young adulthood. For many young adult children, parental support is an important resource for their successful transition to adulthood (Fingerman, 2017). This finding suggests an exchange of support between parents and adult children, possibly as a form of intergenerational reciprocity over time.

Cross-Lagged Effects Between Intermediate Young Adulthood and Established Adulthood

Regarding cross-lagged effects between intermediate young adulthood (2005 survey) and established adulthood (2016 survey), we found that adult children’s perceived affectual solidarity with parents predicted associational solidarity with parents. In addition, associational solidarity in intermediate young adulthood predicted affectual solidarity with parents in established adulthood. This finding indicates that affectual and associational solidarity with parents reciprocally reinforced each other in this important life stage transition. We also found that adult children’s perceived associational solidarity with parents in intermediate young adulthood predicted functional solidarity with parents in established adulthood. Overall, these findings suggest that latent and manifest forms of solidarity are mutually interdependent as suggested by Homans (1950) in his theory of small group cohesion. Emotionally and socially engaging with parents earlier in adulthood enables young adults to strengthen other forms of intergenerational solidarity in full adulthood.

Previous studies have found that filial norms serve as a predictor of other dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (Hwang et al., 2022; Silverstein et al., 2006). In this study, however, normative solidarity did not predict other dimensions of latent and manifest solidarity with parents over time. Contrary to other solidarity measures, the measure of normative solidarity was based on a generalized attitude toward filial obligation and did not consider direct responsibility felt for each parent. This measurement issue should be carefully considered in future research.

Gender Differences

Our findings did not support the second hypothesis that the autoregressive and cross-lagged associations between solidarity dimensions would differ according to parents’ and children’s gender. We did not find gender differences in either stability or cross-lagged paths across stages of young adulthood. Yet we note that our analysis examined correlational effects—stability and lagged residual change—which would be minimally susceptible to any absolute differences in solidarity measures by gender.

Another limitation is that in 2000 and 2005 surveys did not measure parents’ perceived functional solidarity with all children. For this reason, we were not able to conduct dyadic data analysis. Based on this limitation, we speculate that adult children’s perceived intergenerational solidarity with parents may not fully capture distinct differences in parent–child relationships across parents’ and children’s gender combinations. In addition, it is possible that using reports of intergenerational solidarity from both children’s and parents’ perspectives would have yielded different results. We recommend that future studies address reciprocal associations between multiple dimensions of intergenerational solidarity using both parents’ and children’s perspectives.

Limitations

There are several limitations in our analysis that deserve mention. First, we used participants’ age to differentiate between emerging and established adulthood. As a result, we did not consider participants who delayed their transition to established adulthood beyond the highest age considered and, more generally, reified life stages to the degree that misrepresents the life stage transitions of some sample members. In addition, the time period between Wave-7 (2000) and Wave-8 (2005) is relatively short compared to between Wave-8 (2005) and Wave-9 (2016). As a result, the intermediate stage (Wave-8) is somewhat ambiguous by incorporating both late emerging adulthood with early established adulthood—yet respects the fuzzy boundaries that often characterize developmental stages. Second, as discussed above, this study relied on adult children’s perspectives on intergenerational solidarity with parents, which may or may not be as predictive as considering parents’ perspectives. Third, we acknowledge that attrition of respondents from the baseline may omit less familistic respondents. Fourth, the LSOG underrepresents minority and low-income families and originated from a regional study in Southern California. Consequently, our study did not capture cultural or social class variation in intergenerational solidarity. For example, familism is a key cultural value that supports parents in Hispanic/Latino families (Cahill et al., 2021). Therefore, it is possible that normative solidarity in emerging adulthood would be a strong predictor affecting other dimensions of solidarity in established adulthood among Hispanic/Latino young adults compared to those in other racial groups. Consequently, caution should be used in generalizing our findings to the larger population of families in the United States. As in all analyses using secondary data, omitting key variables may cause under-or overestimation of effects. For instance, omitted personality factors or underlying collectivist values may explain some of the stability observed in solidarity dimensions. Finally, our focus on young adults who began the study in 2000 largely incorporates Gen-X; future research will be needed to determine if these findings hold in future cohorts of young adults.

Conclusion

Our results point to some intriguing developmental issues in the study of young adults’ perceived intergenerational solidarity with parents in the transition from emerging to established adulthood. We extended the intergenerational solidarity model by suggesting that latent and manifest dimensions of solidarity are dynamically interconnected in the first two stages of adulthood.

The main finding of this study is that frequent contact with parents as reported by children in emerging adulthood would increase in solidarity with parents in established adulthood. This reminds us that parent–child interaction is important to consider for understanding how intergenerational relations are restructured across stages of life, and gives credence to Homans (1950) postulate of the mutual connection between contact and intimacy in small group dynamics. Given that our associational solidarity measure considered only in-person and phone contact, an open question is whether digital communication (e.g., texting, video call, and social media interaction) between parents and emerging adult children is related to other dimensions of solidarity over the life course. In particular, the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated trends toward greater use of digital communication between parents and their young adult children (Gilligan et al., 2020). Peng et al. (2018) introduced digital solidarity as an extended concept of associational solidarity between generations; we urge family researchers to consider digital communication as a distinct dimension of intergenerational solidarity with important applications even after the pandemic dissipates.

Finally, we note that as caregiving for older parents tends to become a main concern in midlife, it would be fruitful to examine how children’s earlier solidarity with parents is associated with children’s caregiving behaviors later in their lives. These and other investigations making use of long-term longitudinal data will expand the utility of the solidarity model across multiple stages of family life.

Supplementary Material

Appendix

Acknowledgments

Merril Silverstein received funding from Grants 61457 and R21AG064512 from the John Templeton Foundation and National Institute on Aging, respectively. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

This article has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The ideas and data appearing in the article have not been disseminated to the general public. All of the authors listed in the byline have agreed to the byline order.

The data (Longitudinal Study of Generations) that support the findings of this study are openly available at https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/DSDR/studies/22100. Materials and analysis code for this study are available by emailing the corresponding author.

References

  1. Adsera A (2005). Vanishing children: From high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries. The American Economic Review, 95(2), 189–193. 10.1257/000282805774669763 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett JJ (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ (2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 68–73. 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00016.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnett JJ (2015). The oxford handbook of emerging adulthood. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795574.013.9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baykara-Krumme H, & Fokkema T (2019). The impact of migration on intergenerational solidarity types. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(10), 1707–1727. 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1485203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bengtson VL, & Roberts RE (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(4), 856–870. 10.2307/352993 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. Brown SL, & Lin IF (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990–2010. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 67(6), 731–741. 10.1093/geronb/gbs089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown TA (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bucx F, van Wel F, & Knijn T (2012). Life course status and exchanges of support between young adults and parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(1), 101–115. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00883.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Cahill KM, Updegraff KA, Causadias JM, & Korous KM (2021). Familism values and adjustment among Hispanic/Latino individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(9), 947–985. 10.1037/bul0000336 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cui M, Hong P, & Jiao C (2022). Overparenting and emerging adult development: A systematic review. Emerging Adulthood, 10(5), 1076–1094. 10.1177/21676968221108828 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Daatland SO, & Lowenstein A (2005). Intergenerational solidarity and the family-welfare state balance. European Journal of Ageing, 2(3), 174–182. 10.1007/s10433-005-0001-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fey C, Hu T, & Delios A (2023). The measurement and communication of effect sizes in management research. Management and Organization Review, 19(1), 176–197. 10.1017/mor.2022.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fingerman KL (2017). Millennials and their parents: Implications of the new young adulthood for midlife adults. Innovation in Aging, 1(3), Article igx026. 10.1093/geroni/igx026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fingerman KL, Cheng YP, Kim K, Fung HH, Han G, Lang FR, Lee W, & Wagner J (2016). Parental involvement with college students in Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 37(10), 1384–1411. 10.1177/0192513X14541444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Fingerman KL, Sechrist J, & Birditt K (2013). Changing views on intergenerational ties. Gerontology, 59(1), 64–70. 10.1159/000342211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fry R (2017). It’s becoming more common for young adults to live at home—And for longer stretches. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/05/its-becoming-more-common-for-young-adults-to-live-at-home-and-for-longer-stretches/ [Google Scholar]
  21. Gans D, & Silverstein M (2006). Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 961–976. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00307.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gillespie BJ (2020). Adolescent intergenerational relationship dynamics and leaving and returning to the parental home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(3), 997–1014. 10.1111/jomf.12630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gilligan M, Suitor JJ, Rurka M, & Silverstein M (2020). Multigenerational social support in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(4), 431–447. 10.1111/jftr.12397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. 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]
  25. Hartnett CS, Furstenberg F, Birditt K, & Fingerman K (2013). Parental support during young adulthood: Why does assistance decline with age? Journal of Family Issues, 34(7), 975–1007. 10.1177/0192513X12454657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. 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). Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hogerbrugge MJ, & Komter AE (2012). Solidarity and ambivalence: Comparing two perspectives on intergenerational relations using longitudinal panel data. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 67(3), 372–383. 10.1093/geronb/gbr157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Homans GC (1950). The human group. New Brunswick. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hwang W, & Kim I (2016). Parental financial support and filial responsibility in emerging adulthood: A comparative study between the United States and South Korea. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(10), 1401–1418. 10.1080/13676261.2016.1171833 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hwang W, Kim JH, Brown MT, & Silverstein M (2022). Are filial eldercare norms related to intergenerational solidarity with older parents? A typological developmental approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 585–596. 10.1037/fam0000920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Kalmijn M (2014). Adult intergenerational relationships. In Treas J, Scott J, & Richards M (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 385–403). Wiley. 10.1002/9781118374085.ch19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kline RB (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Lee CYS, Dik BJ, & Barbara LA (2016). Intergenerational solidarity and individual adjustment during emerging adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 37(10), 1412–1432. 10.1177/0192513X14567957 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee J, Park J, Kim H, Oh S, & Kwon S (2020). Typology of young Korean adults’ relationships with their parents from an intergenerational solidarity lens. Family and Environment Research, 58(1), 43–60. 10.6115/fer.2020.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Leopold T (2012). The legacy of leaving home: Long-term effects of coresidence on parent–child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(3), 399–412. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00964.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lowenstein A (2007). Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: Testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on quality of life for older family members. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 62(2), S100–S107. 10.1093/geronb/62.2.S100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McQuillan J, Greil AL, Shreffler KM, Wonch-Hill PA, Gentzler KC, & Hathcoat JD (2012). Does the reason matter? Variations in childlessness concerns among US women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 1166–1181. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01015.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. 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]
  41. Min J, Johnson MD, Anderson JR, & Yurkiw J (2022). Support exchanges between adult children and their parents across life transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(2), 367–392. 10.1111/jomf.12787 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moore LE II, & Shell MD (2017). The effects of parental support and self-esteem on internalizing symptoms in emerging adulthood. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 22(2), 131–140. 10.24839/2325-7342.JN22.2.131 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Napolitano L (2015). “I’m not going to leave her high and dry”: Young adult support to parents during the transition to adulthood. The Sociological Quarterly, 56(2), 329–354. 10.1111/tsq.12088 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Nauck B, Steinbach A, & German Data Forum (RatSWD). (2010). Intergenerational relationships. Building on progress: Expanding the research infrastructure for the social, economic, and behavioral sciences (1st ed., pp. 1057–1080). Verlag Barbara Budrich. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkk43d.67 [Google Scholar]
  45. Oliveira C, Fonseca G, Sotero L, Crespo C, & Relvas AP (2020). Family dynamics during emerging adulthood: Reviewing, integrating, and challenging the field. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(3), 350–367. 10.1111/jftr.12386 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Padilla-Walker LM, Nelson LJ, & Carroll JS (2012). Affording emerging adulthood: Parental financial assistance of their college-aged children. Journal of Adult Development, 19(1), 50–58. 10.1007/s10804-011-9134-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  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 and communication technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 159–180). Policy Press. 10.2307/j.ctv2867xm.15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Roberts RE, Richards LN, & Bengtson V (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in families: Untangling the ties that bind. Marriage & Family Review, 16(1–2), 11–46. 10.1300/J002v16n01_02 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Schoeni RF, & Ross KE (2005). Material assistance from families during the transition to adulthood. In Settersten RA Jr., Furstenberg FF, & Rumbaut RG (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood (pp. 396–416). University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226748924.003.0012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. 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). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  52. 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]
  53. Silverstein M (2016). Intergenerational solidarity: Dualities in the evolution of a paradigm. In Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, Edwards LM, & Marques SC (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (3rd ed., pp. 611–619). Oxford Academic. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199396511.013.36 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
  55. Silverstein M, Conroy SJ, & Gans D (2012). Beyond solidarity, reciprocity and altruism: Moral capital as a unifying concept in intergenerational support for older people. Ageing and Society, 32(7), 1246–1262. 10.1017/S0144686X1200058X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Silverstein M, Conroy SJ, Wang H, Giarrusso R, & Bengtson VL (2002). Reciprocity in parent–child relations over the adult life course. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 57(1), S3–S13. 10.1093/geronb/57.1.S3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. 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]
  58. Steinbach A, Mahne K, Klaus D, & Hank K (2020). Stability and change in intergenerational 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]
  59. Szydlik M (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and conflict. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(1), 97–114. 10.3138/jcfs.39.1.97 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Tosi M (2017). Leaving-home transition and later parent–child relationships: Proximity and contact in Italy. European Societies, 19(1), 69–90. 10.1080/14616696.2016.1226374 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix
NIHMS1966970-supplement-Appendix.pdf (112.5KB, pdf)

RESOURCES