Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jan 14.
Published before final editing as: J Appl Gerontol. 2025 Dec 29:7334648251410631. doi: 10.1177/07334648251410631

Socioemotional Engagement with Grandchildren: Associations with Loneliness and Quality of Life

Claire M Growney 1, Thomas F Oltmanns 2, Patrick L Hill 2, Ryan Bogdan 2, Laura L Carstensen 1
PMCID: PMC12798932  NIHMSID: NIHMS2129712  PMID: 41460063

Abstract

Alongside increases in life expectancy, grandparenting has become a common social role; however, its implications for cognitive, social, and physical functioning remain understudied. Participants (N=1,002) aged 66–79 in the St. Louis Personality and Intergenerational Network (SPIN) study completed questionnaires about physical health, health practices, loneliness, and subjective memory and indicated whether they were grandparents. Grandparents (n = 533) also answered questions about involvement with their grandchildren. There were minimal differences in the well-being of grandparents and non-grandparents. Among grandparents, however, those who were relatively more engaged socially and emotionally with their grandchildren reported lower levels of loneliness, more engagement in healthful behaviors, and better subjective memory. Grandparents who reported providing relatively high levels of both instrumental support and socioemotional engagement reported better overall physical health-related quality of life. Findings provide preliminary evidence that social and emotional ties to grandchildren are associated with better physical and cognitive health among grandparents.

Keywords: grandparenthood, loneliness, subjective memory, socioemotional selectivity theory

As life expectancy increased over the 20th century, families came to routinely include grandparents, and today increasingly more grandparents are living to see their grandchildren reach adulthood (Bengtson, 2001; Uhlenberg, 2009). Much of the early literature on grandparenting focused on physical and emotional burdens grandparents experienced when they assumed primary caregiving responsibilities, typically due to disability, death or incarceration of the parents (e.g., Minkler and Fuller-Thomson, 1999). However, as multigenerational families have become increasingly common, noncustodial grandparenting has emerged as a normative social role (Hank & Buber, 2009; Klein, 2022). The present study was designed to explore how aspects of grandparenting relate to grandparent well-being. We consider instrumental support, referring to behaviors such childcare and household tasks, and socioemotional engagement, referring to expressions of love and affection, emotional responsiveness, and sustained interest in the grandchild’s personal growth.

Contributions that grandparents make to grandchildren are well-documented. In hunter-gatherer societies the presence of grandmothers increases survival odds in grandchild offspring (Buchanan & Rotkirch, 2018; Hawkes et al., 1998). In Western societies, the majority of grandparents contribute some degree of care to grandchildren, ranging from occasional babysitting to full-time childcare (Di Gessa et al., 2020) and nurturing grandparents are associated with emotional resilience and social skills in grandchildren (Kim et al., 2014). Children whose grandparents are highly involved report fewer problems with peers and behavioral concerns than children with less involved grandparents (Buchanan & Fluori, 2008). Parents typically turn to grandparents when childcare is needed (Hagestad, 2006).

Much less is known about the potential benefits these grandparent roles afford older adults. Like parenting, grandparenting is both rewarding and demanding (Clark & Roberts, 2004). From a theoretical perspective, engaging with grandchildren in meaningful ways may contribute to the realization of emotional goals and, in turn, confer benefits to physical and psychological health. Socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2021), maintains that as people increasingly perceive constraints on time horizons, they prioritize emotionally meaningful goals. Subsequently, close social relationships tend to be prioritized with age (Carstensen, 2021) and for most people, relationships with grandchildren are highly meaningful (Park, 2018). Prosocial behavior also increases with age (Cutler et al., 2021) and helping others may be especially satisfying for older adults (Chi et al., 2023). Indeed, providing regular care to grandchildren is associated with happiness (Komonpaisarn & Loichinger, 2019), though benefits are accounted for primarily by grandmothers as opposed to grandfathers (Danielsbacka & Tanskanen, 2016). We expect that engaging with grandchildren through storytelling, playing games, and offering life advice may be particularly meaningful forms of physical and cognitive engagement for grandparents.

We also reason that strong socioemotional connections with grandchildren may motivate grandparents to engage in healthful behaviors. According to the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 2000), decisions to engage in healthful behaviors are influenced by motivation to maintain good health and beliefs that (a) one is susceptible to health conditions and (b) benefits of healthy behaviors outweigh costs. Desires to “keep up” with grandchildren and be present to provide support through grandchildren’s development may contribute to motivation and perceived benefits. Evidence is mixed: Some studies find that grandparenting depletes physical resources and, over time, worsens physical health (Coall & Hertwig, 2010), while other studies find no associations (e.g., Ates, 2017). Hughes et al. (2007), for example, found that babysitting was associated with increased exercise among grandmothers, whereas living with grandchildren was not. Still other studies have observed positive associations between grandparent caregiving and self-reported health (e.g., Ku et al., 2012).

Unlike older social partners, grandchildren are likely to remain in grandparents’ lives for the rest of their lives. Thus, involvement with grandchildren may contribute to feelings of satisfaction with the social world. Several studies have examined links between grandparenting and loneliness. Being a caregiver for grandchildren is associated with lower loneliness among Taiwanese grandparents (Tsai et al., 2013) and Chinese-American grandparents (Tang et al., 2016). Among participants in the German Ageing Survey, providing care for grandchildren is associated with lower loneliness and social isolation (Quirke et al., 2019), and relationship quality with grandchildren is associated with lower levels of grandparent loneliness, even after accounting for relationship quality with adult children (Mahne & Huxhold, 2015). Finally, reports of caring for and sharing humor and memories with grandchildren were associated with lower loneliness in a sample of mostly White American grandparents (Mansson, 2014). To our knowledge, effects of grandparenting on loneliness have not been examined among racially diverse Americans. Grandparents who have emotionally close relationships with their grandchildren are also likely to have more opportunities to share positive experiences with them compared with grandparents who are less engaged.

From a cognitive perspective, certain lifestyles can benefit cognitive aging (Hertzog et al., 2008). For example, frequency of engagement in social activities such as visits with relatives and friends are associated with better cognitive functioning in a study of older adults living in retirement and subsidized housing in Chicago (James et al., 2011), and engaging in social activities such as helping family, friends, or neighbors is associated with similar benefits (Engelhardt et al., 2010). A recent meta-analysis concluded that high-quality social relationships protect against cognitive decline (Piolatto et al., 2022). Several studies have identified positive associations between grandchild caregiving and cognitive functioning (e.g., Burn & Szoeke, 2015; Jennings et al., 2021) while intense levels of caregiving for grandchildren may actually be positively associated with cognitive decline (e.g., Burn et al., 2014; Pan et al., 2022).

To summarize, there is both theoretical and empirical reason to engagement with grandchildren can benefit grandparents’ well-being, but the literature on grandparenting is mixed. There is evidence to suggest that very low and very high levels of engagement may be less beneficial than moderate levels of engagement. That is, grandparents who are not involved or who have full-time caregiving responsibilities may fare worse than those who are actively engaged with grandchildren without primary caregiving responsibilities. One recent review, for example, concluded that non-custodial grandparents derive benefits from engagement with grandchildren whereas custodial grandparenting heightens risks (Danielsbacka et al., 2022). Very little attention has been paid to type of activities grandparents have with grandchildren and how the type of engagement influences risks and benefits to well-being.

The Present Study

In the present study, based on a diverse sample participating in the St. Louis Personality and Intergenerational Network (SPIN) study, we examine differences between grandparents and non-grandparents, as well as the extent to which grandparents engage in various activities with their grandchildren. The aims were to: (1) examine how non-custodial grandparents and non-grandparents differ in loneliness, healthful behavioral practices, physical health-related quality of life, and subjective memory, (2) examine associations between the extent to which grandparents engage in different types of grandchild-related activities and healthful behaviors and how such activities are related to physical health-related quality of life, loneliness, and subjective memory, (3) examine whether benefits of meaningful activity engagement vary as a function of the level of care grandparents provide.

Guided by socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2021), we postulated that emotionally meaningful engagement with grandchildren, such as emotional support or cultural transmission of values and knowledge, predicts emotional and health benefits for grandparents. We consider socioemotional engagement with grandchildren as shared activities that enrich grandchildren’s lives, such as playing games and telling stories, providing affection and helping to regulate emotions, and instrumental support, operationalized as chores such as babysitting, cooking meals, and providing transportation. Because instrumental support can be less meaningful emotionally and more burdensome, it may not directly serve the socioemotional goals emphasized in later life and has been shown in prior work to have mixed implications for well-being, particularly when it involves sustained caregiving responsibilities. Therefore, we expected that its association with well-being would be weaker than those observed with socioemotional engagement.

We tested the following hypotheses:

H1: Grandparent status (being a grandparent versus not) is associated with lower levels of loneliness, greater engagement in healthful behaviors, better physical health-related quality of life, and better subjective memory.

H2: Among grandparents, socioemotional engagement with grandchildren is associated with less loneliness, increased engagement in healthful behaviors, improved subjective ratings of physical health-related quality of life, and enhanced reports of subjective memory.

We reasoned that instrumental support would be only weakly associated with measures of well-being. We also explored gender as a moderator of effects. In prior work with the present study’s dataset (Hill et al., 2025), grandmothers reported higher levels of all types of grandparenting behaviors compared with grandfathers. We explored the possibility that grandmothers may also benefit more from their involvement compared with grandfathers.

Methods

Participants

The St. Louis Personality and Intergenerational Network (SPIN) study is an extension of the St. Louis Personality and Aging Network (SPAN) study, a longitudinal study assessing personality, well-being, and health in a representative sample of middle-aged and older adults in the St. Louis, MO metropolitan area (Paul et al., 2019; Shields, et al. 2021, Wright et al., 2022). Whereas original SPAN participants were recruited in 2007 for a study on personality and psychopathology in a community sample (see Oltmanns et al. 2014 for details about the recruitment process), in the 2019–2022 wave of data collection the study was expanded to include experiences related to grandparenthood (Hill et al., 2025). We examine data from the 2019–2022 wave of data collection in the present study.

Participants were 1,014 adults aged 66–79. Recruitment efforts followed standard epidemiological methods in recruiting participants from the city and surrounding suburban area. Only one participant was recruited from each household. In other words, none of the grandparents included in these analyses were married to each other or describing the same family. Twelve participants were excluded from analyses because they were custodial grandparents. Thus, the final sample included 1,002 participants aged 66–79 (M=72.07, SD=3.00). There were more parents (n=769; 76.4%) than non-parents (n=238; 23.6%) and slightly more grandparents (n=533; 53.2%) than non-grandparents (n=469; 46.8%) in the sample. The sample was comprised of 56.5% women and 43.5% men. Reflecting the racial composition of the St. Louis, MO metropolitan area, 74.0% of participants identified as White, 23.6% as Black, and 2.4% as other or more than one race. The sample was better educated than might be expected in this community (60.6% had a 4-year college degree or more, compared to census data reporting that 40.2% of adults 25 years or older in St. Louis have a bachelor’s degree or higher). About half of the sample was married at the time of data collection (48.0% were married, 52.0% were not married). Only 15% had never been married when they entered the study at baseline. Participant characteristics by grandparent status are included in the supplemental materials. The median number of grandchildren participants reported was 3 (range: 0 to 33). Non-grandparents had higher education compared with grandparents, χ2(1, N=997)=87.94, p=.005. More grandparents were women, χ2(1, N=999)=5.10, p=.024, and married, χ2(1, N=1,002)=29.14, p<.001, than were non-grandparents. Grandparents and non-grandparents did not differ significantly by race or age. See Table S1 for additional participant characteristics.

Measures

Well-Being Measures

Loneliness.

The UCLA Loneliness scale (Russell et al., 1978) was used to assess loneliness. Participants responded to 20 items (α=.938) on a scale of 0 = I never feel this way to 3 = I often feel this way. Items were summed to create scores with a possible range of 0 to 60. Example items include “I lack companionship” and “I feel completely alone.”

Health-Related Quality of Life.

Participants completed the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (Ware & Sherbourne, 1992). We examined the general health subscale, which includes five items (α=.829) assessing subjective perceptions of general health rated on 5-point scales. The measure is scaled such that possible scores range from 0 to 100. Example items include “My health is excellent” and “I seem to get sick easier than other people” (reverse-scored).

Healthful Behaviors.

The short version of the Health Behavior Checklist (HBC; Hampson et al., 2019) was used to assess the extent to which participants engaged in healthful behaviors. On a scale of 1 = Not at all like me to 5 = Very much like me. The sixteen items (α = .787) assessing good health practices were summed to create scores of healthful behavior engagement, with possible scores ranging from 16 to 80. Example items include “I exercise to stay healthy” and “I gather information on things that affect my health.”

Subjective Memory.

The Metamemory in Adulthood scale (MIA; McDonough et al., 2020) was used to assess subjective memory. The scale includes 20 items (α=.919) on scales ranging from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree. The scale was scored such that higher values represent higher subjective memory, with possible scores ranging from 20 to 100. Example items include “I am less efficient at remembering now than I used to be” (reverse-scored) and “I am good at remembering the content of news articles and broadcasts.” The measure is moderately associated with objective tests of cognitive ability (McDonough et al., 2020), and designed to reflect how memory affects daily life, which is poorly captured by objective tests.

Grandparenting Behaviors and Emotional Experiences

Grandparents completed the Multidimensional Experiences of Grandparenthood scale (MEG; Findler, 2013). In a previous paper, MEG data from SPAN participants were used to examine the extent to which perceptions of grandparenthood vary as a function of race and gender; measurement invariance tests supported the utility of the MEG scale across race and gender (Hill et al., 2025). In the present paper, we employ one subscale from the behavioral dimension (instrumental support), as well as a combination of the contribution to upbringing and emotional support subscales from the behavioral dimension.1 We chose to combine these subscales because the contribution to upbringing and emotional support subscales both capture grandparents’ efforts to connect with grandchildren through emotionally meaningful interactions, such as guidance, encouragement, and expressions of care. Socioemotional selectivity theory highlights these types of emotionally oriented investments in close relationships as central in later life. Additionally, the subscales are highly correlated in the present study (r=.80, p<.001), and we could not include them as separate predictors in the same model due to multicollinearity concerns.

Socioemotional Engagement with Grandchildren.

Eighteen items from the MEG (α=.957), rated on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree, were averaged to create a measure of socioemotional engagement with grandchildren. Items include eight items from the contribution to grandchildren’s upbringing subscale: “I expand my grandchildren’s general knowledge,” “I teach my grandchildren about values and their legacy,” “I do things with my grandchildren to develop their abilities and contribute to their education,” “I tell my grandchildren about the family history,” “I display an interest in my grandchildren’s hobbies,” “My grandchildren and I do things together, like arts and crafts, homework, games, writing poems, reading, studying, praying, etc.,” “I tell my grandchildren stories,” and “I comfort my grandchildren when they have problems,” as well as ten items from the emotional support subscale: “I show love for my grandchildren,” “I hug and kiss my grandchildren,” “I show my grandchildren how clever I think they are,” “I encourage and praise my grandchildren,” “I pay close attention to my grandchildren’s development,” “I display an interest in my grandchildren’s lives,” “I offer my support when my grandchildren are in distress,” “I try to help my grandchildren stay calm in stressful situations,” “I am someone my grandchildren can talk to,” and “I am always available for my grandchildren.”

Instrumental Support to Grandchildren.

Five items from the MEG (α=.902), rated on a scale of 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree, were averaged to create the Instrumental Support subscale. Items include “I change/changed my young grandchildren’s diapers,” “I bathe/bathed by young grandchildren,” “I babysit my grandchildren when they are sick,” “I make my grandchildren their favorite foods,” and “I babysit my grandchildren when their parents go out.”

Data Analysis

To examine group differences between grandparents and non-grandparents, we conducted ANOVAs examining differences by group membership (grandparents versus non-grandparents) in healthful behaviors, physical health-related quality of life, loneliness, and subjective memory. We conducted ANOVAs rather than t-tests for consistency with ANCOVA models that included covariates. The ANCOVAs controlled for age (grand-mean centered), race (coded such that 0=White and 1=not White)2 gender (coded such that 0=man and 1=woman), marital status (coded such that 0=not married and 1=married) and education (coded such that 0=less than 4-year college degree attainment and 1=4-year college degree attainment or more).

To examine associations among types of grandparent involvement and well-being, we computed linear regression models with socioemotional engagement with grandchildren and instrumental support to grandchildren predicting healthful behaviors, physical health-related quality of life, loneliness, and subjective memory. To examine whether the effects of socioemotional engagement varied by level of instrumental support provided, we conducted follow-up models that included interactions between these terms. Finally, we examined gender as a moderator of the effects of socioemotional engagement and instrumental support to examine whether associations with well-being measures are stronger among grandmothers than among grandfathers.3 Continuous predictors were grand-mean centered.

Results

Differences between Grandparents and Non-Grandparents

Grandparents did not differ from non-grandparents on loneliness, F(1, 769)=3.16, p=.076, physical health-related quality of life, F(1, 1000)=0.71, p=.400, or subjective memory, F(1, 764)=3.86, p=.050. However, grandparents engaged in healthful behaviors more than non-grandparents F(1, 1000)=35.93, p<.001: Grandparents (M=49.58, SD=16.40) reported significantly more healthful behavior engagement than non-grandparents (M=42.73, SD=20.33). Effects remained when grandparent age, gender, race, education, marital status, and parental status were added as covariates in ANCOVAs. See Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Group Differences Between Grandparents and Non-Grandparents

Non-Grandparents
 Grandparents
M SD M SD
Healthful Behavior Engagement 42.56*** 20.38 49.54*** 16.44
Physical Health-Related Quality of Life 64.84 20.53 65.92 19.88
Loneliness 16.11 10.78 14.77 9.92
Subjective Memory 64.87 14.77 62.86 13.33
Age 71.88 2.92 72.24 3.06
Race 0.24 0.43 0.28 0.45
Gender 0.53 * 0.50 0.60 * 0.49
Marital Status 0.38 *** 0.49 0.57 *** 0.50
Education 0.65 ** 0.48 0.57 ** 0.50
Open in a new tab

Note. Race is coded such that 0 = White and 1 = not White. Gender is coded such that 0 = man and 1 = woman. Marital status is coded such that 0 = not married and 1 = married. Education is coded such that 0 = less than 4-years of college and 1 = 4-years or more of college Asterisks denote significant difference between non-grandparents and grandparents:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Grandparent Involvement is Associated with Well-Being

Preliminary Analyses

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables are presented in Table 2. Race was not significantly associated with socioemotional engagement (r=.02, p=.725) or instrumental support (r= −.03, p=.462). Descriptive information is presented in Table 3. Grandmothers and grandfathers did not differ significantly in healthful behaviors, physical health-related quality of life, loneliness, or subjective memory. However, compared with grandfathers, grandmothers reported more socioemotional engagement with their grandchildren, F(1, 524)=21.68, p<.001, and more instrumental support to grandchildren, F(1, 521)=85.42, p<.001.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Socioemotional Engagement 4.04 0.81 - - - - - - - - - - -
2. Instrumental Support 3.33 1.29 .62*** - - - - - - - - - -
3. Healthful Behavior Engagement 46.27 18.71 .16*** .06 - .17*** −.35*** .22*** .05 −.20*** .04 .08** .32***
4. Physical Health-Related Quality of Life 65.41 20.18 .11* .09* .15*** - −.38*** .36*** −.01 −.13*** .002 .09** .17***
5. Loneliness 15.32 10.30 −.18*** .002 −.34*** −.35*** - −.27*** −.03 .02 .01 −.15** −.07
6. Subjective Memory 63.68 13.96 .16*** .07 .25*** .34*** −.24*** - −.08* −.02 −.02 −.02 .12***
7. Age 72.07 3.00 −.05 −.08 .07 −.03 −.04 −.08 - −.04 .01 .05 .04
8. Race 0.26 0.44 .02 −.03 −.07 −.09* .03 −.003 −.03 - .01 −.16*** −.27***
9. Gender 0.56 0.50 .17*** .38*** −.002 −.03 .04 .004 −.03 .01 - −.34*** −.11***
10. Marital Status 0.48 0.50 .003 −.08 .08 .09* −.17*** .02 .03 −.19*** −.38*** - .15***
11. Education 0.61 0.49 .02 −.07 .19*** .20*** −.17*** .16*** .08 −.20*** −.14** .15*** -
Open in a new tab

Note. Correlations below the diagonal represent data from the subsample of participants who are grandparents (n = 533). Correlations above the diagonal represent data from the full sample (N = 1,002). Socioemotional Engagement = socioemotional engagement with children from MEG scale; Instrumental Support = instrumental support provision to grandchildren from MEG scale. Race is coded such that 0 = White and 1 = not White. Gender is coded such that 0 = man and 1 = woman. Marital status is coded such that 0 = not married and 1 = married. Education is coded such that 0 = less than 4-years of college and 1 = 4-years or more of college. Correlations between two dichotomous variables are reported as phi coefficients.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Group Differences Between Grandmothers and Grandfathers

Grandmothers
 Grandfathers
M SD M SD
Socioemotional Engagement 4.16 *** 0.75 3.87 *** 0.87
Instrumental Support 3.72 *** 1.16 2.73 *** 1.25
Healthful Behavior Engagement 49.58 16.83 49.64 15.74
Physical Health-Related Quality of Life 65.40 20.01 66.60 19.73
Loneliness 15.10 10.33 14.30 9.31
Subjective Memory 62.90 13.36 62.79 13.32
Age 72.18 3.04 72.23 3.10
Race 0.29 0.45 0.28 0.45
Marital Status 0.42*** 0.49 0.79*** 0.41
Education 0.51*** 0.50 0.65*** 0.49
Open in a new tab

Note. Race is coded such that 0 = White and 1 = not White. Gender is coded such that 0 = man and 1 = woman. Marital status is coded such that 0 = not married and 1 = married. Education is coded such that 0 = less than 4-years of college and 1 = 4-years or more of college. Asterisks denote significant difference between grandmothers and grandfathers:

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001

Results from Regression Models

Bivariate correlations indicated that socioemotional engagement was associated with lower levels of loneliness (r= −.18, p<.001, more healthful behaviors (r=.16, p<.001), better physical health-related quality of life (r=.11, p=.014), and better subjective memory (r=.16, p<.001). See Table 1. With the exception of the association with physical health-related quality of life, all of these associations remained significant in regression analyses accounting for instrumental support and other covariates (Table 4).

Table 4.

Results from Regression Analyses with Grandparenting Behaviors Predicting Well-Being Measures

Main Effects Model 
 Interaction Model 
Est. SE p R 2 Est. SE p R 2
Healthful Behavior Engagement 0.07 0.07
  Intercept 45.12 2.03 44.81 2.07
  Socioemotional Engagement 3.52** 1.10 .002 3.97** 1.23 .001
  Instrumental Support −0.37 0.74 .613 −0.44 0.74 .557
  Age 0.33 0.23 .146 0.34 0.23 .136
  Race −0.88 1.61 .589 −0.86 1.61 .593
  Gender 0.77 1.66 .644 0.75 1.66 .650
  Marital Status 1.69 1.56 .280 1.57 1.57 .316
  Education 5.77*** 1.46 <.001 5.80*** 1.46 <.001
  Socioemotional Engagement X Instrumental Support 0.57 0.69 .409
Physical Health-Related Quality of Life 0.06 0.07
  Intercept 61.40 2.48 60.43 2.51
  Socioemotional Engagement 1.30 1.34 .331 2.71 1.49 .070
  Instrumental Support 1.20 0.90 .183 1.00 0.90 .266
  Age −0.27 0.28 .339 −0.24 0.28 .388
  Race −1.71 1.96 .383 −1.66 1.96 .396
  Gender −0.91 2.02 .655 −0.95 2.02 .638
  Marital Status 2.27 1.90 .232 1.38 1.90 .468
  Education 7.53*** 1.78 <.001 7.63*** 1.77 <.001
  Socioemotional Engagement X Instrumental Support 1.77* 0.84 .035
Loneliness 0.10 0.10
  Intercept 19.26 1.31 19.63 1.33
  Socioemotional Engagement −3.29*** 0.72 <.001 −3.83*** 0.79 <.001
  Instrumental Support 1.22** 0.47 .010 1.30** 0.47 .006
  Age −0.08 0.15 .589 −0.09 0.15 .520
  Race −0.44 1.04 .669 −0.47 1.04 .649
  Gender −1.30 1.07 .226 −1.25 1.07 .243
  Marital Status −3.12** 1.01 .002 −2.92** 1.02 .004
  Education −3.02** 0.94 .001 −3.05** 0.94 .001
  Socioemotional Engagement X Instrumental Support −0.77 0.46 .098
Subjective Memory 0.05 0.06
  Intercept 59.93 1.80 59.39 1.82
  Socioemotional Engagement 2.88** 0.99 .004 3.66*** 1.09 <.001
  Instrumental Support −0.34 0.65 .599 −0.46 0.65 .480
  Age −0.32 0.20 .107 −0.30 0.20 .132
  Race 0.79 1.42 .580 0.83 1.42 .560
  Gender 0.46 1.47 .756 0.39 1.47 .790
  Marital Status −0.03 1.39 .980 −0.32 1.40 .820
  Education 4.29*** 1.29 <.001 4.33*** 1.28 <.001
  Socioemotional Engagement X Instrumental Support 1.10 0.63 .082
Open in a new tab

Note. Socioemotional Engagement = socioemotional engagement with children from MEG scale; Instrumental Support = instrumental support provision to grandchildren from MEG scale. Race is coded such that 0 = White and 1 = not White. Gender is coded such that 0 = man and 1 = woman. Marital status is coded such that 0 = not married and 1 = married. Education is coded such that 0 = less than 4-years of college and 1 = 4-years or more of college.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001.

As expected, we found weaker or nonsignificant effects associated with instrumental support. Bivariate correlations (Table 1) indicated that instrumental support was associated with better physical health-related quality of life, (r=.09, p=.034), but was not associated with loneliness, (r=.002, p=.965), healthful behavior engagement (r=.06, p=.152), or subjective memory, (r=.07, p=.121). In regression analyses (Table 4) including socioemotional engagement and other covariates, we found that providing relatively more instrumental support was not associated with healthful behaviors, b= −0.37, SE=0.74, p=.613, physical health-related quality of life, b=1.20, SE=0.90, p=.183, or subjective memory, b= −0.34, SE=0.65, p=.599, and was associated with more loneliness, b=1.22, SE=0.47, p=.010.

To examine whether well-being varied by level of socioemotional engagement and instrumental support, we ran additional models that included interactions between these constructs. A Socioemotional Engagement X Instrumental Support interaction predicted physical health-related quality of life, b=1.78 SE=0.84, p=.035 (Figure 1). Analyses of simple slopes revealed that among grandparents who reported providing low levels of instrumental support, socioemotional engagement with grandchildren was not associated with physical health-related quality of life (−1SD from mean: b=0.41, SE=1.40, p=.772), but among grandparents who reported providing high levels of instrumental support, socioemotional engagement with grandchildren was associated with relatively better physical health-related quality of life (+1SD from mean: b=4.99, SE=2.19, p=.023). There were no significant interactions between socioemotional engagement and instrumental support predicting healthful behavior engagement, loneliness, or subjective memory (ps>.08).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

A Socioemotional Engagement X Instrumental Support interaction was present indicating that socioemotional engagement with grandchildren only predicted higher physical health-related quality of life among grandparents who provide high levels of instrumental support to grandchildren. Graph depicts interaction effect, controlling for covariates (age, race, gender, marital status, education). Instrumental support and socioemotional engagement were grand-mean centered.

Grandmothers and Grandfathers do not Differ in Potential Benefits of Involvement with Grandchildren

Gender did not moderate the effects of socioemotional engagement or instrumental support on loneliness, physical health-related quality of life, healthful behavior practices, or subjective memory. (See supplemental materials).

Discussion

Prior research has documented a variety of benefits grandparents confer on grandchildren (e.g., Salazar et al., 2022), yet relatively little research has examined potential benefits that relationships with grandchildren hold for grandparents and, thus far, evidence is mixed. Grandparenting is consistently linked to relatively low levels of loneliness (Quirke et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2016; Tsai et al., 2013). Some studies find positive associations between grandparents’ engagement and self-reported health (e.g., Ku et al., 2012), whereas other studies find no associations (e.g., Ates, 2017). Similarly, grandparent engagement is inconsistently linked to cognitive functioning (e.g., Burn et al., 2014; Burn & Szoeke, 2015; Jennings et al., 2021; Pan et al., 2022) and healthful behaviors (Baker & Silverstein, 2008; Hughes et al., 2007). Notably, prior work has often relied on relatively small, racially homogenous samples to examine effects associated with grandparenthood.

In the present study, we explored potential risks and benefits of noncustodial grandparenting in a racially diverse sample of older adults living in the St. Louis, MO area. We found that grandparents who were emotionally engaged in their grandchildren’s lives appear to experience greater emotional, physical, and cognitive well-being. Specifically, social and emotional engagement with grandchildren was associated with physical and emotional benefits regardless of amount of instrumental care provision. Providing high levels of instrumental care without high levels of socioemotional engagement was associated with a less positive profile.

Guided by socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 2021), we postulated that because meaningful experience is especially salient at advanced ages, sharing strong emotional bonds with grandchildren may confer benefits to well-being that simply being a grandparent or providing instrumental care do not. Most of the findings we report are consistent with this reasoning. High levels of socioemotional engagement with grandchildren were associated with less loneliness, more healthful behaviors, and better subjective memory. When accounting for covariates, instrumental support was not associated with well-being unless it was combined with socioemotional engagement with grandchildren; rather, it was associated with more loneliness. However, when combined with socioemotional support, providing relatively more instrumental care was correlated with relatively better physical health-related quality of life. Overall, however, the pattern suggests that social and emotional engagement with grandchildren may confer benefits to grandparents in ways that instrumental care does not, or that individuals who are in better physical, emotional, and cognitive health may be more likely to engage with their grandchildren. Alternatively, grandparents in better health may be more likely to engage socioemotionally with their grandchildren than grandparents in poorer health, whereas grandparents across a broad range of well-being may be similarly likely to provide instrumental support. This preliminary work provides evidence for associations that should be examined longitudinally in future research.

On the other hand, our examination comparing grandparents with non-grandparents yielded little support for the hypothesis that grandparents status alone was associated with higher levels of well-being. Grandparents and non-grandparents differed only on the healthful behavior measure, with grandparents reporting engaging in more healthful behaviors than non-grandparents. Findings align with prior work demonstrating minimal effects associated with becoming a grandparent on well-being (Leimer & van Ewijk, 2022). One of the limitations of the present analysis is that we do not consider the ways in which non-grandparents may engage socioemotionally with other important people in their lives. Theoretically, socioemotional engagement with meaningful partners is the mechanism through which benefits are derived. Non-grandparents may seek out and benefit from other types of emotionally meaningful relationships. Thus, the absence of associations beyond healthful behavior engagement may indicate that grandparenthood itself is not uniformly beneficial, but that well-being depends on how grandparents engage in the role and on the presence of other close relationships.

Instrumental support provision appeared to be less beneficial. We observed mostly null associations with well-being indices for instrumental support provision. On the other hand, we found positive effects associated with socioemotional engagement with grandchildren, which encompasses behaviors such as playing, storytelling, sharing cultural knowledge, helping a grandchild develop as a person, sharing affection, and being there emotionally during hard times. As reported in previous work using these data (Hill et al., 2025), grandmothers were more socially and emotionally engaged with grandchildren than grandfathers and provided more instrumental support, which is consistent with patterns reported previously (Hank & Buber, 2009). However, links between grandparent involvement and well-being measures did not vary by gender, suggesting that although grandmothers are more likely to have close relationships with their grandchildren, grandfathers and grandmothers benefit comparably from these relationships. Thus, while our findings align with past theoretical and empirical work highlighting the central role of grandmothers in their grandchildren’s lives (e.g., Hagestad, 2006; Hawkes, 1998), they also point to potential benefits for both grandmothers and grandfathers.

From an applied perspective, findings suggest that services that facilitate opportunities for grandparents to engage with their grandchildren in meaningful ways may confer significant benefits. Aging-in-place initiatives may incorporate guidance on how to maintain or strengthen grandparent-grandchild bonds, particularly in families with geographically dispersed members. Retirement communities might consider developing programs that facilitate meaningful engagement with grandchildren to support residents’ well-being. Practitioners who work directly with families, such as social workers, counselors, and health care providers, could help families recognize the distinct benefits of socioemotional engagement. Because adult children often shape grandparents’ involvement, family-level interventions can encourage this middle generation to facilitate contact between grandchildren and grandparents that centers on emotional connection over caregiving obligations. For older adults without close contact with grandchildren, community-based intergenerational programs, such as “foster grandparenting” or school-based mentoring could offer similar benefits.

At a broader societal level, policymakers could consider how policies and workplace flexibility affect opportunities for intergenerational engagement. For example, policies that support family leave or flexible schedules could make it easier for middle-generation parents to facilitate grandparent-grandchild contact. Policymakers might also consider how housing and urban planning can encourage intergenerational interaction (Growney et al., 2025). For example, community hubs could be built and designed to bring together institutions that serve different age groups, such as childcare centers, schools, and senior centers. Community organizations and practitioners in aging services might also integrate grandparent engagement into programming designed to promote older adults’ health and social connectedness. These kinds of efforts can contribute to the well-being of grandparents themselves, as well as strengthen family and community ties across generations.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study has several notable strengths, including a relatively large and racially diverse sample size, which supports the generalizability of our results. Findings also have several limitations. In this cross-sectional study, we are unable to establish directionality of effects. Even though we included several demographic characteristics as covariates, other important variables such as grandchild age or geographic proximity were not considered. Regarding the former, grandparent-grandchild relationships are qualitatively and quantitatively different during childhood versus adolescence or adulthood (Dunifon et al., 2018). Items on the instrumental support subscale of the MEG scale (Findler et al., 2013) are more applicable to younger than older grandchildren. Similarly, geographic proximity influences the degree to which instrumental support can be provided. We also have limited knowledge regarding the ways grandparents in the sample may have provided other types of instrumental support tailored to older grandchildren. We do not know the degree of engagement in meaningful activities unrelated to grandchildren, which may account for the few differences in overall well-being between grandparents and non-grandparents. Finally, some associations were only modest in size or just reached a threshold of significance and should be interpreted cautiously and replicated in future work.

Conclusion

We found little evidence that simply being a grandparent or providing instrumental care to grandchildren was associated with well-being. However, socioemotional engagement with grandchildren was positively associated with healthful behavioral practices and emotional experiences among grandparents. Findings add to a small but growing body of literature that suggests that supporting grandchildren’s social and emotional needs is positively linked to grandparent well-being. As societies become increasingly age-diverse and generations have opportunities for relationships that were previously limited by early deaths, meaningful intergenerational connections may provide new pathways to healthy aging.

Supplementary Material

1

What this paper adds:

  • This study distinguishes between different types of grandparent involvement, highlighting that socioemotional engagement, but not instrumental support, is linked to lower loneliness, more healthful behaviors, and better subjective memory.

  • This paper provides insight regarding the well-being of noncustodial grandparents, a group often overlooked in prior research that has focused primarily on custodial caregiving arrangements.

  • This study revealed minimal differences between aspects of well-being among grandparents versus non-grandparents, suggesting that non-grandparents typically maintain comparable levels of well-being through other meaningful social roles or activities.

Applications of study findings to gerontological practice, policy, and research:

  • Interventions aiming to promote healthy aging may benefit from encouraging emotionally meaningful grandparent-grandchild engagement, such as shared activities and conversation.

  • Findings highlight the value of assessing multiple forms of intergenerational involvement, rather than relying solely on general contact frequency or time spent, when conducting research examining effects of grandparenting on health and well-being.

  • Policies and programs that support intergenerational connection should distinguish between caregiving demands and mutually engaging relationship-building activities to better support older adults’ well-being.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank staff, research assistants, and participants involved in the SPIN study for their contributions to this work.

Statements and Declarations

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging grants 1R01AG061162-01 to TFO and RB and grant R37-AG008816 to LLC. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Washington University in St. Louis (protocol ID: 201102523). Participants provided written consent to participate. Data cannot be made publicly available due to institutional restrictions. Data and materials are not publicly available and will be made available to qualified researchers by request to the second author.

Footnotes

1

Given our focus on behaviors, we did not examine the MEG cognitive dimension (scales reflecting investment and burden), symbolic dimension (scales reflecting meaning, compensation, and continuity), or emotional dimension (scales reflecting positive and negative emotions associated with grandparenthood).

2

We coded race in this way because the sample was predominantly White and Black.

3

To test the robustness of effects, we conducted supplemental analyses examining personality domains as covariates. See supplemental materials Table S3.

References

  1. Ates M (2017). Does grandchild care influence grandparents’ self-rated health? Evidence from a fixed effects approach. Social Science & Medicine, 190, 67–74. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker LA, & Silverstein M (2008). Preventative health behaviors among grandmothers raising grandchildren. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 63(5), S304–S311. 10.1093/geronb/63.5.S304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bengtson VL (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1–16. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buchanan A, & Flouri E (2008). Involved grandparenting and child well-being: Non-technical summary (research summary). ESRC End of Award Report, RES-000-22-2283. Swindon: ESRC. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buchanan A, & Rotkirch A (2018). Twenty-first century grandparents: Global perspectives on changing roles and consequences. Contemporary Social Science, 13(2), 131–144. 10.1080/21582041.2018.1467034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burn K, Henderson V, Ames D, Dennerstein L & Sxoeke C (2014). Role of grandparenting in postmenopausal women’s cognitive health. Menopause, 21(10), 1069–1074. 10.1097/GME.0000000000000236 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carstensen LL (2021). Socioemotional selectivity theory: The role of perceived endings in human motivation. The Gerontologist, 61(8), 1188–1196. 10.1093/geront/gnab116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chi K, Ram N, & Carstensen LL (2023). Age differences in emotional experiences associated with helping and learning at work. Psychology and Aging, 38(5), 389–400. 10.1037/pag0000756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Coall DA, & Hertwig R (2010). Grandparental investment: Past, present, and future. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(1), 1–19. 10.1017/S0140525X09991105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cutler J, Nitschke JP, Lamm C, & Lockwood PL (2021). Older adults across the globe exhibit increased prosocial behavior but also greater in-group preferences. Nature Aging, 1(10), 880–888. 10.1038/s43587-021-00118-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Danielsbacka M, & Tanskanen AO (2016). The association between grandparental investment and grandparents’ happiness in Finland. Personal Relationships, 23(4), 787–800. 10.1111/pere.12160 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Danielsbacka M, Křenková L, & Tanskanen AO (2022). Grandparenting, health, and well-being: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Ageing, 19, 341–368. 10.1007/s10433-021-00674-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Di Gessa G, Zaninotto P, & Glaser K (2020). Looking after grandchildren: Gender differences in ‘when,’ ‘what,’ and ‘why’: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Demographic Research, 43, 1545–1562. 10.4054/DemRes.2020.43.53 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dunifon RE, Near CE, & Ziol-Guest KM (2018). Backup parents, playmates, friends: Grandparents’ time with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(3), 752–767. 10.1111/jomf.12472 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Engelhardt H, Buber I, Skirbekk V, & Prskawetz A (2010). Social involvement, behavioural risks and cognitive functioning among older people. Ageing and Society, 30(5), 779–809. 10.1017/S0144686X09990626 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Findler L, Ben-Ari T, Nuttman- Shwartz O, & Lazar R (2013). Construction and validation of the multidimensional experience of grandparenthood set of inventories. Social Work Research, 37(3), 237–253. 10.1093/swr/svt025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Growney CM, Zaloom C, & Carstensen LL (2025). The human geography of care. Daedalus, 154(1), 98–116. 10.1162/daed_a_02126 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hagestad GO (2006). Transfers between grandparents and grandchildren: The importance of taking a three-generation perspective. Journal of Family Research, 18(3), 315–332. 10.20377/jfr-298 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hampson SE, Edmonds GW, & Goldberg LR (2019). The Health Behavior Checklist: Factor structure in community samples and validity of a revised good health practices scale. Journal of Health Psychology, 24(8), 1103–1109. 10.1177/1359105316687629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hank K, & Buber I (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Findings from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30(1), 53–73. 10.1177/0192513X08322627 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawkes K, O’Connell JF, Jones NG, Alvarez H, & Charnov EL (1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. PNAS, 95(3), 1336–1339. 10.1073/pnas.95.3.1336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hertzog C, Kramer AF, Wilson RS, & Lindenberger U (2008). Enrichment effects on adult cognitive development: Can the functional capacity of older adults be preserved and enhanced? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(1), 1–65. 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01034.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hill PL, Boudreaux MJ, Wilson M, Bogdan R, & Oltmanns TF (2025). Grandparenting across multiple dimensions: An examination of racial differences and personality correlates. Aging and Mental Health. Advance Online Publication. 10.1080/13607863.2025.2506776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, LaPierre TA, & Luo Y (2007). All in the family: the impact of caring for grandchildren on grandparents’ health. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 62(2), S108–S119. 10.1093/geronb/62.2.s108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. James BD, Wilson RS, Barnes LL, & Bennett DA (2011). Late-life social activity and cognitive decline in old age. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(6), 998–1005. 10.1017/S1355617711000531 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jennings EA, Farrell MT, & Kobayashi LC (2021). Grandchild caregiving and cognitive health among grandparents in rural South Africa. Journal of Aging and Health, 33(9), 661–673. 10.1177/08982643211006592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim PS, McQueen JS, Coxwort JE, & Hawkes K (2014). Grandmothering drives the evolution of longevity in a probabilistic model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 353, 84–94. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.03.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Klein A (2022). The new version of the relationship grandparents-grandchildren as an opportunity of unprecedented bonds. Journal of Population Aging, 15, 691–705. 10.1007/s12062-022-09371-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Komonpaisarn T, & Loichinger E (2019). Providing regular care for grandchildren in Thailand: An analysis of the impact on grandparents’ health. Social Science & Medicine, 229, 117–125. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ku LE, Stearns SC, Van Houtven CH, & Holmes GM (2012). The health effects of caregiving by grandparents in Taiwan: An instrumental variable estimation. Review of Economics of the Household, 10, 521–540 (2012). 10.1007/s11150-012-9154-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Leimer B, & van Ewijk R (2022). Are grandchildren good for you? Well-being and health effects of becoming a grandparent. Social Science & Medicine, 313, 115392. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mahne K, & Huxhold O (2015). Grandparenthood and subjective well-being: Moderating effects of educational level. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 70(5), 782–792, 10.1093/geronb/gbu147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mansson DH (2014). Grandparents’ expressed affection for their grandchildren: Examining the grandparents’ own psychological Health. Communication Research Reports, 31(4), 329–338. 10.1080/08824096.2014.963218 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. McDonough IM, McDougall GJ, LaRocca M, Dalmida SG, & Arheart KL (2020). Refining the metamemory in adulthood questionnaire: a 20-item version of change and capacity designed for research and clinical settings. Aging & Mental Health, 24(7), 1054–1063. 10.1080/13607863.2019.1594160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Minkler M , & Fuller-Thomson E . (1999). The health of grandparents raising grandchildren: Results of a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1384–1389. 10.2105/ajph.89.9.1384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Oltmanns TF, & Gleason ME (2011). Personality pathology, health, and social adjustment in later life. In Cotter LB (Ed.), Mental health in public health: The next, 100 years, (pp. 151–179). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Oltmanns TF, Rodrigues MM, Weinstein Y, & Gleason ME (2014). Prevalence of personality disorders at midlife in a community sample: Disorders and symptoms reflected in interview, self, and informant reports. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36(2), 177–188. 10.1007/s10862-013-9389-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Pan X, Zhang D, & Shi L (2020). Longitudinal evidence on grandparenting and cognitive function in older adults in China. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 20(1), 18–38. 10.1080/15350770.2020.1742845 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Park E (2018). For grandparents’ sake: The relationship between grandparenting involvement and psychological well-being. Ageing International, 43, 297–320. 10.1007/s12126-017-9320-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Paul SE, Boudreaux MJ, Bondy E, Tackett JL, Oltmanns TF, Bogdan R (2019). The intergenerational transmission of childhood maltreatment: Nonspecificity of maltreatment type and associations with borderline personality pathology. Development and Psychopathology, 31, 1157–1171. 10.1017/S095457941900066X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Piolatto M, Bianchi F, Rota M Marengoni A, Akbaritabar A, & Squazzoni F (2022). The effect of social relationships on cognitive decline in older adults. BMC Public Health 22, 278. 10.1186/s12889-022-12567-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Quirke E, König H, & Hajek A (2019). Association between caring for grandchildren and feelings of loneliness, social isolation and social network size. BMJ Open, 9, e029605. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029605 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosenstock IM (2000). Health Belief Model. In Kazdin AE (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 78–80). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Russell D, Peplau LA, & Ferguson ML (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 290–294. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4203_11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Salazar LR, Khandelwal P, & Castillo Y (2022). The effects of received grandmothers’ affection on adult grandchildren’s health behaviors using affection exchange theory. BMC Public Health, 22, 714. 10.1186/s12889-022-13049-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shields AN, Oltmanns TF, Boudreaux MJ, Paul SE, Bogdan R, & Tackett JL (2021). The impact of personality pathology across three generations: Evidence from the St. Louis Personality and Intergenerational Network Study. Clinical Psychological Science, 9(5), 900–918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Tang F, Xu L, Chi I, & Dong X (2016). Psychological well-being of older Chinese-American grandparents caring for grandchildren. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64(11), 2356–23661. 10.1111/jgs.14455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tsai FJ, Motamed S & Rougemont A (2013). The protective effect of taking care of grandchildren on elders’ mental health? BMC Public Health, 13, 567. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Uhlenberg P Children in an aging society. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, 64B(4), 489–496. 10.1093/geronb/gbp001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ware JE Jr., & Sherbourne CD (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wright AJ, Weston SJ, Norton S, Voss M, Bogdan R, Oltmanns TF, & Jackson JJ (2022). Prospective self- and informant-personality associations with inflammation, health behaviors, and health indicators. Health Psychology, 41, 121–133. 10.1037/hea0001162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS2129712-supplement-1.pdf (107.6KB, pdf)

RESOURCES