Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Jul 31.
Published in final edited form as: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2008 Jul;63(4):S239–S247. doi: 10.1093/geronb/63.4.s239

MULTIPLE PARENT-ADULT CHILD RELATIONS AND WELL-BEING IN MIDDLE AND LATER LIFE

Russell A Ward 1
PMCID: PMC2719247  NIHMSID: NIHMS126906  PMID: 18689773

Abstract

Objectives

Despite the centrality of parent-adult child relations, prior research has found only weak associations with parent well-being. There is a need to give more explicit attention to the relations of parents with multiple children, and the potentially mixed or “ambivalent” nature of those relations. These patterns may differ for mothers and fathers.

Methods

Wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households provides detailed information on relations between parents and each of their adult children. The sample includes 2,297 persons aged 50+ who had at least one child aged 19+.

Results

Measures across multiple adult children uncover more mixed patterns of “collective ambivalence” that include lesser quality and/or contact with at least some children. The presence of less positive relations with any children is consistently, albeit modestly, related to lower parent well-being. Mothers report higher “maximum” quality and interaction across children, but mothers and father do not differ in “minimum” reports. Associations between parent-child relations and well-being are similar for mothers and fathers.

Discussion

Analyses that incorporate the relations of parents with their multiple adult children, viewed as part of a family network, yield a more comprehensive and nuanced view of those relations and their implications for well-being.

The parent-child bond is a central tie that now typically lasts into the later adult years of parents and into middle age and even beyond for children (Mancini & Blieszner 1989). Parent-adult child relations are generally characterized by positive feelings and solidarity (e.g., see Bengtson, Biblarz, & Roberts, 2002), but research has found only weak associations between those relations and parent well-being. This may reflect the mixed quality of parent-child relations. Little research has looked at parent-child relations as a network of ties in which some may be more positive while others may be more negative, with presumably mixed implications for parental well-being.

This paper addresses the implications of considering in a more explicit and detailed way the multiple parent-adult child relations of most parents to better understand their implications for parent well-being. In particular, attention is directed to less positive aspects of parent-child relations; the concept of intergenerational ambivalence (Luescher & Pillemer, 1998), which has been applied to particular parent-child relationships, is extended to a collective view of ambivalence across multiple children. The following sections review literature on parent-adult child relations and well-being and on ambivalence in those relations.

Parent-Adult Child Relations and Well-Being

Close social relationships are presumed to contribute to individual well-being (Krause, 2001). Indeed, such perspectives as socioemotional selectivity and expectancy theory argue that people seek out ties that are emotionally supportive (Carstenson, 1992; Olson, Reese, & Zanna, 1996). Families in particular offer the kinds of durable “strong ties” that may contribute to well-being, in part by buffering the effects of stressful circumstances (Bengtson & Silverstein, 1993; Lin, Woelfel, & Light, 1985; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Umberson & Chen, 1994; Umberson, Wortman, & Kessler, 1992). Family ties may play an increasing role as individuals age and network ties focus increasingly on kin. Social networks in later life may become smaller but retain emotional closeness by focusing selectively on those ties, such as family, that are most supportive and gratifying (Ajrouch, Antonucci, & Janevic, 2001; Lang, Staudinger, & Carstensen, 1998; Shaw, Krause, Liang, & Bennett, 2007).

Drawing from various theoretical perspectives, Umberson (1992) cites the parent-child tie as a particularly strong and unique source of social attachment and solidarity. Indeed, it seems reasonable to expect that such relations would affect well-being through supports that meet the needs of both parents and their adult children. Knoester (2003) also suggests that the well-being of adult children affects parent well-being through feelings of empathy, as parents vicariously experience their children’s joys and sorrows, and because children’s successes or failures reflect on parent performance.

Knoester, however, indicates that relatively little is known about the extent to which parents and adult children actually affect each other’s well-being. Being childless, for example, exhibits little association with well-being (Brubaker, 1991; Koropeckyj-Cox, 2002; Zhang & Hayward, 2001). The proximity and frequency of contact with adult children appear to have little overall association with well-being (Brubaker 1991; Mancini & Blieszner 1989; Suitor & Pillemer 1987). Weinstein, Glei, Yamazaki, and Ming-Cheng. (2004) report little association between interaction and affectional ties with adult children and parent depression. Parents who are “sandwiched” between their adult children and older parents also exhibit little association between parent-child relations and well-being (Logan & Spitze, 1996; Ward & Spitze, 1998).

If the parent-adult child tie is central in the lives of both, why is the evidence of its effects on well-being so weak? It may be that children have less salience for parental well-being following the empty nest, in what Rossi (1968) has termed the "disengagement" stage of parenthood. This reduction in the parenting role may itself be a source of gratification. Although children can be a source of enjoyment, the parent role can also be stressful, especially when children are young, and there is some evidence that the departure of children (the “empty nest”) is associated with increased well-being (Barber 1989; Logan & Spitze 1996; Ross, Mirowsky, & Goldstein, 1990; Van Laningham, Johnson, & Amato, 2001; White & Edwards 1990).

There are indications that involvement and interaction with adult children may enhance well-being (Logan & Spitze 1996; White & Edwards 1990), but also that adult children can be a source of distress. Reciprocity in gratifications and assistance is accompanied by reciprocity in strain and burden, as parents and adult children affect each other’s lives. Negative dimensions of parent-child ties have been a focus in caregiving research, for example, assessing the burdens and strains experienced by child (and other) caregivers (e.g., see Pearlin, Aneshensel, Mullam, & Whitlatch, 1996; Sherwood, Given, Given, and Von Eye, 2005; Vitiliano, Zhang, & Scanlan, 2003). Even aside from caregiving, other research has found that some aspects of parent-child relations are associated with psychological distress for both parents and adult children (e.g., Logan & Spitze, 1996; Pillemer & Suitor 1991; Umberson 1992). Knoester (2003) found that the well-being of parents and adult children, and changes in their well-being, affects the well-being of the other. Parent-child relations may have both positive and negative effects, varying by relationship quality, circumstances of parents and children, and other factors (Ha & Carr, 2005; Silverstein, Chen, & Heller, 1996; Umberson, 1989, 1992).

Multiple Parent-Child Relations and Collective Ambivalence

These considerations suggest that parent-adult child relations matter, but that children (and parents, for that matter) are a “mixed blessing.” Parent-adult child relations are generally positive along multiple dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997), with relatively close proximity, frequent contact, emotional closeness, and feelings of normative obligation accompanied by support and advice (Bengtson, Biblarz, & Roberts, 2002; Logan & Spitze, 1996; Lye, 1996; Umberson, 1992). These positive portrayals notwithstanding, social ties, including family, have both positive and negative dimensions that may affect well-being both positively and negatively (Ingersoll-Dayton, Morgan, & Antonucci, 1997; Krause, 1995; Okun& Keith, 1998).

The potentially mixed qualities of parent-adult child relations point to a need to recognize the multiple relations experienced by most parents. Research typically operationalizes parent-child relations as individual dyads or children grouped as a composite. Lye (1996) has noted related questions regarding the appropriate unit of analysis in studies of parent-child relations. Focusing on a particular parent-child tie, or on children as an undifferentiated composite, loses information about how relations with one child fits into and is related to those with other children within a network of parent-child ties. Multiple relations include the possibility that some are positive but others are negative.

There has been attention to within-family differentiation among adult children in such areas as emotional closeness and “favoritism” (e.g., Aldous, Klaus, & Klein, 1985; Suitor & Pillemer, 2007) and the division of labor in caregiving (e.g., Matthews, 1995; Pillemer & Suitor, 2006; Szinovacz & Davey, 2007; Wolf, Freedman, & Soldo, 1997). These studies have investigated the existence of such differentiation and its predictors (e.g., gender and family size). That line of research is extended here to consider the consequences of within-family differentiation for parent well-being, applying and extending the concept of ambivalence in parent-child relations.

Parent-adult child relations have been described as being characterized by intergenerational ambivalence: “contradictions and ambiguities in relationships” (Lowenstein, 2007: S101) at social-structural and subjective-emotional levels that are reflected in a mix of solidarity and conflict, autonomy and dependence (also see Luescher & Pillemer, 1998; Pillemer & Suitor, 2005; Spitze & Gallant, 2004). This ambivalence has been operationalized as “mixed feelings” (e.g., Lowenstein, 2007), but this has largely focused on particular dyads. Ambivalence may also be extended to consider relations with multiple children. For example, not only are some children noted by parents as “favorites” (Suitor and Pillemer, 2007); Aldous, Klaus, and Klein (1985) found that parents may refer to some children as more “comforting” and others as “disappointing.” Thus, there may be collective ambivalence entailed in mixed feelings across multiple children.

Ambivalence in parent-adult child relations may be particularly pertinent to parent well-being. It has been suggested that negative interactions and feelings within social networks may affect well-being more strongly than positive interactions; that family ties are more likely than other relationships to include negative, conflictual, or unbalanced exchanges; and that negative dimensions of such close ties are a particular source of distress (Krause, 1995, 2005; Rook, 1997). Krause (1995) has suggested that negative interactions may be more likely with kin than other relationships but they are not expected, so problematic relations "stand out" when they occur. Lowenstein (2007) found negative emotions (conflict and ambivalence) in family relations to be relatively low in surveys of five countries, but both feelings of solidarity and of ambivalence predicted quality of life among older persons. Umberson (1992) found that negative aspects in the relationship had stronger associations with distress for both parents and adult children than did positive, supportive aspects. Thus, consideration of collective ambivalence across adult children, and particularly of less positive relations with some children, can be expected to contribute to an understanding of the implications of parent-adult child relations for parent well-being.

Gender Differences in Parent-Adult Child Relations

Research on parent-adult child relations must attend to gender differences. Gender is an organizing feature of family relationships, and the significance and implications of family ties likely differ for men and women. Women have been described as kinkeepers who feel stronger family obligations, maintain family bonds, and are most involved in assistance and caregiving (Bengtson, Rosenthal, & Burton, 1990; Logan & Spitze 1996; Lye, 1996; Mancini & Blieszner 1989; Moen 1996; Rossi 1993; Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997). Such family connections carry both benefits and costs, and may themselves be sources of stress (Antonucci, 1990). Pillemer and Suitor (2002), for example, have suggested that mothers feel more ambivalence in the parent-child relationship.

Gender differences in parent-adult child relations should not be oversimplified, however; Logan and Spitze (1996) have noted that they are not necessarily straightforward and evidence is not consistent. For example, they found that women received and gave more help in exchanges with adult children, but gender differences were not strong; and although having and helping children increased family burden for women but not for men, children were a potential source of distress for both. Umberson (1992) found that parent-child strains had a greater effect on mothers than fathers, but others have found similar outcomes of parent-adult child relations for mothers and fathers (Knoester, 2003; Koropeckyj-Cox, 2002).

Research Questions

This study looks explicitly at relations by parents across multiple adult children, using a dataset that assesses relations with each of multiple children within a family. The main question is: How does this contribute to understanding the implications of parent-adult child relations for parent well-being? More specifically, the literature suggests that negative relations with children may have a greater effect on parent well-being than positive relations. How does this play out across multiple children, viewed as collective ambivalence? Does it matter, for example, if the relations with any child within a network are negative, or are things “OK” as long as there are positive ties to any (perhaps “favorite”) child? We also investigate parental gender differences in these patterns. Reflecting their kinkeeping role, it can be hypothesized that parent-adult child relations, and especially negative relations and collective ambivalence, may have a greater effect on the well-being of mothers. Other variables that may be pertinent to parent-adult child relations and their consequences are also included in the analyses, including parent and family characteristics (e.g., parent age, marital status, and health; family size and gender composition)

METHODS

Sample

Data are from Wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Household, a national sample in 1987-88 of 13,017 persons aged 19 and over representing the noninstitutionalized U.S. population, with oversampling of some demographic groups (including Blacks and Hispanics) and household types (Sweet & Bumpass, 1996). The first wave has particular variety in measures of parent-child relations, and especially about each adult child, that enables a more comprehensive view of relations across multiple children.

A subsample is used, selecting respondents who had at least one adult child (aged 19 and over) and were themselves age 50 and over (N = 2,270). Age 50 is the cutoff to focus on parents in later middle age and beyond, and to focus on their relations with adult children in part by lessening the presence and implications of relations with younger children. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of parent respondents and of their adult children (N = 7,322), including: parent age, gender, and marital status; number of adult children and their gender and ages. As also noted in the table, nearly one-fourth had a coresident adult child and almost all had at least one adult child outside of their household; a minority (13%) had an adult stepchild; and only 8% had a child younger than 19 in the household.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics: parent respondents (aged 50+) and their adult children (aged 19+).

Parent characteristics (N = 2,270)
Gender:
Mothers 65%
Fathers 35%
Age:
50–59 41%
60–69 36%
70+ 23%
Marital status:
Married 59%
Widowed 26%
Separated/divorced 15%
Parents with any:
Adult child in household 22%
Adult child outside of household 94%
Adult stepchild: 13%
Younger child (< 19) in household 8%
Adult child characteristics (N = 7,322)
Number of adult children:
One 15%
2 26%
3–4 38%
5 or more 22%
Gender:
Any sons 79%
Only sons 20%
Any daughters 78%
  Only daughters 19%
Age:
Younger than 30 29%
30–39 42%
40 and older 29%
Open in a new tab

Measures

Our focus is on relations between parents and adult children and their implications for the well-being of parents. As an indicator of overall quality of parent-adult child relations, respondents were asked to “describe your relationship with each of these children” from excellent (7) to very poor (1). Parents were also asked about frequency of contact with each adult child during the prior 12 months: “how often did you see___” (from 1 = not at all to 6 = several times a week; coresident children were coded as 7 in the analyses). Parents also reported frequency of contact by letter or telephone and proximity to children. The “did you see” measure represents a deeper and more personal form of interaction, and neither letter/phone contact nor proximity exhibited much association with parent well-being, so the former is used here.

Parents were also asked about assistance to and from each adult child. Assistance from children includes: listens to my problems and provides advice; provides news about mutual friends and the family; helps out with household tasks, including transportation; provides financial assistance; and provides companionship. Assistance to children included these five dimensions plus child care. Separate indicators were created for instrumental assistance (household tasks, financial, child care) and expressive assistance (listening, news, companionship). Preliminary analyses found little difference in associations with well-being separately for giving and receiving assistance, and giving and receiving are highly correlated (indicating strong patterns of reciprocity, as well as multicollinearity); for these reasons, measures of exchange of assistance combine giving and receiving, separately for expressive and instrumental dimensions (the number of times children are named for each).

There are various options for combining information on relations across multiple children. Preliminary analyses assessed different options, including counting number of children versus whether any child was mentioned for assistance, and counts versus maximums and minimums across children on quality and interaction. Empirical patterns considered in selecting which measures to employ in subsequent analyses included distributional characteristics (e.g., skewness), intercorrelations among measures of parent-child relations (to avoid multicollinearity), and patterns of association with well-being. Indicators of parent-child quality and contact tend to be skew positively. Some measures are intercorrelated; for example, as noted above, assistance from and to children are highly correlated. Interestingly, however, quality of parent-child relations has only moderate correlations with the other dimensions of their relations (no higher than .3-.4). Finally, some approaches yielded stronger associations with well-being. For example, maximum and minimum quality of parent-child relations have more consistent associations than do counts of the number of children who are high or low in quality.

On the basis of these considerations, the following indicators of parent-child relations were selected for use in subsequent analyses: maximum and minimum quality of relations and of contact (i.e., highest and lowest reports across children), and number of children reported for exchange of expressive and of instrumental assistance (to reduce skewness, these were recoded as 0 to 5 or more). Looking at both highest and lowest quality and contact is intended to capture collective ambivalence of both positive and negative (or, perhaps more accurately given the patterns, less positive) relations across multiple children. As will be noted, collective ambivalence is also addressed by looking at the extent to which relations by parents across their adult children combine both higher and lower levels of quality or contact with different children.

Presentation of results first summarizes patterns of parent-adult child relations when viewed across multiple children. The main focus, however, is on associations of parent-child relations with parent well-being, using two indicators: global happiness, “taking things all together, how would you say things are these days” (1 = very unhappy to 7 = very happy, mean = 5.5); and a composite of 12 items assessing depression included in a “list of the ways you might have felt or behaved during the past week” (aggregated number of days, mean = 13.0).

Multivariate analyses of parent well-being include as controls variables that may affect parent-adult child relations and parent well-being. These include parent characteristics: age, race-ethnicity (dummy variables for Black and for Hispanic), marital status (a dummy variable for married), health (self-reported from 1 = very poor to 5 = excellent), and education (# of years) as an indicator of social class. Family characteristics include: family size (number of adult children), the presence of a child younger than 19, gender composition of adult children (dummy variables for sons only and daughters only, with both sons and daughters as the omitted category), and having an adult stepchild.

RESULTS

Patterns of Parent-Adult Child Relations

Assessing across multiple children yields a more comprehensive and diverse view of parent-adult child relations. Table 2 summarizes patterns for the sample as a whole and separately for mothers and fathers; more detailed information on these patterns and their predictors is presented in Ward, Spitze, and Deane (2007). Viewed across all of a respondent’s adult children, the table presents selected information on: the highest reported quality (a 7 reported for any child) and lowest quality (less than 7 for any child); the highest reported interaction (more than weekly for any child) and lowest interaction (less than weekly for any child); and whether any child is named for giving or receiving expressive or instrumental assistance. As described below, the table also presents frequencies of parents’ reported mixed patterns of quality and interaction across children (i.e., higher for some children but lower for others).

Table 2.

Summaries of parent-child relations for total sample and by parent gender (cells report percentage of Rs).

Parent gender
Total Men Women
Quality (maximum)a
  % any 7 83 77 87 *
Quality (minimum)a
  % any 1–4 16 17 16
  % any 5–6 21 23 20
Mixed quality
  % Higher & lower 21 17 23*
  % All lower 17 23 13*
Interact (maximum)a
  % any 6–7 (> 1/week) 58 53 61*
Interact (minimum)a
  % any 1–2 (≤ 1/yr) 31 32 31
  % any 3–4 (< weekly) 43 43 42
Mixed interaction
  % Higher & lower 47 44 49*
  % All lower 27 31 25*
Expressive aid (%)b 85 81 87*
Instrumental aid (%)b 69 64 72*
    N 2270 797 1473
Open in a new tab
a

Selected highest (maximum) and lowest (minimum) categories of quality and interaction reported across respondent’s adult children.

b

Whether any adult child named for giving or receiving expressive and instrumental assistance, respectively.

*

Gender differences statistically significant at p < .05.

Looking at “maximum” quality of relations, 83% reported “excellent” (7) relations with at least one child, reflecting the typical positive skew in such ratings; but the “minimum” measure indicates that 16% reported codes of 1–4 and another 21% reported 5–6 for at least one child. Similarly with interaction, most parents (58%) reported seeing at least one child at least several times a week (maximum), but 14% saw at least one child “not at all,” 17% only “about once a year,” and 43% less than weekly (minimum). Substantial majorities of parents reported exchanges of assistance (given or received) with adult children, with expressive more common than instrumental.

There are also indications that parents have mixed relations among their children, reflecting collective ambivalence: see “Mixed quality” and “Mixed interaction” in Table 2. For reported quality, 62% of parents report only the highest rating (7) for all of their children, but 21% report both a high rating (7) for some children and lower (1–6) ratings for other children; another 17% report only ratings lower than 7 for all of their children. For interaction, 26% see all of their children at least once a week, but 47% see some children that often and other children less often; another 27% see all of their children less than once a week.

As anticipated, mothers report higher maximum quality and interaction than do fathers, but quality and interaction minimums do not differ significantly by parent gender; and mothers are less likely to have lower quality or interaction with all of their children. Thus, mothers appear to experience more positive relations across children without also experiencing more negative relations. Mothers also report more exchanges of aid. Other analyses indicated that: larger families (more adult children) entail both more positive and more negative relations, though exchange of assistance is less sensitive to family size; sons and daughters have comparable “maximum” and “minimum” quality of relations, with mothers reporting more positive relations with both sons and daughters; and relations with adult stepchildren entail lower quality, interaction, and exchange of assistance (for details of these analyses, see Ward, Spitze, & Deane, 2007).

To summarize, incorporating information from all adult children yields a more complete view of parent-adult child relations. In particular, compared with reports for individual parent-child dyads or “averages” combined across children, assessing lowest levels of quality and contact across multiple children uncovers more indications of negative (or less positive) relations. It is apparent that mixed relations across adult children (collective ambivalence) is not uncommon for middle-aged and older parents. What are the implications of these relations for parent well-being?

Parent-Adult Child Relations and Parent Well-Being

The main focus here is the implications of the parent-adult child relations for parent well-being. Regression analyses were conducted with parent happiness and depression as dependent variables. It was anticipated that negative relations with children and collective ambivalence would be more influential than positive relations. Preliminary analyses indicated that “minimum” scores for adult child quality have stronger associations with well-being than “maximum” quality; minimum contact is also included as a parallel predictor; these measures of quality and contact are only modestly correlated (r=.34). Measures of exchange of expressive and instrumental assistance (number of children named for giving/receiving each) are also included as predictors; assistance is not directly related to ambivalence, but it is an important dimension of parent-adult child relations that may affect parent well-being, though it is not obvious whether assistance exchanges would affect well-being positively or negatively.

Table 3 presents regression results for the total sample and separately for mothers and fathers. Additional subgroup analyses were conducted by age (50–59 vs. 60+), marital status (married vs. not married), and number and gender of adult children. The latter were assessed to investigate whether relations with adult children might be more influential, for example, if there were only one or two children or only sons or daughters, as well as whether the implications of these factors differ for mothers and fathers. Those analyses are not reported in Table 3, but will be referred to in the text. As noted earlier, control variables in the analyses include parent and family characteristics.

Table 3.

Regression analyses of happiness and depression with demographic and family characteristics and parent-child relationship dimensions; total sample and by parent gender (standardized regression coefficients).

Happiness Depression
All Men Women All Men Women
Parent charac:
  Age .10* .04 .14* −.04 −.03 −.05
  Gendera .01 −.12*
  Black2 .02 .00 .03 −.01 .08* −.05
  Hispanicb .01 −.02 .04 .02 .05 −.00
  Married .17* .18* .17* −.07* −.03 −.08*
  Health .22* .25* .21* −.28* −.32* −.27*
  Education .04 .04 .04 −.08* −.06 −.09*
Family charac:
  # adult children .07* .08 .07 −.01 −.05 .02
  Young child in hhold −.02 −.04 −.01 −.00 .00 −.01
  Sons onlyc .01 −.02 .01 .01 .04 −.00
  Daughters onlyc .02 .02 .02 .00 .03 −.00
  Stepchildren .03 .05 .01 .02 .02 03
Parent−child relations:
  Quality (minimum) .12* .08 .14* −.10* −.08* −.11*
  Contact (minimum) −.01 .02 −.02 .01 −.05 .04
  Expressive aid .00 .05 −.03 −.03 −.02 −.03
Instrumental aid .00 .03 −.02 .04 −.01 .05
  N 1813 644 1169 1865 672 1193
  Adj. R2 .110* .116* .106* .137* .148* .114*
Additional analysis:d
Quality mixed (7 & 1–6) −.09* −.08 −.10* .05* .05 .05
Quality all lower (1–6) −.15* −.16* −.14* .09* .10* .08*
Contact mixed (5–7 & <5) −.01 .01 −.01 .03 .04 .02
Contact all lower (<5) −.01 .01 −.01 .07* .12* .04
Open in a new tab
a

Male=1, female=0.

b

Dummy variables with White the omitted category.

c

Dummy variables with both sons and daughters the omitted category.

d

Analyses repeated with same parent and family controls but with dummy variables for mixed and negative parent-child quality and contact (omitted categories are all quality of 7 and all contact of 5+, respectively).

*

p < .05

To begin with overall happiness, being married and having better subjective health are the most consistent predictors; this was true across all of the subgroup analyses. Of particular relevance to the focus here, however, quality of parent-child relations also exhibits a consistent albeit modest association: parents exhibit greater happiness when the lowest (minimum) quality of relations across their children is higher. Size of the coefficient for minimum quality varied some across subgroups; for example, it is somewhat higher for mothers, for older (60+) parents, and for unmarried parents. But subgroup differences are quite modest (coefficients range between .08 and .15); in particular, differences in the coefficients for mothers and fathers are not statistically significant. Further, the coefficient for minimum quality is the same for small families (one or two adult children) as for larger families, indicating that lower-quality relations with any child reduces parent well-being, even when there are multiple children that include relationships with higher quality. Contact and exchange of assistance, and the number of children, on the other hand, exhibit little association with parent happiness.

Child gender appears to play little role in these patterns of well-being. Preliminary analyses found that correlations with well-being were similar for measures of quality of relations with sons and with daughters, for both mothers and fathers. Further, gender composition of children is unrelated to happiness (Table 3); and analyses for sons-only and daughters-only families (not shown) exhibited similar patterns to those for the sample as a whole for both mothers and fathers.

Looking at patterns for depression, subjective health is again a consistent predictor. Depression is also lower for men and for married and better-educated parents. Better parent-child quality (a higher minimum rating) is associated with less depression; the magnitude of these coefficients is comparable to those for gender, marital status, and education. As with happiness, associations for parent-child quality and patterns for mothers and fathers are similar across subgroup analyses, including those respondents with only one or two adult children and those with only sons or only daughters. Also as with happiness, other measures of parent-child relations and family characteristics exhibit little association with depression. In summary, although coefficients for parent-child minimum quality with happiness and depression are not high, they are consistently significant across a variety of subgroup analyses, including parent gender and the number and gender of children. Only health, and to a lesser extent marital status, have stronger and more consistent associations with well-being.

Analyses in Table 3 were repeated using maximum quality and interaction with adult children as predictors in place of the minimum measures. Maximum quality has a somewhat stronger association with happiness than its minimum counterpart for fathers (beta = . 13* vs. .08). With that exception, however, the more positive indicators of parent-child relations exhibit weaker associations with well-being than do the minimum indicators.

To further explore the implications of negative parent-adult child relations and of collective ambivalence, the bottom of Table 3 reports findings using indicators of either mixed or consistently low quality and contact with children; each is a dummy variable, with highest quality (7) and at least weekly contact for all children, respectively, as omitted comparison groups. Those results further highlight the relevance of negative (or less positive) relations with at least some children. Compared with parents who report consistently high quality across their adult children, those who report more mixed relations and especially those who report consistently lower quality have lower happiness and higher depression. Further, low contact with all children also exhibits associations with lower well-being (depression) that were not evident in the analyses in the upper part of Table 3. Differences in coefficients in these analyses for mothers and father are not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

Parent-child ties are important and increasingly long-lasting. Parents and adult children generally report quite positive relations, and are important sources of gratification and assistance. But it was suggested here that attention is needed to parent-adult child relations as networks of multiple ties and interactions, with both positive and negative qualities and outcomes. In doing so, this paper has extended the concept of ambivalence in parent-adult child relationships to a consideration of collective ambivalence across children. Incorporating information from all adult children in assessing parent-child relations yields a more complete view, in particular illuminating a collective ambivalence of mixed and negative relations between parents and their adult children.

Looking at multiple parent-adult child relations also enables a better understanding of the implications of parent-adult child relations for parent well-being. Past research has found limited and inconsistent evidence that such relations affect well-being. Here, however, there is evidence that parent-adult child relations have a consistent, albeit modest, contribution to parent well-being. This cuts across a variety of demographic and family subgroups, including parent age and marital status and family size. It appears that perceived quality of parent-child relations matters more than their quantity (in terms of contact or exchanges of assistance). Further, more negative aspects of parent-child relations, especially lower quality with at least one child (and especially with all children), appear to be more salient than positive aspects, as Krause (1995) and Umberson (1992) have also suggested. It may not be relations with a “favorite” child that matters so much to parent well-being as do those involving less favored or more problematic children.

Parental gender differences were expected in parent-adult child relations and their implications for parent well-being, but there are both differences and similarities between mothers and fathers. Mothers report more positive quality across multiple children, as well as greater contact and exchange of assistance; but mothers do not report more negative relations. Compared with fathers, mothers’ relations with adult children appear to exhibit more benefits without more “costs,” or collective ambivalence. However, there are not significant differences between mothers and fathers in the implications of negative relations with adult children for well-being. As Logan and Spitze (1996) have noted, gender differences may not be as clear cut as often presumed; and, as here, they found that adult children were a potential source of distress for both mothers and fathers.

In addition to parent gender, the analyses reported here sought to assess the role of child gender in various ways. Previous analyses indicated that quality of relations reported by parents is similar for sons and daughters (see Ward, Spitze, & Deane, 2007). In the analyses for this paper we found that measures of relations with sons and daughters were correlated similarly with the well-being of mothers and fathers, that the gender composition of adult children was not related to parent well-being, and that patterns did not vary for sons-only or daughters-only families. Thus, the implications of relations with children for parent well-being investigated here do not appear to depend on child gender.

Some limitations of this research should be acknowledged. It relies on parent reports of parent-child relations. Parents tend to give somewhat more positive reports than children (Aquilino, 1999); thus, child reports might exhibit more mixed relations and collective ambivalence. Parents’ perspectives are more relevant here, however, for the focus on parent well-being.

This cross-sectional view cannot be unequivocal about causal ordering in the association between the quality of parent-adult child relations and parent well-being. It seems reasonable that negative relations with children (and especially with all of one’s children) reduce parental well-being; but it is plausible that causality may operate also in the other direction: parent depression or unhappiness may cause strains in parent-adult child relations, and difficult parents may alienate their children.

The data employed here were gathered 20 years ago. It is not uncommon to use such “older” data, especially with data sets as rich as the NSFH and when not addressing issues and events that be may relatively specific to particular cohorts or historical periods. Nonetheless, the salience of parent-adult child relations in the lives of both generations, and their implications for parent well-being, might vary by cohort and/or period. Gans and Silverstein (2006) have noted that historical conditions which shape the values of birth cohorts may yield variation in family values and expectations; in particular, they cite suggestions that there has been a decline in the salience of family values in American society. However, Gans and Silverstein found that although there was evidence that filial norms had weakened some between 1985 and the 1990s, later-born baby boom cohorts expressed slightly stronger norms of filial responsibility than did earlier cohorts. Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts (2002) have argued that there is more support for continued family solidarity than for a “family decline” perspective. Logan and Spitze (1996) have suggested that such factors as divorce, single parenthood, and increased longevity and widowhood may have heightened the salience of parent-child relations as the most enduring relationship. Thus, it is reasonable to anticipate that parent-adult child relations continue to affect parent-well-being now in ways that are similar to patterns in these data, with similar conceptual underpinnings.

This has also been a relatively exploratory look at the issues addressed here. Although the dataset used here is unusual in providing information about relations between parents and each of their adult children, available measures of those relations are limited in depth and variety. In particular, measurement of relationship quality rests on a single item. More direct measures are needed that assess ambivalence in both particular parent-adult child relationships and collectively across multiple children.

Analyses here have considered some of the predictors of parent-adult child relations and parent well-being. Gender differences have been a particular focus, with standard controls for parent and family characteristics incorporated in the multivariate analyses; some of these (age, marital status, and family size) were investigated further through subgroup analyses. Further research should explore in more depth the role of other factors, including the characteristics of parents, adult children, and parent-child dyads. For example, although there was some attention to child gender here, more in-depth assessment of same- and different-gender parent-child dyads is warranted. In addition, the quality of other relationships, such as marital or other social ties, may also affect parent-child relations and their consequences.

It was also suggested in the introductory discussion that parents may be affected by circumstances in the lives of adult children-- their successes or failures. These may themselves affect parent well-being independent of, or in spite of, the nature and quality of parent-child relations. They may also affect parent-child relations and thereby affect parent well-being, as Knoester (2003) has suggested that the quality of parent-adult child relations mediates links between parent and child well-being. Future work should consider the implications of child experiences, such as job promotion (or loss) and marriage (or divorce), for both parent-child relations and parent well-being.

There are other ways in which the research and issues addressed here can be extended. Luescher and Pillemer (1998) have indicated that a dynamic life-course approach is warranted for understanding ambivalence, and that ambivalence can be either a dependent or independent variable. Suitor and Pillemer (2007) note that developmental literature on young and adolescent children has found parental differentiation among children on various dimensions; parent-adult child ambivalence itself has roots in family history and early parent-child relations (Luescher & Pillemer, 1998). Thus, early parent-child relations affect subsequent within-family differentiation among adult children; for example, Suitor and Pillemer (2007) found differences between first- and last-born adult children in emotional closeness and preferences for assistance. Differences across children in adult life-course transitions and statuses, such as marital and parental status, are likely to be sources of further differentiation across children (Aldous, Klaus, & Klein, 1985; Aquilino, 1997; Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998; Knoester, 2003; Umberson, 1992).

The focus here has been the implications of within-family differentiation and ambivalence in parent-adult child relations for parent well-being. Other potential outcomes should be explored. For example, Pillemer and Suitor (2006) have investigated parent preferences for particular children as caregivers, and how this is related to variation in emotional closeness and past exchanges of assistance with children.

Recognition of multiple parent-adult child relations also directs attention to how relations with one or some children may affect relations with other children in the same family, and how these interconnecting ties affect parent-child relations and parent well-being. Modeling by Spitze, Logan, Deane, and Zerger (1994), for example, of parent-adult child exchanges suggested the existence of sibling dependence in such exchanges. Further research needs to address and bring in the effects of relations with one adult child on those with others. That was not directly addressed here, but it is the focus of current collaborative research on modeling such network interrelationships (Deane, Spitze, & Ward, 2008).

Acknowledgements

Data in this paper are from the National Survey of Families and Households, funded by grants from the Center for Population Research of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD21009) and the National Institute on Aging (AD 10266). The survey was designed and carried out by James Sweet and Larry Bumpass, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Analyses in this paper were supported in part by a grant (1 RO3 HD048451-01-A2) from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the University at Albany, Glenna Spitze, Principal Investigator, and Russell Ward and Glenn Deane, Co-Investigators.

REFERENCES

  1. Aldous J, Klaus E, Klein D. The understanding heart: Aging parents and their favorite children. Child Development. 1985;56:303–316. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajrouch K, Antonucci T, Janevic M. Social networks among blacks and whites: The interaction between race and age. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 2001;56B:S112–S118. doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.2.s112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonucci T. Social supports and social relationships". In: Binstock R, George L, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Third Edition. San Diego: Academic Press; 1990. pp. 205–226. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aquilino W. From adolescent to young adult-- A prospective study of parent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1997;59:670–686. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aquilino W. Two views of one relationship: Comparing parents’ and young adult children’s reports of the quality of intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1999;61B:858–870. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barber C. Transition to the empty nest. In: Bahr S, Peterson E, editors. Aging and the family. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1989. pp. 15–32. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bengtson V, Biblarz T, Roberts R. How families still matter: A longitudinal study of youth in two generations. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bengtson V, Rosenthal C, Burton L. Families and aging: Diversity and heterogeneity. In: Binstock R, George Linda, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Third Edition. San Diego: Academic Press; 1990. pp. 263–287. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bengtson V, Silverstein M. Families, aging, and social change: Seven agendas for 21st century researchers. In: Maddox G, Lawton MP, editors. Kinship, aging, and social change. Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics. Vol. 13. NY: Springer; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bengtson V, Biblarz T, Roberts R. How families still matter: A longitudinal study of youth in two generations. NY: Cambridge University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brubaker T. Families in later life. In: Booth A, editor. Contemporary families. Washington, DC: National Council on Family Relations; 1991. pp. 226–248. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carstenson L. Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging. 1992;7:331–338. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.7.3.331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Deane G, Spitze G, Ward R. More is less? How parent-adult child contact is influenced by family patterns. Working Paper. Albany, NY: Center for Social and Demographic Analysis, University at Albany, SUNY; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gans D, Silverstein M. Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generation. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68:961–976. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ha J, Carr D. The effect of parent-child geographic proximity on widowed parents’ psychological adjustment and social integration. Research on Aging. 2005;27:578–610. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingersoll-Dayton B, Morgan D, Antonucci T. The effects of positive and negative social exchanges on aging adults. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 1997;52B:S190–S199. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.4.s190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaufman G, Uhlenberg P. Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1998;60:924–938. [Google Scholar]
  18. Knoester C. Transitions in young adulthood and the relationship between parents and offspring well-being. Social Forces. 2003;81:1431–1458. [Google Scholar]
  19. Koropeckyj-Cox T. Beyond parental status: Psychological well-being in middle and old age. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2002;64:957–971. [Google Scholar]
  20. Krause N. Negative interaction and satisfaction with social support among older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1995;50B:P59–P73. doi: 10.1093/geronb/50b.2.p59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Krause N. Social support. In: Binstock R, George L, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. 5th Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2001. pp. 272–294. [Google Scholar]
  22. Krause N. Negative interaction and heart disease in late life: Exploring variations by socioeconomic status. Journal of Aging and Health. 2005;17:28–55. doi: 10.1177/0898264304272782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lang F, Staudinger U, Carstensen L. Perspectives on socioemotional selectivity in late life: How personality and social context do (and do not) make a difference. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1998;53B:P21–P30. doi: 10.1093/geronb/53b.1.p21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lin N, Woelfel M, Light S. The buffering effect of social support subsequent to an important life event. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1985;26:247–263. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Logan J, Spitze G. Family ties: Enduring relations between parents and their grown children. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  26. Lowenstein A. Solidarity-conflict and ambivalence: Testing two conceptual frameworks and their impact on quality of life for older family members. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 2007;62B:S100–S107. doi: 10.1093/geronb/62.2.s100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Luescher K, Pillemer K. Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later life. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1998;60:413–425. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lye D. Adult child-parent relationships. In: Hagan J, Cook K, editors. Annual review of sociology. Vol. 22. 1996. pp. 79–102. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mancini J, Blieszner R. Aging parents and adult children: Research themes in intergenerational relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1989;51:275–290. [Google Scholar]
  30. Matthews S. Gender and the division of filial responsibility between lone sisters and their brothers. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 1995;50B:S312–S320. doi: 10.1093/geronb/50b.5.s312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Moen P. Gender, age, and the life course. In: Binstock R, George L, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Fourth Edition. San Diego CA: Academic Press; 1996. pp. 179–196. [Google Scholar]
  32. Okun M, Keith V. Effects of positive and negative social exchanges with various sources on depressive symptoms in younger and older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1998;53B:P4–P20. doi: 10.1093/geronb/53b.1.p4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Olson J, Reese N, Zanna M. Expectancies. In: Higgins E, Kruglanski A, editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. NY: Guilford; 1996. pp. 211–238. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pearlin L, Aneshensel C, Mullan J, Whitlatch C. Caregiving and its social support. In: Binstock R, George L, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. Fourth Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1996. pp. 238–254. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pillemer K, Suitor J. Will I ever escape my child’s problems? Effects of adult children’s problems on elderly parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991;53:585–595. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pillemer K, Suitor J. Explaining mothers’ ambivalence toward their adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64:602–613. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pillemer K, Suitor J. Ambivalence in intergenerational relations over the life course. In: Silverstein M, Giarrusso R, Bengtson V, editors. Intergenerational relations across time and place. New York: Springer; 2005. pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pillemer K, Suitor J. Making choices: A within-family study of caregiver selection. The Gerontologist. 2006;46:439–448. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.4.439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Rook K. Positive and negative social exchanges: Weighing their effects in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 1997;52B:S167–S169. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.4.s167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Ross C, Mirowsky J, Goldstein K. The impact of the family on health: The decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52:1029–1078. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rossi A. Intergenerational relations: Gender, norms, and behavior. In: Bengtson V, Achenbaum WA, editors. The changing contract across generations. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1993. pp. 191–211. [Google Scholar]
  42. Shaw B, Krause N, Liang J, Bennett J. Tracking changes in social relations throughout late life. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 2007;62B:S90–S99. doi: 10.1093/geronb/62.2.s90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sherwood P, Given C, Given B, Von Eye A. Caregiver burden and depressive symptoms: Analysis of common outcomes in caregivers of elderly patients. Journal of Aging and Health. 2005;17:125–147. doi: 10.1177/0898264304274179. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Silverstein M, Bengtson V. Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology. 1997;103:429–460. 662. [Google Scholar]
  45. Silverstein M, Chen X, Heller K. Too much of a good thing? Intergenerational support and the psychological well-being of older parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1996;58:970–982. [Google Scholar]
  46. Spitze G, Gallant M. “The bitter with the sweet:” Older Adults’ strategies for handling ambivalence in relations with their adult children. Research on Aging. 2004;26:387–412. [Google Scholar]
  47. Spitze G, Logan J, Deane G, Zerger S. Adult children’s divorce and intergenerational relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1994;56:279–293. [Google Scholar]
  48. Suitor J, Pillemer K. The presence of adult children: A source of stress for elderly couples’ marriages? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1987;49:717–725. [Google Scholar]
  49. Suitor J, Pillemer K. Mothers’ favoritism in later life: The role of children’s birth order. Research on Aging. 2007;29:32–55. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sweet J, Bumpass L. The National Survey of Families and Households- Waves 1 and 2: Data description and documentation. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 1996. http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/home.htm. [Google Scholar]
  51. Szinovacz M, Davey A. Changes in adult child caregiver networks. The Gerontologist. 2007;47:280–295. doi: 10.1093/geront/47.3.280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Umberson D. Relationships with children: Explaining parents’ psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1989;51:999–1012. [Google Scholar]
  53. Umberson D. Relationships between adult children and their parents: Psychological consequences for both generations. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1992;54:664–685. [Google Scholar]
  54. Umberson D, Chen M. Effects of a parent’s death on adult children: Relationship salience and reaction to loss. American Sociological Review. 1994;59:152–168. [Google Scholar]
  55. Umberson D, Wortman C, Kessler R. Widowhood and depression: Explaining long-term gender differences in vulnerability. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1992;33:10–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Laningham J, Johnson D, Amato P. Marital happiness, marital duration, and the U-shaped curve: Evidence from a five-wave panel study. Social Forces. 2001;79:1313–1341. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vitiliano P, Zhang J, Scanlan J. Is caregiving hazardous to one’s physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2003;129 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.946. 946-072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Ward R, Spitze G, Deane G. The more the merrier? Multiple parent-adult child relations and well-being in later life; Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Gerontological Society of Americ; San Francisco, CA: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  59. Ward R, Spitze G. Sandwiched marriages: The implications of child and parent relations for marital quality in midlife. Social Forces. 1998;77:647–666. [Google Scholar]
  60. Weinstein M, Glei D, Yamazaki A, Ming-Cheng C. The role of intergenerational relations in the association between life stressors. Research on Aging. 2004;26:511–530. [Google Scholar]
  61. White L, Edwards J. Emptying the nest and parental well-being: Evidence from national panel data. American Sociological Review. 1990;55:235–242. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wolf D, Freedman V, Soldo B. The division of family labor: Care for elderly patients. Journal of Gerontology. 1997;52B(Special Issue):102–109. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.special_issue.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhang Z, Hayward M. Childlessness and the psychological well-being of older persons. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. 2001;56B:S311–S320. doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.5.s311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES