Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jan 7.
Published in final edited form as: Aging Ment Health. 2010 Mar;14(2):203–210. doi: 10.1080/13607860903191366

Intergenerational Financial Transfers and Mental Health: An Analysis Using SHARE-Israel Data

Anat Roll 1, Howard Litwin 1,2
PMCID: PMC3538171  NIHMSID: NIHMS428451  PMID: 20336552

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to examine the association between financial transfers from older parents to their adult children and mental health among the parents. The analysis examined the act of transfer-giving, the extent of transfers given and the purpose of the transfer in relation to depressive symptoms.

Method

The study was a secondary analysis of data gathered in the first wave of the Israeli component of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). The analysis focused upon persons from the majority Jewish elderly cohort, aged 50 years and older, who had living children (n=1795). Respondents' scores on the Euro-D Depression Scale were regressed on the three financial transfer measures, controlling for age, gender, marital status, household income, health and functional status.

Results

The findings demonstrate a significant inverse relationship between the giving of financial transfers and the number of depressive symptoms of the giver, above and beyond the effects of gender, marital status, income, health status and functional status. The extent of giving was positively related.

Conclusion

The findings support a positive association between acceptable levels of financial giving in late life and mental health. This association is explained as the result of altruistic motivations for giving. Maintenance of viable levels of income security for the older population and promotion of acceptable intergenerational transfers from them to their adult children will benefit both sides of the generational divide.

Keywords: Depression, exchange, older Jewish parents, adult children, Israel

INTRODUCTION

Mental health in late life is the product of several inter-related life course factors and events. One particular set of behaviors and practices in which older people may engage and that may contribute to their mental health is the transaction of intergenerational transfers (Attias-Donfut, 1995; Fritzell, & Lennartsson, 2005). Such transfers tend to include the giving of money (financial transfers), the provision of practical support (time transfers) and/or the delivery of other kinds of assistance, such as shared intergenerational housing (Albertini et al., 2007; McGarry, & Schoeni, 1995; Silverstein et al., 1995). The study of familial exchange across generations has expanded in recent years along with the changing of perceptions as to what it means to grow old in contemporary society. In this regard, elderly people are now increasingly being recognized as major players in the provision of resources to younger generations (Grundy, 2005; Kohli et al., 2000). However, the association between the provision of intergenerational transfers by older people and their emotional state in late life has been much less addressed in research (Litwin, 2004a). This article addresses this gap in the literature.

As noted, intergenerational transfers refer principally to the provision of time, as reflected in caregiving and the running of errands, for example, and to the provision of money between adult generations within the family, that is, the buying of gifts, the paying of loans and the giving of money for special occasions (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005a; Litwin, 2004b). Transfers may flow upwards, as for instance from grandchildren to grandparents, or downwards, from parents to their children (Lowenstein, & Daatland, 2006; Schroder-Butterfill, 2004). A part of the literature focuses on the transfers that take place between parents and their adult children. Transfers of money between parents and adult children have been found to flow mainly from the parents to the children (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005b; Fritzell, & Lennartsson, 2005). This particular type and direction of intergenerational transfer constitutes the focus of the current inquiry.

A study of financial transfers requires a multidimensional look at the phenomenon. This means taking into account not only the fact of having taken part in a transfer but also the extent of the transfer that was given and its purpose. Parents who give money to adult children may differ by the extent of the transfer given, by the purpose of the transfer or both. Among the various purposes cited for financial transfers to children, one can note the provision of money for basic needs, for the purchase of a residence, for major family events such as marriage celebrations, for payment of tuition and related study expenses and for other reasons (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005a). There is currently little reported research that addresses the extent and the purpose of financial transfer-giving.

The examination of intergenerational transfers has traditionally been carried out through the respective lens of two main theoretical perspectives—social exchange and altruism. Social exchange theory holds that individuals act on the basis of cost/ benefit calculations. Accordingly, all social interaction is seen as a reciprocal exchange of resources, even between family members. In line with this perspective, parents will provide help to adult children who have previously helped them, are helping them in the present or are expected to help them in the future. The resources provided by the parent may be seen as either payback for support already received from the children or as an investment in the child's future which, in turn, will make him or her better able to provide the parents with future help (Grundy, 2005; MacDonald & Koh, 2003).

In contrast, the altruism perspective does not see transfers as a mode of mutual exchange. Rather, altruistic giving is intended mainly to increase the well-being of the recipient. From this point of view, parents who support their adult children do so out of love and as a means to improve the children's lives. An unintended but significant outcome of altruistic giving is that the well-being of the giver—in this case, the parents—also increases (Aiyagari et al., 2002; Ploeg et al., 2004).

The study reported here examines the association between financial transfer-giving in late life, in its varying aspects, and a key facet of mental health—the presence or absence of depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms are generally grouped into four main categories. The emotional symptoms of depression include the loss of joy and a sense of emptiness, helplessness, uselessness and despair. The social symptoms of depression are a decline in the amount and quality of the relationships that one maintains. People who suffer from depression also tend to withdraw from social activities into boredom and loneliness. Cognitive symptoms of depression include low self esteem, pessimism, concentration difficulties, memory loss and recurring death thoughts. The physiological somatic symptoms of depression may include digestive problems, dizziness, tiredness and loss of hair (Blazer, 2002; Grann, 2000).

Despite the growing literature on intergenerational transfers and the extensive literature that exists on depressive symptoms, these two phenomena have rarely been combined within a single study. Moreover, the sources that do relate to the association between transfer-giving and mental health in old age suggest that the nature of this association requires further clarification. From the existing literature one might conclude a positive correlation between financial giving and mental health, a negative correlation or no correlation at all. A positive correlation might be assumed because, according to the literature, supporting another person might increase self-esteem and reinforce a sense of personal control (Liang et al., 2001; Litwin, 2004a). Hence, transfer-giving should increase personal well-being and should decrease depressive symptoms. This interpretation is further supported by the altruism perspective in which parents are seen to get satisfaction from helping their children, and in turn, strengthen their own well-being as well.

However, one can also find support for a negative correlation between financial giving and mental health. Occasionally, transfers may be accompanied by stress, disputes and anger. This occurs, for instance, when the adult child expects more help than he or she actually receives or when the siblings argue over the division of financial transfers from their parents (Chang, & Weisman, 2005; Liang et al., 2001). Such stressors can increase depressive symptoms. Two studies support this negative correlation. Davey and Eggebeen (1998) found that parents who gave more then they received felt more depressed. Kim I.K. and Kim C.S. (2003) found that parents who mainly helped their children exhibited lesser personal welfare. This was not found among the parents who mainly received help from their children. It should be noted, however, that both of these studies addressed the two kinds of transfers (time and money) and both directions of giving, from parents to children and vice versa.

Contrary to the findings presented thus far, two studies found little relation between intergenerational transfers and mental health.Liang et al. (2001) found that giving any kind of support did not directly influence the presence of depressive symptoms. The latter were determined mainly by negative interactions that occurred within the family. Litwin (2004a) found that equal reciprocal giving was indeed associated with mental health, but this pattern of exchange accounted for only a minority of the givers. Other patterns of giving (primarily giving and primarily receiving) were unrelated to the mental health outcome.

The studies reviewed thus far deal with only one aspect of the transfer phenomenon—the exchange of transfers. Two additional aspects of the phenomenon and their relation to depressive symptoms require attention—the extent of giving and the purpose of giving. The published literature hardly deals with the extent of financial giving. However, it has been suggested that larger amounts of financial transfers can be a burden on the parents and can drain their savings (Grundy, 2005). Moreover, parents who give larger amounts of money might be worried by their perceived decreased ability to financially support their children in the future (Ploeg et al., 2004). In such cases, a greater extent of giving of financial transfers may negatively correlate with the parents' mental health.

There is also almost no literature about the relationship between the purpose of the transfer and the givers' mental health. However, some hints, as to the direction of the association, may be drawn from social exchange theory and from the altruism perspective. According to social exchange theory, parents invest in their children in order to increase the return from them in the present or in the future. As noted, investing in their future may include help in acquiring higher education, funding marriage and buying a house (Attias-Donfut et al., 2005b). Helping in these particular domains should, thus, contribute to the parents' expected future returns and subsequent well-being. On the other hand, helping for other purposes, such as paying off immediate debts of adult children or funding basic needs that have no future payoff may result in decreased mental health on the part of the parents. This is because they are not seen as beneficial to the parents in the long or short run. Social exchange theory, thus, suggests a differential effect of financial transfers from parents to adult children on the formers' mental health, depending upon the purpose of the transfer.

This is not the case if the altruism perspective is invoked. As recalled, altruism maintains that helping adult children for any purpose will increase their well-being. This, in turn, should enhance the mental health of the givers—the parents. As such, the altruism perspective predicts no differential affect of financial transfers to adult children on the basis of the purpose of the transfer.

In closing, it should be noted that the association between intergenerational financial transfers and depressive symptoms may be influenced by other variables that have been found to be related to poor mental health. These variables include age, gender, marital status, income, health status and functional status. Women have more depressive symptoms than men (Cole, & Dendukuri, 2003), married people suffer fewer depressive symptoms (Mills, & Edwards, 2002) and people who earn more also report having better well-being and fewer depressive symptoms (Litwin, 2002, 2004a). As for health status, healthier people experience fewer depressive symptoms (Lee et al., 2004) and the same is true for functional status—the more disabled a person is, the more depressive symptoms he reports (Jang et al., 2004). As for age, the picture is more complex. Older age is often associated with poorer mental health (Carmel, & Bernstein, 2003). However, one study found that after controlling for health and functional status, respondents' age had a negative association with depressive symptoms (Litwin, 2002).

In sum, the purpose of the current study is to clarify the association between downstream financial transfers from parents to children and the mental health of the parents. The inquiry examines this association in relation to three separate aspects of the transfer phenomenon: the giving of transfers, their extent and their purpose. These respective components of transfer-giving are examined both separately and jointly in a combined model.

METHOD

The current analysis uses data from the first wave of the Israeli version of the Survey of Health, Aging, and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) (Börsch-Supan et al., 2005). SHARE is one of the leading contemporary surveys taking place in gerontology, and is currently being conducted in 15 countries. The survey includes questions on a large variety of aspects of the lives of those who are 50 years old and older, among them a comprehensive examination of intergenerational transfers and questions on depression and depressive symptoms.

Sample

The current analysis focuses on the veteran Jewish population within the Israeli sample, which comprises some 70% of the cohort of Israelis aged 50 and over. (The term "veteran" refers to Jewish persons who were born in the area that now constitutes the State of Israel or immigrated to it). New immigrants from the former Soviet Union after 1989, who account for 20% of the cohort, and Arab citizens of Israel who comprise about 10% are excluded from the analysis. Both of these latter groups have unique transfer characteristics and require separate analysis. Among the veteran Jewish subsample, childless respondents were also excluded insofar as the analysis addresses intergenerational familial transfers. In sum, the study sample represents Jewish-Israelis aged 50 and over who live in the community (but not in nursing homes or other institutions) and have at least one child (n=1,795).

Instruments

The SHARE survey gathers information using a computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) and a self-completion questionnaire. The data for the two main variables in this analysis, financial transfers and number of depressive symptoms, was taken from the CAPI section. In line with the literature, the financial transfers were considered on three dimensions—the act of giving, the extent of giving and the purpose of giving. The act of giving was determined on the basis of two questions: "Have you given any financial or material gift or support to any person inside or outside this household amounting to 1500 NIS or more," and if so, to whom was the transfer given? The values of the resultant dichotomous variable were (1) gave money to the children or (0) did not give money to the children.

The extent of financial transfer was assessed by the question "About how much did you give to this person altogether in the last 12 months?" The responses received ranged from 1500 NIS to 36,000 NIS. In order to avoid the effects of extreme values, the variable was recoded into a four-point scale in which (0) equaled no transfer given, and values (1) – (3) represented the sums given, in tertiles; the higher the value, the greater the transfer sum.

The purpose of giving was examined by the response to the question "What was the main reason for this assistance or gift?" Of the possible answers 11 were posed in the SHARE questionnaire, such as 'for a major family event’, 'to help with unemployment’, 'for further education’, and 'for no specific reason’. We grouped the respondents into three separate categories, as follows. The first grouping constitutes nurturing the child and includes the following items: ‘for further education’, ‘to buy or furnish a house or apartment’, ‘for a major family event’, and ‘to help with a large item of expenditure’. The second grouping of reasons was any of the other purposes cited in the questionnaire. The third grouping was comprised of respondents who cited reasons associated with both purpose categories—giving for nurturing and for other reasons. Such multiple responses were possible because the respondent could answer the question up to three times, for three different persons to whom he or she gave money. In order to allow entry of this variable into the multivariate analysis, we created three dichotomous dummy variables, one for each of the answer categories (nurturing, other reasons and both reasons). The respective purposes were measured as (1) no or (2) yes.

This differential scoring scheme allowed the simultaneous consideration of all the transfer variables within the same analytic model. Thus, for example, a respondent who gave a transfer (1), but not for the purpose of nurturing (1) is distinguished from a respondent who gave a transfer (1) for the purpose of nurturing (2). In addition, the scores reflecting the respective amounts of the transfer further differentiated respondents' transfer behavior in the multivariate model.

The other main variable employed in this study was a count of depressive symptoms. It is based upon responses to the EURO-D depression scale, originally developed as a unified tool for assessing depressive symptoms in different countries (Copeland et al., 2004; Prince et al., 1999). The EURO-D includes 16 probes which evaluate the presence of 12 depressive symptoms: depression, pessimism, death wishes, guilt, changes in sleep pattern, loss of interest, irritation, appetite changes, fatigue, decline in concentration, reduced pleasure and crying (α=0.74 in the current study sample). The current analysis considers the number of reported symptoms, from 0–12, as is appropriate for community-based samples, rather than using the scale to determine clinical depression as indicated by a standard cut-off point (3/4 symptoms) (Dewey, & Prince, 2005).

In addition, six background variables were controlled for in the analysis: age, gender, marital status, household income, health, and functional status. Age was calculated from year of birth. Gender was coded as men (1) and women (2). Marital status was recoded into a dichotomous variable, (0) not married (1) married. Household income was generated from a set of questions about income from employment, pension, private regular transfers, capital assets and rent payments received and income of other household members. The respective household incomes were divided into quintiles. Health status was assessed by respondents' self report on a scale that ranged from (1) very bad to (5) very good. Functional status was assessed by answers to the question: ‘For the past six months at least, to what extent have you been limited because of a health problem in activities people usually do?’ The answer scale ranged from (1) severely limited to (3) not limited at all. Thus, the higher the score on this variable, the better one's functional status.

Statistical analysis

The sample was first characterized using descriptive statistics. Then, correlations between each aspect of financial transfer and the number of depressive symptoms were examined using appropriate statistical procedures. Stage three of the analysis was a four-step multivariate analysis by means of ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression. In the first step, the number of depressive symptoms was regressed on the control variables. In the second step, transfer-giving was added to the procedure. The third step added the amount of the transfer and the fourth step added the purpose of the transfer. The purpose category of ‘other’ served as the reference category in the fourth round of the regression. This analytic strategy allowed consideration of the relative associations of each of the transfer variables with the depression outcome measure, taking into account the effects of the other transfer variables as well.

RESULTS

Of the 1795 respondents, some 80% were married and about 56% were women (Table 1). The average age was 64 years and the median income per household was equivalent to about 23,000 Euros. Respondents were only slightly disabled, on average, and their subjective health was rated as fair to good. Almost one-third of the respondents had transferred money to their children during the previous 12 months. One half of those who provided a financial transfer gave an equivalent of less than 2753 Euros. Most of the transfers given were either to nurture the children or to help them for other purposes. Fewer respondents helped for both reasons. As for their mental health, the average number of depressive symptoms reported by respondents was 2.9.

Table 1 .

Background characteristics, transfer variables and depressive symptoms: Univariate descriptions and bivariate associations with depressive symptoms

UNIVARIATE STATISTICS DEPRESSIVE SYMPTOMS
Variables M SD % R T F
(mean)
Age 64.20 9.72 0.19***
Gender (women) 55.5 −5.56***
Married 79.5 7.24***
Income 33,108.41 36,459.54 −0.23***a
Healthb 3.61 1.06 −0.51***
Functional abilityb 2.52 0.69 −0.45***
Gave financial transfer 31.3 9.26***
Amount given 9443.72 76,242.83 −0.18***a
Purpose of giving 16.99**
  Other 13.8 (2.31)
  Nurturing 11.3 (2.18)
  Nurturing and other 6.1 (1.92)
  Doesn't give 68.7 (3.23)
Depressive symptomsb 2.91 2.52    ---
Open in a new tab
a

Variable scores: income – 1–5 (quintiles); amount given – 0–3

b

Scale scores: health – 1–5; functional ability – 1–3; depressive symptoms – 0–12

**

p<0.01

***

p< 0.001

Table 1 also shows the results of the bivariate comparison between the control and financial transfer variables, on the one hand, and the number of depressive symptoms, on the other. The analysis showed that older age was associated with more depressive symptoms. Healthier respondents and those who functioned better had fewer depressive symptoms, as did those with higher household income. Married respondents had fewer depressive symptoms (x̄ = 2.4) compared to the unmarried ones (x̄ = 2.9) Women had more depressive symptoms (x̄ = 3.2) than men (x̄ = 2.5). As for the transfer measures, subjects who gave money to their children had fewer depressive symptoms (x̄ = 2.2) than those who did not (x̄ = 3.2). A negative association was observed between the amount of giving and the number of depressive symptoms. Finally, the purpose of giving was related to the depression outcome measure. However, post hoc analysis (not shown in the table) revealed that the ‘no transfer’ category in the purpose variable was associated with a higher number of depressive symptoms, but that the various other purposes of giving were not statistically differentiated in relation to the same outcome.

Table 2 presents the correlations between the background variables and the transfer variables. As may be seen, most of the background variables significantly correlated with the transfer variables. With increasing age, fewer respondents supported their children and at less of an extent. Women gave transfers less than men, and they gave smaller amounts. Married people tended to support their children to a greater extent than the unmarried, but there was no correlation between marital status and the giving of transfers per se. Income, on the other hand, was positively correlated with both the existence of a transfer and its extent. As for health status, healthier respondents took part in financial transfers more than those with poorer health did, and they gave larger amounts of money. This was the case for the functional status variable as well. As for the purpose of the giving, age was negatively related to nurturing, and even more so to nurturing and other purposes combined, but not to giving for other purposes only. Gender was negatively associated with two of the three purpose categories. Being married was positively related to giving for both reasons together. Income, health status and functional status, on the other hand, were all positively related to all three purpose categories.

Table 2.

Associations between background characteristics and transfer variables: Pearson correlations

GAVE
TRANSFERa 		AMOUNT
GIVENa 		PURPOSE OF GIVING
Other Nurturing Nurturing
and other
Variablesa R R R R R
Age −0.113*** −0.115*** −0.003 −0.074** −0.116***
Gender (women) −0.093*** −0.106*** −0.064** −0.027 −0.052*
Married 0.035 0.062** −0.009 −0.020 0.055*
Income 0.164*** 0.214*** 0.057* 0.074** 0.139***
Health 0.211*** 0.224*** 0.069** 0.153*** 0.106***
Functional ability 0.177*** 0.180*** 0.077** 0.110*** 0.085**
Gave transfer
Amount given 0.844***
Purpose of giving
  Other 0.594*** 0.414***
  Nurturing 0.530*** 0.440***
  Nurturing and other 0.379*** 0.453***
Open in a new tab
a

Variable scores: gender (women) – 0–1; married – 0–1; income – 1–5 (quintiles); health – 1–5; functional ability – 1–3; gave transfer – 0–1; amount given – 0–3; purpose of giving: other – 0–1; nurturing – 0–1; nurturing and other – 0–1

*

p<0.05;

**

p< 0. 01;

***

p< 0.001

Table 2 also shows the inter-relationships among the transfer variables themselves. As may be seen, the giving of transfers and the amount given were very strongly related, probably due to the equally large number of respondents in both variables who gave no transfer at all. For the same reason, all the purpose categories were associated with both the act of giving and its extent.

In order to investigate the net relationship between the main variables — financial transfer and depressive symptoms — a multi-stage multivariate analysis was carried out. The results are shown in Table 3. The column labeled Model 1 shows the net associations of the control variables with depressive symptoms. The figures show that health and functional ability were most strongly associated—the better the health and functional level, the fewer the depressive symptoms. Women had more symptoms than men. Respondents who had higher household incomes and those who were married reported less symptoms. Interestingly, the bivariate effect of age disappeared when the other background characteristics were taken into account as well. The control variables accounted for 32% of the explained variance in the outcome measure.

Table 3.

The association between transfers and depressive symptoms among older Jewish Israelis: Regression analysis

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variables B β B Β B β B β
Age 0.000 0.000 −0.001 −0.003 −0.001 −0.003 −0.001 −0.004
Gender 0.630*** 0.124 0.600*** 0.118 0.608*** 0.120 0.606*** 0.119
Married −0.318* −0.051 −0.343* −0.055 −0.344* −0.055 −0.345* −0.055
Income −0.134*** −0.075 −0.122** −0.068 −0.130** −0.073 −0.129** −0.072
Health −0.854*** −0.358 −0.836*** −0.350 −0.841*** −0.353 −0.844*** −0.354
Functional ability −0.764*** −0.209 −0.749*** −0.204 −0.749*** −0.205 −0.749*** −0.204
Gave financial transfer −0.316** −0.058 −0.634** −0.116 −0.674** −0.124
Amount given 0.179+ 0.071 0.194* 0.077
Purpose of givinga
  Nurturing 0.106 0.591
  Nurturing and other −0.138 0.579
     F 140.313*** 121.934*** 107.321*** 85.904***
     R2 0.320 0.323 0.325 0.325
     ΔR2 --- 0.003** 0.001+ 0.000
Open in a new tab
a

Variable scores: gender (women) – 0–1; married – 0–1; income – 1–5 (quintiles); health – 1–5; functional ability – 1–3; gave transfer – 0–1; amount given – 0–3; purpose of giving: other – 0–1; nurturing – 0–1; nurturing and other – 0–1 (Reference category: other)

+

p < 0.06,

*

p < 0.05,

**

p = 0.01,

***

p < 0.001

Model 2 presents the association between the giving of a financial transfer and the number of depressive symptoms, controlling for the background variables. The results show a negative association between transfer-giving and the number of depressive symptoms. The previously noted parameters of the background variables remained here as well. The addition of the transfer variable added little to the overall explained variance, but its inclusion was nevertheless significant.

Model 3 adds the extent of giving to the variables considered in the procedure. As may be seen, the extent of giving was positively associated with depressive symptoms, but its significance here was marginal. Moreover, the entry of the amount variable into the regression doubled the strength of the transfer variable, which remained negatively associated with depression. The effects of the control variables remained as they were in the previous rounds. Although the current model achieved statistical significance, the addition of the amount variable was only marginally significant.

The final model regressed the depression outcome on the entire set of study variables, including the purpose of the transfer. As noted, the dichotomous dummy variable ‘other’ served in this case as the reference category. The results show that the purpose categories were not associated with the number of depressive symptoms, and they added nothing to the explained variance. However, their entry further strengthened the negative association of transfer-giving with the number of depressive symptoms. They also strengthened the positive association of the amount of giving with the depression outcome. We note that additional analyses in which the other purpose dummy variables were substituted as the reference categories (not shown) obtained the same results.

In summary, depressive symptoms among the study population were explained mostly by health and functional status. Third in predictive strength was the practice of financial transfer to adult children. These were followed by gender, and to a lesser degree income and marital status. The extent of giving emerged as a positive predictor of depressive symptoms. However, the purpose of giving was unrelated to the depression outcome measure when the effects of the other transfer variables were taken into account as well.

DISCUSSION

The findings from this analysis demonstrate a significant inverse relationship between the giving of financial transfers and the number of depressive symptoms of the giver, above and beyond the effects of gender, marital status, income, health status and functional status. That is, those who financially supported their children reported fewer depressive symptoms irrespective of other background characteristics including household income. However, those who transferred larger amounts tended to report a greater number of symptoms. The purpose of the transfer, on the other hand, was unrelated to depressive symptoms. Stated in other words, the findings suggest a positive association between the practice of financial transfer-giving and the mental health of older adults, with the condition that parents set acceptable boundaries as to the amount of the transfer.

These findings can be explained by the tenets of altruism. As noted earlier, altruism theory holds that people support others primarily in order to contribute to the well-being of the latter and to minimize their distress. In doing so, the giver may gain personal satisfaction as well (Ploeg et al. 2004). Thus, the act of support giving may be seen to raise the self-esteem of the giver (Liang et al., 2001) and to increase his or her sense of self-control (Litwin, 2004a). As a result, the giver may experience fewer depressive symptoms.

The positive correlation found between the extent of giving and the number of depressive symptoms is in line with the literature. As noted earlier, there are only a limited number of studies on the association the extent of giving and the mental health of the parent. This literature addresses the negative aspect of the amount given, in which the transfer is seen to reduce the parents’ savings. This, in turn, increases their worries about their ability to take care of themselves and their children in the future (Liang et al., 2001; Ploeg et al., 2004). Consequently, larger amounts of financial transfer may drain the parents' mental health as well.

The findings from this analysis regarding the purpose of giving are also supported by altruism theory. As recalled, an altruism perspective does not distinguish between different reasons for giving, as the social exchange explanation tends to do. A social exchange explanation would predict an association between giving and higher well-being mainly in cases of giving for the purpose of nurturing, because nurturing is expected to result in a higher return for the giver. This would not be the case for other reasons for giving, that is, for purposes that would not engender augmented return possibilities. As was demonstrated in this analysis, the findings showed no such distinction between the respective purposes for giving in relation to the number of depressive symptoms when considered in concert with the other transfer variables. As such, the findings are further informed by the altruism perspective, and its claim that giving per se positively impacts the mental health of the givers.

In sum, the findings from the current research support the notion that intergenerational financial transfers are indeed correlated with better mental health among older parents, as is manifested by their reporting of fewer depressive symptoms. This is not the case when larger amounts are transferred. Parents who transfer larger amounts of money tend to have poorer mental health.

It must be kept in mind, however, that the question used for assessing the existence of financial transfers in this analysis relate to the giving of financial support in the previous 12 months. The study was unable to investigate transfers that might have occurred in the more distant past, even when a considerable amount was given, insofar as prior giving to adult children was not addressed in the SHARE questionnaire. In view of the demonstrated importance of recent financial giving for the mental health of older people, it would seem to be efficacious to consider the effects of past giving as well. Future research should address this topic.

The research has policy implications as well. In a period of fiscal instability due to increasing global economic difficulty, older parents may find that they have less money at their disposal with which to financially support their adult children. As the results of this study suggest, a cutback in familial intergenerational financial transfers will most probably not only diminish the welfare of the children, but may have a negative impact upon the older parents' mental health as well. Maintenance of viable levels of income security for the older population and promotion of acceptable intergenerational transfers from them to their adult children will clearly help both sides of the generational divide.

Acknowledgments

The SHARE data collection in Israel was funded by the US National Institute on Aging (R21 AG2516901), by the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (G.I.F.), and by the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The Israel Gerontological Data Center was established by a grand from the Ministry of Science and is supported by the Ministry of Senior Citizens. A scholarship given to A. Roll by the Tovali-Elkin Memorial Fund at the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem supported the analysis of the data.

References

  1. Albertini M, Kohli M, Vogel C. Intergenerational transfers of time and money in European families: Common patterns - different regimes? Journal of European Social Policy. 2007;17(4):319–334. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aiyagari SR, Greenwood J, Seshadri A. Efficient investment in children. Journal of Economic Theory. 2002;102(2):290–321. [Google Scholar]
  3. Attias-Donfut C, editor. Les solidarités entre générations. Vieillesse, familles, État. Paris: Nathan; 1995. Transferts publics et transferts privés entre générations; pp. 5–23. [Google Scholar]
  4. Attias-Donfut C, Ogg J, Wolff FC. European patterns of intergenerational financial and time transfers. European Journal of Aging. 2005a;2(3):161–173. doi: 10.1007/s10433-005-0008-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Attias-Donfut C, Ogg J, Wolff FC. Financial transfers. In: Borsch-Supan A, Brugiavini A, Jurges H, Mackenbach J, Siegrist J, Weber G, editors. Health, ageing and retirement in Europe. Mannheim: Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging; 2005b. pp. 179–185. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blazer D. Depression in late life. 3rd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  7. Börsch-Supan A, Hank K, Jürges H. A new comprehensive and international view on ageing: Introducing the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe. European Journal of Ageing. 2005;2:245–253. doi: 10.1007/s10433-005-0014-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carmel S, Bernstein JH. Gender differences in physical health and psychosocial well being among four age-groups of elderly people in Israel. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2003;56(2):113–131. doi: 10.2190/87YH-45QN-48TY-9HN8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang YM, Weisman DL. Sibling rivalry and strategic parental transfers. Southern Economic Journal. 2005;71(4):821–836. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cole MG, Dendukuri N. Risk factors for depression among elderly community subject : A systemic review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 2003;160(6):1147–1156. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.6.1147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Copeland JRM, Beekman ATF, Braam AW, Dewey ME, Delespaul P, Fuhrer R, Hooijer C, Lawlor BA, Kivela SL, Lobo A, Magnusson H, Mann AH, Meller I, Prince MJ, Reischies F, Roelands M, Skoog I, Turrina C, DeVries MW, Wilson KCM. Depression among older people in Europe: The EURODEP studies. World Psychiatry. 2004;3(1):45–49. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Davey A, Eggebeen DJ. Patterns of intergenerational exchange and mental health. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1998;53B(2):86–95. doi: 10.1093/geronb/53b.2.p86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dewey ME, Prince MJ. Mental health. In: Borsch-Supan A, Brugiavini A, Jurges H, Mackenbach J, Siegrist J, Weber G, editors. Health, ageing and retirement in Europe. Manheim: Manheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging; 2005. pp. 108–117. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fritzell J, Lennartsson C. Financial transfers between generations in Sweden. Aging and Society. 2005;25(3):397–414. [Google Scholar]
  15. Grann JD. Assessment of emotions in older adults: Mood disorders, anxiety, psychological well-being, and hope. In: Kane RL, Kane RA, editors. Assessing older persons. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp. 129–169. [Google Scholar]
  16. Grundy E. Reciprocity in relationships: Socio-economic and health influences on intergenerational exchanges between third age parents and their adult children in Great Britain. The British Journal of Sociology. 2005;56(2):233–255. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00057.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Jang Y, Poon LW, Martin P. Individual differences in the effects of disease and disability on depressive symptoms: The role of age and subjective health. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2004;59(2):125–137. doi: 10.2190/RT1W-2HD7-KG5X-K1FB. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kim IK, Kim CS. Patterns of family support and the quality of life of the elderly. Social Indicators Research. 2003;62(1):437–454. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kohli M, Künemund H, Motel A, Szydlik M. Families apart? Intergenerational transfers in East and West Germany. In: Arber S, Attias-Donfut C, editors. The myth of generational conflict: The family and state in ageing societies. London: Routledge; 2000. pp. 88–99. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee HY, Moon A, Knight BG. Depression among elderly Korean immigrants: Exploring socio-cultural factors. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work. 2004;13(4):1–26. [Google Scholar]
  21. Liang J, Krause NM, Bennett JM. Social exchange and well-being: Is giving better than receiving? Psychology and Aging. 2001;16(3):511–523. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.16.3.511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Litwin H. Examination of the association of age, disability, and mood among Jewish older adults in Israel. Aging and Mental Health. 2002;6(4):397–401. doi: 10.1080/1360786021000007018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Litwin H. Intergenerational exchange and mental health in later-life: The case of older Jewish Israelis. Aging and Mental Health. 2004a;8(3):196–200. doi: 10.1080/13607860410001669723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Litwin H. Intergenerational exchange patterns and their correlates in an aging Israeli cohort. Research on Aging. 2004b;26(2):202–223. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lowenstein A, Daatland SO. Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-national context: Evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing and Society. 2006;26(2):203–223. [Google Scholar]
  26. MacDonald M, Koh SK. Consistent motives for inter-family transfers: Simple altruism. Journal of Family and Economic Issues. 2003;24(1):73–97. [Google Scholar]
  27. McGarry K, Schoeni RF. Transfer behavior in the Health and Retirement Study: Measurement and the redistribution of resources within the family. Journal of Human Resources. 1995;30:S184–S226. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mills TL, Edwards CDA. A critical review of research on the mental health status of older African-Americans. Aging and Society. 2002;22(3):273–304. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ploeg J, Campbell L, Denton M, Joshi A, Davies S. Helping to build and rebuild secure lives and futures: Financial transfers from parents to adult children and grandchildren. Canadian Journal on Aging Supplement. 2004;23(suppl. 1):s113–s125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Prince MJ, Reischies F, Beekman ATF, Fuhrer R, Jonker C, Kivela SL, Lawlor BA, Lobo A, Magnusson H, Fichter M, Van Oyen H, Roelands M, Skoog I, Turrina C, Copeland JRM. Development of the EURO-D scale: A European Union initiative to compare symptoms of depression in 14 European centres. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;174:330–338. doi: 10.1192/bjp.174.4.330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Schroder-Butterfill E. Inter-generational family support provided by older people in Indonesia. Ageing and Society. 2004;24(4):497–530. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X0400234X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Silverstein M, Parrott TM, Bengtson VL. Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters to provide social support to older parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1995;57(2):465–475. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES