Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Marriage Fam. 2015 Mar 16;77(3):791–805. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12185

Intergenerational Exchanges of Middle-Aged Adults With Their Parents and Parents-In-Law in Korea

Kyungmin Kim *, Steven H Zarit *, Karen L Fingerman **, Gyounghae Han ***
PMCID: PMC4414260  NIHMSID: NIHMS660767  PMID: 25937670

Abstract

The authors investigated patterns of support exchanges between Korean adult children and their parents and parents-in-law, gender differences in these patterns, and implications of children’s marital quality for exchange patterns. Data were from a nationally representative sample of married adults (N = 920, age 30–59 years) with at least 1 living parent and 1 living parent-in-law. Latent class analysis was applied to 12 indicators of exchanges (financial, instrumental, emotional support given to and received from parents and parents-in-law). Five classes of exchanges were identified, 3 showing balanced patterns of exchanges with parents and parents-in-law across three types of support and 2 classes with unbalanced patterns (e.g., giving instrumental and financial, but not emotional support). The findings revealed variability in intergenerational exchange patterns, with a mix of patrilineal traditional and balanced patterns. Significant associations of exchange patterns with adult children’s marital quality suggest the importance of balanced exchanges with parents for marriage.

Keywords: Asian families, in-laws, intergenerational relations, latent class analysis, marital quality, social support

The Western literature on intergenerational exchanges has focused on support that is exchanged with one’s own parents, but both parents and parents-in-law are central in the lives of married adult children (Bryant, Conger, & Meehan, 2001; Fingerman, Gilligan, VanderDrift, & Pitzer, 2012; E. Lee, Spitze, & Logan, 2003). Many married adults exchange various types of support with both sets of parents, and those exchanges play an important role in both older parents’ and adult offspring’s well-being (Chu, Xie, & Yu, 2011; Cong & Silverstein, 2008). Given the competition for and depletion of resources that an individual can provide, it is critical to take into account help given to each set of parents and the dynamics between marital partners when dividing their time and energy (Davey, Janke, & Savla, 2004). Studies have included in-laws mainly when caregiving for older parents was involved (Henz, 2009; Ingersoll-Dayton, Starrels, & Dowler, 1996; Szinovacz & Davey, 2008). We know relatively little about how adult children exchange routine assistance with their own parents and parents-in-law and whether there are variations in the amount of support given depending on children’s and parents’ or in-laws’ characteristics (E. Lee et al., 2003; Shuey & Hardy, 2003). Moreover, support that middle-aged adults receive from both parents and parents-in-law has been ignored.

Korea provides a particularly important cultural setting to examine support exchanges involving both parents and parents-in-law. Asian countries (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea) traditionally have a patrilineal family system; that is, sons are expected to provide primary support for their older parents (often via their wife’s provision of instrumental support to in-laws), whereas married daughters tend to provide only supplementary support for their own parents through emotional connections (Feldman, Tuljapurkar, Li, Jin, & Li, 2007; Lin et al., 2003). Thus, because daughters-in-law are more important sources of practical assistance and care for their elderly parents-in-law than daughters, studies on Asian families have paid considerable attention to in-law relationships (Y.-B. Lee, 2011; Cong & Silverstein, 2008).

However, with demographic and economic changes, many Asian countries have undergone transformations in the traditional patterns of family structures and norms regarding gendered patterns in support given to older parents (Zhan & Montgomery, 2003; Zhang, 2009). For example, a study in urban areas of China showed that married daughters provided more financial support to their own parents than married sons did. This significant gender difference was explained by daughters’ increased education and income (Xie & Zhu, 2009). A study in Korea found that married adults did not reside closer to the husband’s parents on average; rather, married adults lived a similar distance from the husband’s and wife’s parents (Han & Yoon, 2004). These findings suggest that the nature of intergenerational exchanges based on the patrilineal tradition may not be evident in Korea today. Yet few empirical investigations have taken into account exchanges with parents and parents-in-law simultaneously in Korean society. Korea is among the fasting growing economic powers in East Asia today (Chang & Song, 2010; Park, Phua, McNally, & Sun, 2005), and it has the highest rate of college attendance in the world (Korean Education Development Institute, 2010). As such, marital couple’s exchanges with the older generation may be in flux because of recent educational and economic growth.

It is also important to consider support provided and received. Many studies have examined help and support given to or received from parents and parents-in-law. By focusing solely on one direction of exchanges, researchers have obtained a limited view of all the exchanges within the family and ignored the role that reciprocity may play in these exchanges (Akiyama, Antonucci, & Campbell, 1997; Silverstein, Conroy, Wang, Giarrusso, & Bengtson, 2002). Previous studies have also tended to view different types and directions of support exchanged between parents and parents-in-law in isolation of one another, that is, examining instrumental support provided by grown children to aging parents or financial support provided by parents to grown children. An emerging perspective, however, emphasizes the multidimensionality and complexity of intergenerational relationships and incorporates multiple dimensions to characterize family typologies (e.g., Hogan, Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993; Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997; Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006). A family typology approach that combines multiple dimensions of intergenerational exchanges would allow us to examine how each couple may balance and arrange their needs and resources between parents and parents-in-law while also taking into account the support the couple receives.

This approach may be particularly important to understanding Korean families. In keeping with Confucian ideals of filial piety, traditional Korean values emphasize support provided by adult offspring to their parents (K. Kim, Cheng, Zarit, & Fingerman, 2015). Recent studies with nonrepresentative samples have suggested that many Korean parents are providing considerable support to grown children (Fingerman et al., 2014), but it is not clear whether offspring reciprocate that support. Therefore, examination of support that grown children give and receive may reveal complex patterns not evident in studies that simply examine one direction of support (i.e., from parents to children or from children to parents).

Using latent class analysis (LCA), in this study we examined three types of intergenerational support (i.e., financial, emotional, and instrumental) that Korean married adults give to and receive from both their parents and parents-in-law. We focused on how married adult offspring balance the two sets of parents and how the exchange pattern with parents and parents-in-law differs by offspring’s gender. We also examined how these patterns of intergenerational exchanges are associated with adult children’s marital quality.

Support Exchanges With Parents and Parents-in-Law

Several theoretical perspectives have guided studies on support exchanges in adulthood such as reciprocity, altruism, and solidarity, which explain “why” parents and offspring exchange help and assistance (Bianchi, Hotz, McGarry, & Seltzer, 2008; Fingerman et al., 2011). Although individual motives, needs, and resources for family support are important in determining the amount and pattern of exchanges, cultural beliefs concerning filial obligations also shape family role expectations (e.g., son, daughter, and daughter-in-law), which in turn affect what help they give to and receive from whom. Thus, when married adult children decide how to balance their exchanges with both sets of parents, they take into account a culturally prescribed hierarchy of obligations among kin (K. Kim et al., 2015; Rossi & Rossi, 1990).

Regarding cultural prescriptions for intergenerational exchanges, studies in the United States have shown that adult children give greater priority of their time and resources to their own parents than parents-in-law and have a matrilineal preference in assisting aging parents (Chesley & Poppie, 2009; E. Lee et al., 2003; Shuey & Hardy, 2003). Unlike Western societies, however, Korean families have traditionally emphasized strong filial obligations of sons and their families (Ok, 2011). In a patrilineal culture, a son and his wife are expected to be the primary providers of support and care for aging parents, whereas daughters are regarded as belonging to other families after getting married and thus have no obligations toward their own parents (Feldman et al., 2007). Also, within a patrilineal family system wives are obliged to provide instrumental support to their parents-in-law, which is derived from a gendered division of labor and a Confucian family ideology (J. S. Choi, 1975; Lin et al., 2003). These cultural expectations for filial obligations have exerted a strong effect on the nature and structure of intergenerational exchanges and may account for differences in patterns of exchange between Western and Asian families (Antonucci & Jackson, 2003). Traditional Korean families would be expected to fit a typology in which the husband’s parents receive considerable support and the wife’s parents receive little (if any) support.

Intergenerational Support Exchanges in Contemporary Korean Families

In recent decades, Korea has undergone rapid demographic (e.g., low fertility and aging population) and socioeconomic (e.g., increased women’s labor force participation) transitions that have challenged cultural traditions of intergenerational exchange (Chang & Song, 2010; Park et al., 2005). Studies have documented a substantial decline in patrilineal coresidence of Korean parents with eldest son and his family (C.-S. Kim & Rhee, 1997). Recent studies also report that the number of married couples who live close to the wife’s parents and get daily assistance with child care is increasing, particularly for dual-earner couples (S. Choi, Lee, & Kim, 2003).

Some researchers have argued that these changes in the level of intergenerational contact/coresidence and emotional ties represent bilateralization of kinship ties in Korean families (Cho, 1997; Han & Yoon, 2004), that is, a more balanced set of relationships with parents and parents-in-law. However, it may not be culturally sensitive to regard these changes as movement toward bilateral relationships similar to Western societies. Rather, the pattern of support exchanges in contemporary Korean families may be more complex, revealing a mix of patrilineal traditions and strategic responses to social/economic circumstances (Han & Yoon, 2004; Ok, 2011). For example, a small study (S.-Y. Kim, 2002) reported that adult children were more likely to receive financial support from a husband’s parents but were more likely to receive emotional and practical help from the wife’s parents. Another study that examined only women (Y.-B. Lee, 2011) found that married women received help with chores and child care from both sets of parents at similar levels, but the obligatory expectation to provide more support to husbands’ parents remained. Thus, these exchanges differed by the type and direction of support and formed a more complicated pattern, which cannot be accounted for by the patrilineal tradition or bilateral change. These patterns may represent a strategic advance in response to economic challenges, which make it advantageous for parents and parents-in-law to give support to children, even after marriage, so they can achieve higher educational and economic status (Han & Yoon, 2004; Pimentel & Liu, 2004). It is not clear, however, how much variability exists in the cultural practices regarding intergenerational exchanges in Korean families—how many families follow patrilineal patterns, matrilineal patterns, or respond equally to parents and parents-in-law.

Intergenerational Exchanges and Marital Quality

Studies comparing parents and parents-in-law have generally examined effects of parents’ and children’s sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, education, and income) on intergenerational exchanges (Chesley & Poppie, 2009; E. Lee et al., 2003; Shuey & Hardy, 2003). Although needs and resources of parents/children are important in determining the amount of exchanges between generations (Davey et al., 2004), these factors may not incorporate dynamics of married couples who split their limited resources between two sets of parents.

We know relatively little about the association of marital quality and intergenerational support (Amato, Rezac, & Booth, 1995). Many studies have examined the impact of marital instability of parents and children (e.g., divorce or remarriage) on transfers of support across generations (e.g., Furstenberg, Hoffman, & Shrestha, 1995; Pezzin, Pollak, & Schone, 2008), but the primary focus of such studies has been on the consequences of differences in marital status rather than marital quality. Another set of studies focuses specifically on caregiving and generally finds that caregiving for a parent is associated with lower marital quality (Bookwala, 2009; Suitor & Pillemer, 1994). These studies consider marital quality as an outcome because it is assumed that the demands placed on adult children caring for a parent will take time away from their marriage. In routine situations where care for older parents is not involved, however, marital quality has shown little association with support exchanges with parents (Amato et al., 1995; J. E. Lee, Zarit, Rovine, Birditt, & Fingerman, 2012; Ward & Spitze, 1998). In part, these inconsistent results for marital quality may be related to the fact that studies of routine exchanges considered only a child’s own parents, whereas caregiving studies have included in-law relationships.

Given that relationships with parents-in-law are acquired through marriage, the marital quality of adult offspring may have an effect on the pattern of intergenerational exchanges between parents and parents-in-law (Pimentel, 2000). Research on caregiving suggests that adult offspring tend to provide support to their parents-in-law out of obligation to their spouse, rather than an emotional bond to their in-laws (Peters-Davis, Moss, & Pruchno, 1999; Willson, Shuey, & Elder, 2003). Thus, adult children who are happier with their marriage may exchange more support with their parents-in-law. Conversely, married adults with greater conflict and lower marital quality may give less support to parents-in-law, reflecting their weakened emotional connection to the spouse and his or her parents (Willson et al., 2003).

However, the associations between marital quality and exchange patterns may differ by gender. Korean families, in particular, traditionally are stratified by gender (Ok, 2011). As described previously, providing assistance and care to parents-in-law has been regarded as a wife’s duty, so wives’ exchanges with parents-in-law may not be affected by marital quality in a traditional marriage. In contrast, husbands’ exchanges with parents-in-law might be more closely associated with marital quality because such support may be regarded as optional.

Other Factors Associated With Exchanges With Parents/Parents-in-Law

In examining exchange patterns with parents and parents-in-law, we considered offspring’s characteristics as controls: age, education, income, employment status, number of children, and number of siblings. Older children give more support to parents because their needs decrease as a function of age while parental needs for help increase (Zarit & Eggebeen, 2002). Given generational differences in family values, older children also may be more influenced by the patrilineal tradition (Park et al., 2005). Education and income of adult children are related to increased assistance to parents, particularly financial support (McGarry & Schoeni, 1997). In addition, offspring with more education have egalitarian attitudes regarding family relationships, which may lead to balanced patterns in supporting parents and parents-in-law. When adult children are employed or have more children, they need more practical assistance from parents/in-law, such as child care and housework (Chesley & Poppie, 2009; Chu et al., 2011). For women, employment status also implies a wife’s increased status and greater power to interact more with her own parents rather than her in-laws (Henz, 2009; Pimentel & Liu, 2004). Studies have found that the number of siblings has negative associations with the likelihood for adult children to provide care to parents as well as receive support from parents (Fingerman, Miller, Birditt, & Zarit, 2009; Wolf, Freedman, & Soldo, 1997). We also controlled for geographic distance between adult children and their parents and parents-in-law. Living away from parents/parents-in-law constrains the giving and receiving of help with daily activities, although it does not affect exchanges of financial or emotional support (Guo, Aranda, & Silverstein, 2009).

In the present study we extended previous research by examining (a) a large nationally representative sample of Korean married adults, (b) multiple types of support (i.e., emotional, instrumental, and financial), and (c) the balance of giving and receiving each type of support with both sets of parents (i.e., own parents and parents-in-laws). We also considered the implication of offspring’s marital quality for patterns of exchanges with parents and parents-in-law.

We examined three questions. First, among married adult children who have both living parents and parents-in-law, how do they exchange different types of support (e.g., emotional, instrumental, and financial support) with both sets of parents (e.g., parents and parents-in-law)? Using a typology approach, we identified the latent classes of intergenerational support that Korean married adults exchange with their parents and parents-in-law. Regarding the number of classes, prior work has found four or five classes in intergenerational relationships depending on the types of relationship characteristics examined (e.g., harmonious, discordant, affective but distant, obligatory, and ambivalent; Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997; Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006) and exchanges (e.g., low, high, giving, and receiving; Hogan et al., 1993). However, because those studies have focused on relationships with respondents’ own parents, we expected that considering both parents and parents-in-law may result in a different number of classes in the intergenerational pattern. We expected to find both balanced and unbalanced patterns of exchanges between parents and parents-in-law.

Second, we examined differences in the patterns of exchanges with parents and parents-in-law by gender of adult offspring. Considering the obligatory roles of daughters-in-law in traditional patrilineal cultures as well as women’s role in kin-keeping, we expected that gender differences in unbalanced patterns (i.e., exchanges only with own parents or parents-in-law) would be evident more often than in balanced exchanges.

Third, we examined associations of the patterns of intergenerational exchanges between parents and parents-in-law with the marital quality of adult offspring. We hypothesized that adult offspring with better marital quality would show more balanced patterns of exchanges between parents and parents-in-law. We also expected that the associations between offspring’s marital quality and support exchange patterns differ by gender, showing that men’s exchange patterns are more affected by their marital quality than women’s.

Method

Sample

We analyzed data from the study titled “Successful Midlife Development: Mental Health and Work/Family Life Course in Korea and the United States” (Han, Lee, Ok, Ryff, & Marks, 2002), which collected Korean samples using measures similar to those used in the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (Brim, Ryff, & Kessler, 2004). Through a multistage stratified random sampling procedure, the initial sample of adults age 30–59 was selected in 16 municipal cities and provinces in the Korea, excluding Jeju island. Trained interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews in respondents’ homes. The first round of the survey was conducted in November and December of 2000 on 1,500 persons in their 30s, 40s, and 50s in proportion to the ratio of population, but the number of respondents in their 50s was judged not to be enough for comparison with the national population. Thus, 167 additional people in their 50s were added in 2001, resulting in a final sample of 1,667. For the present study, we used a sample of 920 individuals who were married and had at least one living parent and one living parent-in-law. Excluded were people who were not married (n = 162) and participants who did not have at least one living parent and one living parent-in-law (n = 568). Finally, 17 participants were excluded from the analysis because of missing data on support indicators and covariates.

Measures

Support Exchanges

We measured three types of support: (a) financial, (b) emotional, and (c) instrumental. Participants provided separate ratings of how frequently they gave each type of support to their parents and to their parents-in-law as well as how frequently they received that type of support from them. Ratings of support given and received were made on a 4-point scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (often). To apply LCA, which is based on a contingency table of categorical variables, the original scales of support exchanges were dichotomized to ensure a manageable number of cells in the data matrix: yes (combining two answer categories, “sometimes” and “often”) and no (combining two answer categories, “not at all” and “rarely”).

Covariates

Three sets of covariates were selected for their potential effects on the pattern of intergenerational exchanges: (a) demographic characteristics of participants, (b) geographic distance of participants’ residence from parents and parents-in-law, and (c) marital quality. Except for distance between residences, we could not use other characteristics of parents/parents-in-law in our analysis (e.g., marital status, health, income, and relationship quality), because that information was available only for respondents’ parents. Descriptive statistics of the covariates appear in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary for Participants’ Characteristics (N = 920)

Characteristic M SD Range
Demographic characteristics
  Age 39.18 6.33 30–58
  Women (%) 46.6
  Educationa 3.31 0.67 1–4
  Household incomeb 268.73 287.45 0–5,310
  Employment status
    Own employed (%) 80.8
    Spouse employed (%) 51.2
  Number of children 1.90 0.76 0–6
  Number of siblings 4.32 1.84 0–10
Geographic distancec
  From parents 2.82 1.28 0–5
  From parents-in-law 2.81 1.26 0–5
Marital quality
  Spousal supportd 2.94 0.50 1–4
  Spousal straine 1.94 0.53 1–4
Open in a new tab
a

Rated on a 4-point scale that ranged from 1 (elementary school and under) to 4 (college and above).

b

Units of 10,000 Won (Korean currency). At the time of this writing, 10,000 Won ≈ 9.24 USD.

c

Rated on a 6-point scale that ranged from 0 (live together) to 5 (live overseas).

d

Rated on a 4-point scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot).

e

Rated on a 4-point scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 4 (often).

Demographic characteristics

Seven characteristics of participants were considered as controls: gender, age, education, household income, employment status of respondent and his or her spouse, number of own children, and number of siblings. Gender was dummy coded 1 for women and 0 for men, and age was measured as chronological years. Education was measured on a 4-point scale: 1 (elementary school and under), 2 (middle school), 3 (high school), and 4 (college and above). Participants indicated their monthly household income from all sources (units of 10,000 Won, Korean currency [≈ 9.24 USD]). Because of skew in the income variable (skewness = 10.83, SE = 0.08), we used the log-transformed scores for income in analyses. Employment status of participants and their spouse was dummy coded respectively (1 = employed, 0 = not employed). We also assessed the numbers of living children and siblings that participants had.

Geographic distance from parents/parents-in-law

We assessed geographic distance from parents and parents-in-law on a 6-point spatial scale: 0 (live together), 1 (within the same neighborhood), 2 (within the same city), 3 (within the same province), 4 (in different province), and 5 (live overseas). This ordinal scale for geographic distance from relatives reflects how people in Korea experience geographic distance (Park, Kim, & Kojima, 1999).

Marital quality

Two dimensions of marital quality were assessed: (a) spousal support and (b) strain (Schuster, Kessler, & Aseltine, 1990; Walen & Lachman, 2000). Spousal support was measured by six items: (a) “How much does your spouse really care about you?”, (b) “How much does he or she understand the way you feel about things?”, (c) “How much does he or she appreciate you?”, (d) “How much do you rely on him or her for help if you have a serious problem?”, (e) “How much can you open up to him or her if you need to talk about your worries?”, and (f) “How much can you relax and be yourself around him or her?” Responses were rated on a 4-point scale that ranged from 1 (a lot) to 4 (not at all), and then reverse coded so that higher scores indicate higher support from a spouse. Mean scores of six items were calculated (α = .84).

Six items assessed spousal strain: (a) “How often does your spouse make too many demands on you?”, (b) How often does he or she argue with you?”, (c) “How often does he or she make you feel tense?”, (d) “How often does he or she criticize you?”, (e) “How often does he or she let you down when you are counting on him or her?”, and (f) “How often does he or she get on your nerves?” These items were answered on a 4-point scale that ranged from 1 (often) to 4 (never). Items were also reverse coded so that higher scores reflect higher strain with spouse. Mean scores of six items were calculated (α = .88).

Analytic Strategy

To classify patterns of intergenerational support, we conducted LCA, which posits that an underlying grouping variable (i.e., a latent class variable) is not observed but can be inferred from a set of categorical indicators (Collins & Lanza, 2010). In LCA, multiple dimensions of a certain behavior or phenomenon can be incorporated into a latent class, rather than treating each dimension individually. Prior studies have used LCA to investigate the structure of intergenerational relationships/exchanges between adult children and parents (Hogan et al., 1993; Park et al., 2005; Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997; Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006). We expanded this literature by considering support exchanges with both parents and parents-in-law.

The LCA analysis used 12 indicators of support exchanges: two directions of support flow (i.e., giving and receiving) × three types of support (i.e., financial, emotional, and instrumental) × two sets of parents (i.e., own parents and parents-in-law). The contingency table of the 12 indicators was analyzed, using the SAS PROC LCA in which maximum-likelihood parameter estimates are obtained through an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm (Collins & Lanza, 2010).

LCA is a model-based procedure, which means that models with different numbers of latent classes can be compared by several goodness-of-fit statistics, such as the likelihood ratio chi-square test statistic (G2), the Akaike Information Criterion, the Bayesian Information Criterion, and bootstrap likelihood ratio tests. On the basis of these statistics, the optimal number of latent classes was determined, considering parsimoniousness and interpretation of model. In addition, LCA provides two kinds of parameter estimates: (a) class membership probabilities (γc) and (b) item response probabilities (ρi|c). Class membership probabilities represent the proportion of a population expected to belong in each latent class. Item response probabilities reflect the probability of different responses to the items, conditional on latent class membership, providing a basis for assigning meaningful labels to each class.

After latent classes were determined, we examined the relations of covariates (i.e., adult children’ demographics, geographic distance from parents/parents-in-law, and marital quality) to class membership. We conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses for men and women separately.

Results

Latent Patterns of Support Exchanges With Parents and Parents-in-Law

First, we compared models with different numbers of latent class to select a model with the optimal balance of fit (see Table 2). Comparison of model fit statistics revealed that a five-class model was optimal. Thus, adding more classes to the model did not show significant improvements of the model fit.

Table 2.

Model Fits of Latent Class Models of Support Exchanges With Parents and Parents-in-Law

Number of
class (k)		 Likelihood
ratio (G2)		 df AIC BIC Entropy BLRT
p value
2 2,861.04 4,070 2,911.04 3,031.65 .77 .00
3 2,500.46 4,057 2,576.46 2,759.78 .77 .00
4 2,214.08 4,044 2,316.08 2,562.13 .79 .01
5 2,044.77 4,031 2,172.77 2,481.53 .82 .01
6 1,951.15 4,018 2,105.15 2,476.62 .81 .06
7 1,900.21 4,005 2,080.21 2,514.40 .82 .77
Open in a new tab

Note. Boldface type indicates the selected model. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; BLRT = bootstrapped likelihood ratio tests (comparison with a (k − 1) class model).

The results of the five-class model, including the class membership probabilities and item response probabilities, are summarized in Table 3. Because the primary focus of this study was on how adult children balance exchanges of three types of support (i.e., emotional, instrumental, and practical) between parents and parents-in-law, classes were first distinguished into balanced and unbalanced patterns on the basis of whether the pattern of exchanges was similar between parents and parents-in-law. Three classes revealed balanced patterns between parents and parents-in-law (60%), and two classes reflected unbalanced patterns (40%).

Table 3.

Membership Probabilities and Item Response Probabilities of the Five-Latent Class Model

Variable Total
yesa (%)		 Balanced pattern Unbalanced pattern
Class 1:
High
exchanges
with both sets
of parents
(across all
types
of support)		 Class 2:
Low exchanges
with both sets
of parents
(across all
types
of support)		 Class 3:
Giving
exchanges
with both sets
of parents
(across all
types
of support)		 Class 4:
Exchanges
only with
own parents
(across all
types of
support)		 Class 5:
Moderate/high
exchanges
with own
parents
but, obligatory
exchanges
with parents-
in-lawb
Class membership probability (γc)
Total .16 .21 .23 .23 .17
  Men .16 .22 .20 .43 .00
  Women .16 .20 .28 .01 .36
Item response probability (ρi|c)
Parents
  Financial support given 57.0 .74 .30 .64 .71 .46
  Financial support received 35.4 .65 .11 .27 .32 .56
  Emotional support given 63.0 .94 .07 .75 .68 .83
  Emotional support received 57.1 .96 .09 .57 .56 .85
  Instrumental support given 47.6 .92 .09 .33 .71 .45
  Instrumental support received 34.0 .93 .02 .05 .39 .55
Parents-in-law
  Financial support given 50.2 .78 .27 .65 .28 .63
  Financial support received 28.8 .64 .12 .42 .15 .16
  Emotional support given 42.9 .94 .04 .93 .12 .19
  Emotional support received 35.2 .91 .04 .75 .11 .03
  Instrumental support given 41.9 .88 .13 .56 .15 .53
  Instrumental support received 28.2 .84 .06 .37 .14 .12
Open in a new tab
a

Coded 1 (yes) for “sometimes” and “often” and 0 (no) for “rarely” and “not at all.”

b

Class 5 has moderate/high exchanges for all types of support with own parents, and moderate provision of instrumental and financial support to parents-in-laws, but low exchanges of emotional support.

The first class of balanced pattern was labeled high exchanges with both sets of parents (16%). Adult children in this class were likely to give and receive all three types of support frequently with both parents and parents-in-law. The second class of balanced pattern was labeled low exchanges with both sets of parents (21%). Adult children in this class had low exchanges of support with both parents and parents-in-law, particularly for instrumental and emotional support; the probabilities of giving financial support to parents and parents-in-law were at a moderate level (i.e., .30 and .27, respectively). The third class of balanced pattern was labeled giving exchanges with both sets of parents (23%) because it shows a pattern of giving to both sides of parents more than receiving from them for all three types of support.

Among unbalanced patterns, the first class was labeled exchanges only with own parents (23%). Adult children in this class showed moderate levels of exchanges with own parents but very low levels of exchanges with parents-in-law for all three types of support. The second unbalanced pattern was labeled moderate/high exchanges with own parents but obligatory exchanges with parents-in-law (17%). Adult children in this class had high exchanges of emotional support and moderate exchanges of financial and instrumental support with own parents but gave only tangible forms of support (i.e., financial and instrumental) to parents-in-law, without providing emotional support. Moreover, they received low support back from their parents-in-laws for all three types of support. This pattern represents a typical obligatory pattern of exchanges with parents-in-law, with high levels of tangible support given to in-laws but low levels of emotional support exchanged between the parties.

Gender Differences in Membership Probabilities of Latent Class

To examine how probabilities of being a member of each class differ by gender of adult offspring, we added gender to the five-class model as a grouping variable, with measurement invariance held across gender (see top rows in Table 3). Men and women were likely to belong at a similar level to Class 1 (high exchanges with both sets of parents; 16% for both men and women).

However, the membership probabilities of the other four classes differed by gender; specifically, men were more likely than women to belong to Class 2 (low exchanges with both sets of parents; 22% for men and 20% for women), whereas women were more likely than men to belong to Class 3 (giving exchanges with both sets of parents; 28% for women and 20% for men). Also, Class 4 (exchanges only with own parents) consisted almost entirely of men (43% for men and 1% for women), and Class 5 (moderate/high exchanges with own parents but obligatory exchanges with parents-in-law) was composed solely of women (36% for women and 0% for men). Although there were similarities in gender distributions for several classes, the gender differences for the class membership probabilities, especially in unbalanced patterns, underscore gendered roles of women as support providers and kin-keepers as well as patrilineal patterns in Korean families.

Effects of Marital Quality on Exchange Patterns With Parents and Parents-in-Law

The results of multinomial logistic regression models examining whether the characteristics of adult offspring and parents (in-law) differentiate the identified patterns of exchanges with parents and parents-in-law are shown in Table 4. We estimated separate models by gender, constraining Class 5 (consisting of all women) for men and Class 4 (consisting almost entirely of men) for women; that is, analyses for men did not include comparisons for Class 5, and analyses for women did not include comparisons for Class 4. We used unbalanced patterns as a reference class; Class 4 (exchanges only with own parents) for men and Class 5 (moderate/high exchanges with own parents but obligatory exchanges with parents-in-law) for women. Because all covariates were entered simultaneously in a single model, the results reflect the relative estimated effect of each covariate when all other covariates are held constant.

Table 4.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses for Classes of Support Exchanges With Parents and Parents-in-Law by Gender

Predictor Balanced pattern Unbalanced pattern
Class 1:
High exchanges
with both sets
of parents		 Class 2:
Low exchanges
with both sets
of parents		 Class 3:
Giving
exchanges
with both sets
of parents		 Class 4:
Exchanges
only with
own parents		 Class 5:
Moderate/high
exchanges
with own
parents
but, obligatory
exchanges
with parents-
in-law
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE
Men
Demographics
  Age −0.04 0.03 −0.01 0.02 0.04* 0.02 (Ref.)
  Education 0.57* 0.26 −0.48* 0.19 0.19 0.21 (Ref.)
  Household incomea 0.05 0.34 0.32 0.34 0.23 0.33 (Ref.)
  Own employedb −1.57 1.01 0.09 1.02 −1.21 0.99 (Ref.)
  Spouse employedb 0.26 0.29 −0.09 0.26 0.31 0.26 (Ref.)
  Number of children 0.26 0.21 −0.20 0.19 −0.06 0.19 (Ref.)
  Number of siblings 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.08 (Ref.)
Geographic distance
  From parents 0.06 0.10 0.33*** 0.10 0.24* 0.10 (Ref.)
  From parents-in-law −0.48*** 0.13 −0.31* 0.12 −0.41*** 0.12 (Ref.)
Marital quality
  Spousal support 1.18*** 0.35 −0.75* 0.31 0.82* 0.32 (Ref.)
  Spousal strain 0.42 0.33 0.09 0.28 −0.04 0.30 (Ref.)
Women
Demographics
  Age 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 (Ref.)
  Education 0.01 0.27 −0.38 0.25 −0.13 0.23 (Ref.)
  Household incomea 0.17 0.44 0.29 0.46 0.11 0.40 (Ref.)
  Own employedb 0.28 0.77 −0.24 0.61 0.40 0.64 (Ref.)
  Spouse employedb −0.17 0.78 0.49 0.62 0.21 0.65 (Ref.)
  Number of children 0.14 0.21 −0.11 0.20 0.28 0.18 (Ref.)
  Number of siblings −0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.07 (Ref.)
Geographic distance
  From parents 0.14 0.14 0.29* 0.13 0.28* 0.12 (Ref.)
  From parents-in-law −0.23* 0.11 −0.02 0.11 −0.20* 0.09 (Ref.)
Marital quality
  Spousal support −0.10 0.35 −0.29 0.31 0.40 0.29 (Ref.)
  Spousal strain −0.93** 0.35 −0.55 0.30 −0.42 0.28 (Ref.)
Open in a new tab

Note. For men, Class 4 was used as a reference class, and analyses did not include Class 5; for women, Class 5 was used as a reference class, and analyses did not include Class 4. Ref. = reference category.

a

Log-transformed.

b

Coded 1 for employed and 0 for not employed.

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

Both dimensions of marital quality were significantly associated with exchange patterns with parents and parents-in-law. Spousal support showed significant associations with all three balanced patterns for men; specifically, men who reported higher levels of spousal support were more likely to belong to patterns of high exchanges (Class 1) and giving exchanges (Class 3) with both sets of parents, whereas they were less likely to have low exchanges with both sets of parents (Class 2), compared to the reference pattern (Class 4; exchanges only with own parents). In contrast, spousal strain was associated with exchange patterns only for women. Thus, women who reported higher levels of spousal strain were less likely to have high exchanges with both sets of parents (Class 1), relative to the reference class (Class 5; obligatory exchanges with parents-in-law).

Regarding control variables included in the models, age and education were significant only for men. Older men were more likely to give support to both sets of parents (Class 3), compared to the reference class. Also, men with higher education were more likely to have high exchanges (Class 1) and less likely to have low exchanges with both sets of parents (Class 2). Employment status (i.e., own and spouse’s) and family size (i.e., numbers of children and siblings) did not show significant associations with exchange patterns for either men or women. Finally, regarding geographic distance from their parents and parents-in-law, both men and women who lived far away from their parents were more likely to have low exchanges (Class 2) and giving exchanges (Class 3) with both sets of parents, compared to the unbalanced pattern (Class 4 for men and Class 5 for women). When living far away from their parents-in-law, men were less likely to have balanced patterns (Class 1, 2, and 3), relative to the unbalanced pattern (Class 4). Also, women who lived far away from their parents-in-law were less likely to have high exchanges (Class 1) and giving exchanges (Class 3) with both sets of parents, compared to unbalanced obligatory exchanges (Class 5).

Discussion

Rapid societal changes over the past decades have transformed the structure and nature of Korean society, which has traditionally been characterized by a patrilineal tradition that places more emphasis on husband’s lineage. Therefore, family patterns in Korea today may reveal considerable heterogeneity. The first aim of this study was to classify the patterns of support exchanges between adult children and their parents and parents-in-law among contemporary Korean families. For the exchange patterns with parents and parents-in-law, we combined different types of support (i.e., emotional, financial, and instrumental) and considered both directions of flow (i.e., given and received). The result of LCA identified five distinct classes of intergenerational exchanges, and the proportions of participants who belonged to each latent class were fairly evenly distributed (range: 16%–23%). These results suggest diversity in exchange patterns, rather than revealing a dominant and normative pattern. Park et al. (2005) also showed diverse patterns of intergenerational relationships with own parents among Korean adults. Furthermore, the resulting patterns of intergenerational exchanges of contemporary Korean families are a blend of characteristics of patrilineal tradition and bilateral changes, as previously hypothesized (Han & Yoon, 2004). Despite variations of the levels of support depending on the direction of flow and type of support (e.g., high exchanges, low exchanges, and giving more than receiving), three classes appear to follow bilateral rules when exchanging support with parents and parents-in-law, responding equally to both sets of parents. It is interesting that a substantial proportion of adult children (about 60%) reported these balanced patterns of exchanges between parents and parents-in-law. The proportion of these balanced patterns underscores the shift of Korean families from traditional patrilineal kinship patterns in prior centuries (Ok, 2011).

The other two classes revealed unbalanced patterns of exchanges between parents and parents-in-law. These classes were similar to each other in the levels of exchanges with own parents, showing moderate to high probabilities of exchanges across all types of support. They were distinct from each other in terms of exchanges with parents-in-law. One class did not exchange with parents-in-law at all. Given that this class was almost entirely composed of men, the asymmetric pattern appears consistent with the typical patrilineal tradition of greater emphasis on husbands’ kinship ties. However, the other unbalanced class did not fit the patrilineal pattern; specifically, participants in this class (almost all women) showed obligatory patterns of exchanges toward parents-in-law, providing monetary support and instrumental assistance/care to parents-in-law, but also keeping frequent exchanges (in particular, emotional support) with their own parents. For these women, obligatory duties and responsibilities toward parents-in-law in Korean families still persist and are carried out with low emotional support. In contrast to the traditional pattern, however, this group of women maintained strong ties and exchanges with their own parents. Indeed, studies dating from the 1970s already indicated an increase in contact and emotional interactions with maternal kinship members among women (e.g., J. S. Choi, 1975; H.-J. Lee, 1971), although most family rituals and financial and instrumental support have remained among paternal kin members in Korean families (G. J. Lee, 1988). Thus, this pattern may be a unique cultural response to social changes that blends traditional help to in-laws with more egalitarian and bilateral kinship relationships (Xie & Zhu, 2009; Zhang, 2009).

Next, we found gender differences in membership probabilities of all exchange patterns except one class. Gender differences in two balanced patterns confirm the roles of women as kin-keepers and principal support providers in the family; specifically, women were more likely than men to be involved in exchanging help with parents/parents-in-law, which has been commonly observed in Western societies (Chesley & Poppie, 2009). However, gender differences in the unbalanced patterns reflect patrilineal priority in exchanging support with parents/parents-in-law in Korean families (Ok, 2011). The participants who exchange support only with their own parents were almost all men, whereas women tended to exchange support with their own parents as well as to provide tangible support to parents-in-law. Thus, in the unbalanced pattern men clearly gave greater priority to relations with their own parents. In contrast, women responded to both sets of parents, although the nature of exchanges with parents-in-law was characterized by a lack of emotional support compared to their own parents (Y.-B. Lee, 2011). This is consistent with findings in the United States that women experience more intergenerational ambivalence when they are providing care, especially toward in-laws (Willson et al., 2003).

Our findings also showed that patterns of exchanges between parents and parents-in-law were significantly associated with adult children’s marital quality. In the context of extended families, we know relatively little about the implications that adult offspring’s marital relationships have for intergenerational support between adult children and parents. However, our findings suggest that including relationships with parents-in-law can be important in examining associations between marital relationships of adult offspring and intergenerational exchanges in adult families.

Also, we found that the association between martial quality and the pattern of support exchanges varied by gender. Spousal support was predictive in distinguishing the patterns of exchanges with parents and parents-in-law only for men. This may reflect the fact that the gendered filial norms of Korean families give women fewer options for deciding one’s own supporting behaviors toward parents and parents-in-law, compared with men. However, spousal strain mattered only for women. Compared to an obligatory pattern toward parents-in-law, women who had high exchanges with both sets of parents showed lower levels of strain with their spouse. Given that the analysis was based on cross-sectional data, however, it is also possible that obligatory patterns in supporting parents may lead to tensions in the marital relationship, whereby wives have expectations for more bilateral kinship patterns.

Associations of marital quality with the pattern of exchanges may shed light on the implications of cultural changes on exchange patterns that adult children have with parents and parents-in-law. With the decline of culturally prescribed obligations in Asian countries, the decision of whom to help and how much help to give, may depend more on voluntary decisions (Croll, 2006). For Asian married adults, marital quality may become a key factor in terms of how they distribute their limited resources between parents and parents-in-law (Pimentel, 2000).

Last, regarding demographic factors, we found only age and education effects for men. We did not find significant effects of employment status (i.e., own and spouse’s), income, and family size, which were expected to be associated with exchange patterns with parents and parents-in-law. For women, none of the demographic factors were significantly associated with the exchange patterns. It might be that women did not bring advantages in terms of demographic status into the power in marriage, leading to more balanced patterns of support with parents and parents-in-law. Also, this may reflect the fact that we did not consider those variables at the couple level. Thus, spouses’ relative levels of education or relative income contribution may be better indicators in predicting the exchange patterns.

Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, our data relied on children’s reports about giving and receiving support, but we did not have information from parents about these exchanges. Furthermore, we mainly considered children’s characteristics as control variables in examining effects of marital quality on class membership. Given that exchanges of support are often contingent on needs and resources of givers as well as receivers (Davey et al., 2004), characteristics of parents and parents-in-law (e.g., income, marital status, and health) may condition the patterns of support exchanges. Second, although we were interested in married couples, the available data allowed us only to use individuals as the unit of analysis. Given the division of roles between wives and husbands, their exchanges of support with parents/parents-in-law should be assessed together. Finally, in examining intergenerational relationships of Asian families, it may be important to consider regional differences, especially differences between urban and rural areas (M. Y. Kim & Lee, 2009). However, we could not consider these possible regional differences in our analysis.

Intergenerational ties are vital sources of support across all societies, but rules of exchanges are often prescribed in the historical and cultural traditions of each society. In this study we considered the cultural context for intergenerational exchanges by examining the structure of support exchanges with own parents and parents-in-law among Korean married adults. This study also demonstrated that assessment of multiple types of help given to and received from both parents and parents-in-law is critical for a more comprehensive understanding of intergenerational exchanges in the context of family systems.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant (KRF-99-042-D00174, Gyounghae Han, Principal Investigators) from the National Research Foundation of Korea. This research was also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging: R01AG027769, “Family Exchanges Study II” and “Psychology of Intergenerational Transfers” (Karen L. Fingerman, Principal Investigator) and R03AG048879, “Generational Family Patterns and Well-Being” (Kyungmin Kim, Principal Investigator) and by Grant 5 R24 HD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Contributor Information

Kyungmin Kim, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 108 E. Dean Keeton St., Stop A2702, Austin, TX 78712–1248 (kkim@utexas.edu).

Steven H. Zarit, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 305 Health and Human Development East, University Park, PA 16802

Karen L. Fingerman, Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 108 E. Dean Keeton St., Stop A2702, Austin, TX 78712–1248

Gyounghae Han, Department of Child Development and Family Studies, Seoul National University, Building 222, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 152–742, Republic of Korea.

References

  1. Akiyama H, Antonucci TC, Campbell R. Exchange and reciprocity among two generations of Japanese and American women. In: Sokolovsky J, editor. The cultural context of aging: Worldwide perspectives. 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1997. pp. 127–138. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amato PR, Rezac SJ, Booth A. Helping between parents and young adult offspring: The role of parental marital quality, divorce and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1995;57:363–374. [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonucci TC, Jackson JS. Ethnic and cultural differences in intergenerational social support. In: Bengtson VL, Lowenstein A, editors. Global aging and challenges to families. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 2003. pp. 355–370. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bianchi S, Hotz VJ, McGarry K, Seltzer JA. Intergenerational ties: Theories, trends, and challenges. In: Booth A, Crouter AC, Bianchi SM, Seltzer JA, editors. Intergenerational caregiving. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press; 2008. pp. 3–44. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bookwala J. The impact of parent care on marital quality and well-being in adult daughters and sons. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2009;64B:339–347. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brim OG, Ryff CD, Kessler RC. How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bryant CM, Conger RD, Meehan JM. The influence of in-laws on change in marital success. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63:614–626. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang K-S, Song M-Y. The stranded individualizer under compressed modernity: South Korean women in individualization without individualism. The British Journal of Sociology. 2010;61:539–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01325.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chesley N, Poppie K. Assisting parents and in-laws: Gender, type of assistance, and couples’ employment. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71:247–262. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cho C-M. The study of the bilateralization of Korean kin relationship [in Korean] Journal of Korean Women’s Studies. 1997;13:87–114. [Google Scholar]
  11. Choi JS. A study of Korean family [in Korean] Seoul, South Korea: Minjoong; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi S, Lee M-J, Kim J-O. The affective meaning of family identities in Korea: Revisited affect control theory [in Korean] Korean Journal of Sociology. 2003;37:1–30. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chu CYC, Xie Y, Yu RR. Coresidence with elderly parents: A comparative study of southeast China and Taiwan. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011;73:120–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00793.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins LM, Lanza ST. Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York: Wiley; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cong Z, Silverstein M. Intergenerational support and depression among elders in rural China: Do daughters-in-law matter? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2008;70:599–612. [Google Scholar]
  16. Croll EJ. The intergenerational contract in the changing Asian family. Oxford Development Studies. 2006;34:473–491. [Google Scholar]
  17. Davey A, Janke M, Savla J. Antecedents of intergenerational support: Families in context and families as context. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2004;24:29–54. [Google Scholar]
  18. Feldman MW, Tuljapurkar S, Li S, Jin X, Li N. Son preference, marriage, and intergenerational transfer in rural China. In: Gauthier AH, Chu CYC, Tuljapurkar S, editors. Allocating public and private resources across generations: Riding the age waves. Vol. 2. London: Springer; 2007. pp. 139–162. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fingerman KL, Cheng Y-P, Kim K, Fung HH, Han G, Lang FR, Wagner J. Parental involvement with college students in Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Family Issues. 2014 doi: 10.1177/0192513X14541444. Advance online publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fingerman KL, Gilligan M, VanderDrift L, Pitzer LM. In-law relationships before and after marriage: Husbands, wives, and their mothers-in-law. Research in Human Development. 2012;9:106–125. doi: 10.1080/15427609.2012.680843. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fingerman KL, Miller LM, Birditt KS, Zarit SH. Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71:1220–1233. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00665.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fingerman KL, Pitzer LM, Chan W, Birditt KS, Franks MM, Zarit SH. Who gets what and why? Help middle-aged adults provide to parents and grown children. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2011;66B:87–98. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbq009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Furstenberg FF, Jr, Hoffman SD, Shrestha L. The effect of divorce on intergenerational transfers: New evidence. Demography. 1995;32:319–333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guo M, Aranda MP, Silverstein M. The impact of outmigration on the intergenerational support and psychological wellbeing of older adults in rural China. Ageing and Society. 2009;29:1085–1104. [Google Scholar]
  25. Han G, Lee J, Ok SW, Ryff CD, Marks NF. Gender, social roles, and mental health in mid-life [in Korean] Journal of the Korean Gerontological Society. 2002;22:209–225. [Google Scholar]
  26. Han G, Yoon S-E. The bilateralization of the kinship relations in Korean families: Focused on the intergenerational exchange [in Korean] Korea Journal of Population Studies. 2004;27:177–203. [Google Scholar]
  27. Henz U. Couples’ provision of informal care for parents and parents-in-law: Far from sharing equally? Ageing and Society. 2009;29:369–395. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hogan DP, Eggebeen DJ, Clogg CC. The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families. American Journal of Sociology. 1993;98:1428–1458. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ingersoll-Dayton B, Starrels ME, Dowler D. Caregiving for parents and parents-in-law: Is gender important? The Gerontologist. 1996;36:483–491. doi: 10.1093/geront/36.4.483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim C-S, Rhee K-O. Variations in preferred living arrangements among Korean elderly parents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 1997;12:189–202. doi: 10.1023/a:1006503402430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim K, Cheng Y-P, Zarit SH, Fingerman KL. Relationships between adults and parents in Asia. In: Cheng S-T, Chi I, Fung HH, Li LW, Woo J, editors. Successful aging: Asian perspectives. New York: Springer; 2015. pp. 101–122. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim MY, Lee SW. Determinants and regional patterns of parent–child coresidence among older Korean parents, 1985–2005 [in Korean] Journal of Korean Society of Rural Planning. 2009;15:89–107. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim S-Y. Kinship relations. In: Lee D-W, Kim H-J, Choi S-H, Ham I-H, Kim S-Y, editors. Current Korean families. Seoul, South Korea: Hakjisa; 2002. pp. 298–322. [in Korean]. [Google Scholar]
  34. Korean Education Development Institute. Center for Education Statistics: Statistics publication. 2010 Retrieved from http://cesi.kedi.re.kr. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee E, Spitze G, Logan JR. Social support to parents-in-law: The interplay of gender and kin hierarchies. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:396–403. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee GJ. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul, South Korea: Yonsei University; 1988. Continuity and change of kinship relations in Korea [in Korean] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee H-J. Urban kinship relations in Korea [in Korean] Seoul, South Korea: Research Institute for Korean Studies; 1971. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee JE, Zarit SH, Rovine MJ, Birditt KS, Fingerman KL. Middle-aged couples’ exchanges of support with aging parents: Patterns and association with marital satisfaction. Gerontology. 2012;58:88–96. doi: 10.1159/000324512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee Y-B. Intergenerational caregiving and conflict between daughters/daughters-in-law and their elderly parents/parents-in-law [in Korean] Family and Culture. 2011;23:41–76. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lin IF, Goldman N, Weinstein M, Lin YH, Gorrindo T, Seeman T. Gender differences in adult children’s support of their parents in Taiwan. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:184–200. [Google Scholar]
  41. McGarry K, Schoeni RF. Transfer behavior within the family: Results from the Asset and Health Dynamics Study. Journal of Gerontology. 1997;52B:82–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ok SW. Continuity and change in patrilineal culture of Korean families. In: Korean Family Studies Association, editor. Korean families: Continuity and change. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul National University Press; 2011. pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  43. Park K-S, Kim IK, Kojima H. Intergenerational coresidence and nearness in Korea and Japan: Unbalanced aspects of family changes. International Journal of Japanese Sociology. 1999;8:93–115. [Google Scholar]
  44. Park K-S, Phua V, McNally J, Sun R. Diversity and structure of intergenerational relationships: Elderly parent–adult child relations in Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 2005;20:285–305. doi: 10.1007/s10823-006-9007-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Peters-Davis ND, Moss MS, Pruchno RA. Children-in-law in caregiving families. The Gerontologist. 1999;39:66–75. doi: 10.1093/geront/39.1.66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Pezzin LE, Pollak RA, Schone BS. Parental marital disruption, family type, and transfers to disabled elderly parents. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2008;63B:349–358. doi: 10.1093/geronb/63.6.s349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pimentel EE. Just how do I love thee? Marital relations in urban China. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000;62:32–47. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pimentel EE, Liu J. Exploring nonnormative coresidence in urban China: Living with wives’ parents. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2004;66:821–836. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rossi AS, Rossi PH. Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the life course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  50. Schuster TL, Kessler RC, Aseltine RH., Jr Supportive interactions, negative interactions, and depressive mood. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1990;18:423–438. doi: 10.1007/BF00938116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shuey K, Hardy MA. Assistance to aging parents-in-law: Does lineage affect family allocation decisions? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:418–431. [Google Scholar]
  52. Silverstein M, Bengtson VL. Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology. 1997;103:429–460. [Google Scholar]
  53. Silverstein M, Conroy SJ, Wang H, Giarrusso R, Bengtson VL. Reciprocity in parent–child relations over the adult life course. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2002;57B:3–13. doi: 10.1093/geronb/57.1.s3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Suitor JJ, Pillemer K. Family caregiving and marital satisfaction: Findings from a one year panel study of women caring for parents with dementia. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1994;56:681–690. [Google Scholar]
  55. Szinovacz M, Davey A. The division of parent care between spouses. Ageing and Society. 2008;28:571–597. [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Gaalen RI, Dykstra PA. Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68:947–960. [Google Scholar]
  57. Walen HR, Lachman ME. Social support and strain from partner, family and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2000;17:5–30. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ward RA, Spitze G. Sandwiched marriages: The implications of child and parent relations for marital quality in midlife. Social Forces. 1998;77:647–666. [Google Scholar]
  59. Willson AE, Shuey KM, Elder GH., Jr Ambivalence in the relationship of adult children to aging parents and in-laws. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:1055–1072. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wolf DA, Freedman V, Soldo BJ. The division of family labor: Care for elder parents. Journal of Gerontology. 1997;52B:102–109. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.special_issue.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Xie Y, Zhu H. Do sons or daughters give more money to parents in urban China? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71:174–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00588.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Zarit SH, Eggebeen DJ. Parent–child relationships in adulthood and later years. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 1. Children and parenting. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 135–161. [Google Scholar]
  63. Zhan HJ, Montgomery RJV. Gender and elder care in China: The influence of filial piety and structural constraints. Gender and Society. 2003;17:209–229. [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang W. “A married-out daughter is like split water?” Women’s increasing contacts and enhanced ties with their natal families in post-reform rural north China. Modern China. 2009;35:256–283. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES