Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences logoLink to The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
. 2016 Jun 2;74(2):339–352. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw065

Evaluative and Experienced Well-being of Caregivers of Parents and Caregivers of Children

Anna M Hammersmith 1,✉, I-Fen Lin 1
PMCID: PMC6327654  PMID: 27257228

Abstract

Objectives

Informal caregiving is an important source of support for aging parents and children. Yet the timing and nature of caring for parents versus children may result in different levels of well-being. Despite extensive studies on the well-being of caregivers of parents and of children, it remains elusive as to how evaluative and experienced well-being vary by caregiver type.

Method

Using data from the 2012 and 2013 rounds of the American Time Use Survey, we examined how 216 caregivers of parents and 1,989 caregivers of children reported their evaluative well-being (life satisfaction) and experienced well-being (happiness, meaning, pain, sadness, stress, and tiredness).

Results

Caregivers of parents reported lower evaluative and experienced well-being than caregivers of children. The association between caregiver type and life satisfaction dissipated, whereas the associations of caregiver type with happiness, meaning, and sadness persisted after accounting for caregivers’ demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity.

Discussion

Experienced well-being appears to be more sensitive than evaluative well-being in detecting differences in well-being between these two types of caregivers. Given that the caregivers of parents do not receive the same level of institutional support as caregivers of children, social policies should aim to provide caregivers of parents with additional support.

Keywords: Childcare, Life satisfaction, Negative feelings, Parent care, Positive feelings

Intergenerational caregiving is integral to generational succession (Booth, Crouter, Bianchi, & Seltzer, 2008). Parents raise children and in return adult children provide care to their aging parents, parents-in-law, and grandparents (hereafter referred to as parents). It is estimated that 34 million households in the United States include children aged less than 18 years and that 40 million people provide unpaid care to older adults, mostly parents (Bianchi, Folbre, & Wolf, 2012; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). Studies have projected that although current care needs of older adults are significant, they will only continue to grow in the future (Freedman & Spillman, 2014; Ryan, Smith, Antonucci, & Jackson, 2012). Without informal caregiving, caring for young children or older parents would place an enormous financial burden on the public and taxpayers. Therefore, enhancing the well-being of family caregivers to sustain intergenerational caregiving has become an important policy issue (Brown & Brown, 2014).

Scholars have extensively examined family caregivers’ well-being, but prior studies are limited in three aspects. First, most studies focus either on caregivers of parents (Marks, Lambert, & Choi, 2002; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003; Verbakel, 2014) or on caregivers of children (Musick, Meier, & Flood, 2014; Nelson, Kushlev, English, Dunn, & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Pollmann-Schult, 2014). Little is known about how the well-being of caregivers of parents differs from that of caregivers of children; understanding variation in well-being by caregiver type may be consequential for how policies or programs are tailored to meet caregivers’ respective needs. Second, among the few studies that include both caregivers of parents and caregivers of children, they tend to focus on caregivers’ negative experiences and overlook the positive experiences that may accompany caregiving (Chassin, Macy, Seo, Presson, & Sherman, 2010; DePasquale et al., 2015; Fredriksen & Scharlach, 1999; Scott, Hwang, & Rogers, 2006). For policy makers and program practitioners, it is important to know not only how to reduce caregivers’ negative experiences but also how to increase their positive experiences. Last, prior studies often use global, evaluative measures to gauge feelings that caregivers have about their lives and overlook caregivers’ feelings in the moment when they provide care (i.e., experienced measures; Miller, Shoemaker, Willyard, & Addison, 2008; Pollmann-Schult, 2014; Reizer & Hetsroni, 2015). Experienced measures may better capture caregivers’ well-being than evaluative measures, as the latter is likely to be confounded by other aspects of the caregiver’s life.

To overcome these limitations, we used unique data from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) to examine whether the association between caregiving and well-being varies by caregiver type, whether caregiving brings about positive alongside negative feelings, and whether one would reach the same conclusions about caregivers’ well-being using evaluative versus experienced measures. The role of intergenerational caregiving will only increase in importance in the coming decades as the need for informal care grows. Findings from this study will help inform future research and initiatives that aim to support the well-being of informal caregivers in the face of mounting care needs (Butler, 2007).

In the following, we first introduced the life course perspective, from which we hypothesized why caring for parents may be perceived as more negative and less positive than caring for children. Then we explained the different nature of evaluative versus experienced well-being measures and how they are related to caregiver type. Finally, we discussed possible factors that are associated with selection into caring for parents or caring for children. Without considering these factors, the examination of the association between caregiver type and well-being is likely to be biased.

Life Course Perspective

The life course perspective is useful for understanding how caregiving may relate to variability in the overall well-being of caregivers of parents and caregivers of children. In particular, the life course perspective emphasizes the importance of both linked lives and timing of entry into different social roles (Elder, 1994). The lives of parents and children are intertwined throughout the life course; parents and children are linked to one another through filial norms that underscore the importance of helping family members during difficult times (Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Parents provide support to their children when they are young. Adult children help their parents when they become frail and experience health declines or disabilities.

Although filial norms help explain the obligations that parents and adult children have to provide care to one another, the timing associated with entering into the role of caregiver of parents or caregiver of children as well as the nature of either type of care may result in variation in well-being. Caring for children is typically an anticipated form of caregiving, because a majority of people report that they plan to become parents (Chandra, Martinez, Mosher, Abma, & Jones, 2005). Entering into parenthood is often a source of joy and meaning for many people, subsequently increasing well-being. Moreover, caring for children is associated with a specific number of years that parents expect to provide care. During the years devoted to parenthood, children become increasingly independent, which can be rewarding for parents, further enhancing well-being (Pollmann-Schult, 2014).

Whereas many people expect to become caregivers of children through parenthood, they may not anticipate becoming a caregiver for a parent. Providing care to parents has been described as an “unexpected career” in which parents often develop an unforeseen illness or disability that requires care from their adult children for an indeterminate amount of time and of an unspecified intensity (Aneshensel, Pearlin, Mullan, Zarit, & Whitlatch, 1995; Wallhagen & Yamamoto-Mitani, 2006). Because caring for a parent is typically unanticipated, people may not be emotionally, physically, or financially prepared to provide care (Freedman, Cornman, & Carr, 2014; Jones, Hadjistavropoulos, Janzen, & Hadjistavropoulos, 2011; Pearlin, 2010). Often parent’s health follows a downward spiral, making caregiving a disheartening and socially isolating experience (Aneshensel et al., 1995; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003; Wallhagen & Yamamoto-Mitani, 2006). Because of the different nature of care, providing care to parents may be perceived as more negative and less positive than caring for children.

Subjective Well-being

Evaluative and experienced well-being measures are both useful ways to examine subjective well-being of caregivers. Yet no studies, to our knowledge, have examined whether measures of evaluative and experienced well-being would lead to the same conclusions about the subjective well-being of caregivers of parents and caregivers of children. Evaluative well-being is a global measure that asks respondents to assess their satisfaction with their overall life circumstances (Pollmann-Schult, 2014; Reizer & Hetsroni, 2015), whereas experienced well-being examines the presence and intensity of specific emotions during clearly defined activities (Stone & Mackie, 2013).

Evaluative well-being

One common approach used while studying caregivers’ well-being is to evaluate global well-being by asking caregivers to provide a retrospective assessment of how satisfied they are with their life circumstances (Pollmann-Schult, 2014; Reizer & Hetsroni, 2015). Evaluative well-being is useful because it gives researchers a holistic depiction of caregivers’ well-being by capturing adaptation to life circumstances. Evaluative well-being also allows researchers to examine short-term sacrifices that people make in order to reap long-term gains (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006). Parents sacrifice their tangible resources in the short-term in the hopes of promoting high achievements of children in the long term. Adult children may not be able to derive personal satisfaction when caring for parents until they have time to reflect on caregiving experiences (Mullan, 1992).

Caring for a parent or a child constitutes qualitatively different experiences that may manifest dissimilarly in reports of evaluative well-being. Pollmann-Schult (2014) found that although caring for children consumes substantial time and financial resources, caring for children provides a sense of purpose and is rewarding, thus boosting parents’ life satisfaction. Caring for parents also instills a sense of meaning through fulfilling familial obligations toward parents (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003; Raschick & Ingersoll-Dayton, 2004). Yet Verbakel (2014) showed obligations to provide care to older family members do not heighten life satisfaction of caregivers. Moreover, caring for a parent reverses the roles of parents and children, often straining the relationship that results in lower life satisfaction for the caregiver (Miller et al. 2008). According to these studies, we hypothesized that caregivers of parents will report lower evaluative well-being than caregivers of children.

Experienced well-being

Despite their utility, evaluative well-being measures are likely subject to memory decay and social desirability bias (Stone & Mackie, 2013). To move past these shortcomings, experienced well-being has been used to study subjects’ well-being by asking about the presence and intensity of feelings in the immediate moment when the activity takes place (Stone & Mackie, 2013). Feelings are often in flux and change throughout the day depending on mood and context (Stone & Mackie, 2013). Experienced well-being is useful to capture these emotions in the moment. Measures of experienced well-being draw on the circumplex model (Russell, 1980, 2003) in which affect is categorized into four quadrants of related, but separate feelings along the horizontal dimension of pleasure versus displeasure and the vertical dimension of activation versus deactivation. In other words, positive feeling can be high on arousal such as happiness (activation) or low on arousal such as meaningfulness (deactivation). Similarly, negative feeling can be at various stages of alertness such as pain or stress on high arousal versus sadness or tiredness on low arousal.

Caregivers typically experience both positive and negative feelings associated with caregiving (Kramer, 1997; Lin, Fee, & Wu, 2012; Walker, Pratt, & Eddy, 1995). Caring for parents may be a less positive experience than caring for children (Fingerman, Kyungmin, Tennant, Birditt, & Zarit, 2015). Past studies have found that childcare is often more enjoyable than other domestic or paid work activities (Pollmann-Schult, 2014) and that caring for children increases meaningfulness associated with the care activity (Musick et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2013). Although caring for parents instills caregivers with meaning, it also is distressing (Marks et al., 2002). Caring for parents may evoke more potency of negative feelings than caring for children. Assisting parents with walking and bathing demands physical strength and cause pain, and parents’ health conditions frequently worsen rather than improve, triggering negative emotions (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003). In sum, we anticipated that caregivers of children would report higher positive experienced well-being than caregivers of parents, whereas caregivers of parents would perceive higher negative experienced well-being compared with caregivers of children.

Despite prior research examining the merits of evaluative and experienced well-being for caregivers, no study has jointly compared the utility of these two measures. Therefore, it is unclear whether evaluative and experienced well-being would render the same conclusions since prior research has shown that evaluative and experienced measures capture different aspects of well-being. Evaluative well-being is informative because it allows respondents to reflect on how activities like caring for parents or children may be desirable aspects of their life in reference to other activities (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006). Yet using experienced well-being may be more advantageous because it assesses immediate emotions related to well-being that could be recalled differently if asked at a later point in time (Stone & Mackie, 2013). Therefore, we predicted that experienced measures would be more sensitive than evaluative measures in detecting the difference in the well-being of caregivers of parents versus caregivers of children.

Factors Associated With Caring for Parents versus Children

Several factors may be related to selection into different caregiver roles as well as caregivers’ well-being, and thus it is important to take into account these factors in order to clarify the association between caregiver type and well-being.

Demographic characteristics are correlated with selection into caring for parents versus caring for children, including age, gender, race and ethnicity, and the number of children. Caregivers of children tend to be younger than caregivers of parents because childbearing occurs earlier in the life course, but the onset of parents’ age-related morbidity problems happens later (Johnson & Wiener, 2006). Caregiving careers are often gendered; the majority of caregivers are women, regardless of whether they provide care to parents or children (Johnson & Wiener, 2006; Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003). Non-Whites are more likely than Whites to live in multigenerational households, facilitating intergenerational support (Martin, 2000). Having young children at home reduces the likelihood of caring for parents (Henz, 2006; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004). In general, older adults, women, Whites, and parents with young children report lower well-being than their respective counterparts (Marks et al., 2002; McMahan & Estes, 2012; Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2003; Wallsten, 2000).

Socioeconomic resources are important to consider because the access to resources varies by the life course stage one occupies. Due to increases in educational attainment over past decades, younger cohorts (likely caregivers of children) have received more education than older cohorts (likely caregivers of parents; Patton & Fry, 2015). Moreover, individuals earlier in the life course (likely caregivers of children) tend to be partnered, working, and enjoy better health than those in later life (likely caregivers of parents; Henz, 2006; Johnson & Wiener, 2006; U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Education, partnership, employment, income, and health have been shown to be positively associated with well-being (Cuñado & de Garcia, 2012; Deiner, Sandvik, Seidlitz, & Diener, 1993; McMahan & Estes, 2012; Musick & Bumpass, 2012; Winkelmann, 2009).

Time intensity is another factor related to caregiver type and well-being. Time spent per caregiving activity may be longer in duration for caregivers of parents than for caregivers of children because most young children reside with their parents but older parents usually live apart from their adult children, reflecting different life course stages. Travels to parents’ households may be costly as well as time consuming; thus, adult children spend more time in each caregiving activity when they visit parents than do caregivers of children with whom they share a household. For instance, adult children may help parents prepare several meals during one visit, whereas parents may cook one meal at a time for their resident children. Spending more time per caregiving activity may create feelings of strain that invoke negative feelings (Lin et al., 2012; Verbakel, 2014). Yet more time spent in caregiving may also instill caregivers with meaning, which in turn increases positive feelings (Walker et al., 1995). In sum, people who are selected into different caregiver roles are likely to differ in their demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity that translate into variability in levels of well-being.

The Current Study

This study examined differences in evaluative and experienced well-being for caregivers of parents versus caregivers of children. We hypothesized that caregivers of parents report lower evaluative well-being (life satisfaction) than caregivers of children. In addition, we predicted that caregivers of children would experience a stronger intensity of positive emotions (happiness and meaningfulness) than caregivers of parents, whereas caregivers of parents would experience a stronger intensity of negative emotions (sadness, pain, tiredness, and stress) than caregivers of children. It is important to contrast well-being by caregiver type because caring for parents constitutes a different experience than caring for children and these two groups of caregivers have received unequal media attention and institutional support in our society (O’Donnell, 2016).

Despite prior research examining the merits of either evaluative or experienced well-being by caregiver type, no study has jointly compared the utility of these measures. Since evaluative and experienced measures encompass different aspects of well-being, they may yield variable conclusions about the overall well-being of caregivers of parents versus caregivers of children. If differences were found, we expected that experienced well-being would better detect differences in well-being between caregivers of parents and caregivers of children than evaluative well-being because the former is less sensitive to life circumstances outside of caregiving than the latter.

Method

Data were from the ATUS, a repeated cross-sectional household survey initiated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2003. Each year, a sample of households that had completed their final month of interviews for the Current Population Survey (CPS) was randomly selected for a telephone interview asking about their activities starting at 4 a.m. on the day prior to the interview and ending at 3:59 a.m. on the interview day (diary day). Exact start and end times for each activity were recorded. Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black householders as well as households with children were oversampled. Likely because of survey fatigue from participating in the CPS and the time required to complete the diary, the ATUS response rates hover around mid-50% (ATUS User Guide, 2015). The sample, when weighted, depicts a nationally representative sample of noninstitutionalized individuals aged 15 and older.

We used the 2012 and 2013 rounds of the ATUS because both the elder care and well-being modules from which we obtained information on caregiver type and well-being are currently available only in these two rounds. The initial sample consists of 23,828 respondents. We restricted the sample to 4,150 respondents who reported at least one activity in which they provided care to children or parents during their diary day. Of them, 2,365 caregivers were randomly selected to answer the questions about how they felt when performing the caregiving activity. After excluding missing cases, the analytic sample includes 2,205 caregivers performing 2,758 caregiving activities during the diary day: 1,989 respondents engaged in 2,440 caregiving activities to children and 216 respondents engaged in 318 caregiving activities to parents. Notice that caregivers of parents and caregivers of children in this sample are mutually exclusive groups (i.e., no one provided care to both parents and children).

Measures

The dependent variables used in the analyses were the respondents’ reports of evaluative and experienced well-being, measured in the well-being module. To gauge evaluative well-being, the ATUS employed Cantril’s Ladder, which is designed to capture life satisfaction (Stone & Mackie, 2013). Respondents were asked to place themselves on “a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top,” with the bottom representing their worst possible life and the top representing their best possible life (Stone & Mackie, 2013). To capture experienced well-being, the respondents were asked about how much happiness, meaning, pain, sadness, stress, and tiredness they had felt, ranging from 0 (did not experience this feeling at all) to 6 (felt very strongly), while engaging in caregiving activities (Kapteyn, Lee, Tassot, Vonkova, & Zamarro, 2013; Stone & Mackie, 2013). Some caregivers had more than one caregiving activity that was randomly selected for experienced well-being questions.

The focal independent variable in this study was whether the respondent was a caregiver of children (coded 0) or a caregiver of parents (coded 1). The caregivers of children were identified in the core interview where the respondents reported activities in which they provided care to household children aged below 18 years. To identify a group of caregivers of parents, we relied on information obtained from the elder care module in which respondents stated that they had provided care to an adult who needed help because of a condition related to aging in the past three months and that the care recipients were their parents, parents-in-law, or grandparents (Denton, 2012). We included caregivers of parents-in-law and grandparents to enhance statistical power. Although obligations to parents-in-law and grandparents may be perceived differently from obligations to parents (Even-Zohar & Sharlin, 2009; Henz, 2009; Lee, Spitze, & Logan, 2003), caring for parents-in-law and grandparents shares the same designation of being an unexpected career as does caring for parents (Aneshensel et al., 1995). Auxiliary analyses that exclude caregivers of parents-in-law and grandparents as shown in the Supplementary Tables reveal that our overall conclusions remain unaltered.

Respondents’ demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity were considered in the analysis to account for compositional differences between caregivers of parents and caregivers of children. These characteristics were taken from the CPS-ATUS linked file. Demographic characteristics included age, gender, race and ethnicity, and the number of children in the household. Age was a continuous measure ranging from 15 to 80 years. Women were coded 1 and men were coded 0. Racial and ethnic background was gauged by a nominal variable indicating whether the respondent was Non-Hispanic White (reference group), Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, or other races. The number of household children was broken down into two age categories, ages 0 to 12 and ages 13 to 18, to account for possible differences in caregiving activities directed toward younger versus older children (Bianchi et al., 2012). Socioeconomic resources included educational attainment, marital status, work hours, family income, and self-rated health. Educational attainment consisted of four categories representing whether the respondent had received less than a high school education, a high school diploma (reference group), some college education, or a bachelor’s degree or higher. Marital status was measured by a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent was married (including partnered [coded 1] or unmarried [coded 0]). Works hours was a continuous variable that captured how many hours the respondent worked during an average week (0–85). We used the natural log of work hours in the multivariate analyses due to skewness. Family income was measured using a scale from 1 to 16, ranging from less than $5,000 to $150,000 and over with an increment of $2,500 for the first five response categories and $5,000 for the remaining 11 response categories. Health was rated using a scale from excellent (coded 1), very good (coded 2), good (coded 3), fair (coded 4), to poor (coded 5). The response categories were reverse coded so that higher values represent better health. Finally, time intensity was captured by minutes of the caregiving activity in which respondents answered well-being questions. Because of skewness, we used the natural log of time in the multivariate analysis.

Analytic Strategy

Three analyses were performed in this study. First, we presented weighted descriptive statistics in the form of means and percentages and tested the differences between caregivers of parents and caregivers of children using z-tests in order to examine the extent to which these two groups differ. In the second analysis, we estimated four nested ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of evaluative well-being on caregiver type and caregivers’ characteristics. We first included only caregiver type (Model 1) and then added caregivers’ demographic characteristics (Model 2), socioeconomic resources (Model 3), and finally time intensity (Model 4) in the models. The nested models allowed us to examine the extent to which the association between caregiver type and life satisfaction is attributable to compositional variation between caregivers of parents and caregivers of children. The unit of analysis is the respondent.

In the last analysis, we estimated two-level OLS regressions of experienced well-being on caregiver type and caregivers’ characteristics. Two-level OLS regressions were used because some caregivers had more than one caregiving activity randomly selected for the well-being module. Using the two-level OLS regressions (caregiving activity at Level 1 and respondent at Level 2), we accounted for nonindependent observations for these caregivers (DeMaris, 2004). Four nested regressions models parallel to the second analysis were estimated for each of the six feelings (happiness, meaning, pain, sadness, stress, and tiredness). All three analyses were weighted to account for the oversamples, the distribution of days of the week on which the respondents were interviewed, and the varying response rates across different demographic groups and days of the week.

Results

Characteristics of Caregivers of Parents and Caregivers of Children

Table 1 shows weighted descriptive statistics for caregivers of parents and caregivers of children as well as significant differences between the two groups. For evaluative well-being, caregivers of children were significantly more satisfied with their lives than caregivers of parents (7.27 vs. 6.65 on a 10-point scale). As for positive experienced well-being, caregivers of children rated caregiving activities as happier (4.89 vs. 4.52) and more meaningful (5.25 vs. 5.06) than caregivers of parents, although only happiness reaches statistical significance. With regard to negative experienced well-being, caregivers of parents perceived caregiving activities as sadder (0.96 vs. 0.36) and more painful (0.94 vs. 0.59) but less tiring (2.26 vs. 2.66) than caregivers of children. Overall, caregivers of parents and caregivers of children stated similar levels of stress (1.54 vs. 1.33).

Table 1.

Weighted Means (Standard Errors) or Percentages for Characteristics of Caregivers of Parents and Caregivers of Children

Caregivers of parents Caregivers of children
Evaluative well-being
 Life satisfaction 6.65 (.19) 7.27 (.06)***
Experienced well-being
 Happy 4.52 (.13) 4.89 (.04)**
 Meaning 5.06 (.14) 5.25 (.04)
 Sad 0.96 (.15) 0.36 (.03)**
 Pain 0.94 (.13) 0.59 (.04)**
 Stress 1.54 (.16) 1.33 (.05)
 Tired 2.26 (.20) 2.66 (.06)*
Demographic characteristics
 Age 46.90 (1.68) 35.11 (.25)***
 Women 64.29 65.27
 Race and ethnicity
  White (ref) 64.98 62.16
  Black 18.32 8.76**
  Hispanic 10.08 21.54***
  Other race 6.62 7.54
 Number of children aged 0–12 0.09 (.02) 1.79 (.04)***
 Number of children aged 13–18 0.28 (.05) 0.35 (.03)
Socioeconomic resources
 Educational attainment
  Less than high school 11.53 11.75***
  High school (ref) 32.25 23.73*
  Some college 27.65 24.95
  College or more 28.57 39.56**
 Married 34.12 77.27***
 Work hours 19.01 (1.86) 25.28 (.59)***
 Family incomea 11.23 (.29) 11.24 (.12)
 Self-rated health 3.48 (.10) 3.64 (.03)
Time intensity
 Minutes per activity 51.42 (.10) 29.96 (.03)***
Unweighted N 216 1989
Open in a new tab

aFamily income is a continuous variable with categories coded to range from 1–16: income equals $40,000 to $49,000 for caregivers of parents and of children.

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

As expected, caregivers of parents were significantly older than caregivers of children, about 47 versus 35 years, respectively. Two thirds of caregivers were women, regardless of whether they cared for parents or children. The majority of caregivers were White, although more caregivers of children were Hispanic (22%), whereas more caregivers of parents were Black (18%). Caregivers of children had significantly more children aged 0 to 12 years at home than caregivers of parents. Approximately 40% of caregivers of children had received a college education or higher and only 29% of caregivers of parents had achieved the same level of education. Further, caregivers of children were more likely to be married (77% vs. 34%) and working longer hours (25 vs. 19hr) relative to caregivers of parents, but both groups enjoyed a similar level of income and health. Finally, caregivers of parents spent significantly more minutes per caregiving activity than caregivers of children (51 vs. 30min).

Evaluative Well-being

The OLS regressions of evaluative well-being on caregiver type and caregivers’ characteristics are shown in Table 2. Consistent with our expectation, caregivers of parents generally reported a lower level of life satisfaction than caregivers of children (−0.62 in Model 1). After caregivers’ demographic characteristics were added to Model 2, the association between caring for parents and life satisfaction remained negative, although the magnitude was reduced (−0.55). This model also shows that being older and having more young children at home were positively related to life satisfaction (0.02 and 0.15, respectively). After including caregivers’ socioeconomic resources in Model 3, the association between caring for parents and life satisfaction was no longer statistically significant (−0.17). Being married (0.58), working longer hours (0.09), and being healthier (0.48) were positively related to satisfaction with one’s life but having some college education was associated with a decrease in life satisfaction (−0.41). The number of young children was still positively related to life satisfaction, although at a smaller magnitude (0.10), compared with Model 2. Age was unrelated to life satisfaction, net of other characteristics. Surprisingly, after holding caregivers’ socioeconomic resources constant, being a woman or Hispanic was related to an increase in life satisfaction (0.39 and 0.35, respectively), suggesting a suppressor effect. Finally, time intensity was added to Model 4 and does not change the associations of all other covariates with life satisfaction. Together, the findings suggest that caregivers of parents reported lower life satisfaction than caregivers of children, but this association is completely attributable to caregivers’ demographic characteristics and socioeconomic resources.

Table 2.

Coefficients (Standard Errors) from the Weighted OLS Regressions of Evaluative Well-being (Life Satisfaction) on Caregiver Type and Caregivers’ Demographic Characteristics, Socioeconomic Resources, and Time Intensity

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Caregivers of parents −0.62(.20)** −0.55 (.23)* −0.17 (.24) −0.17 (.24)
Demographic characteristics
 Age 0.02 (.01)* 0.01 (.01) 0.01 (.01)
 Women 0.17 (.11) 0.39 (.11)*** 0.39 (.11)***
 White (ref)
 Black −0.29 (.20) 0.08 (.19) 0.08 (.19)
 Hispanic 0.14 (.15) 0.35 (.16)* 0.35 (.16)*
 Other race −0.20 (.19) −0.15 (.20) −0.14 (.20)
 Number of children aged 0–12 0.15 (.05)** 0.10 (.05)* 0.10 (.05)*
 Number of children aged 13–18 −0.08 (.10) −0.07 (.10) −0.07 (.10)
Socioeconomic resources
 Less than high school 0.23 (.24) 0.23 (.24)
 High school (ref)
 Some college −0.41 (.15)** −0.40 (.15)**
 College or more −0.26 (.15) −0.26 (.15)
 Married 0.58 (.15)*** 0.58 (.15)***
 Work hours 0.09 (.03)** 0.09 (.03)**
 Family income 0.03 (.02) 0.03 (.02)
 Self-rated health 0.48 (.06)*** 0.48 (.06)***
Time intensity
 Minutes per activity 0.01(.05)
Constant 7.27 (.06)*** 6.30 (.31)*** 3.80 (.39)*** 3.84 (.41)***
R 2 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.14
Unweighted N 2205 2205 2205 2205
Open in a new tab

Notes: OLS = ordinary least squares.

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

Experienced Well-being

The associations between caregiver type and six measures of experienced well-being are presented in Table 3. The first set of models depicts the association between happiness and caregiver type. Overall, caregivers of parents experienced less happiness than caregivers of children (−0.37 in Model 1). Model 2 shows that including demographic characteristics still resulted in a negative association between caring for parents and happiness, although this association was no longer statistically significant (−0.30). This model also shows that Blacks and Hispanics perceived more happiness when performing care (0.28 and 0.34, respectively) than Whites, yet being older or a woman bore a negative association with happiness (−0.01 and −0.23, respectively). After accounting for caregivers’ socioeconomic resources in Model 3, we found that although caregivers of parents still reported less happiness, the association was not significant (−0.24). Caregivers with some college education or more perceived less happiness (−0.25 for a college degree or higher and −0.19 for some college education) when providing care relative to caregivers with a high school degree, holding other covariates constant. Moreover, better health as also associated with significantly greater happiness when providing care. After taking time intensity into account in Model 4, a significant negative association between caring for parents and happiness reemerged (−0.31). Time intensity was positively related to happiness (0.14). All other covariates remained unchanged except that the gender difference (−0.14) was explained by the addition of time intensity.

Table 3.

Coefficients (Standard Errors) from the Weighted Two-Level OLS Regressions of Six Experienced Well-being Measures on Caregiver Type and Caregivers’ Demographic Characteristics, Socioeconomic Resources, and Time Intensity

Happy Meaning
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Caregivers of parents −0.37 (.13)** −0.30 (.15) −0.24 (.15) −0.31 (.15)* −0.17 (.11) −0.29 (.14)* −0.37 (.14)** −0.47 (.14)***
Demographic characteristics
 Age −0.01 (.01)** −0.01 (.01)** −0.01 (.01)** 0.00 (.00) 0.01 (.00) 0.01 (.00)
 Women −0.23 (.07)*** −0.17 (.08)* −0.14 (.08) 0.02 (.07) 0.02 (.08) 0.05 (.08)
 White (ref)
 Black 0.28 (.11)** 0.33 (.11)** 0.35 (.10)** 0.19 (.10)* 0.15 (.10) 0.16 (.10)
 Hispanic 0.34 (.10)*** 0.32 (.10)** 0.34 (.10)*** 0.12 (.10) 0.05 (.10) 0.07 (.10)
 Other race 0.06 (.14) 0.09 (.15) 0.08 (.15) −0.34 (.16)* −0.33 (.16)* −0.35 (.16)*
 Number of children aged 0–12 −0.04 (.04) −0.05 (.04) −0.05 (.04) −0.06 (.03) −0.06 (.03) −0.06 (.03)
 Number of children aged 13–18 −0.05 (.06) −0.05 (.06) −0.05 (.06) −0.11 (.07) −0.13 (.07) −0.12 (.07)
Socioeconomic resources
 Less than high school 0.11 (.15) 0.10 (.15) 0.20 (.15) 0.20 (.15)
 High school (ref)
 Some college −0.19 (.10)* −0.20 (.10)* 0.05 (.10) 0.04 (.10)
 College or more −0.25 (.10)** −0.27 (.10)** −0.07 (.10) −0.09 (.09)
 Married 0.11 (.10) 0.11 (.10) −0.06 (.09) −0.06 (.09)
 Work hours 0.03 (.02) 0.04 (.02) −0.00 (.01) 0.01 (.01)
 Family income 0.01 (.01) 0.01 (.01) −0.00 (.02) −0.00 (.01)
 Self-rated health 0.11 (.04)** 0.11 (.04)** −0.00 (.04) 0.01 (.04)***
Time intensity
 Minutes per activity 0.14 (.03))*** 0.17 (.04)***
Constant 4.91 (.03)*** 5.54 (.20)*** 5.01 (.27)*** 4.47 (.27)*** 5.26 (.04)*** 5.32 (.17)*** 5.32 (.25)*** 4.63 (.28)***
Var (Residual) 0.58 (.08)*** 0.58 (.08)*** 0.58 (.08)*** 0.58 (.08)*** 0.68 (.14)*** 0.68 (.14)*** 0.68 (.14)*** 0.68 (.14)***
Var (Constant) 1.20 (.11)*** 1.15 (.11)*** 1.13 (.10)*** 1.11 (.11)*** 1.08 (.17)*** 1.05 (.17)*** 1.05 (.17)*** 1.01 (.17)***
R 2 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.02
Unweighted N 2758 2758 2758 2758 2758 2758 2758 2758
Caregivers of parents 0.56 (.15)*** 0.41 (.14)** 0.32 (.14)* 0.31 (.14)* 0.13 (.17) 0.07 (.18) 0.03 (.18) 0.05 (.19)
Demographic characteristics
 Age 0.01 (.01)** 0.01 (.01)** 0.01 (.01)** 0.01 (.01)* 0.01 (.01)* 0.01 (.01)*
 Women 0.08 (.07) 0.05 (.07) 0.05 (.07) 0.45 (.09)*** 0.33 (.10)*** 0.33 (.10)***
 White (ref)
 Black 0.12 (.13) 0.07 (.13) 0.07 (.13) −0.12 (.16) −0.23 (.16) −0.23 (.16)
 Hispanic 0.20 (.10)* 0.05 (.10) 0.05 (.10) 0.02 (.13) −0.08(.15) −0.09 (.15)
 Other race −0.03 (.09) −0.07 (.09) −0.07 (.09) −0.20 (.15) −0.28 (.16) −0.28 (.16)
 Number of children aged 0–12 −0.02 (.03) −0.03 (.03) −0.03 (.03) 0.05 (.05) 0.06 (.05) 0.06 (.05)
 Number of children aged 13–18 −0.01 (.05) −0.03 (.05) −0.03 (.05) 0.03 (.08) 0.04 (.08) 0.04 (.08)
Socioeconomic resources
 Less than high school 0.33 (.18) 0.33 (.18) 0.04 (.24) 0.04 (.24)
 High school (ref)
 Some college −0.03 (.09) −0.03 (.09) 0.31 (.14)* 0.32 (.14)*
 College or more 0.03 (.09) 0.03 (.09) 0.48 (.13)*** 0.48 (.13)***
 Married 0.01 (.10) 0.01 (.10) −0.08 (.14) −0.08 (.14)
 Work hours −0.02 (.02) −0.02 (.03) −0.05 (.03) −0.06 (.03)*
 Family income −0.01 (.01) −0.01 (.01) −0.02 (.02) −0.02 (.02)
 Self-rated health −0.13 (.03)*** −0.13 (.03)*** −0.29 (.05)*** −0.29 (.05)***
Time intensity
 Minutes per activity 0.03 (.03) −0.04 (.04)
Constant 0.35 (.03) −0.05 (.19) 0.47 (.23)* 0.37 (.24) 1.34 (.05)*** 0.51 (.24)* 1.79 (.37)*** 1.94 (.41)***
Var (Residual) 0.34 (.07)*** 0.35 (.07)*** 0.35 (.07)*** 0.35 (.11)*** 0.90 (.12)*** 0.90 (.13)*** 0.89 (.12)*** 0.89 (.12)***
Var (Constant) 0.85 (.12)*** 0.83 (.12)*** 0.79 (.11)*** 0.79 (.07)*** 2.01 (.17)*** 1.95 (.16)*** 1.86 (.16)*** 1.85 (.16)***
R 2 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05
Unweighted N 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735
Caregivers of parents 0.32 (.13)* 0.01 (.14) 0.00 (.15) −0.03 (.15) −0.42 (.20)* −0.38 (.25) −0.35 (.24) −0.34 (.24)
Demographic characteristics
 Age 0.01 (.00)* 0.01 (.01)** 0.01 (.01)** −0.00 (.01) −0.00 (.01) −0.00 (.01)
 Women 0.10 (.07) −0.01 (.08) 0.02 (.07) 0.32 (.11)** 0.32 (.12)** 0.32 (.12)**
 White (ref)
 Black 0.16 (.15) 0.00 (.12) 0.01 (.15) −0.16 (.20) −0.26 (.21) −0.26 (.20)
 Hispanic 0.23 (.12*) −0.06 (.15) −0.05 (.12) −0.15 (.15) −0.21 (.16) −0.21 (.16)
 Other race 0.05 (.12) −0.01 (.11) −0.01 (.12) −0.30 (.18) −0.34 (.18) −0.33 (.18)
 Number of children aged 0–12 −0.06 (.04) −0.05 (.04) −0.05 (.04) 0.02 (.05) 0.04 (.06) 0.04 (.06)
 Number of children aged 13–18 −0.08 (.06) −0.08 (.11) −0.08 (.05) −0.12 (.09) −0.13 (.08) −0.13 (.08)
Socioeconomic resources
 Less than high school 0.16 (.17) 0.16 (.17) −0.22 (.15) -0.22 (.26)
 High school (ref)
 Some college 0.09 (.12) 0.10 (.12) 0.32 (.16)* 0.32 (.16)*
 College or more 0.03 (.11) 0.03 (.11) 0.22 (.15) 0.22 (.15)
 Married 0.08 (.11) 0.08 (.11) −0.02 (.16) −0.02 (.16)
 Work hours −0.01 (.00)*** −0.05 (.02)** 0.04 (.03) 0.04 (.03)
 Family income −0.02 (.01) −0.02 (.02) −0.01 (.02) −0.01 (.02)
 Self-rated health −0.42 (.04)*** −0.42 (.04)*** −0.41 (.06)*** −0.41 (.05)***
Time intensity
 Minutes per activity 0.05 (.03) −0.01 (.05)
Constant 0.60 (.04)*** 0.26 (.20) 2.09 (.28)*** 1.91 (.30)*** 2.64 (.05)*** 2.58 (.33)*** 4.00 (.41)*** 4.03 (.45)***
Var (Residual) 0.47 (.09)*** 0.47 (.09)*** 0.48 (.10)*** 0.48 (.09)*** 1.29 (.13)*** 1.29 (.13)*** 1.28 (.13)*** 1.28 (.13)***
Var (Constant) 1.42 (.14)*** 1.40 (.20)*** 1.18 (.12)*** 1.18 (.12)*** 2.50 (.15)*** 2.45 (.16)*** 2.29 (.16)*** 2.29 (.16)***
R 2 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.06
Unweighted N 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735 2735
Open in a new tab

Notes. OLS = ordinary least squares.

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

The associations between perceived meaningfulness and caregiver type are presented next. At first, caregiver type was unrelated to meaningfulness (−0.17 in Model 1). When we included caregivers’ demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity in Models 2–4, caring for parents was perceived as less meaningful than caring for children (−0.29 in Model 2, −0.37 in Model 3, and −0.47 in Model 4). This association was largely suppressed by caregivers’ racial and ethnic background, self-rated health, and time intensity of care. Black caregivers rated caregiving as more meaningful than Whites, and the more time spent on caregiving activity, the more meaningfulness one felt.

The next four sets of models shown in Table 3 are for negative experienced well-being. In general, caring for parents was positively related to sadness (0.56 in Model 1), and this association persisted, though reduced in the magnitude after we added in caregivers’ demographic characteristics (Model 2), socioeconomic resources (Model 3), and time intensity (Model 4). Caregivers who were older or in poorer health perceived caregiving as sadder than their counterparts (0.01 and −0.13, respectively). The positive association between being Hispanic and sadness (0.20), shown in Model 2, was explained by the inclusion of caregivers’ socioeconomic resources.

We found no association between caregiver type and perceived stress, with or without taking into account caregivers’ demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity. Caregivers who were older, women, more educated, or in poorer health reported higher levels of stress. As for feelings of pain and tiredness, we initially found a positive association between caring for parents and pain (0.32) and a negative association between caring for parents and tiredness (−0.42), but the association disappears after considering caregivers’ demographic characteristics and socioeconomic resources (Models 2–3). Specifically, older caregivers reported more pain but caregivers who worked longer hours or had better health reported less pain. Caregivers who were women, who had some college education, and who were in poorer health perceived caregiving as more tiring than their respective counterparts.

Discussion

This study examined how evaluative and experienced well-being differed for caregivers of parents and caregivers of children. Drawing on the life course perspective, we suggested that although obligations to care for parents and children are both strong in the United States, the timing of entering into the caregiver role and the nature of care may be differentially associated with caregiver’s well-being. We anticipated that caregivers of parents would experience lower life satisfaction compared with caregivers of children. We also predicted that caregivers of parents would experience more negative feelings and less positive feelings associated with care provision than caregivers of children. Because evaluative well-being may be more sensitive to domains of life other than caregiving, we predicted that experienced well-being would better detect differences in well-being between caregivers of parents and caregivers of children than evaluative well-being.

Consistent with our first hypothesis, we found that caregivers of parents reported lower life satisfaction than caregivers of children. This association, however, disappeared when we accounted for caregivers’ demographic characteristics and socioeconomic resources that are related to different stages of the life course that caregivers of parents and caregivers of children occupy. For instance, caregivers of parents were less likely to be married or work than caregivers of children. Being married and working were positively related to life satisfaction and reduced the association between caregiver type and caregivers’ global evaluation of well-being.

With regard to the second hypothesis, our study shows that caregivers of parents experienced less happiness and tiredness, but more sadness and pain when providing care, relative to caregivers of children. Certain factors related to the life course such caregivers’ demographic characteristics and socioeconomic resources contribute to some but not all of these associations. The relationship between caregiver type and tiredness appears to be largely explained by caregivers’ gender, education, and health, whereas the association between caregiver type and pain is completely attributable to caregivers’ age, work hours, and health. Nevertheless, the associations between caregiver type and happiness/sadness persisted even after caregivers’ demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity were taken into account. Surprisingly, caregiver type was unrelated to meaningfulness at the bivariate level, but after we considered caregivers’ racial and ethnic background, caregivers’ health, and time intensity, caregivers of parents perceived care provision as less meaningful than caregivers of children. Lastly, caregivers of parents and caregivers of children perceived care provision as equally stressful, regardless of their different characteristics in response to variability in life stages.

Finally, we found that when using either evaluative or experienced measures of well-being, researchers will likely reach different conclusions regarding the association between caregiver type and well-being. This occurs because global, evaluative measures tend to be influenced by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic resources, and time intensity, each of which are related to caregivers at different life stages, whereas “in the moment” measures are likely to be immune from influences related to the life course (Kahneman & Krueger, 2006; Reizer & Hetsroni, 2015; Stone & Mackie, 2013). In sum, this study demonstrates the importance of examining different aspects of well-being and incorporating both positive and negative dimensions of experienced well-being suggested by the circumplex model (Russell, 1980, 2003) into caregiving research.

Some limitations merit further research. First, although our analyses considered several caregivers’ characteristics for compositional differences, we were unable to control for all possible confounding variables. An alternative approach would be to examine a group of caregivers who provide care to both a child and a parent. The ATUS does not have a sufficient number of caregivers to conduct such an analysis (n = 41). This approach, however, may confound feelings derived from caring for a parent with feelings that arise from caring for a child as emotions can spill over when one is caring for both generations at the same time. We also lack information about the care recipient’s need for care that may affect the nature of caregiving tasks and subsequently influence caregivers’ well-being. We attempted to compensate for this shortcoming by incorporating the time intensity measure, but the positive association between time intensity and happiness/meaningfulness indicates that time intensity may bear an endogenous, rather than exogenous, relationship with well-being. That is, when the caregiving activity is perceived as more enjoyable and meaningful, caregivers may spend more time in care. Future research should incorporate care recipients’ needs for care in time use studies to better clarify the association between caregiver type and well-being.

Despite these limitations, this study makes significant contributions to the caregiving literature by illustrating how the life course timing of entering into caregiver roles may have an impact on caregivers’ well-being. Caring for children is often an anticipated form of caregiving that is associated with a specific number of years that parents expect to provide care, whereas caring for parents is an unexpected career that is often associated with an indeterminate duration and intensity. Thus, it is reasonable to find that caring for parents is perceived as less happy, less meaningful, and sadder than caring for children. This finding also suggests that child-rearing experiences that occur earlier in the life course constitute a different set of expectations that may not prepare adults to care for their parents later in life. Thus, caregivers of parents may be in a greater need of external help than caregivers of children. Nevertheless, caring for parents often does not garner the same amount of institutional support as caring for children. For instance, paid family leave was designed to meet the needs of caregivers of both parents and children, but, in reality, these policies have focused on supporting working parents more than workers who care for their parents (O’Donnell, 2016). In addition, caring for parents often occurs during midlife when workers achieve the highest incomes. According to a recent study by MetLife (2011), leaving work or reducing work hours to care for parents not only results in lost income and health insurance but also has far-reaching consequences of losing retirement funds by over $300,000 (including wages, private pensions, and Social Security benefits). Poor psychological well-being compounded with financial loss due to caregiving for parents suggests that there is a critical need for policy makers to focus on initiatives to better support caregivers of parents in the face of rapid population aging.

Funding

This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD0509059).

Supplementary Material

JGSS_Sup_Tables_CA
Click here for additional data file. (223.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America. The authors thank Susan L. Brown and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Any opinions expressed here are solely those of the authors and not of the funding agency or center. A. M. Hammersmith performed the analyses. I.-F. Lin conceived the study. Both A. M. Hammersmith and I.-F. Lin wrote and revised the manuscript.

References

  1. American Time Use Survey (2015). American time use survey user’s guide: Understanding ATUS 2003 to 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/tus/atususersguide.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. Aneshensel C. S. Pearlin L. I. Mullan J. T. Zarit S. H., & Whitlatch C. J (1995). Profiles in caregiving: The unexpected career. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bianchi S. Folbre N., & Wolf D (2012). Unpaid care work. In Folbre N. (Ed.), For love and money (pp. 40–64). New York City, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. doi:10.7758/9781610447904 [Google Scholar]
  4. Booth A. Crouter A. C. Bianchi S. M., & Seltzer J. A (Eds.). (2008). Intergenerational caregiving. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. doi:10.1080/15350 70.2014.869945 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown M. R., & Brown S. L (2014). Informal caregiving: A reappraisal of the effects on caregivers. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8, 74–102. doi:10.1111/sipr.12002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bureau of Labor Statistics.(2015). Unpaid eldercare in the United States—2013–14 data from the American Time Use Survey Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/elcare.pdf
  7. Butler R. N. (2007). Who will care for you? Retrieved from: http://www.aarp.org/relationships/caregiving/info-2007/who_will_care_for.html
  8. Chandra A. Martinez G. M. Mosher W. D. Abma J. C., & Jones J (2005). Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U. S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23, No. 25). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. doi:10.1037/e414702008-001 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chassin L., Macy J. T., Seo D. C., Presson C. C., Sherman S. J. (2010). The association between membership in the sandwich generation and health behaviors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 38–46. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.06.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuñado J., & de Garcia F. P (2012). Does education effect happiness? Evidence from Spain. Social Indicators Research, 108, 185–196. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9874-x [Google Scholar]
  11. Deiner E. Sandvik E. Seidlitz L., & Diener M (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute?Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223. doi:10.1007/bf01079018 [Google Scholar]
  12. DeMaris A. (2004). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  13. Denton S. L. (2012). Adding eldercare questions to the American Time Use Survey. Monthly Labor Review, 26–35. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/11/art3full.pdf.
  14. DePasquale N. Polenick C. A. Davis K. D. Moen P. Hammer L. B., & Almeida D. M (2015). The psychological implication and managing work and family caregiver roles: Gender differences among information technology professionals. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X15584680 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Elder G. H., Jr (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4–15. doi:10.2307/2786971 [Google Scholar]
  16. Even-Zohar A., & Sharlin S (2009). Grandchildhood: Adult grandchildren’s perception of their role toward their grandparents from an intergenerational perspective. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40, 167–185. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fingerman K. L. Kyungmin K. Tennant P. S. Birditt K. S., & Zarit S. H (2015). Intergenerational support in a daily context. The Gerontologist. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/geront/gnv035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fredriksen K. I., & Scharlach A. E (1999). Employee family care responsibilities. Family Relations, 42, 189–196. doi:10.2307/585083 [Google Scholar]
  19. Freedman V. A., Spillman B. C. (2014). Disability and care needs among older Americans. The Milbank Quarterly, 92, 509–541. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Freedman V. A. Cornman J. C., & Carr D (2014). Is spousal caregiving associated with enhanced well-being? New evidence from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69, 861–869. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Henz U. (2006). Informal caregiving at working age: Effects of job characteristics and family configuration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 411–429. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00261.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Henz U. (2009). Couples’ provision of informal care for parents and parents-in-law: Far from sharing equally?Ageing and Society, 29, 369–395. doi:10.1017/S0144686X08008155 [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson R. W., & Wiener J. M (2006). Profile of frail older Americans and their caregivers Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/profile-frail-older-americansand-their-caregivers. doi:10.1037/e725622011-001
  24. Jones S. L. Hadjistavropoulos H. D. Janzen J. A., & Hadjistavropoulos T (2011). The relation of pain and caregiver burden in informal older adult caregivers. Pain Medicine, 12, 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.01018.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kahneman D., & Krueger A. B (2006). Developments in the measure of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 3–24. doi:10.1257/0002828041301713 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kapteyn A. Lee J. Tassot C. Vonkova H., & Zamarro G (2013). Dimensions of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 123, 625–660. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0753-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kramer B. J. (1997). Gain in the caregiving experience: Where are we? What next?The Gerontologist, 37, 218–232. doi:10.1093/geront/37.2.218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee E. Spitze G., & Logan J. R (2003). Social support to parents-in-law: The interplay of gender and kin hierarchies. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 369–403. doi:0.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00396.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Lin I.-F. Fee H. R., & Wu H.-S (2012). Negative and positive caregiving experiences: A closer look at the intersection of gender and relatioships. Family Relations, 61, 343–358. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00692.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Martin C. D. (2000). More than work: Race and gender differences in caregiving burden. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 986–1005. doi:10.1177/019251300021008003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Marks N. F. Lambert J. D., & Choi H (2002). Transitions to caregiving, gender, and psychological well-being: A prospective U.S. national study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 657–667. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00657.x [Google Scholar]
  32. McMahan E. A., & Estes D (2012). Age-related differences in lay conceptions of well-being and experienced well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 79–101. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9251-0 [Google Scholar]
  33. MetLife (2011). The MetLife Study of caregiving costs to working caregivers: Double jeopardy for Baby Boomers caring for their parents Retrieved from: https://www.metlife.com/mmi/research/caregiving-cost-working-caregivers.html#key findings
  34. Miller K. I. Shoemaker M. M. Willyard J., & Addison P (2008). Providing care for elderly parents: A structurational approach to family caregiver identity. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 19–43. doi:10.1080/15267430701389947 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mullan J. T. (1992). The bereaved caregiver: A prospective study of changes in well-being. The Gerontologist, 32, 673–683. doi:10.1093/geront/32.5.673 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Musick K., & Bumpass L (2012). Re-examining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 74, 1–18. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00873.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Musick K. Meier A., & Flood S (2014). How parents fare: Mothers’ and fathers’ subjective well-being in time with children (Working Paper No. 2014-010). Retrieved from: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-CCPR-2014-010/PWP-CCPR-2014-010.pdf [Google Scholar]
  38. Nelson S. K. Kushlev K. English T. Dunn E. W., & Lyubomirsky S (2013). In defense of parenthood: children are associated with more joy than misery. Psychological Science, 24, 3–10. doi:10.1177/0956797612447798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nock S. L. Kingston P. W., & Holian L. M (2008). The distribution of care obligations. In Booth A. Crouter A. C. Bianchi S. M., & Seltzer J. A (Eds.), Intergenerational Caregiving, (pp. 279–316). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. doi:10.1080/15350770.2014.869945 [Google Scholar]
  40. Nomaguchi K. M., & Milkie M. A (2003). Costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 356–374. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00356.x [Google Scholar]
  41. O’Donnell L. (2016). The crisis facing America’s working daughters. The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/working-daughters-eldercare/459249/
  42. Patton E., Fry R. (2015). How millennials today compare to their grandparents 50 years ago. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/19/how-millennials-compare-with-their-grandparents/#!14
  43. Pearlin L. I. (2010). The life course and the stress process: Some conceptual issues. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 65B, 207–215. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pinquart M., & Sörensen S (2003). Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 250–267. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.250 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pollmann-Schult M. (2014). Parenthood and life satisfaction: Why don’t children make people happy?Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 319–336. doi:10.1111/jomf.12095 [Google Scholar]
  46. Raschick M., & Ingersoll-Dayton B (2004). The costs and rewards of caregiving among aging spouses and adult children. Family Relations, 53, 317–325. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.0008.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Reizer A., & Hetsroni A (2015). Does helping others impair caregivers’ health? Associating caregiving, life satisfaction, and physical health. Social Behavior and Personality, 43, 255–267. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.2.255 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rossi A. S., & Rossi P. H (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  49. Russell J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. doi:10.1037/h0077714 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Russell J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172. doi:10.1080/02699930902809375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ryan L. H. Smith J. Antonucci T. C., & Jackson J. S (2012). Cohort differences in the availability of informal caregivers: are the Boomers at risk?The Gerontologist, 52, 177–188. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sarkisian N., & Gerstel N (2004). Explaining the gender gap in help to parents: The importance of employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 431–451. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00030.x [Google Scholar]
  53. Scott L. D. Hwang W.-T., & Rogers A. E (2006). The impact of multiple care giving roles on fatigue, stress, and work performance among hospital staff nurses. Journal of Nursing Administration, 36, 86–95. doi:10.1097/00005110-200602000-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Stone A. A., & Mackie C (2013). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington DC: National Research Council. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. U.S. Census Bureau.(2003). Marital Status: 2000. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-30.pdf [Google Scholar]
  56. Verbakel E. (2014). Informal caregiving and well-being in Europe: What can ease the negative consequences for caregivers. Journal of European Social Policy, 24, 424–441. doi:10.1177/0958928714543902 [Google Scholar]
  57. Walker A. J. Pratt C. C., & Eddy L (1995). Informal caregiving to aging family members: A critical review. Family Relations, 44, 402–411. doi:10.2307/584996 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wallhagen M. I., Yamamoto-Mitani N. (2006). The meaning of family caregiving in Japan and the United States: A qualitative comparative study. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 17, 65–73. doi:10.1177/1043659605281979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wallsten S. S. (2000). Effects of caregiving, gender, and race on the health, mutuality, and social supports of older couples. Journal of Aging and Health, 12, 90–111. doi:10.1177/089826430001200105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Winkelmann R. (2009). Unemployment, social capital, and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 421–430. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9097-2 [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

JGSS_Sup_Tables_CA
Click here for additional data file. (223.4KB, docx)

Articles from The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES