Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 23.
Published in final edited form as: J Relig Spiritual Aging. 2021 Mar 23;33(4):362–381. doi: 10.1080/15528030.2021.1900021

Is the Relationship Between Religiosity and Filial Elder-Care Norms Declining? A Comparison Between Two Middle-Aged Generations

Woosang Hwang 1, Joonsik Yoon 2, Maria T Brown 3, Merril Silverstein 4
PMCID: PMC8553222  NIHMSID: NIHMS1687408  PMID: 34720769

Abstract

We investigated whether religiosity among middle-aged adults in the Baby Boom generation and Generation-X was associated with filial elder-care norms. The sample consisted of 720 Baby Boom and 520 Gen-X respondents participating in the Longitudinal Study of Generations. A cohort-comparative model was devised using data from Baby Boomers in 1994 and Gen-Xers in 2016, when they were 42 and 40 years old, respectively. A three-step latent class modeling technique identified three religious classes in both generations: strongly religious, weakly religious, and doctrinally religious. Weakly religious Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers reported weaker filial elder-care norms than the strongly religious in each generation. No difference in these effects were detected by generation. However, only among Baby Boomers did the doctrinally religious express stronger filial norms, suggesting cross-cohort weakening in how beliefs translate into filial responsibility in the absence of congregational practice. This research opens lines of inquiry that examine long-term effects of adult children’s religiosity on the actual provision of assistance to older parents when they face health difficulties.

Keywords: religiosity, filial norms, elder-care, Baby Boomers, Generation-X, middle-age, latent class analysis

American society has experienced significant changes over the last half century, two of which are the aging of the population and the changing face of religion. Longer life expectancies have meant there are now more opportunities than before for adult children to provide support and care to aging parents (Swartz, 2009). Having dependent older parents is now a normative experience and care for them an expected role in many families (Brody, 1985; Van Houtven & Norton, 2004; Wolff & Kasper, 2006). Despite these changes, the sense of filial obligation of caring for older parents may be waning among later generations (Gans & Silverstein, 2006). Concurrently, religiosity in the U.S. has been declining, with more later cohorts increasingly choosing not to affiliate with any religion and relinquishing religious belief and practice (Hout & Fischer, 2014; Voas & Chaves, 2016). Given that religions almost universally promote pro-social values and practices among their followers—including values and practices that promote greater family cohesion (King, 2003; Myers, 2004; Pearce & Axinn, 1998)—the trend of declining religiosity raises the question as to whether the relationship between religiosity and filial elder-care norms has remained constant over the last several decades. These social trends create a tension between changing family care needs and shifting cultural norms, expanding opportunities for intergenerational ambivalence. We explored these questions by comparing this relationship in two consecutive cohorts using longitudinal data from a multi-generational study.

Filial Elder-care Norms

With increased life expectancy, having aging parents who require care and support has become a common experience for middle-aged individuals (Brody, 1985; Van Houtven & Norton, 2004; Wolff & Kasper, 2006). Other demographic changes have contributed to the increase in parental care responsibilities such as reduced family size, with fewer adult children bearing a greater share of care duties (Bianchi et al., 2006). However, this potential for increased intergenerational support may be mitigated by historical trends of greater marital instability, the proliferation of step-families, and increasing rates of single-parent households, each of which may inhibit potential family support for older adults in need.

The formation of step-families creates more complex family structures and could weaken relationships (Hwang et al., 2019; van der Pas et al., 2013), resulting in more uncertainty about the nature and extent of family obligations. The step-relationships resulting from remarriage may also be less robust than those in intact, first-marriage families (Ganong & Coleman, 2017), resulting in the possible weakening of filial norms. Evidence also suggests that Baby Boomers are more involved with their children at the expense of their involvement with their aging parents (Fingerman et al., 2012). Family ties now appear to be viewed more as voluntary than as a necessary obligation. This reinforces greater independence and reduced need for family support among older people due to a general increase in their living standards and an expansion in social services targeting older and retired populations (Lye, 1996; Quinn & Cahill, 2016). These developments would seem to contribute to a weakening of filial norms among U.S. families. Yet, despite concerns that filial norms have diminished over time, empirical evidence suggests that cultural norms of intergenerational family support have remained relatively stable (Swartz, 2009).

At the same time, marital instability is associated with the Baby Boom cohort, a generation which appears to have experienced greater divorce rates than the generations that came before and after it (Brown & Lin, 2012; Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014). This suggests that family ties and filial norms may be more tenuous in the Baby Boom generation than in Generation X.

However, young adults in contemporary generations are more dependent on their parents at later ages than previous generations (Fingerman, 2017), which may lead to closer intergenerational relations and greater willingness to support parents in later life. Alternatively, this extended and prolonged dependence may create an intergenerational schism if there is an expectation that adult children should have achieved independence from their parents (Fingerman, 1996; Birditt et al., 2009), as both parents and children are prevented from progressing into the next expected stage of their lives. Studies have shown that life course transitions can be a source of intergenerational conflict, but the apparent failure of children to make expected transitions might also cause conflict (Kaufman & Uhlenberg, 1998; Aquilino, 2006). This schism could be compounded by relational ambivalence resulting from parents or children, or both, feeling trapped in a close, dependent relationship (Silverstein et al., 1997; van Gaalen et al., 2010). The postponement of full independence may also reduce the ability of adult children to support older parents if delayed careers and family formation introduces competing demands to parental care.

There is relatively little data on the shaping of norms of filial support in Generation X as compared to the previous generation of Baby Boomers. While historical forces suggest that religious pathways to strengthened filial norms may differ across generations, this proposition has not yet been examined in the literature. However, using life course theory (Elder, 1977; Elder & Shanahan, 2007) to analyze the continuing evolution over time of conflicting social demands and changing priorities, we would expect social norms, including filial norms, of different generational cohorts to be distinct from each other given the difference in the histories of the two cohorts noted above. Given variation in the strength of religious precepts on moral and family values, we expect changing religious values and practices of the population to influence generational cohorts in disparate ways that are difficult to predict. In the next section, we discuss the role of religion in the formation of filial responsibility toward older individuals and older parents.

Filial Norms and Religiosity

In social science research, religiosity has been defined as “a multidimensional construct that includes beliefs, behaviors, rituals, and ceremonies that may be held or practiced in private or public settings, but are in some way derived from established traditions that developed over time within a community” (H. Koenig et al., 2012). Religion can also be viewed as emanating from an organized system of beliefs and practices which, among other objectives, is designed to foster greater harmony within the community (Koenig et al., 2015). Within this conceptualization, almost all religious traditions endorse precepts that promote positive intergenerational relations and a commitment to honor and serve older family members. Religious doctrines generally encourage respect for parents, teach values that emphasize compassion and helping of others, and develop institutional structures and rituals that reinforce family ties and intergenerational bonds (Gans et al., 2009). Studies have supported these observations, showing a positive association between religious involvement and the quality of intergenerational relations (Myers, 2004; Pearce & Axinn, 1998; Pearce & Haynie, 2004). For example, adult children who attended religious services more frequently had better relationships, more frequent contact, and exchanged more assistance with their parents, than those attending less frequently (King et al., 2013). While most studies of this type focus on populations within the Judeo-Christian tradition, the association between religiosity and filial responsibility runs across populations with different mixtures of religious denominations. For instance, a five-country European study found that strongly religious individuals were more committed to elder care norms and more involved in parent care than non-religious individuals (Gans et al., 2009).

In addition, religious congruence between parents and adult children, based on religious values (Sechrist et al., 2011), religious attendance (Pearce & Axinn, 1998; Myers, 2004), and religious affiliation (Hwang et al., 2018), have been shown to be positively correlated with intergenerational emotional closeness, and predictive of assistance exchanged between generations (Myers, 2004). Conversely, the drift of children away from the religions of their families’ orientations can be a source of tension and conflict between generations (Bengtson et al., 2013; Clarke et al., 1999). Both this and other studies support the proposition that religious discontinuity may serve as a source of divisiveness in families as much as religious continuity serves as a source of bonding (Dollahite et al., 2018). Given that most intergenerational differences in religiosity are structured with adult children being less religious than their parents (Bengtson et. al., 2013), diminished religiosity in the younger generation may also be associated with holding weaker values with respect to family life than the older generation.

Generational Cohorts and Historical Continency

In this investigation we take a cohort-comparative approach by focusing on religiosity and filial elder-care responsibility in two adjacent generations or birth cohorts—Baby Boomers and Generation X (Gen-X). When taken together, these two generations are situated at the cusp of the just discussed historical divides in religious and family life in the United States. Although parental care provided by adult children is a common experience and largely normative expectation (Silverstein et al., 2006), religious orientations may be less predictive of attitudes toward parental care in later generations.

During the lifetimes of these two cohorts, there has been a general loosening of traditional family values and greater acceptance of deviations from these norms (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). At the same time, studies have shown a general decline in religiosity among later generations, with an apparent rise in so-called religious “nones” (Hout & Fischer, 2014; America’s Changing Religious Landscape, 2015; Voas & Chaves, 2016). While there is some debate as to whether this represents a decline in religiosity and spirituality or an increasing rejection of organized religion among those who hold spiritual beliefs (Oman, 2013), evidence suggests that the nature of religious expression has changed to one that is more eclectic and less coercive. Such a change in the meaning of religious life suggests not only that there may be significant differences in religiosity between generational cohorts, but that the power of religiosity to predict filial norms might be weaker in Gen-X than in Baby Boomers—a possibility we examine in this analysis.

In the current study, we examined the relationship between religiosity and filial eldercare norms among Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers at midlife, to determine whether this relationship has remained constant over the last several decades, and, if not whether it has strengthened or weakened across generational time.

Method

Sample

This study used data from the Longitudinal Study of Generations (LSOG), a multi-time point and multigenerational data including 3,681 respondents nested within 418 families from 1971 (Wave 1) to 2016 (Wave 9). The LSOG began in 1971 as a cross-sectional study with three generation families—grandparents (G1; Greatest Generation), parents (G2; Silent Generation), and grandchildren (G3; Baby Boomers)—from Southern California’s largest health maintenance organization of 840,000 members. The LSOG became a longitudinal study in 1985, and great-grandchildren (G4; Gen-X) were added when they reached at least 16 years old in 1991. Data were collected by mailed-back questionnaires from multigeneration families, and an online survey platform was added in 2016 (for more details, see Silverstein & Bengtson, 2019).

Our analytic approach capitalizes on a cohort-sequential design that organizes the data such that the two generations are assessed at roughly the same stage of life in early middle age. Thus, we selected a subsample of 711 G3s who participated in the 1994 survey (mean age = 42 years) and 535 G4s who participated in the 2016 survey (mean age = 40 years). After excluding one G3 and 15 G4s who did not respond to all religiosity items, the final sample consisted of 710 G3s and 520 G4s (N = 1,230).

Measures

Religiosity.

Religiosity was assessed in four domains: Religious attendance, religious intensity, literalist beliefs, and civic value of religion. All variables signifying religiosity are dichotomized to maximize interpretation of the statistical model used. Religious attendance was measured by the question: “How often do you attend church or religious services these days?” Response options ranged from (1) never to (6) more than once a week, which were dichotomized into low (never-several times a year) versus high (about once a month-more than once a week). Religious intensity was measured by one item: “Regardless of whether you actually attend religious services, do you consider yourselves to be religious?” Response options ranged from (1) not at all religious to (4) very religious, which were dichotomized into low intensity (disagree/strongly disagree) versus high intensity (agree/strongly agree). Literal biblical beliefs were measured by agreement or disagreement with the following two statements: “God exists in the form as described in the bible”, and “All people alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve”, and civic value of religion was measured by agreement or disagreement with the following statement: “This country would be better off if religion had a greater influence on daily life” Response options ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree, which were dichotomized into at least some disagreement (disagree/strongly disagree) and at least some agreement (agree/strongly agree).

Filial elder-care norms.

Filial elder-care norms were measured by six items. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of responsibility that adult children with families of their own should have to (1) provide companionship or spend time with elderly parents who are in need, (2) help with household chores and repairs and/or provide transportation for elderly parents who are in need, (3) listen to the problems and concerns of elderly parents and provide advice and guidance, (4) provide for the personal and health care needs of elderly parents (for example, bathing, grooming, medication, etc.), (5) provide financial support and/or assist in the financial and legal affairs of elderly parents who are in need, and (6) provide housing for elderly parents who are in need” Response options ranged from (1) none to (5) total. The mean score was calculated from the six items, with higher scores reflecting stronger filial elder-care norms. Reliability α was .89 in both G3s in Wave 5 and G4s in Wave 9.

Control variables.

Control variables included age in years, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), education (1 = 8th grade or less, 8 = post-graduate degree), race (0 = others, 1 = white), income (1 = under $10,000, 21 = $200,000 or more), and marital status (0 = others, 1 = legally married) as control variables of respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics. We also controlled for respondents’ religious affiliation using six binary variables (Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, and other religions), as compared to the reference group of those expressing no religious affiliation. In addition, in order to control for survival and health status of respondents’ parents, we constructed two binary variables for mothers and fathers: alive/unhealthy and deceased, as compared to the reference group of alive/healthy. Health of parents was assessed by five dichotomous items about the presence of a chronic condition (heart problems, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases) in mothers and/or fathers as reported by adult children.

Analytic Strategy

It is commonly recognized that religiosity is a multi-dimensional construct, with each dimension representing a different facet of religious experience or orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967; Cornwall et al., 1986; Hill & Pargament, 2017; Myers, 2004). Typological analysis represents an informative approach to simultaneously representing these dimensions. In this approach, individuals are grouped into classes based on their combined statuses on multiple religious indicators (Park et al., 2013; Pearce et al., 2013; Vasilenko & Espinosa-Hernández, 2019). In the current analysis we employ latent class analysis (LCA), a person-centered approach used to identify unobserved subgroups (latent classes) based on individuals’ responses to the religion items (Nylund-Gibson & Choi 2018).

LCA was conducted, separately for G3s and G4s, using a Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars (BCH) three-step technique in Latent Gold 5.1 (Bakk et al., 2013; Vermunt, 2010). The BCH three-step approach is useful for both developing a latent class typology and examining the association between class membership and an outcome variable, while adjusting for classification errors and the effects of control variables on both class membership and an outcome variable (Bakk et al., 2013). As a first step, latent class models between one and six classes were estimated using five dichotomized religiosity indicators. We selected the optimal number of latent classes using three information criteria: Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), Consistent Akaike Information Criterion (CAIC), and Sample-Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (SABIC). The typologies for each generation with the smallest BIC, CAIC, and SABIC values were considered the optimal number of latent classes of religiosity (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). Second, participants were assigned a probability of membership in each latent class, which are used to define the classes. In addition, we examined the association of religious classes with demographic variables to further validate our model choice and substantiate our class definitions. Third, we modeled filial norms as a function of class membership weighted by latent class membership probabilities and controlling for socio-demographics, parental survival/health, and religious affiliation. Results are first presented without control variables and then with control variables added. Full-information maximum likelihood estimation was used to account for missing values (Vermunt & Magidson, 2016).

Results

Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive characteristics of G3 and G4 are displayed in Table 1. On average, G3s were 42 years old, the majority were White/non-Hispanic (93.8%), and 57.9% were female. The mean annual household incomes for G3s ranged between $60,000 and $70,000. The majority of G3s (76.6%) were married and 34.5% reported no religious affiliation. G4s were 40 years old on average, 54.0% were female, and the majority were White/non-Hispanic (96.2%). The mean annual household incomes of G4s ranged between $90,000 and $100,000. The majority (71.7%) were married and 48.8% reported no religious affiliation. The mean score of filial norms was not significantly different between G3s and G4s.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristics of Baby Boomers and Generation Xers

Variables G3 Baby Boomers
Wave 5 (1994; n = 710)		 G4 Gen-Xers
Wave 9 (2016; n = 520)
n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD)
Age 42.15 (4.04) 40.00 (5.59)
Gender
 Male 299 (42.1) 239 (46.0)
 Female 411 (57.9) 281 (54.0)
Education 5.41 (1.42) 5.61 (1.32)
Race
 White 666 (93.8) 500 (96.2)
 Others 43 (6.1) 20 (3.8)
Annual Income 7.14 (3.98) 10.98 (5.47)
Marital Status
 Married 544 (76.6) 373 (71.7)
 Separated/Divorced/Widowed 82 (11.6) 52 (10.0)
 Living with a partner 33 (4.6) 43 (8.3)
 Single/Never married 47 (6.6) 51 (9.8)
Religious Affiliation
 Mainline Protestant 117 (16.5) 23 (4.4)
 Evangelical Protestant 105 (14.8) 108 (20.8)
 Catholic 97 (13.7) 40 (7.7)
 Jewish 53 (7.5) 31 (6.0)
 Mormon 31 (4.4) 45 (8.7)
 Others 28 (3.9) 17 (3.3)
 None 245 (34.5) 254 (48.8)
Parents’ Health Status
 Mother: Alive and healthy 369 (52.0) 279 (53.6)
 Mother: Alive and unhealthy 284 (40.0) 198 (38.1)
 Mother: Dead 57 (8.0) 43 (8.3)
 Father: Alive and healthy 304 (42.8) 242 (46.6)
 Father: Alive and unhealthy 247 (34.8) 218 (41.9)
 Father: Dead 159 (22.4) 60 (11.5)
Religiosity Indicators
 Religious attendance: Low 446 (62.8) 367 (70.6)
 Religious attendance: High 254 (35.8) 151 (29.0)
 Religious intensity: Low 312 (43.9) 352 (67.7)
 Religious intensity: High 370 (52.1) 167 (32.1)
 Country better off: Low 262 (36.9) 306 (58.8)
 Country better off: High 429 (60.4) 213 (41.0)
 God in Bible: Low 243 (34.2) 275 (52.9)
 God in Bible: High 451 (63.5) 240 (46.2)
 Adam and Eve: Low 330 (46.5) 284 (54.6)
 Adam and Eve: High 332 (46.8) 230 (44.2)
Filial Norms 3.57 (.62) 3.50 (.71)
Open in a new tab

Identifying Religious Classes

Based on all goodness of fit indicators (BIC, CAIC, and SABIC), the latent class analysis suggests that a three-class model was the best-fitting model for both G3s and G4s (see Table 2). The item responses and latent class probabilities of three religious classes in G3s and G4s are presented in Table 3. The strongly religious class (46% of G3s and 26% of G4s) was characterized by high levels of all religiosity indicators. The weakly religious class (35% of G3s and 52% of G4s) was characterized by low levels of all religiosity indicators. The doctrinally religious class (19% of G3s and 22% of G4s) was characterized by high levels of literal beliefs and civic value of religion and low levels of religious attendance and religious intensity.

Table 2.

Latent Class Analysis Statistics and Fit Indices

Model Classes (n) G3 Baby Boomers (n = 710) G4 Gen-Xers (n = 520)
BIC CAIC SABIC BIC CAIC SABIC
Model 1 1 4624.06 4629.06 4608.19 3429.72 3434.72 3413.85
Model 2 2 3909.22 3920.22 3874.29 2416.71 2427.71 2381.79
Model 3 3 3862.01 3879.01 3808.03 2368.52 2385.52 2314.56
Model 4 4 3875.64 3898.64 3802.61 2397.70 2420.70 2324.69
Model 5 5 3913.90 3942.90 3821.82 2429.34 2458.34 2337.28
Model 6 6 3947.82 3982.82 3836.69 2466.32 2501.32 2355.23
Open in a new tab

Note. Bolded values indicate best fit for each respective statistic. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion. CAIC = Consistent Akaike Information Criterion. SABIC = Sample-size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion.

Table 3.

Item Responses and Latent Class Probabilities of Three Religious Classes in Baby Boomers and Generation Xers

Generation Items Item Response Probabilities
Strongly
Religious		 Weakly
Religious		 Doctrinally
Religious
G3 Baby Boomers Religious attendance .69 .11 .01
Religious intensity .89 .25 .20
Country better off .92 .23 .60
God in Bible .95 .08 .96
Descendants of Adam and Eve .81 .03 .62
G4 Gen-Xers Religious attendance .90 .04 .15
Religious intensity .94 .02 .31
Country better off .96 .07 .55
God in Bible .97 .05 .83
Descendants of Adam and Eve .96 .04 .79
Latent Class Probabilities Strongly
Religious		 Weakly
Religious		 Doctrinally
Religious
G3 Baby Boomers .46 .35 .19
G4 Gen-Xers .26 .52 .22
Open in a new tab

Note: Bold indicates item response probabilities over .5.

The distribution of latent class membership by descriptive characteristics are presented for G3s and G4s in Table 4. Among G3s, women were more likely be in the strongly religious class compared to men (53% vs. 40%). However, among G4s men and women are almost equally likely to be in the strongly religious class (24% vs. 25%). Married individuals were more likely to be in the strongly religious class (51% vs. 34%) in G3s compared to divorced, separated, widowed, and never-married individuals and that differential was larger in G4s (31% vs. 8%). In terms of religious denomination, G3s identifying with more doctrinaire religions were most likely to be in the strongly religious class —Mormons (97%), Evangelical Protestants (81%), and Catholics (72%)—but among G4s those percentages fell precipitously to 82% for Mormons, 53% for Evangelical Protestants, and 40% for Catholics. Representation of Mainline Protestants in the strongly religious class also declined from 68% to 39% between G3s and G4s. Those identifying as Jewish were most represented in the weakly religious class at 62% among G3s, increasing to 81% among G4s. Mainline Protestants were more likely than other religions to be in the doctrinally religious class among G3s (24%) and this standing persisted in G4s (39%). Finally, except for Mormons and those identifying with “other” religions, all religions and those subscribing to no religion saw sizable increases in the weakly religious class from G3s and G4s.

Table 4.

Descriptive Characteristics by Latent Class Membership

G3 Baby Boomers (n = 710) G4 Gen-Xers (n = 520)
Characteristics Strongly
Religious		 Weakly
Religious		 Doctrinally
Religious		 Strongly
Religious		 Weakly
Religious		 Doctrinally
Religious
Age (Mean) 42.06 42.26 42.15 40.48 39.54 40.50
Gender (% by row)
 Male 39.5 38.1 22.4 24.3 55.6 20.1
 Female 52.5 27.7 19.5 25.3 51.6 23.1
Education (Mean; 1-8) 5.24 6.04 4.60 5.73 5.81 4.99
Race (% by row)
 White 47.9 31.8 20.3 24.2 54.2 21.6
 Others 34.9 37.2 27.9 35.0 40.0 25.0
Marital status (% by row)
 Married 51.3 28.3 20.4 31.4 45.8 22.8
 Not married 34.4 44.8 20.9 7.5 73.3 19.2
Annual income (Mean:1–21) 6.39 7.89 7.42 11.36 11.36 9.52
Religious affiliation (% by row)
 Mainline Protestant 67.5 8.5 23.9 39.1 21.7 39.1
 Evangelical Protestant 81.0 1.9 17.1 52.8 10.2 37.0
 Catholic 72.2 16.5 11.3 40.0 27.5 32.5
 Jewish 20.8 62.3 17.0 9.7 80.6 9.7
 Mormon 96.8 0.0 3.2 82.2 0.0 17.8
 Others 39.3 60.7 0.0 41.2 41.2 17.6
 None 12.7 57.6 29.8 0.0 85.4 14.6
Mother’s health status (% by row)
 Alive and healthy 46.9 33.1 20.1 24.4 55.6 20.1
 Alive and unhealthy 51.1 29.9 19.0 25.3 50.5 24.2
 Dead 29.8 36.8 33.3 25.6 53.5 20.9
Father’s health status (% by row)
 Alive and healthy 47.7 33.2 19.1 26.9 52.9 20.2
 Alive and unhealthy 47.4 33.6 19.0 30.3 46.7 23.3
 Dead 45.9 27.7 26.4 21.1 56.0 22.9
Open in a new tab

Religious Classes as Predictors of Filial Elder-care Norms

Regression coefficients predicting filial elder-care norms are presented in Table 5. In all models, the weakly religious class (reference group: strongly religious) was negatively associated with filial norms in both G3s (b = −.21, p < .001 in Model 1 and b = −.28, p < .001 in Model 2) and G4s (b = −.22, p < .01 in Model 3 and b = −.33, p = .015 in Model 4). These results indicate that G3s and G4s classified as strongly religious had stronger filial norms than those classified as weakly religious. In addition, the doctrinally religious class (reference group: strongly religious) was negatively associated with filial norms in G3s (b = −.21, p = .020 in Model 1 and b = −.26, p = .016 in Model 2) but not in G4s. These results indicate that G3s classified as doctrinally religious had weaker filial norms than those classified as strongly religious. However, this association was not seen in G4s. Among control variables, G4s whose mothers were alive and unhealthy had stronger filial norms than those whose mothers were alive and healthy (b = .12, p = .049 in Model 4). Other control variables were not related to filial norms in either group.

Table 5.

Multiple Regression Estimates Predicting Filial Elder-care Norms

G3 Baby Boomers (n = 710) G4 Gen-Xers (n = 520)
Filial Norms Filial Norms
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variables b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
Intercept 3.68 (.03)*** 4.12 (.32)*** 3.62 (.06)*** 4.17 (.35)***
Class Membership
 Reference: Strongly religious 0 0 0 0
 Weakly religious -.21 (.05)*** -.28 (.08)*** -.22 (.07)** -.33 (.13)*
 Doctrinally religious -.21 (.08)* -.26 (.10)* -.04 (.11) -.10 (.13)
Control Variables
 Age -.01 (.01) -.00 (.00)
 Gender
  Reference: Male 0 0
  Female .06 (.04) .07 (.06)
 Education -.00 (.01) -.03 (.02)
 Race
  Reference: Others 0 0
  White -.10 (.11) .01 (.19)
 Annual income .00 (.01) .00 (.00)
 Marital status
  Reference: Others 0 0
  Married .00 (.06) -.09 (.07)
 Religious affiliation
  Reference: None 0 0
  Mainline protestant -.06 (.07) -.24 (.13)
  Evangelical protestant -.17 (.08) -.16 (.11)
  Catholic -.15 (.08) .08 (.12)
  Jewish .02 (.08) -.10 (.12)
  Mormon -.03 (.10) -.04 (.17)
  Others -.11 (.12) -.01 (.12)
 Mother’s health status
  Reference: Alive and healthy 0 0
  Alive and unhealthy -.00 (.04) .12 (.06)*
  Dead -.14 (.09) -.10 (.14)
 Father’s health status
  Reference: Alive and healthy 0 0
  Alive and unhealthy -.01 (.05) -.00 (.06)
  Dead -.00 (.06) -.03 (.10)
Open in a new tab

Note:

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

***

p < .001

Discussion

In this study, we examined the relationship between religiosity and filial elder norms among Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers. We identified the same three classes of religiosity in each generation: strongly religious, weakly religious, and doctrinally religious. The identification of three religious classes among both Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, supports other scholarship demonstrating how multiple facets of religiosity can be efficiently captured with person-centered classification schemes (Bravo et al., 2016; Cornwall et al., 1986; Pearce et al., 2013). The strongly religious scored high on all measures of religiosity, while the weakly religious scored low on all measures. The doctrinally religious are also not dissimilar from classes identified in other classification schemes that include believers who do not publicly practice their faith (e.g., Vasilenko & Espinosa-Hernández, 2019). We note that the doctrinally religious differ from the “privately religious” found in other typologies, because the former rate themselves as not very religious despite their belief in standard, conservative religious dogma. This suggests that the doctrinally religious may be isolated from mainstream religious movements and have a more rote understanding of religious dogma.

As expected, we found that the proportion of the sample in the strongly religious class was lower among among Gen-Xers (26%) than among Baby Boomers (46%). Conversely, the proportion of the sample in the weakly religious class was higher in Gen-Xers (52%) compared to Baby Boomers (35%). These findings mirror current trends of religion in the United States, that more recent cohorts of Americans have become less religious over the last several decades (Twenge et al., 2016). However, the proportion of the sample in the doctrinally religious class was largely the same in Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, (19% vs 22%, respectively). Nevertheless, the composition of this hybrid class differed across generations in terms of denominational affiliation, with weaker associations between having a denominational identification and being doctrinally religious in the older generation. In other words, Baby Boomers were less likely than Gen-Xers to have their doctrinal religiousness emanate from a denominational affiliation. This may appear inconsistent with a previous study that showed Baby Boomers reporting increased religious intensity as they aged into their 50s (Bengtson et al., 2015), and research suggesting that Baby Boomers were “returning” to their religion in late middle age (Silverstein & Bengtson, 2018). However, we speculate that this heterogeneous class consists of individuals with religious identities in which public and private religious orientations are not fully synchronized, a pattern of religiousness observed among contemporary young adults (Beyer et al., 2019) and consistent with religious restlessness observed among Baby-Boomers, which is characterized by a general dissatisfaction with existing religious institutions and a search “for something more” (Roof, 2001). This restlessness suggests that the specific religious characteristics of this group were in flux as they aged, and that their religious profiles in early adulthood were less predictive of their religious preferences in middle age.

Contrary to expectations, we found no evidence that filial elder-care norms differed across generations. These values appear to be persistent across the cohorts studied and may be the result of the study design equating the generations at a life stage when intergenerational responsibility is at its peak (Gans & Silverstein, 2006). This suggests that age may be more important than cohort membership in forming values that prioritize children’s responsbility for older parents. In filial norms, the effects of family time, representing the different stages of personal development and progression within the familial context (Bengtson & Allen, 1993; Gans & Silverstein, 2006), may take precedence over the influence of chronological history and changing social values, at least at this particular point in the life course.

Using multivariate models and a cohort-comparative empirical design we found that weakly religious individuals in both generations expressed weaker filial norms than strongly religious individuals. This effect appears similar across generations. These findings are consistent with Gans and colleagues’ European study (2009) that found religiosity to be positively associated with filial norms among adult children and support previous studies finding that religiosity reinforces family ties and intergenerational bonds (Myers, 2004; Pearce & Axinn, 1998; Pearce & Haynie, 2004).

However, only among Baby Boomers did the doctrinally religious express weaker norms than the strongly religious. Thus, our initial expectations that Gen-Xers would exhibit a weaker relationship between religious orientations and elder-care norms was partially confirmed and only with respect to the doctrinally religious class. In this class, the literalist component of religion in the absence of congregational participation may have less power in more recent generations to shape values about the rectitude of serving older parents. This may be reflected in younger generations being more individualistic and more selective in the religious beliefs and associated social values they choose to adopt (Arnett & Jensen, 2002), and may help explain the increasing numbers of people who identify as “spiritual but not religious” instead of embracing a traditional religious identity (Oman, 2013). This generational difference may say much about the weakening of purely doctrinal forms of religiosity as a coercive force and motivator of altruistic behavior.

This study has several limitations. First, we were unable to include spirituality as an indicator of religiosity because the LSOG only added a spirituality measure in later waves. Second, filial norms were measured with respect to the “generalized other” and thus we were unable to examine participants’ responsibility toward their own parents. There may be a disconnect between the personal sense of filial obligation felt by respondents toward their own parents versus a more generalized conception of appropriate filial duty in the wider community. Third, our sample underrepresents minority and low-income populations and tends to be concentrated in California. Therefore, we urge caution in generalizing our results to the national population. With little existing longitudinal data on the relationship between religiosity and filial norms--especially in non-White populations—it is too early to speculate if our results would be replicated in the experiences of more diverse populations or show different patterns of change over time. Fourth, given that this study is a cross-sectional study, our findings are limited in establishing a causal relationship between religiosity and filial norms. Finally, our sample over-represented Mormons and Jews when compared to their national populations, which provided some advantages in terms of adding two divergent groups to contrast with dominant religious groups, but which should be kept in mind before making generalizations of the study’s findings.

In summary, this study provided insights into the relationship between religiosity and filial norms among middle-aged Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers. Religiosity at the margins, even in its diminished contemporary condition, served as a persistent predictor of elder-care norms. We detected weakening across generations in the power of the doctrinally religious class to predict these norms, which has implications for how we understand the role personal and public aspects of religiosity play in shaping filial values toward older adults. Given that the care of older parents has become an increasingly important issue with population aging, middle adulthood represents a life stage in which understanding influences on attitudes toward elder care is particularly salient to those who may be both providers of, and future recipients of, family care.

We note that religiosity and spirituality have been found to have a generally positive link to the delivery of family care to older relatives. For example, religiosity and spirituality have a positive influence on caregiver health (Hastings et al 2020) and well-being (Fife et al 2020; Yoon et al 2018), and the integration of cultural and religious practices into social services can improve support for family caregivers (Richardson et al 2019; Stuckey 2001). As a result of alleviating caregiver burden, such religious resources could potentially help delay institutionalization of care recipients. However, successive generations are less likely to be exposed to religiosity earlier in their life course (Silverstein et al 2019); consequently, their filial norms are less likely to be influenced by religious teachings. As a result, adult children may be less inclined to care for their aging parents, either personally at home or financially in formal care settings. Unless older parents take steps to ensure their own financial stability in later years, greater stress may be placed on publicly financed systems of elder-care.

Faith-based organizations may find that congregants seeking help navigating eldercare issues are no longer as bound by a common instructive set of moral and ethical beliefs, leading to greater conflict between individual desires and religious norms. When working with congregants, clergy, and support staff may need to rely on more humanistic guidance when advising congregants on these issues as the influence of religious, doctrinal guidance has diminished. Those working in faith-based organizations may consequently require more training in social work and counseling skills separate from their traditional spiritual or religious training. At the same time, faith-based social service organizations may experience greater demand for elder-care services as family support potentially becomes weaker over time.

We suggest that future studies examine the long-term influence of religiosity on the provision of assistance to older parents over the life course and its impact on future generations. Whether religiosity motivates care behavior and continues to reinforce family ties and intergenerational responsibility has implications for how society organizes its resources in support of older adults. As a social good, religion may continue to be a driving force for promoting altruistic filial concern for aging parents; however, the strongly religious will likely characterize an increasingly smaller segment of the population, shrinking the overall impact of religion on filial values, even if its strength in instilling such values remains the same.

Acknowledgments

The project described was supported by Award Numbers 61457 by John Templeton Foundation and R21AG064512 by National Institute on Aging.

Contributor Information

Woosang Hwang, Aging Studies Institute, Syracuse University.

Joonsik Yoon, Social Science PhD Program, Syracuse University.

Maria T. Brown, Aging Studies Institute, Syracuse University

Merril Silverstein, Department of Human Development and Family Science, Syracuse University.

References

  1. Allport GW, & Ross JM (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. 10.1037/h0021212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aquilino WS (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193–217). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/11381-008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arnett JJ, & Jensen LA (2002). A congregation of one: Individualized religious beliefs among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(5), 451–467. 10.1177/0743558402175002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hwang W, Silverstein M, & Brown MT (2018). Parent–adult child religious discordance: Consequences for intergenerational solidarity across several decades. Journal of Family Issues, 39(6), 1545–1572. 10.1177/0192513X17710775 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hwang W, Yoon J, Silverstein M, & Brown MT (2019). Intergenerational Affectual Solidarity in Biological and Step Relations: The Moderating Role of Religious Similarity. Family Relations, 68(5), 549–564. 10.1111/fare.12397 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakk Z, Tekle FB, & Vermunt JK (2013). Estimating the association between latent class membership and external variables using bias-adjusted three-step approaches. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 272–311. 10.1177/0081175012470644 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bengtson VL, & Allen KR (1993). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In Boss P, Doherty WJ, LaRossa R, Schumm WR, & Steinmetz SK (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 469–498). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bengtson VL, Putney NM, & Harris S (2013). Families and faith: How religion is passed down across generations (1st edition). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bengtson VL, Silverstein M, Putney NM, & Harris SC (2015). Does religiousness increase with age? Age changes and generational differences over 35 Years. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10/gdcftp [Google Scholar]
  10. Beyer P, Cummins A, & Craig S (2019). Religious/spiritual identity among younger adults in Canada: A complex portrait. In Young people and the diversity of (non) religious identities in international perspective (pp. 15–31). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bianchi S, Seltzer J, Hotz VJ, & McGarry K (2006). Intergenerational ties: Alternative theories, empirical findings and trends, and remaining challenges: UCLA CCPR Population Working Papers. Retrieved from http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/index.php/pwp/article/view/PWP-CCPR-2006-024 [Google Scholar]
  12. Birditt KS, Miller LM, Fingerman KL, & Lefkowitz ES (2009). Tensions in the parent and adult child relationship: Links to solidarity and ambivalence. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 287–295. 10.1037/a0015196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bravo AJ, Pearson MR, & Stevens LE (2016). Making religiosity person-centered: A latent profile analysis of religiosity and psychological health outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 160–169. https://doi.org/10/ggkkrs [Google Scholar]
  14. Brody EM (1985). Parent care as a normative family stress. The Gerontologist, 25(1), 19–29. 10.1093/geront/25.1.19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown SL, & Lin I-F (2012). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle-aged and older adults, 1990–2010. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 67(6), 731–741. 10.1093/geronb/gbs089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Clarke EJ, Preston M, Raksin J, & Bengtson VL (1999). Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children. The Gerontologist, 39(3), 261–270. 10.1093/geront/39.3.261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cornwall M, Albrecht SL, Cunningham PH, & Pitcher BL (1986). The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual model with an empirical test. Review of Religious Research, 27(3), 226–244. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10/bgkfnz [Google Scholar]
  18. Dollahite DC, Marks LD, & Dalton H (2018). Why religion helps and harms families: A conceptual model of a system of dualities at the nexus of faith and family life. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 219–241. https://doi.org/10/gc6wxc [Google Scholar]
  19. Elder GH (1977). Family history and the life course. Journal of Family History, 2(4), 279–304. 10.1177/036319907700200402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Elder GH, & Shanahan MJ (2007). The life course and human development. In Lerner RM (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume one: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 665–715). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fife B, Brooks-Cleator L, & Lewis JP (2020). “The world was shifting under our feet, so I turned to my devotionals as his dementia worsened”: The role of spirituality as a coping mechanism for family caregivers of Alaska Native elders with dementia. Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/15528030.2020.1754995 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fingerman KL (1996). Sources of tension in the aging mother and adult daughter relationship. Psychology and Aging, 11(4), 591–606. 10.1037/0882-7974.11.4.591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fingerman KL (2017). Millennials and their parents: Implications of the new young adulthood for midlife adults. Innovation in Aging, 1(3). 10.1093/geroni/igx026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fingerman KL, Pillemer KA, Silverstein M, & Suitor JJ (2012). The Baby Boomers’ intergenerational relationships. The Gerontologist, 52(2), 199–209. 10.1093/geront/gnr139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ganong LH, & Coleman M (2017). The dynamics of stepparenting. In stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and interventions (2nd ed., pp. 143–173). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gans D, & Silverstein M (2006). Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 961–976. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00307.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gans D, Silverstein M, & Lowenstein A (2009). Do religious children care more and provide more care for older parents? A study of filial norms and behaviors across five nations. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(2), 187–201. Doi: 10.3138/jcfs.40.2.187 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hastings JF, Nugraheni SE, & Neighbors HW (2020). African Americans, caregiving, and physical health ratings: Does culture, religion and spirituality provide support? Race and Social Problems. 10.1007/s12552-020-09302-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill PC, & Pargament KI (2017). Measurement tools and issues in the psychology of religion and spirituality. In Finke R & Bader C (Eds.), Faithful measures: New methods in the measurement of Religion (pp. 48–77). New York University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hout M, & Fischer CS (2014). Explaining why more Americans have no religious [Google Scholar]
  31. preference: Political backlash and generational succession, 1987–2012. Sociological Science, 1, 423–447. https://doi.org/10/ggn4dg [Google Scholar]
  32. Kaufman G, & Uhlenberg P (1998). Effects of life course transitions on the quality of relationships between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(4), 924–938. 10.2307/353635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kennedy S, & Ruggles S (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980–2010. Demography, 51(2), 587–598. doi: 10.1007/s13524-013-0270-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. King V (2003). The influence of religion on fathers’ relationships with their children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 382–395. Doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00382.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. King V, Ledwell M, & Pearce-Morris J (2013). Religion and ties between adult children and their parents. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 68(5), 825–836. 10.1093/geronb/gbt070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Koenig HG, Al Zaben F, Khalifa DA, & Al Shohaib S (2015). Chapter 19—Measures of religiosity. In Boyle GJ, Saklofske DH, & Matthews G (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 530–561). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Koenig HG, King D, & Carson VB (2012). Handbook of religion and health (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lye DN (1996). Adult child–parent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 79–102. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.79 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Myers SM (2004). Religion and intergenerational assistance: Distinct differences by adult children’s gender and parent’s marital status. Sociological Quarterly, 45(1), 67–89. 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02398.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nylund-Gibson K, & Choi AY (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. 10.1037/tps0000176 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Oman D (2013). Defining religion and spirituality. In Paloutzian RF & Park CL (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (2nd Edition). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Park NS, Lee BS, Sun F, Klemmack DL, Roff LL, & Koenig HG (2013). Typologies of religiousness/spirituality: Implications for health and well-being. Journal of Religion and Health, 52(3), 828–839. https://doi.org/10/bq4skh [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Pearce LD, & Axinn WG (1998). The impact of family religious life on the quality of mother-child relations. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 810–828. 10.2307/2657503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pearce LD, Foster EM, & Hardie JH (2013). A person-centered examination of adolescent religiosity using latent class analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10/r24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pearce LD, & Haynie DL (2004). Intergenerational religious dynamics and adolescent delinquency. Social Forces, 82(4), 1553–1572. 10.1353/sof.2004.0089 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Quinn JF, & Cahill KE (2016). The new world of retirement income security in America. American Psychologist, 71(4), 321–333. 10.1037/a0040276 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Richardson VE, Fields N, Won S, Bradley E, Gibson A, Rivera G, & Holmes SD (2019). At the intersection of culture: Ethnically diverse dementia caregivers’ service use. Dementia, 18(5), 1790–1809. 10.1177/1471301217721304 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Roof WC (2001). Spiritual marketplace: Baby boomers and the remaking of American religion. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sechrist J, Suitor JJ, Vargas N, & Pillemer K (2011). The role of perceived religious similarity in the quality of mother-child relations in later life: Differences within families and between races. Research on Aging, 33(1), 3–27. doi: 10.1177/0164027510384711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Silverstein M, & Bengtson VL (2018). Return to religion? Predictors of religious change among Baby-Boomers in their transition to later life. Journal of Population Ageing, 11(1), 7–21. 10.1007/s12062-017-9216-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Silverstein M, & Bengtson VL (2019). Longitudinal study of generations, California, 1971, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2005 [Data file and codebook]. Retrieved from https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NACDA/studies/22100
  52. Silverstein M, Bengtson VL, & Lawton L (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460. 10.1086/231213 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Silverstein M, Gans D, & Yang FM (2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of Family Issues, 27(8), 1068–1084. 10.1177/0192513X06288120 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Silverstein M, Zuo D, Wang J, & Bengtson VL (2019). Intergenerational religious participation in adolescence and provision of assistance to older mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 81(5), 1206–1220. 10.1111/jomf.12592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. America’s changing religious landscape. (2015). Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ [Google Scholar]
  56. Stuckey JC (2001). Blessed assurance: The role of religion and spirituality in Alzheimer’s disease caregiving and other significant life events. Journal of Aging Studies, 15(1), 69–84. 10.1016/S0890-4065(00)00017-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Swartz TT (2009). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: Patterns, variations, and implications in the contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 35(1), 191–212. 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134615 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Thornton A, & Young-DeMarco L (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 1009–1037. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01009.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Twenge JM, Sherman RA, Exline JJ, & Grubbs JB (2016). Declines in American adults’ religious participation and beliefs, 1972–2014. SAGE Open, 6(1), 2158244016638133. https://doi.org/10/ggk8xx [Google Scholar]
  60. van der Pas S, van Tilburg TG, & Silverstein M (2013). Stepfamilies in later life. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1065–1069. 10.1111/jomf.12054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. van Gaalen RI, Dykstra PA, & Komter AE (2010). Where is the exit? Intergenerational ambivalence and relationship quality in high contact ties. Journal of Aging Studies, 24(2), 105–114. 10.1016/j.jaging.2008.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Houtven CH, & Norton EC (2004). Informal care and health care use of older adults. Journal of Health Economics, 23(6), 1159–1180. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2004.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Vasilenko SA, & Espinosa‐Hernández G (2019). Multidimensional profiles of religiosity among adolescents: Associations with sexual behaviors and romantic relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(2), 414–428. https://doi.org/10/ggktvf [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Vermunt JK (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 450–469. 10.1093/pan/mpq025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Vermunt JK, & Magidson J (2016). Upgrade manual for Latent GOLD 5.1. Retrieved from https://www.statisticalinnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/UpgradeManual5.1.pdf
  66. Voas D, & Chaves M (2016). Is the United States a counterexample to the secularization thesis? American Journal of Sociology, 121(5), 1517–1556. https://doi.org/10/f8d8hh [Google Scholar]
  67. Wolff JL, & Kasper JD (2006). Caregivers of frail elders: Updating a national profile. The Gerontologist, 46(3), 344–356. 10.1093/geront/46.3.344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Yoon KH, Moon YS, Lee Y, Choi SH, Moon SY, Seo SW, Park KW, Ku BD, Han HJ, Park KH, Han S-H, Kim E-J, Lee J-H, Park SA, Shim YS, Kim JH, Hong CH, Na DL, Ye BS, … Investigators C (Caregivers of A. D. R. (2018). The moderating effect of religiosity on caregiving burden and depressive symptoms in caregivers of patients with dementia. Aging & Mental Health, 22(1), 141–147. 10.1080/13607863.2016.1232366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES