Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Aging Ment Health. 2021 Nov 23;26(12):2381–2389. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2021.1998349

The quality of relationships with adult children and depressive symptoms among grandparents

Heejung Jang a, Mary E Rauktis b, Fengyan Tang b
PMCID: PMC9124727  NIHMSID: NIHMS1760344  PMID: 34812666

Abstract

Objectives:

The present study aims to identify distinct types of relationships between grandparents and their adult children, measure the associations between these relationship types and depressive symptoms among grandparents, and determine whether these associations vary by grandparent status.

Method:

This study uses data from a sample of 1,196 grandparents age 51 and older from the 2014 Health and Retirement Study. Latent class analysis (LCA) is applied and identifies types of grandparent–adult children relationships. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models are used to estimate the association between relationship types and depressive symptoms by grandparent status.

Results:

LCA identified four grandparent-adult children relationship types: amicable, ambivalent, detached, and disharmonious. Custodial and co-parenting grandparents were most likely to report having an ambivalent relationship with their adult children. Among co-parenting and custodial grandparents, disharmonious relationships were associated with more depressive symptoms.

Conclusion:

Interventions are suggested to improve emotional relationships with adult children and dyadic family relationships among grandparent families.

Keywords: Intergenerational relationships, depressive symptoms, grandparenting

Introduction

Of the 70 million grandparents in the United States in 2018, about 7.1 million (10.1%) grandparents reported living with grandchildren, up from seven percent in 1992, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Among those who live with grandchildren, a significant share (37%) serves as their grandchildren’s primary caregiver (Krogstad, 2015). Some grandparents perceive providing childcare to grandchildren as the most joyful phase of their lives; however, others may be reluctant to take on the role (Baker & Silverstein, 2008). The demands of care and co-residence with grandchildren strongly influence grandparents’ relationships with family members (Baker & Silverstein, 2008). Further, multigenerational families, which are brought together as a result of adversity and material resource restraints, such as poverty, mental health problems, or substance abuse, often experience conflicts between grandparents and adult children (Wagstaff & Cooper, 2019).

This situation is also very common in custodial grandparent families, where grandparents often serve as primary caregivers for their grandchildren in the absence of adult children. The challenges of the custodial grandparent role combined with the daily stress of full-time parenting for a second time can yield negative psychological, physical, and social effects on themselves and their families as well (Smith, 2015). By contrast, grandparents who occasionally provide childcare may experience different relationships with their adult children and consequently health outcomes. With a considerable level of heterogeneity among grandparent families, little is known about the associations of grandparent-adult children relationships with health implications of grandparents caring for grandchildren.

Although there is a body of research on the relationships between grandparents and their adult children (e.g. Munz, 2017), most studies have used qualitative methods with small samples, and overlooked the linkages between various dimensions of the relationship, particularly the emotional closeness between grandparents and adult children. Exploring emotional relationships with adult children is critical because stressful relationships with adult children may exacerbate grandparents’ distress in their parental role and affect relationships with their grandchildren. Utilizing data from a nationally representative sample, the present study aims to identify different types of grandparent–adult children relationships and examine the associations of relationship types with depressive symptoms among grandparent caregivers.

Theoretical premises: intergenerational solidarity and attachment theory

Family cohesion is an important component of family relationships that enhances psychological well-being in old age (Silverstein & Bengtson, 1997). In contrast, the problematic aspects of relationships are associated with poorer mental and physical health (Newsom et al., 2005). In particular, relationships with adult children may have important implications for the well-being of grandparents who provide childcare for their grandchildren. Because the grandparent childcare role usually involves helping an adult child with his or her problems as well, grandparents may encounter feelings of loss, anger, and guilt, which contribute to psychological distress (Conway et al., 2011). Scholars have suggested that problematic health outcomes result from negative emotional experiences in important ties (Rook, 2001).

Intergenerational relationships are important for successful coping and social integration in later life. Researchers have studied parents’ relationships with their adult children through the lens of intergenerational solidarity theory, which proposes various types of solidarity (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991). Lawton et al. (1994) proposed that intergenerational solidarity consists of six elements: associational solidarity (type and frequency of interaction and activities), structural solidarity (geographic proximity), affectual solidarity (emotional closeness), functional solidarity (exchange of assistance and support), consensual solidarity (shared opinions), and normative solidarity (commitment to filial obligations or responsibility). Particularly, affectual solidarity, which refers to emotional closeness and affection between family members, has attracted researchers’ interests, as an individual’s emotions (e.g. admiration, love, hate) toward a relationship partner provide relevant and specific information about relationship quality (Ferring et al., 2009). Further, Bengtson et al. (1996) develop a theoretical framework of four intergenerational relationship types based on emotional indicators: (1) high solidarity/high conflict, or ambivalent; (2) high solidarity/low conflict, or amicable; (3) low solidarity/low conflict, or detached; and (4) low solidarity/high conflict, or disharmonious.

Attachment theory is a helpful framework for investigating the emotional/affectional dimension of solidarity in the family context. It suggests that the affective characteristics of relationships between adult children and their parents, such as high quality and attachment, are associated with well-being (Merz et al., 2009). In general, when resources flow from the stronger/wiser person (e.g. the parent) to the dependent one, relationship partners feel satisfied; when resources flow in the opposite direction, parents may experience unsatisfying feelings of dependence (Merz et al., 2007).

Some older parents find themselves in a dependent position, needing support and care from their adult children, even as they feel they should still be a caregiver to their children (Merz et al., 2007). If there are inconsistencies and a lack of internal connectedness in the relationship, both grandparents and their adult children may find it difficult to cope with the reversal in the provision and reception of care and security; specifically, the situation may activate feelings of rejection, neglect, or role-reversal (Merz et al., 2007). Identifying the conditions under which family solidarity has positive effects or negative effects becomes increasingly important.

Further, the theoretical concept of ambivalence is important to the constructs of both solidarity and attachment albeit with different meanings (Merz et al., 2007). Co-existent positive and negative feelings lead to relationships that are unpredictable and stressful, thus may have detrimental effects on well-being (Uchino, 2004). In parent–adult child relationships, there is a high level of ambivalence when the adult children are experiencing problems that increase dependence, raise concerns about possible deviant behaviors (Pillemer et al., 2007), or require financial assistance (Pillemer & Suitor, 2002).

In addition, intergenerational relationships can contain “collective ambivalence,” which refers to “mixed feelings across multiple children” (Ward, 2008, p.S240). Grandparents’ well-being can be influenced not only by their relationships with their adult children who are the parents of their grandchildren (for whom the grandparents are caring), but also by their relationships with their other adult children. It is possible that having good relationships with some children and poor relationships with other children may lead to contradictory attitudes or feelings toward a given situation, experience, or person (Pillemer & Suitor, 2008). In research on the family system, focusing on a specific parent-child tie may lead to a loss of information about how the relationship with that child aligns and interacts with the relationships with other children within a network of parent-child ties (Ward, 2008).

Grandparenting, grandparent–adult children relationships, and depressive symptoms

Depressive symptoms are common threats to psychological well-being (Moorman & Stokes, 2016). Research has established a strong link between relationship quality and depressive symptoms. For older grandparents, the causes of depressive symptoms are often attributed to stressful events. When an adult child is unable to raise their own children because of substance abuse, incarceration, health problems, or death, grandparents report more intrafamily strain, which leads to increased conflict with children and a low level of family cohesion (Musil et al., 2009). For grandparents, especially those in custodial grandparent families, the grandparent–adult child relationship can become a major cause of stress when there is dysfunction of the adult child (Shakya et al., 2012). Custodial grandparents often find themselves simultaneously caring for their own aging parents, struggling to maintain a relationship with their adult child, and trying to care for one or more grandchildren (Grinwis et al., 2004).

In addition, multigenerational co-residence does not necessarily entail intimacy or affectual solidarity in the family. Although living with a larger family group increases opportunities to give and receive support, co-residence may involve additional emotional stress due to increased social demands. Grandparents who provide a substantial amount of care may be more likely than those who provide little or no care to report psychological distress (Jang & Tang, 2016). However, Hughes et al. (2007) found no evidence that caring for grandchildren has dramatic and widespread negative effects on grandparents’ health although they did find that custodial grandmothers experience health declines. Therefore, there is a need to continue to research how the relationship between grandparents and adult children can impact their well-being and health.

The current study

This study explores how the association between emotional relationships with adult children and grandparents’ depressive symptoms varies by certain aspects of grandparent families, including living arrangements and the amount of time spent on childcare demands. While prior studies have used a dyadic approach to measuring parent-adult child dyads, this approach may not accurately measure overall parent-children’s relationships at the family level. By exploring various relationships between grandparent and their adult children, the current analyses address two research questions: (a) Do types of grandparent-children relationships differ across the grandparent statuses? (b) How are grandparent-children relationship types associated with depressive symptoms across each type of grandparent status?

Method

Data and sample

The data were drawn from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), which surveys a nationally representative sample of men and women over age 50 in the United States. Respondents are interviewed every two years once they entered the study. The HRS gathers detailed information on economic, environmental, and behavioral factors associated with health, and oversamples African Americans and Latinos. This study used data from the 2014 wave. The HRS asked the following question about grandparent status: “Did you spend 100 or more hours in the last two years taking care of grandchildren?” If respondents answered yes, they were then asked how many hours they spent on grandchild care as well as whether they lived with their grandchildren. Grandparent status was divided into four categories based on the reported hours and living arrangements (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler, 2001): 1) non-coresident occasional babysitting (less than 10 h per week), 2) non-coresident intermediate/extensive babysitting (10 or more hours per week), 3) co-resident (living with at least one adult child and grandchild[ren]), and 4) custodial (living with a grandchild[ren] with no adult child present). The sample was limited to respondents who reported actual grandparenting hours and had completed the psychosocial questionnaire in 2014. Those living in nursing homes were excluded from the sample. The final weighted sample included 1,196 adults age 51 and older who had at least one child.

Measures

Emotional types of grandparent–adult children relationships

Guided by previous literature (Bengtson et al., 1996; Silverstein et al., 2010), the criterion variables comprised responses to seven emotional relationship questions from the Leave Behind Questionnaire, which measures psychosocial issues that are described in further detail below. Participants rated positive and negative emotional aspects of their relationships with their children on a 4-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Three items asked about positive emotions about the relationship: “How much do your children really understand the way you feel about things?” “How much can you open up to your children if you need to talk about your worries?” and “How much can you rely on your children if you have a serious problem?” Four items asked about negative emotions about the relationship: “How often do they make too many demands on you; criticize you; let you down when you are counting on them; get on your nerves?” Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify homogeneous groups in the study sample after iterative updating.

Depressive symptoms

The HRS measures depressive symptoms with a subset of eight items from the standard Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D). The assessment tool of CES-D has been widely used with well-established validity and reliability as documented in previous research (e.g. Van de Velde et al., 2009). Respondents were asked about their depressive affect (e.g. “I felt depressed”), well-being (e.g. “I was happy”), and somatic symptoms (“I could not get along”). Participants responded yes or no to items asking whether they had experienced each of these symptoms much of the time in the past week. A summary score was then created by summing the number of symptoms (range: 0–8; Cronbach’s alpha=.84).

Covariates

Socio-demographic characteristics, including age (in years), gender (male, female), race (white, non-white), marital status (married, non-married), total household income ($, log-transformed), education (in years), health (poor/fair/good/very good/excellent, range: 1–5), and working for pay (yes or no) were included as covariates. Functional limitations (number of IADL) and a count of chronic conditions (diagnoses of illnesses such as diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, and psychiatric distress except depression, range: 0–8) were also included. In addition, the models included controls for number of children (range:1–6 [6 and more]). Characteristics of grandchildren (number of grandchildren), size of the grandparent’s social network (number of friends), and three other dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (associational, structural, and functional solidarity) were also controlled in the analysis (measures of normative and consensual solidarity are not available in the HRS). Associational solidarity was measured via three questions (How often do you meet up/speak on the phone/write or email your children [asked only for children not living with the respondent]?). For each question, scores ranged from 1 (less than once a year or never) to 6 (three or more times a week). The scores were summed and averaged (range: 1–6). Structural solidarity was measured by combining information on whether any of the respondent’s children lived within 10 miles and whether the respondent lived with any of their children. The item was coded as 1 (all children live at least 10 miles away), 2 (at least one child lives within 10 miles but not with the respondent), or 3 (the respondent lives with at least one of their children). Functional solidarity was measured via questions about whether the respondent received/gave financial support from/to their children (yes/no).

Analytic strategy

All analyses were weighted by the person-level sampling weight. First, LCA was used to identify distinct types of family relationships based on the seven indicators described above. LCA uses a person-centered approach to classify respondents into subgroups based on response patterns across a set of dichotomous class indicators (Lanza et al., 2003). LCA was conducted via the Stata-LCA plug-in (Lanza et al., 2003). Then bivariate analyses were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables and ANOVAs for continuous variables. The relationship types identified by LCA were dummy coded and compared across grandparent statuses. To address the second research question, we examined the relative contribution of socio-demographics and relationship types to the variances in depressive symptoms and psychological well-being using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analyses. We reported R2 effect size estimates to determine the variances in dependent variables explained by these blocks of variables sequentially. In addition, multiple imputation was used to impute missing data so all observations could be used in the regression analyses. The social network covariate (number of friends) had the highest rate of missingness (n = 128, 10.7%); for all other variables, the rate of missingness was less than 5%. To weight the sample, Stata command mi svyset was used. All statistical analyses were conducted with Stata 16.

Results

Using LCA, we compared solutions ranging from a 2-cluster through a 7-cluster model to identify the optimal number of clusters. The optimal cluster selection is based on a low BIC and a high entropy value (Lanza et al., 2003). As shown in Table 1, the 4-cluster solution was optimal and parsimonious, providing a logical substantive interpretation: amicable, ambivalent, detached, and disharmonious, which are in line with the theoretical framework proposed by Bengtson et al. (1996).

Table 1.

Fit statistics for latent class analysis (lCA) solutions with 2–7 clusters.

Model AIC BIC Entropy
2 classes 10107.54 10216.62 .510
3 classes 9853.359 10001.7 .665
4 classes 9403.675 9630.552 .701
5 classes 9498.999 9686.609 .621
6 classes 9386.876 10135.021 .541
7 classes 9145.806 13358.615 .466
Open in a new tab

Note. AIC = Akaike’s information Criterion (lower values indicate better fit); BIC = Bayesian information Criterion (lower values indicate better fit).

The amicable relationship type (51%) had a high level of emotional closeness and a low level of conflict. The disharmonious relationship type (14%) was characterized by a low level of emotional closeness and a high level of conflict. Ambivalent relationships (23%) had a high level of emotional closeness and a high level of conflict. Lastly, the detached relationship type (12%) had low levels of both emotional closeness and conflict (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Profiles of relaitonship types.

Relationship types
Indicator Total Cluster 1: Amicable % or mean Cluster 2: Ambivalent % or mean Cluster 3: Detached % or mean Cluster 4: Disharmonious % or mean Statistics
Understand you feel 3.05 3.53 2.96 2.22 1.79 F = 173.12***
Rely on children 3.36 3.79 3.46 2.40 2.02 F = 163.27***
Talk about worries 3.04 3.61 2.93 1.90 1.73 F = 294.46***
Too many demands on you 1.96 1.51 2.60 1.68 3.17 F = 112.27***
Criticize you 1.71 1.34 2.14 1.34 3.03 F = 140.69***
Let you down 1.84 1.30 2.33 1.96 3.41 F = 243.55***
Get on your nerves 1.90 1.47 2.33 1.68 3.40 F = 229.91***
frequency (%) 50.78 23.1 11.64 14.48
Open in a new tab

Notes. All indicators are rated as 1 = not at all, 2= a little, 3= some, 4= a lot.

Significance levels are denoted as *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001.

Table 3 summarizes the sample characteristics and group differences on key variables. Custodial grandparents were significantly younger (M = 60.71, SD = 7.14) than other groups. The proportion of participants working for pay was significantly higher among custodial grandparents (64%) than among occasional babysitting (47%), intermediate/extensive babysitting (49%), and co-resident (26%) grandparents. Occasional babysitting grandparents had significantly better self-rated health than custodial grandparents. Custodial grandparents reported significantly more depressive symptoms than all other groups. Moreover, there were significant group differences across relationship types. Custodial grandparents were least likely to be in amicable relationships (25%) while occasional babysitting grandparents were more likely to be in these relationships (57%). Custodial grandparents were more likely to in ambivalent relationships (35%), while occasional babysitting grandparents were less likely to be in these relationships (21%). In addition, custodial (23%) and co-resident (21%) grandparents were more likely to be in disharmonious relationships with their adult children while occasional (13%) and intermediate/extensive (12%) babysitting grandparents were less likely to be in these relationships.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics: group difference (N = 1,196).

Total Sample Occasional babysitting grandparents (n = 781,65.28%) Intermediate/extensive babysitting grandparents (n = 212,17.75%) Co-resident grandparents (n = 103,8.58%) Custodial grandparents (n = 100,8.39%)
M(SD)/n(%) Range M(SD)/n(%) Range M(SD)/n(%) Range M(SD)/n(%) Range M(SD)/n(%) Range F/χ2
Age 63.04 (7.32) 51–88 63.53 (7.61) 51–88 63.26 (6.76) 51–83 63.35 (6.99) 51–83 60.71 (7.14) 51–85 F = 3.02*
Female 695 (58.11) __ 471 (60.35) __ 110 (52.01) __ 53 (51.53) __ 61 (61.35) __ χ2 = 2.64
Non-white 232 (19.40) __ 146 (18.71) __ 52 (24.38) __ 19 (18.58) __ 15 (15.38) __ χ2 = 4.80
Married 870 (72.74) __ 562 (71.95) __ 178 (81.97) __ 66 (64.27) __ 64 (64.07) __ χ2 = 16.69
Household income (US$) 66,593.16 (92,023.93) 0– 819,700 64,695.9 (105,333.1) 2,916–819,700 64,099.1 (65,510.4) 1,572–270,160 87,951.3 (117,263.4) 16,800– 473,028 58,262.9 (60,092.95) 570–277,700 F = 2.74
Working for pay 559 (46.73) __ 364 (46.58) __ 104 (49.21) __ 27 (25.85) __ 64 (64.42) __ χ2 = 31.1*
Education (years) 13.05 (2.80) 0–17 13.11 (2.93) 0–17 13.19 (2.10) 5–17 12.21 (3.49) 2–17 13.34 (2.61) 6–17 F = 3.12*
Health 3.12 (1.09) 1–5 3.18 (1.09) 1–5 3.29 (1.03) 1–5 2.68 (1.00) 1–5 2.82 (1.15) 1–5 F = 6.00**
Functional limitations .28 (.71) 0–5 .29 (.71) 0–5 .16 (.47) 0–4 .60 (.88) 0–4 .60 (.89) 0–5 F = 2.75*
Number of chronic diseases 2.06 (1.48) 0–8 2.05 (1.46) 0–8 1.95 (1.40) 0–6 2.24 (1.63) 0–6 2.17 (1.67) 0–7 F= .53
Number of children 3.16 (1.44) 1–6 3.14 (1.42) 1–6 2.90 (1.45) 1–6 3.47 (1.59) 1–6 3.37 (1.51) 1–6 F = 1.60
Number of grandchildren 4.27 (1.77) 1–6 4.29 (1.80) 1–6 4.21 (1.84) 1–6 4.04 (1.56) 1–6 4.43 (1.53) 1–6 F= .39
Number of friends 3.22 (1.96) 1–6 3.35 (1.98) 1–6 2.76 (1.91) 1–6 3.24 (1.62) 1–6 3.15 (2.21) 1–6 F = 1.79
Associational solidarity 4.02 (1.07) 1–6 4.09 (1.04) 1–6 4.13 (1.06) 1–6 3.65 (1.24) 1–6 3.56 (.87) 1–6 F = 4.74**
Structural solidarity 1.99 (.70) 1–3 1.96 (.70) 1–3 1.83 (.65) 1–3 3 (0) 1–3 1.80 (.40) 1–3 F = 35.1***
Functional (from child) solidarity 127 (10.65) __ 88 (11.22) __ 20 (9.67) __ 16 (16.02) __ 3 (2.83) __ χ2 = 10.03
Functional (to child) solidarity 530 (44.32) __ 334 (42.73) __ 95 (44.66) __ 39 (38.45) __ 62 (61.91) __ χ2 = 14.81
Relationship quality __
Amicable 607 (50.78) __ 443 (56.73) __ 98 (46.36) __ 41 (40.27) __ 25 (24.63) __ χ2 = 44.7**
Ambivalent 276 (23.14) __ 164 (21.02) __ 48 (22.72) __ 29 (27.85) __ 35 (35.20) __ χ2 = 11.5*
Detached 139 (11.64) __ 70 (8.94) __ 41 (19.19) __ 11 (11.00) __ 17 (17.32) __ χ2 = 20.49
Disharmonious 174 (14.48) __ 104 (13.31) __ 25 (11.73) __ 22 (20.88) __ 23 (22.86) __ χ2 = 11.24
Depressive symptoms 1.68 (2.24) 0–8 1.19 (1.92) 0–8 1.94 (2.20) 0–8 1.88 (2.41) 0–8 2.83 (2.71) 0–8 F = 4.90**
Open in a new tab

Notes. Weighted results are reported.

*

p< .05,

**

p<.01,

***

p< .001.

Those in amicable relationships, the most cohesive relationship type, served as the reference group in the regression analyses modeling depressive symptoms. Adding the relationship type variables increased the explained variance from 4 to 7 percent on depressive symptoms in the hierarchical models. Table 4 presents the associations between grandparent–adult child relationship types and depressive symptoms across four grandparent statuses. The results show that disharmonious relationships with adult children were associated with more depressive symptoms for co-resident (b = 1.7, SE = 0.93, p<.01) and custodial (b = 1.8, SE = 0.87, p<.05) grandparents. In addition, detached relationships were significantly associated with more depressive symptoms for both intermediate/extensive babysitting (b = 1.1, SE = 0.58, p<.01) and co-resident (b = 1.8, SE = 0.87, p<.05) grandparents.

Table 4.

Regression models of grandparent caregiving on depressive symptoms by relationship types and background characteristics.

Occasional Babysitting GPs Intensive/extensive Babysitting GPs Co-resident GPs Custodial GPs
b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)
Background Characteristics
 Age −.04 (.02)* −.03 (.02)† −.03 (.03) −.05 (.03) −.11 (.05)* −.12 (.05)* −.07 (.03) −.04 (.03)
 Female −.46 (.21)* −.47 (.21)* .17 (.37) .02 (.36) −.26 (.46) −.22 (.64) .49 (.52) .77 (.56)
 Married −.21 (.22) −.16 (.23) −.89 (.58) −1.2 (.52)* −.71 (.57) −.96 (.62) .95 (.70) 1.1 (.70)
 Non-white −.16 (.21) −.15 (.21) .97 (.47)* .79 (.43)† .31 (.61) .44 (.79) .56 (.74) .16 (.60)
 Household income (logged) −.04 (.08) −.03 (.07) .07 (.18) −.02 (.19) −.02 (.42) .−.04 (.43) .08 (.32) .34 (.33)
 Education years −.02 (.04) −.03 (.04) −.09 (.12) −.09 (.09) .02 (.09) −.01 (.10) −.11 (.21) −.17 (.17)
 Working for pay −.26 (.23) −.26 (.24) −1.1 (.38)** −.93 (.35)** −1.4 (.67)* −1.4 (.85) 1.3 (.54)* .61 (.66)
 Health −.56 (.12)*** −.55 (.12)*** −.47 (.20)* −.55 (.20)*** −.86 (.49)† −1.2 (.56)* −.75 (.25)** −.69 (.24)**
 Functional limitations .76 (.24)*** .79 (.24)** 1.23 (.57)* 1.24 (.49)* .99 (.41)* .50 (.53) .05 (.27) .15 (.32)
 Number of chronic conditions .24 (.10)** .20 (.09)* .38 (.17)* .35 (.16)* −.14 (.28) −.01 (.28) .45 (.23)† .20 (.25)
 Number of children .04 (.08) .05 (.09) −.36 (.18)* −.32 (.16)* .21 (.43) .20 (.42) −.39 (.20)† −.51 (.23)*
 Number of grandchildren .08 (.07) .06 (.07) .17 (.12) .13 (.11) −.07 (.38) .04 (.38) −.12 (.27) .02 (.25)
 Number of friends −.11 (.06)† −.10 (.06) −.18 (.14) −.15 (.14) .05 (.22) .10 (.23) .10 (.12) .09 (.14)
 Associational solidarity .08 (.11) .13 (.11) .32 (.21) .34 (.21) −.00 (.31) .14 (.32) .44 (.38) .59 (.31)
 Structural solidarity −.13 (.18) −.12 (.17) .45 (.28) .50 (.27) −.22 (.95) .16 (.92) .55 (.65) 1.8 (.99)
 Functional (from child) solidarity .82 (.46)† .82 (.42)† −.40 (.92) −.71 (.97) −1.17 (.81) −1.04 (.78) −1.13 (1.9) .54 (1.8)
 Functional (to child) solidarity −.16 (.21) −.17 (.21) .28 (.37) .12 (.34) .01 (.62) .19 (.61) −1.51 (.71)* −1.3 (.68)†
Relationship Types (ref: Amicable)
 Ambivalent .46 (.25)† .01 (.46) .69 (.52) .01 (.73)
 Detached −.11 (.30) 1.1 (.58)* 1.2 (.76)* −.12 (.70)
 Disharmonious .89 (.39)* .36 (.71) 1.7 (.93)* 1.8 (.87)*
R2 .321 .356 .414 .452 .488 .534 .411 .479
ΔR2 .035** .038** .046* .068*
Open in a new tab

Notes. Significance levels are denoted as †p<.10, *p< .05, **p<.01, ***p< .001. Analyses are weighted.

Among the other covariates included in the analyses, self-rated health was negatively associated with depressive symptoms for all types of grandparents. For custodial grandparents, number of children was negatively associated with depressive symptoms. It may be that, in the absence of their grandchildren’s parents, grandparents experience fewer depressive symptoms if they receive support and help from their other children. As the bivariate results show, custodial grandparents who are not employed may have limited or no sources of income.

Discussion

The current study examined whether emotional relationships with adult children differed by grandparents’ childcare status as well as how these relationships were associated with grandparents’ depressive symptoms. Results showed that relationships with adult children differed by grandparent statuses as indicated by the extent of care provided and living arrangements. This study found that compared to grandparents who had amicable relationships with their adult children, those who had detached and disharmonious relationships with adult children reported worse psychological well-being; however, this pattern differed by grandparent status. A better understanding of the influence of emotional closeness with adult children will have implications for improving both individual functioning and health outcomes.

Grandparenting and types of relationships with adult children

Custodial grandparents were most likely to report having an ambivalent relationship with their adult children, with co-resident grandparents being the second most likely group to have these relationships. These grandparents may experience ambivalence because they feel compelled to protect their grandchildren from the parents’ problematic behaviors, meanwhile feeling concerned about their adult child’s well-being. Schenk and Dykstra (2012) noted that ambivalence is important because it calls for a resolution in one of two directions: the formation of a mutually supportive tie or drifting apart (i.e. a shift toward an amicable or detached relationship). Further, custodial grandparents were more likely than other groups to have disharmonious relationships with their adult children. The full-time grandpaernting role usually entails higher levels of stress and burden than part-time caregiving. Among custodial grandparent families, stress may be the result of two different but interrelated dynamics: grandparents feeling guilty and distressed over their child’s failure as a parent, and the behavior and instability of the parent negatively affecting the grandchild (Shakya et al., 2012). Disharmonious relationships with adult children were also common among co-resident grandparents. These results are not surprising given that multigenerational families, in general, report more legal and financial problems because they are more likely to experience changes in family composition due to marriage, divorce, job loss, and other circumstances (Musil et al., 2009), which may further complicate interpersonal relationships and increase the risk of mental health problems (Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005). In contrast, grandparents who babysat an intermediate/extensive number of hours are more likely to report detached relationships with adult children. Previous research found that those grandparents were closer with grandchildren than grandparents who babysat occasionally (Fuller-Thomson & Minkler, 2001). Future studies need to explore mutual relationships and interactions among three generations.

Relationship types and depressive symptoms

The study found that disharmonious relationships with adult children were associated with increased depressive symptoms among both co-resident and custodial grandparents. Both groups showed similar patterns of relationship types with their adult children, suggesting that co-residence with grandchildren may affect family relationships and intensify childcare burden and stress. As Goodman and Silverstein (2006) reported, subtle aspects of family relationships, such as grandmother–parent closeness, can become a crucial influence on grandparents’ health. Co-resident and custodial grandparents do not differ in the level of grandparenting burden. Because custodial grandparents are “part of a continuum of care that ebbs and flows with the needs and problems in the middle generation” (Baker et al., 2008, p.60), they may become co-resident grandparents if their adult children return to the home or become more involved in childcare. During these complex familial transitions, many co-resident grandparents take on a large share of parental responsibility despite parental presence in the household (Mutchler & Baker, 2004). Because the role of a grandparent living with an adult child is much less clearly defined, grandparents may be ambivalent about their care roles and responsibilities.

In addition, detached relationships were associated with increased depressive symptoms for grandparents who babysat an intermediate/extensive number of hours and those who co-parented. These grandparents may experience more conflict with adult children about parenting issues, which is associated with a higher level of depressive symptoms (Caldwell et al., 1998). In co-resident grandparent families, in particular, adult children occupy a pivotal role when grandparents are less close to their grandchildren, which may increase distance or cause tension (Goodman, 2003). When an adult child’s behavior negatively affects grandparents, grandparents might find it important to detach from the ongoing emotional pull associated with their child’s struggles so that they can establish limits more easily (Bundy-Fazioli et al., 2013). The decision to set limits and create boundaries with adult child may be a significant predictor of grandparent caregivers’ depressive symptoms. Findings a way (e.g. having the support of other grandparents) to help grandparent caregivers manage strain may be a key to improving their mental health.

Further, grandparents who face dwindling savings or declining health may co-reside with their adult children to gain assistance with finances or personal care (Ellis & Simmons, 2014). Childcare may be more stressful if co-resident grandparents have poor health and fewer financial resources, which could increase detached relationships with adult children. As grandparents grow older, the childcare role, which involves providing physical and emotional support to grandchildren, often reignites tensions from earlier points in the relationship. Some grandparents find that they do not have and enjoy their own free time due to childcare. In this case, grandparents may experience a sense of role confusion and isolation from their same-age peers. There is an intersection between responsibilities to the grandchild and the nature of the relationship with the adult child. Researchers need to pay more attention to the nature of the relationship and the “cost” of that for all three generations.

Study limitations

There are several limitations of the study that should be noted. First, the analysis excluded respondents who were missing on actual grandparenting hours. This study only included respondents who reported grandparenting hours to capture their grandparent status. A number of respondents did not report the actual hours of care provided even though earlier in the survey they had indicated that they provided grandchild care. We could not group these grandparents in a separate category because that category would likely include different types of grandparents. In addition, some of the factors that influence intergenerational relationships, such as gender and marital status of adult children, and previous relationships with adult children were beyond the scope of the current study. Specifically, ambivalent feelings may be particularly common for grandfathers, whose status within the family (on average) declines dramatically as they age. Further, ongoing co-residence of grandchildren and their parent(s) is associated with more depressive symptoms among grandmothers, especially retired women (Wang & Szinovacz, 2015). Future research needs to examine whether the effects of intergenerational relationships on psychological well-being differ by gender. Moreover, future studies should address the issue of selection bias, which is inherent in analyses of cross-sectional data. Because the target population of grandparent caregivers may have experienced changes in caregiver status and emotional relationships with adult children, future research should use longitudinal data to study within-person changes and apply propensity score weighting to account for nonrandom selection into certain caregiver statuses due to adversity, material resource restraints, or cultural choices.

Most importantly, the HRS does not contain certain information on grandchildren that is closely related to grandparenting, such as the type of care provided and the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. Although the current study design includes grandparenting intensity based on self-reported caregiving hours and living arrangements, care tasks, demands, and relationships with grandchildren should be assessed and considered in the conceptualization of grandparenting. Finally, the results were based on collective relationship qualities because the data did not contain information on interactions with specific children. These collective appraisals may reflect support and strain in relationships with other children (not the grandchildren’s parent). It is important to establish whether relationships with one specific child affect mental health or whether it is the balance of positive and negative interactions with all family members that is most influential for mental health (Lee & Szinovacz, 2016).

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, this study provides valuable information about emotional closeness between grandparents and their adult children. Because grandparenting is not a universal experience, the extent of care demands and residence with grandchildren may affect relationships with adult children. Among co-parenting and custodial grandparents, disharmonious relationships with adult children were associated with increased depressive symptoms. It is important for practitioners to remain mindful of how relationships with adult children affect grandparent caregivers’ health. Exploring emotional relationships with adult children has great implications for researchers and practitioners to better understand dyadic family relationships among grandparent families. Grandparents would benefit from developing their personal and family resilience with appropriate and needed facilitations from professional service providers. That is, sufficient resources, social support, and appropriate social services would empower grandparent caregivers to improve their self-efficacy, achieve healthy relationships with children, and promote health outcomes.

Emotional closeness is essential for caring for grandchildren while maintaining psychological well-being of grandparents. Multidimensional interventions are suggested to foster collaborative relationships and deal with emotional issues, and meanwhile, increase family resources and support family needs in various situations. In closing, this study improves our understanding of the roles of relationship with adult children among different types of grandparents and provides implications on how to improve intergenerational solidarity as a strategy to keep grandparents active and healthy.

Funding

This work was supported a grant from the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health to the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan [T32-AG000221]. Data used for this research were provided by the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), managed by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan and supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health [U01AG009741].

Footnotes

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. Baker LA, & Silverstein M (2008). Depressive symptoms among grandparents raising grandchildren: The impact of participation in multiple roles. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6(3), 285–304. 10.1080/15350770802157802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker LA, Silverstein M, & Putney NM (2008). Grandparents raising grandchildren in the United States: Changing family forms, stagnant social policies. Journal of Societal & Social Policy, 7, 53–69. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bengtson VL, & Roberts RE (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 856–870. 10.2307/352993 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bengtson VL, Rosenthal C, & Burton L (1996). Paradoxes of families and aging. In Binstock RH & George LK (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 253–282). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bundy-Fazioli K, Fruhauf CA, & Miller JL (2013). Grandparents caregivers’ perceptions of emotional distress and well-being. Journal of Family Social Work, 16(5), 447–462. 10.1080/10522158.2013.832461 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Caldwell CH, Antonucci TC, & Jackson JS (1998). Supportive/conflictual family relations and depressive symptomatology: Teenage mother and grandmother perspectives. Family Relations, 47(4), 395–402. 10.2307/585270 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Conway F, Jones S, & Speakes-Lewis A (2011). Emotional strain in caregiving among African American grandmothers raising their grandchildren. Journal of Women & Aging, 23(2), 113–128. 10.1080/08952841.2011.561142 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellis RR, & Simmons T (2014). Coresident grandparents and their grandchildren: 2012. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-576.pdf
  9. Ferring D, Michels T, Boll T, & Filipp SH (2009). Emotional relationship quality of adult children with ageing parents: On solidarity, conflict and ambivalence. European Journal of Ageing, 6(4), 253–265. 10.1007/s10433-009-0133-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuller-Thomson E, & Minkler M (2001). American grandparents providing extensive childcare to their grandchildren: Prevalence and profile. The Gerontologist, 41(2), 201–209. 10.1093/geront/41.2.201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodman CC (2003). Intergenerational triads in grandparent-headed families. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(5), S281–S289. 10.1093/geronb/58.5.S281 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodman CC, & Silverstein M (2006). Grandmothers raising grandchildren: Ethnic and racial differences in well-being among custodial and coparenting families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(11), 1605–1626. 10.1177/0192513X06291435 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Grinwis B, Smith AB, & Dannison LL (2004). Custodial grandparent families: Steps for developing responsive health care systems. Michigan Family Review, 09(1), 37–44. 10.3998/mfr.4919087.0009.105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hayslip B, & Kaminski PL (2005). Grandparents raising their grandchildren: A review of the literature and suggestions for practice. The Gerontologist, 45(2), 262–269. 10.1093/geront/45.2.262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, LaPierre TA, & Luo Y (2007). All in the family: The impact of caring for grandchildren on grandparents’ health. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62(2), S108–S119. 10.1093/geronb/62.2.S108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jang H, & Tang F (2016). Effects of social support and volunteering on depression among grandparents raising grandchildren. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 83(4), 491–507. 10.1177/0091415016657561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Krogstad JM (2015, September 13). Five facts about American grandparents. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/13/5-facts-about-american-grandparents/
  18. Lanza ST, Flaherty BP, & Collins LM (2003). Latent class and latent transition analysis. In Schinka JA & Velicer WE (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp. 663–685). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lawton L, Silverstein M, & Bengtson V (1994). Affection, social contact, and geographic distance between adult children and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(1), 57–68. 10.2307/352701 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee HJ, & Szinovacz ME (2016). Positive, negative, and ambivalent interactions with family and friends: Associations with well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78(3), 660–679. 10.1111/jomf.12302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Merz EM, Schuengel C, & Schulze HJ (2007). Intergenerational solidarity: An attachment perspective. Journal of Aging Studies, 21(2), 175–186. 10.1016/j.jaging.2006.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Merz EM, Schuengel C, & Schulze HJ (2009). Intergenerational relations across 4 years: Well-being is affected by quality, not by support exchange. The Gerontologist, 49(4), 536–548. 10.1093/geront/gnp043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Moorman SM, & Stokes JE (2016). Solidarity in the grandparent-adult grandchild relationship and trajectories of depressive symptoms. The Gerontologist, 56(3), 408–420. 10.1093/geront/gnu056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Munz EA (2017). Grandparents’ perspectives on parent-adult child relationships during the transition to grandparenthood. The Open Family Studies Journal, 9(1), 37–48. 10.2174/1874922401709010037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Musil C, Warner C, Zauszniewski J, Wykle M, & Standing T (2009). Grandmother caregiving, family stress and strain, and depressive symptoms. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 31(3), 389–408. 10.1177/0193945908328262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mutchler JE, & Baker LA (2004). A demographic examination of grandparent caregivers in the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. Population Research and Policy Review, 23(4), 359–377. 10.1023/B:POPU.0000040018.85009.c1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Newsom JT, Rook KS, Nishishiba M, Sorkin DH, & Mahan TL (2005). Understanding the relative importance of positive and negative social exchanges: Examining specific domains and appraisals. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(6), P304–P312. 10.1093/geronb/60.6.P304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Pillemer K, & Suitor JJ (2002). Explaining mothers’ ambivalence toward their adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(3), 602–613. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00602.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Pillemer K, & Suitor JJ (2008). Collective ambivalence: Considering new approaches to the complexity of intergenerational relations. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(6), S394–S396. 10.1093/geronb/63.6.S394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Pillemer K, Suitor JJ, Mock SE, Sabir M, Pardo TB, & Sechrist J (2007). Capturing the complexity of intergenerational relations: Exploring ambivalence within later-life families. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 775–791. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00536.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Rook KS (2001). Emotional health and positive versus negative social exchanges: A daily diary analysis. Applied Developmental Science, 5(2), 86–97. 10.1207/S1532480XADS0502_4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Schenk N, & Dykstra PA (2012). Continuity and change in intergenerational family relationships: An examination of shifts in relationship type over a three-year period. Advances in Life Course Research, 17(3), 121–132. 10.1016/j.alcr.2012.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Shakya HB, Usita PM, Eisenberg C, Weston J, & Liles S (2012). Family well-being concerns of grandparents in skipped generation families. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55(1), 39–54. 10.1080/01634372.2011.620072 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Silverstein M, & Bengtson VL (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]
  35. Silverstein M, Gans D, Lowenstein A, Giarrusso R, & Bengtson VL (2010). Older parent–child relationships in six developed nations: Comparisons at the intersection of affection and conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 1006–1021. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00745.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith GC (2015). Grandparents raising grandchildren. In Whitbourne SK (Ed.), The encyclopedia of adulthood and aging (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Son Inc. 10.1002/9781118521373.wbeaa048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Grandparents. 2018 American Community Survey 1-year estimates. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=S10&d=ACS%201-Year%20Estimates%20Subject%20Tables&tid=ACSST1Y2018.S1002&vintage=2018
  38. Uchino BN (2004). Social support and physical health: Understanding the health consequences of relationships. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  39. Van de Velde S, Levecque K, & Bracke P (2009). Measurement equivalence of the CES-D 8 in the general population in Belgium: A gender perspective. Archives of Public Health, 67(1), 1–15. 10.1186/0778-7367-67-1-15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wagstaff J, & Cooper LB (2019, October 11). Grandparents caring for grandchildren. https://www.ebscohost.com/assets-sample-content/Social-Work-Reference-Center-Grandparents-Caring-Grandchildren-Quick-Lesson.pdf
  41. Wang S, & Szinovacz ME (2015). Grandchild care, spousal involvement, and grandparents’ marital quality. Gerontologist, 55(Suppl_2), 444–445. 10.1093/geront/gnv191.06 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ward RA (2008). Multiple parent-adult child relations and well-being in middle and later life. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63(4), S239–S247. 10.1093/geronb/63.4.S239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES