How Parents’ Marital Quality Influences Intergenerational Support Between Older Adults and Their Children: Evidence From Malaysia

Abstract

With Asia’s rapid population aging, intergenerational exchanges between older adults and children are becoming increasingly important for old-age support. However, the relationship between older adults’ marital quality and intergenerational support remains underexplored, particularly in multi-ethnic and developing settings. To address this, we examine a subsample of currently married older adults (60+) with at least one child (n = 1575) from Wave 1 (2018) of the Malaysian Aging and Retirement Survey. Using latent class analysis, we identify intergenerational support patterns among older Malaysians. Multinomial logistic regression is employed to investigate how older adults’ marital experiences relate to these support patterns. Findings show positive marital experiences are associated with support patterns involving mutual exchange or high receipt of support, while negative marital experiences are linked to patterns characterized by a downward transfer of support to children. Policymakers in developing settings should thus pay more attention to family dynamics when aiming to strengthen intergenerational support.

Keywords

intergenerational support marital quality developing countries life course latent class analysis

Introduction

In the context of rapid population aging, policymakers and researchers have been interested in understanding the determinants of intergenerational support between older adults and their children as it plays a significant role in the well-being of older adults (Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010; Yang et al., 2023). Past research examining the determinants of intergenerational support has generally focused on the “opportunity structure” for intergenerational support such as family structure, living arrangements and availability of kin (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Fingerman et al., 2020; Seltzer & Bianchi, 2013). While there is increasing attention being paid to how family emotional bonds are related to intergenerational support, most of these studies tend to concentrate on the quality of parent-child relationships (Fingerman et al., 2020; Hank & Steinbach, 2018). To our knowledge, little attention has been paid to understanding how older persons’ marital relationships influence intergenerational support.

To address this pertinent research gap, this paper examines the association between parental marital quality and intergenerational support among older persons in Malaysia. Malaysia is a multi-ethnic middle-income country in Southeast Asia, where each race/ethnicity maintains its distinct cultural practices and has different demographic trajectories (Tey et al., 2016). Our study uses an analytic sample of currently married older Malaysians with children derived from Wave 1 of the Malaysia Aging and Retirement Survey (2018), a sister study of the Health and Retirement Survey (HRS; Mansor & Awang, 2021). We first employ latent class analysis (LCA) to describe the different types of intergenerational support among Malaysians aged 60. Subsequently, the study examines how older parents’ positive and negative marital experiences are associated with different intergenerational support profiles. Finally, we investigate how gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status potentially moderate the relationship between older adults’ marital quality and intergenerational support.

The study seeks to extend the current literature on intergenerational support in several ways. Firstly, the study adds empirical evidence and highlights the importance of the “linked lives” principles within the life course perspective (Carr, 2018) by considering how intragenerational relationship, such as spousal relationships, relates to intergenerational support between older adults and adult children. Previous research examining the influence of parents’ marital quality on parent-child relationships (e.g., Almeida et al., 1999; Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014; Yoo, 2020) has primarily focused on families with younger or adolescent children. These findings may not be fully applicable to relationships between older parents and their adult children, who tend to live more independently. As parents age, they often face increased health challenges and greater care needs (Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). Our study potentially provides valuable insights into how the marital quality of older adults affects intergenerational support. Secondly, given that studies on race/ethnicity and its influence on aging and intergenerational support typically focus on Western populations and racial/ethnic categories (e.g., White persons as the majority) from these societies (Torres, 2019), this study also seeks to provide further insights into how gender roles, racial/ethnic inequalities and cultural norms in non-Western societies shape the relationship between marital quality and older persons’ intergenerational support by exploiting the multi-ethnic context of Malaysia.

Finally, through the study of older Malaysians, the study adds to the knowledge on intergenerational support patterns within low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study of intergenerational support is complex, as it often involves assessing the different directions and magnitudes of various “currencies” of support between older adults and their adult children which are interdependent (Hermalin, 1999). A notable example of this complexity is the situation of migrant adult children and custodial grandparenting in rural regions, where adult children often provide financial remittances in exchange for their older parents’ provision of care to grandchildren (Cong & Silverstein, 2012; Teerawichitchainan & Low, 2021). To address the multifaceted nature of intergenerational support patterns, person-centered approaches such as LCA offer a nuanced method and understanding of these dynamics (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Guo et al., 2012; Hermalin, 1999; Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). Since few studies in LMICs utilize such approaches to examine intergenerational support (e.g., Bó et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2012), our study contributes to the limited knowledge of intergenerational support typologies in these settings.

Literature Review

Theoretical Perspectives

The literature on intergenerational relationships largely focuses on two main perspectives to explain the determinants of intergenerational support: the altruism perspective and the reciprocity (or exchange) perspective (Bianchi et al., 2008). The reciprocity perspective suggests that intergenerational support is made in exchange for (future) services by family members and such reciprocations are enforced by filial obligations or moral expectations (Cox, 1987; Silverstein et al., 2012). Conversely, the altruistic perspective argues that individuals care for their family members, and they make transfers that are based on the contingent needs of family members even though they may not see any benefits for themselves (Becker, 1974; Bianchi et al., 2008). Both perspectives mainly focus on the motivations of older parents and adult children in providing intergenerational transfers, and how variations in family structure influence these motivations (Bianchi et al., 2008). For example, while poor health and greater care needs of older adults are associated with more support from children, feelings of filial responsibility by daughters are more likely to translate to support to mothers as compared to other gender combinations in parent-child relationships (Silverstein et al., 2006)

However, these perspectives overlook the fact that the flows of different types of intergenerational support between parents and children often reflect the quality of their relationships (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991). Moreover, parent-child relationships are interconnected within a broader network of social relationships, which may be influenced by family dynamics or other familial relationships (Carr, 2018). Given that close and intimate ties play significant roles in older adults’ lives (Antonucci et al., 2014; Carr, 2018), older adults’ marital relationships may potentially influence parent-child relationships and intergenerational support. While some studies consider how events such as grey divorce influence intergenerational relationships (e.g., Buyukkececi & Leopold, 2024), there have been limited studies examining how older adults’ marital relationships are related to intergenerational exchanges with their adult children.

Most studies investigating the relationship between parents’ marital quality and quality of parent-child relationships focus on young children or adolescents and their parents (e.g., Almeida et al., 1999; Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014; Yoo, 2020). These studies, including those that account for marital quality before parents’ divorce (Amato & Booth, 1996) as well as racial/ethnic minorities in the United States (Mendez et al., 2021; Skinner et al., 2021), primarily demonstrated that parent’s marital quality is positively associated with the quality of parent-child relationships (Almeida et al., 1999; Erel & Burman, 1995; Kouros et al., 2014; Yoo, 2020). This is arguably due to the spillover effect of marital quality on parent-child relationships (Erel & Burman, 1995). Parents’ marital quality often shapes the parents’ behaviors, which young children emulate and apply in their interaction with their parents and others. Furthermore, when individuals face strain in their marital relationship, it may provoke negative interaction with their child and worsen parent-child relations (Almeida et al., 1999; Erel & Burman, 1995).

Conversely, the compensatory hypothesis argues that in the absence of intimate relationship with their spouse, parents may choose to compensate by investing more effort into strengthening their relationship with their children (Erel & Burman, 1995). Recent research on parents with young children supports this hypothesis, showing an inverse relationship between marital quality and the quality of parent-child relationships (e.g., Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014). Examining the context of divorce during early life stages, Kalmijn (2013) further demonstrates that compensatory efforts by one parent result in the child aligning more closely to that parent, while straining the relations with the other. In intact marriages, competition between parents for children’s affection can lead to loyalty conflicts for children (i.e., feeling caught between both parents), which ultimately strains their relationships with both parents (Amato & Afifi, 2006).

Additionally, parents’ gender may moderate the relationship between parent’s marital quality and quality of parent-child relationships (Almeida et al., 1999; Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014; Skinner et al., 2021). Some studies have found that the spillover effect from marital quality is stronger for fathers (Almeida et al., 1999; Kouros et al., 2014), while compensatory effect from marital quality is more commonly observed for mothers (Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014; Skinner et al., 2021). This may be linked to the gendered socialization of parenting roles, as in many cultures, women are socialized to be directly responsible for children’s well-being and are highly involved in their children’s daily activities, while men are often socialized to be distant parents focused on providing for the family (Bornstein & Putnick, 2016). As a result, mothers tend to engage in more caregiving activities and spend more time in caregiving practices than fathers (Bornstein & Putnick, 2016; Craig & Mullan, 2011), which gives mothers more opportunities to repair parent-child relationship, when their marital relationship deteriorate. Additionally, mothers are socially expected to be nurturing toward their children, which may lead them to put in more effort to improve their relationship with their children (Almeida et al., 1999; Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014).

Past studies also suggest that inequality may shape how marital quality relates to the quality of parent-child relationships. Some studies show that the spillover effect of marital quality on parent-child relationships is observed in families with low economic strain but not for those experiencing high economic strain (Skinner et al., 2021), indicating that socioeconomic status may moderate this relationship. For families living under high economic strain, improvements in marital relationships may have little impact on mitigating the significant challenges posed by economic hardship, which can create instability and poorer relationship quality within the family (Conger et al., 2010). This may explain the absence of a spillover effect for these families. However, given that most studies on marital quality and parent-child relationships focus on racial/ethnic majority respondents (Skinner et al., 2021), it remains unclear how racial/ethnic inequalities may shape the relationship between marital quality and parent-child relationship.

Later-life marital dissolution may provide some insights into how marital quality may influence intergenerational support. Studies on grey divorce, presumably caused by poor marital relationships, show that such divorce is associated with lower contact and support between older adults and children (Buyukkececi & Leopold, 2024; Kalmijn, 2007). However, gender differences in grey divorce show that it tends to increase contact and emotional closeness between mothers and children, while decreasing these aspects between fathers and children (Buyukkececi & Leopold, 2024). This is possibly due to older women being “kin-keepers” of the family, having poorer economic conditions and greater contingent needs than men after grey divorce, while older men tend to have more distant relationships with children than women (Carr & Utz, 2020; Crowley, 2019; Hornstra & Ivanova, 2023). Nonetheless, as parent-child relationships within intact marriages differ significantly from those with divorced families (Amato & Afifi, 2006), the associations between marital quality and intergenerational support for married older adults and their children vary considerably, making it a topic that warrants further examination.

The Context of Malaysia

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic middle-income country in Southeast Asia comprising Malays and Other (non-Malay) Bumiputera (69.4%), Chinese (23.2%), Indians (6.7%) and Others (0.7%; Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2023). These racial/ethnic categories were mostly inherited from the British colonial rulers and are largely based on language, cultural practices, religious beliefs, lineages and ethnic origins (Hirschman, 1986; Kling, 1995). Since the implementation of affirmative actions in the New Economic Policy in 1971, the category of Bumiputera (“sons of the soil”), which includes Malays and the indigenous populations (usually referred to as “Other Bumiputera”), has gained prominence with increasing emphasis on the rights and privileges of the indigenous populations (Gabriel, 2015). Along with the Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) beliefs, such distinction of race/ethnicity through notions of indigeneity has arguably created a dominance of the Malays and exclusion of racial/ethnic minorities (Gabriel, 2021).

Despite the political dominance of the Malays, minorities such as the Chinese often have higher socioeconomic status than Malays and Other Bumiputera (Ravallion, 2020). This economic disparity has been attributed to the economic and labor structure established by the British during the colonial period (Alatas, 1977; Mehmet, 1977; Ravallion, 2020). During this time, the British struggled to convince the Malays to engage in exploitative waged labor within the Colonial capitalist system and instead relied heavily on the Chinese and Indian immigrants for labor in mining industries and plantations (Alatas, 1977). Over time, this created a dual economy in Malaysia, with rural subsistence farming predominantly involving Malays and Other Bumiputera, while industries such as tin and rubber production were dominated by Chinese and Indians (Mehmet, 1977; Ravallion, 2020). These industries formed small enclaves primarily serving British interests, but also providing public goods (e.g., education) as well as banking and financial services for the urban population (Mehmet, 1977). As the Chinese were more likely to work in industries and lived closer to these enclaves, they had better access to education and banking services, leading to more opportunities for socioeconomic mobility (e.g., entrepreneurship; Mehmet, 1977; Ravallion, 2020). Despite the implementation of affirmative action under the New Economic Policy, such economic disparities remain in Malaysia today (Ravallion, 2020).

Furthermore, cultural practices and kinship systems differ across races/ethnicities in Malaysia. Malays and Other Bumiputera typically follow bilateral kinship systems, while the Chinese and Indians tend to adhere to patriarchal kinship systems (Kling, 1995; Yeung et al., 2018). Nevertheless, racial/ethnic categories such as Bumiputera are political constructs with contentious boundaries. For example, “Other Bumiputera” often encompasses many indigenous groups with diverse cultural practices (e.g., the practice of non-Islamic religions), which may challenge Malaysia’s established racial/ethnic classifications (Shamsul, 2001).

These differences in cultural practices and social positions often translate into different demographic trajectories across races/ethnicities (Tey et al., 2016). Malaysian Chinese and Indians have notably lower fertility rates and are aging faster than the Malays and Other Bumiputera, possibly due to the Malay-Muslims being less supportive of the use of birth control and Chinese preferring smaller family sizes (Ibrahim et al., 2018; Tey et al., 2016). Additionally, the Bumiputera-differentiated policies and opportunities for education and jobs have created higher emigration rates for non-Bumiputera Malaysians than the Malays and Other Bumiputera (Cheong et al., 2018; Koh, 2017).

There are also distinct marriage patterns between races/ethnicities, where the Malays tend to marry earlier and have lower non-marriage rates than the Chinese and Indians (Tey, 2007, 2011). This has been attributed to greater emphasis on marriage and family formation in the Malay-Muslim culture which counteracts the influence of economic development and education on lowering marriage rates seen in other races/ethnicities (Jones, 2005; Tey, 2007). Past studies on Malaysia’s cohort trends in divorce show that Malays had historically high divorce rates, particularly within the first five years of marriage, which later rapidly declined, while Chinese and Indians previously had relatively low divorce rates and later saw an increasing trend in divorce (Hirschman & Teerawichitchainan, 2003; Tey, 2011). This can be explained by the stronger cultural stigma on divorce for women among the Chinese and Indians, while it is more culturally acceptable for Malay women to seek divorce (Jones, 2005; Yeung et al., 2018). The later marriage and lower divorce rates among Chinese and Indian Malaysians might imply their poorer marital quality (Glenn et al., 2010) or higher tolerance of unhappy unions than the Malays and Bumiputera.

Across all races/ethnicities in Malaysia, there remains a strong norm of filial obligations and familial support still plays an important role within its welfare system (Ibrahim et al., 2018). Past studies show that most older Malaysians rely on and receive support from their children (Lillard & Willis, 1997; Tey & Hamid, 2014). Support received from children is often done in exchange for past parents’ “investment” in education or for parent’s help in housework and grandchild care (Lillard & Willis, 1997). Cultural and demographic differences between races/ethnicities potentially influence the family dynamics and intergenerational support between older adults and children. Compared to the Malays, Chinese adult children tend to provide more financial support, spend less time offering instrumental help, and rely more on formal long-term care services for their older parents (Choo et al., 2003; Lillard & Willis, 1997). This has been attributed to the smaller family size of Chinese Malaysian families, their higher migration rates, and their comparatively higher earnings (Choo et al., 2003; Tey et al., 2016). Additionally, other studies in Southeast Asia (e.g., Indonesia) suggest that kinship systems influence intergenerational support patterns. In patriarchal family systems, the upward flow of support from children to parents is viewed as socially desirable, while bilateral and matrilineal kinship systems are more accepting of the downward flow of support from older parents to children (Kreager & Schröder-Butterfill, 2008).

Hypotheses

The literature review highlights the potential ways marital quality is associated with intergenerational support and how various moderators may shape this relationship. We propose the following hypotheses regarding the link between marital quality and intergenerational support:

Better marital quality between parents—characterized by high marital satisfaction or low marital strain—may have a spillover effect and improve parent-child relationships (Erel & Burman, 1995). Thus, we hypothesize that better marital quality is associated with a high degree of mutual support exchange between older parents and children (H1a). However, given strong cultural norms in Malaysia that emphasize reciprocating parents’ earlier “investment” and the predominantly upward flow of support from children to parents (Ibrahim et al., 2018; Lillard & Willis, 1997), we also hypothesize that better marital quality among older parents may correspond with intergenerational support types characterized by upward transfers (H1b).

Conversely, poor marital quality between parents—characterized by low marital satisfaction or high marital strain—may prompt parents to invest more effort into strengthening their relationships with their children, creating a compensatory effect on the parent-child relationship (Erel & Burman, 1995). Thus, we expect poor marital quality will be negatively associated with intergenerational support involving mutual exchanges between parents and children (H2a). However, in troubled marriages, competition for children’s affection may lead to loyalty conflicts (Amato & Afifi, 2006), resulting in situations where the support provided by parents is not reciprocated by children. As a result, we further hypothesize that poor marital quality may lead to downward intergenerational support from parents to children (H2b).

Additionally, past studies (e.g., Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014) suggest that the gender of older parents plays a moderating role in the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support. As fathers are likely to experience a stronger spillover effect, we therefore hypothesize that fathers will exhibit a positive association between marital quality and intergenerational support patterns involving either mutual or upward transfers. In contrast, due to their traditional nurturing roles, we expect mothers to show a positive association between marital quality and downward intergenerational support transfers (H3).

Past studies suggest that families with higher socioeconomic status tend to experience a stronger spillover effect of marital quality on parent-child relationships compared to those with lower socioeconomic status (Skinner et al., 2021). Accordingly, we hypothesize that older adults with higher socioeconomic status will exhibit a stronger positive association between marital quality and mutual intergenerational support exchange or upward transfers of intergenerational support (H4a). However, socioeconomic status may also reflect the availability of resources that allow older adults to address personal and contingent needs independently (Silverstein et al., 2006). Consequently, older adults with higher socioeconomic status may rely less on family support, resulting in a weaker association between marital quality and intergenerational support compared to those with lower socioeconomic status (H4b).

Race/ethnicity may also moderate the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support, given its significant role in Malaysia. The marginalization of racial/ethnic minorities (Gabriel, 2021) may lead older Chinese, Indians and other minority groups to heavily rely on support from their children. Thus, we expect a stronger association between marital quality and intergenerational support among these racial/ethnic minorities (H5a). Additionally, different kinship systems and their ideals of intergenerational support may shape how marital quality relates to intergenerational support patterns (Kreager & Schröder-Butterfill, 2008; Teerawichitchainan et al., 2015). In patriarchal kinship systems, such as those among Chinese and Indians, higher marital quality is hypothesized to be positively associated with upward intergenerational support. Meanwhile, in bilateral kinship systems, such as those of Malays and Other Bumiputera, higher marital quality is hypothesized to align with downward intergenerational support (H5b).

Data and Methods

We analyze Wave 1 (2018) data from MARS, one of the few aging studies in Malaysia that collects a nationally representative sample from all twelve states. Wave 1 of MARS is used, as it is currently the only publicly available wave of data. As a sister study of the HRS, MARS interviewed 5613 Malaysians aged 40 and above and is designed to be a longitudinal study with data collection conducted bi-annually. The sample was collected through multi-staged sampling with the assistance of the Department of Statistics Malaysia, with a maximum of three oldest respondents aged 40 and above being selected per household. Detailed information about the MARS sampling methodology is available elsewhere (Mansor & Awang, 2021).

Since this study focuses on the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational exchanges among older adults, we exclude respondents younger than 60 years old (n = 3382), adults aged 60 and above who are currently unmarried (e.g., widowed, divorced, never married; n = 586), and those without any living children (n = 70). The analytic sample thus consists of 1575 respondents who are married older adults (aged 60+) and have one or more living children at the time of the survey. A comparison of descriptive statistics between the analytic sample and excluded respondents is shown in Supplemental Table 1. While the analytic sample differs significantly from the excluded respondents across multiple variables, these differences are to be expected. Older, married adults with children tend to have distinct social and family dynamics compared to those who are younger, unmarried or childless (Carr & Utz, 2020; Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). Additionally, demographic trends in Malaysia (e.g., differences in fertility and marriage rates across races/ethnicities and rural/urban regions) may also explain these variations (Tey, 2011; Tey et al., 2016).

Measurements

Dependent Variable: Intergenerational Support Indicators

Our study incorporates six intergenerational support indicators to capture the multidimensional nature (e.g., magnitude, direction, types) of intergenerational support (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Guo et al., 2012; Hermalin, 1999). Three binary variables look at downward intergenerational support in the past year including (a) provision of financial or material support, (b) provision of instrumental help and (c) provision of emotional support to children. Three binary variables look at upward intergenerational support in the past year including (d) receipt of financial or material support, (e) receipt of instrumental help and (f) receipt of emotional support.

Independent Variables: Marital Quality

Five items in MARS focus on marital quality between respondents and their current spouses. Respondents were asked: (a) how much their spouse truly understands how they feel about things, (b) how often they can open up to their spouse if they need to talk about worries, (c) how often their spouse makes too many demands, (d) how often their spouse lets them down and (e) how often their spouse gets on their nerves. Respondents indicated their answers on a scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always). As past studies suggest that positive and negative dimensions of marital quality should be independently assessed because they account for different sets of marital behavior (Bradbury et al., 2000), we decided to create two indices for (1) positive marital experiences and (2) negative marital experiences. Positive marital experiences are incorporated as a continuous variable that sums items (a) and (b) (min:0; max:8; Spearman-Brown Coefficient: 0.700), while negative marital experiences are incorporated as a continuous variable that sums items (c) to (e) (min:0; max:12; Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.523, Omega Total: 0.644, Revelle’s Omega Total: 0.63, Greatest Lower Bounds: 0.629). Twelve respondents consistently show missing values across items (a) to (e), and thus have missing data for both positive and negative marital experiences.

Moderators

Beyond exploring the relationship between older adults’ marital quality and intergenerational support, the study considers respondent’s gender (male = 0, female = 1), race/ethnicity (Malay = 1, Other Bumiputera = 2, Chinese = 3, Indian/Others = 4) and educational attainment (primary school or less = 1, lower secondary and above = 2) as moderators.

Control Variables

The study controls for socio-demographic characteristics of respondents that may influence older adult’s marital quality and intergenerational support, including respondent’s age (60–69 = 1, 70 to 79 = 2, 80+ = 3), location (rural = 0, urban = 1), current employment status (0 = not working, 1 = working), respondent’s monthly income (no/irregular income = 1, less than RM1000 = 2, RM2000 and above = 3), number of functional limitations (no limitation = 1, 1 to 2 limitations = 2, 3 to 4 limitations = 3, 5 or more limitations = 4), number of social activities that the respondent often participates (0–7). Children’s characteristics may also influence the availability and provision of intergenerational support (Suitor et al., 2016). Therefore, we controlled for the number of adult children, mean age of children, proportion of children who are daughters, and proportion of children that are married, as well as proximity of nearest children (living with respondent = 1, living within 5 km of respondents’ residence = 2, living elsewhere or abroad = 3). Since older adults’ psychological well-being is known to be associated with both marital quality and intergenerational support (Baker & Silverstein, 2012; Carr & Utz, 2020), we included a measure for respondent’s emotional distress (0–40). This measure comprises eight items assessing the frequency with which respondents experience negative emotional states such as feelings of isolation, worthlessness, loneliness, trouble concentrating, boredom, depression, anxiety and thoughts about death. Additionally, due to differing levels of economic development between East and West Malaysia (Ravallion, 2020), we included a binary variable for state (0 = West Malaysia, 1 = East Malaysia).

The MARS data lacks variables indicating if respondents have ever experienced a divorce. Given that childbirth in Malaysia primarily occurs within marriage (Rashid et al., 2018), we construct a binary variable that indicates if any of the respondent’s children are from a previous marriage (No = 0, Yes = 1). This approach accounts for the uneven experience of divorce across different races/ethnicities in Malaysia. Due to differences in cultural stigma surrounding divorce for women, older Chinese and Indian Malaysians are more likely to remain in unhappy unions and report poorer marital quality compared to Malays and Other Bumiputera (Jones, 2005). Descriptive statistics for all covariates are presented in Supplemental Table 1.

Analytical Approaches

The study first conducts LCA with the six intergenerational support indicators using the complex mixture modeling procedures in Mplus 7 (Muthen & Muthen, 2012). As ten respondents consistently show missing values across the six intergenerational support indicators, listwise deletion is used to handle missing values. This leaves 1565 respondents for the LCA. We consider both model fit indices and interpretability of classes within the model when choosing the number of classes. Our fit statistics criteria selects latent class models with (a) the lowest Bayesian Informal Criterion (BIC) or sample-size adjusted (SABIC) among the different classes considered, (b) having an entropy of at least 0.80, and (c) having the k-1 class solution with a non-significant p-value for the k class solution when using the Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio (LMR) test and Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio (VLMR) test (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). The complex mixture modeling procedure is used to account for a possible clustering effect for respondents who were sampled from the same household (Muthen & Muthen, 2012). While the bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT) is a commonly used fit statistic, it is not available under the complex mixture modeling procedures in Mplus 7. Beyond fit indices, we also consider and interpret the predicted probabilities of intergenerational support indicators for each class to create labels and explain key characteristics of each intergenerational support class.

To explore how marital quality and intergenerational support are related, the study subsequently conduct robust multinomial logistic regression with clustered standard errors predicting intergenerational support type derived from LCA. Respondents with missing values for intergenerational support patterns (n = 10), marital quality (n = 12) and other control variables (n = 16; total missing n = 22) are handled by listwise deletion, leaving 1553 respondents for the multinomial logistic regression. We use clustered standard errors due to shared residency among some respondents (685 respondents in 343 multi-respondent households). We also add interaction terms in the models to further understand how gender, race/ethnicity and education moderate the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support. In exploratory analyses, we have also assessed multicollinearity using Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Since all covariates have VIF values less than five, it indicates that multicollinearity is not present in our analyses.

Results

Latent Class Analysis

Table 1 shows the results of the fit statistics for the latent class models. The fit statistics and interpretations of the predicted probabilities of intergenerational support indicators suggest that the four-class model is the most appropriate model. Among all the models considered, the model with four classes appears to have the lowest BIC and SABIC. Furthermore, the addition of number of classes from four to five shows a non-significant result for the LMR and VLMR test, suggesting that the five-class model did not have an improvement in goodness-of-fit compared to a four-class model. Additionally, the model with four classes has an entropy of 0.80, which meets a conventional cutoff for precise classification quality.

Table 1.

Model Fit for the Optimal Number of Classes in the Latent Class Analysis of Intergenerational Support for the Analytic Sample (n = 1565).

Number of classes	BIC	SABIC	LMR	VLMR-LRT	Entropy
2	10875.04	10833.75	1300.780 (0.0000)	1326.043 (0.0000)	0.81
3	10392.29	10328.75	524.070 (0.0000)	534.249 (0.0000)	0.82
4	10077.58	9991.81	359.218 (0.0000)	366.195 (0.0000)	0.80
5	10114.02	10006.01	14.759 (0.0872)	15.046 (0.0817)	0.81
6	10153.95	10023.70	11.344 (0.1177)	11.565 (0.1134)	0.81
7	10200.23	10047.74	5.110 (0.5678)	5.210 (0.5627)	0.85

Note. BIC denotes Bayesian Informal Criterion; SABIC denotes sample-size adjusted BIC; LMR denotes Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test; VLMR-LRT denotes Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test.

Source: Malaysia Aging and Retirement Survey (MARS) 2018.

Table 2 presents the predicted probabilities for the 4-class model derived from the LCA. We discern four types of intergenerational support among older persons in Malaysia: Mutual (21.3%), Receive (22.9%), Provide (15.5%) and Limited (40.3%). Respondents in “Mutual” category have the most intense form of intergenerational exchange with their children. They are likely to both provide and receive instrumental, emotional and material support. For the “Receive” category, respondents have a relatively high likelihood of receiving instrumental help, emotional support and material support from at least one child. However, they are less likely to provide support to their children. Conversely, respondents in the “Provide” category have relatively low probabilities of receiving instrumental, emotional, and material support from any of their children. However, they are highly likely to provide such support to their children. Lastly, the “Limited” category exhibits the least intergenerational exchange between respondents and their adult children. Most respondents in this category neither provide nor receive instrumental or emotional support. However, there is some material exchange, with children (0.42) being more likely to provide material support than older adults (0.21).

Table 2.

Distribution and Probabilities of Intergenerational Support Indicators Among Older Malaysians Across Latent Classes (n = 1565).

Intergenerational support indicators	Types of intergenerational support
	Mutual	Receive	Provide	Limited
	21.34%	22.88%	15.53%	40.26%
Provide instrumental help to 1+ child	0.73	0.15	0.45	0.02
Receive instrumental help from 1+ child	0.80	0.45	0.11	0.00
Provide material/financial support to 1+ child	0.86	0.23	0.98	0.21
Receive material/financial support to 1+ child	0.89	0.99	0.29	0.42
Provide emotional support to 1+ child	0.93	0.11	0.81	0.01
Receive emotional support from 1+ child	0.88	0.66	0.00	0.00

While a substantial proportion of respondents have “Limited” intergenerational support (40.3%), we advise caution when interpreting these results, as the analytic sample is relatively young and healthy – two-thirds of respondents are in their 60s and mostly have little or no functional limitations (see Supplemental Table 1). Around 59.7% of older adults fall into intergenerational support classes characterized by high levels of material, instrumental and emotional support from either parents or children. These findings suggest that a substantial proportion of older Malaysians engage in extensive intergenerational exchanges with their children.

Marital Quality and Intergenerational Support

Table 3 presents the relative risk ratios (RRR) and cluster-robust standard errors from multinomial logistic regression predicting the association between marital quality and intergenerational support typology, with “Limited” intergenerational support type being the base category. The model consists of positive and negative marital experiences along with sociodemographic variables (see Supplemental Table 2 for coefficients and standard errors for control variables). We have also conducted sensitivity analyses with different intergenerational support types as the base category and the results are generally consistent (see Supplemental Table 3 for sensitivity analyses).

Table 3.

Relative Risk Ratio and Robust Standard Errors From Cluster-Robust Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Intergeneration Support Exchange Among Older Malaysians Who Are Married and Have Children (Limited = Base Category).

	Model 1
	Mutual versus Limited		Receive versus Limited		Provide versus Limited
	RRR	Robust SE	RRR	Robust SE	RRR	Robust SE
Independent variables:
Positive marital experiences	1.12**	0.05	1.09*	0.04	1.07	0.05
Negative martial experiences	0.98	0.04	1.00	0.04	1.09*	0.04
Sociodemographic variables	Controlled
Constant	0.23*	0.14	0.25*	0.14	0.10***	0.07
Log pseudolikelihood	−1842.79
Unweighted N	1553

Note. ***Statistically significant at p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05; †p < .10.

Source: Malaysia Aging and Retirement Survey (MARS) 2018.

Results indicate that more positive marital experiences significantly increase the likelihood of older Malaysians being in the “Mutual” and “Receive” intergenerational support types compared to “Limited” support. This suggests that positive marital experiences foster mutual exchanges of intergenerational support between older Malaysians and their children, as well as a greater flow of intergenerational support from children to older adults. Conversely, more negative marital experiences increase the likelihood of older Malaysians being in the “Provide” support, indicating that marital strain is related to a greater flow of intergenerational support from parents to their children.

To investigate how gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status shape the relationship between marital quality and types of intergenerational support, we added interaction terms between positive and negative marital quality and these variables (gender, race/ethnicity and education) in our model. The results are presented in Table 4 (see Supplemental Table 2 for coefficients and standard errors for control variables).

Table 4.

Relative Risk Ratio and Robust Standard Errors From Cluster-Robust Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Intergenerational Support Among Older Malaysians Who Are Married and Have Children (Limited = Base Category) - Interaction Effects.

	Model 2
	Mutual versus Limited		Receive versus Limited		Provide versus Limited
	RRR	Robust SE	RRR	Robust SE	RRR	Robust SE
Independent variables:
Positive marital experiences	1.19*	0.10	1.12	0.08	1.01	0.09
Negative martial experiences	1.11	0.08	1.01	0.07	1.06	0.08
Interaction term (positive marital experiences)
Male X positive marital experiences	0.93	0.07	1.01	0.07	1.06	0.10
Ethnic group and positive marital experiences
Bumiputera X positive marital experiences	1.10	0.14	1.07	0.13	0.82	0.12
Chinese X positive marital experiences	1.13	0.23	0.99	0.10	1.28	0.17
Indian/Other X positive marital experiences	0.98	0.16	1.12	0.15	1.07	0.15
Lower secondary and above X positive marital experiences	0.96	0.08	0.91	0.07	1.03	0.10
Interaction term (negative marital experiences)
Male X negative marital experiences	0.91	0.06	0.97	0.06	0.98	0.07
Ethnic group and negative marital experiences
Bumiputera X negative marital experiences	0.58***	0.06	0.94	0.10	0.87	0.10
Chinese X negative marital experiences	1.03	0.15	0.95	0.09	0.84	0.10
Indian/Other X negative marital experiences	0.99	0.16	0.88	0.11	0.88	0.09
Lower secondary and above X negative marital experiences	1.01	0.07	1.12	0.07	1.18*	0.09
Sociodemographic variables	Controlled
Constant	0.10**	0.09	0.21*	0.15	0.15*	0.13
Log pseudolikelihood	−1813.70
Unweighted N	1553

Note. ***Statistically significant at p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Source: Malaysia Aging and Retirement Survey (MARS) 2018.

In Table 4, none of the interaction terms involving positive marital experiences are statistically significant, suggesting that gender, race/ethnicity, and education do not moderate the relationship between positive marital experiences and intergenerational support. Furthermore, the interaction terms between gender and negative marital experiences are not statistically significant, indicating that gender does not moderate the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support. Conversely, respondent’s educational attainment appears to moderate the relationship between negative marital experiences and intergenerational support. Respondents with higher education demonstrate a stronger association between negative marital experiences and the likelihood of being in the “Provide” type of intergenerational support, relative to the “Limited” support category. This suggests that respondents with higher education may compensate more for marital strain by providing greater support to their children, as compared to those with lower education.

Furthermore, race/ethnicity appears to moderate the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support. Other Bumiputera with greater negative marital experiences are far less likely to be in the “Mutual” type of intergenerational support than Malays, relative to having “Limited” support. This suggests that marital strain may have more detrimental effects on parent-child relationships and intergenerational support among Other Bumiputera compared to Malays.

Discussion

While there have been many studies examining the determinants of intergenerational support, few studies have investigated how intragenerational social relationships are related to intergenerational support between older adults and their adult children (Hank & Steinbach, 2018). Most studies examining the influence of parents’ marital quality on family dynamics (e.g., Almeida et al., 1999; Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014; Yoo, 2020) focus on parent-child relationships with young and adolescent children. However, these findings may not apply to the unique situations, capabilities, and support needs of older parents and adult children (Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). Additionally, past research on how race/ethnicity shapes older adults’ family and social relations has primarily focused on Western populations (Torres, 2019). Few studies in Asia have examined how race/ethnicity shapes the relationship between family dynamics and intergenerational support. With a few exceptions (e.g., Bó et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2012), most studies on intergenerational support in LMICs focus on its separate and distinct dimensions, neglecting the multidimensional nature of intergenerational support. Analyzing Wave 1 of the MARS data (2018), this study uses LCA to describe the multifaceted typology of intergenerational support among older Malaysians (i.e., Mutual, Receive, Provide, Limited). Additionally, it investigates how intragenerational relationships, particularly marital quality among older adults aged 60 and above, influence intergenerational support between older adults and their children and how sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., gender, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicities) moderate the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support.

Broadly speaking, LCA results show that older Malaysians are in intergenerational support patterns with high levels of intergenerational support exchanges with their children. We also observe that positive marital experiences increase the likelihood of older Malaysians in intergenerational support classes characterized by a high mutual exchange of support between older adults and their children (“Mutual” class) as well as a greater flow of intergenerational support from children to older adults (“Receive” class). This supports hypotheses H1a and H1b and aligns with the argument that better marital quality creates a spillover effect (Erel & Burman, 1995) that reinforces parent-child relationships and promotes mutual and upward transfers of intergenerational support.

Additionally, the findings also demonstrate that more negative marital experiences increase the likelihood of older Malaysians having a “Provide” intergenerational support profile, indicating that marital strain is related to a greater flow of intergenerational support from older Malaysians to their adult children. This lends some support to the compensatory argument (H2b). However, relative to “Limited” support profiles, negative marital experience is not associated with mutual support exchange, which contradicts hypothesis H2a. Collectively, this suggests that marital strain may lead older adults to compensate for the lack of close marital relationships by strengthening parent-child bonds through providing more support to their children. However, such efforts may not be reciprocated by the children, as they may experience loyalty conflicts (i.e., feeling caught between parents), ultimately straining the parent-child relationship (Amato & Afifi, 2006).

Unexpectedly, our results show that gender does not moderate the relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support. This contradicts hypothesis H3 and diverges from past studies that examine marital quality and parent-child relationships in young children and adolescents (Gao et al., 2022; Kouros et al., 2014) or grey divorce and intergenerational support (Buyukkececi & Leopold, 2024). In these studies, fathers tend to experience stronger spillover effects, while mothers may compensate for poor marital relationships by improving parent-child relationships. The lack of gender differences in our study could be attributed to the fact that adult children in the sample are more mature and independent (mean age of the youngest child: 30.54) compared to the younger children and adolescents in the previous literature. Furthermore, our respondents are generally healthy and do not require personal care (mean number of functional limitations: 2.1 out of 10). Given these circumstances, the time spent and support exchanged with adult children by older individuals, regardless of gender, may be comparable, thus diminishing gender differences in intergenerational support, irrespective of marital quality.

The finding also shows that socioeconomic status moderates the relationship between marital quality and intergeneration support, albeit in a different manner than what our hypotheses suggested. Rather than observing a stronger spillover effect (H4a) or a weaker association between marital quality and intergenerational support (H4b), older Malaysian with higher socioeconomic status have a stronger association between negative marital experience and providing intergenerational support to their children. The spillover effect appears to affect both high- and low- socioeconomic-status older adults equally, possibly because family support still plays a crucial role within Malaysia’s welfare system and for most older Malaysians (Tey et al., 2016). Nonetheless, older Malaysians with higher socioeconomic status may have greater access to resources and can invest more support to their adult children. This could result in a stronger compensatory effect when faced with marital strain than older parents with lower socioeconomic status.

Race/ethnicity in Malaysia is also a notable moderating factor. However, contrary to hypothesis 5b, we do not observe a moderating effect based on differences in kinship systems (i.e., patriarchal or bilateral) for the races/ethnicities in Malaysia. Unexpectedly, Other Bumiputera with greater negative marital experiences are far less likely to be in the “Mutual” intergenerational support type than Malays, compared to having “Limited” support. This suggests that Other Bumiputera experience a greater spillover effect from marital strain on intergenerational support compared to other races/ethnicities. This differs from our initial hypothesis (H5a), which predicted that racial/ethnic exclusion in Malaysia would lead to a stronger association between marital quality and intergenerational support among Chinese, Indian, and other racial/ethnic groups. Although Other Bumiputera benefit from affirmative action policies and indigenous rights, past studies have shown that Other Bumiputera are often marginalized (e.g., being seen as foreigners) and have limited access to the benefits of these policies (Chin, 2014; Lino & Hashim, 2019). Coupled with their disadvantaged socioeconomic position (Ravallion, 2020), this marginalization may increase isolation among older non-Malay Bumiputera, prompting a greater reliance on kinship ties for support, and amplifying the spillover effect of marital quality on intergenerational support, particularly when marital quality is poor. Although contradicting hypothesis 5a, these findings still suggest that marginalized racial/ethnic groups may experience a heightened spillover effect from marital quality to intergenerational support.

There are some key limitations in this study. Firstly, there is often difficulty assessing intergenerational support between parents and multiple children due to the variation in the extent of support and the differing motivations of each child (Hermalin, 1999). While LCA helps capture the multidimensional aspects of intergenerational support (Guo et al., 2012; Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018), the study cannot account for the diversity and heterogeneity among the children of older adults.

Secondly, the study uses cross-sectional data for its analysis, and it is unable to establish a clear causal relationship between marital quality and intergenerational support. The associations observed might be due to reverse causality. Parent-child relationships and intergenerational support may have a spillover or compensatory effect on older adults’ spousal relationships, thus explaining the association between marital quality and intergenerational support. For example, providing intergenerational support to children may drain older adults’ resources, possibly creating strain on older adults and their marital relationships (Baker & Silverstein, 2012). However, this is unlikely, as past studies and indicators from the MARS dataset show that upward intergenerational transfers are common in Malaysia (Lillard & Willis, 1997; Mansor & Awang, 2021). Future studies could employ latent transition analysis, which captures changes in respondents’ intergenerational support classes over time (Collins & Lanza, 2009), to better establish causality between marital quality and intergenerational support when longitudinal data from MARS becomes available.

Thirdly, we recognize that our model may be vulnerable to omitted variable bias, which could lead to issues of endogeneity. As marital quality is the key variable under examination, the selection of divorce may potentially bias measurements of marital quality and findings in this study. Marital quality in second and subsequent marriages might be higher than in first marriages, as individuals in unsatisfactory marriages might have pursued divorce for more compatible partners –a phenomenon particularly evident among Malays who face less stigma surrounding divorce (Jones, 2005). This may bias our measurement of marital quality, which is why marital history should ideally be controlled in the analysis. However, the MARS dataset does not collect information about respondents’ marital histories. We tried to address this by constructing a variable indicating whether respondents have a child from an ex-spouse as a proxy for divorce, but this may not capture the influence of marital dissolutions from relationships where no children were born.

Furthermore, as both our independent and dependent variables focus on key family relationships of older adults, potential confounders may influence both marital quality and intergenerational support, possibly introducing endogeneity into our model. However, we have attempted to address this by controlling for a range of variables known to influence family dynamics, including children’s characteristics and family structure (e.g., number of adult children, mean age of children, proportion of children who are daughters, proportion of children who are married, proximity of children), respondents’ socioeconomic position (e.g., income, education), region’s economic development (e.g., rural/urban region, living in East/West Malaysia), access to resources beyond the family (e.g., social participation, work status), respondents’ health (e.g., number of functional limitations) and psychological well-being (e.g., emotional distress score) (Carr & Utz, 2020; Fingerman et al., 2020; Silverstein & Giarrusso, 2010). By including these control variables, we have aimed to address potential confounders. However, we acknowledge that not all possible confounders may have been accounted for.

Nonetheless, this study highlights the importance of the linked lives principle as posited in the life course perspective (Carr, 2018) by demonstrating how parental marital relationships can shape intergenerational support dynamics with their adult children. While older Malaysians typically maintain robust intergenerational bonds with their children, marital quality exerts both spillover and compensatory effects on intergenerational support. The moderating effects of socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity suggest that older adults with fewer resources (i.e., lower education) and belonging to disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups (i.e., Other Bumiputera) may encounter greater challenges in enhancing parent-child relationships, potentially leading to weakened intergenerational support in the context of marital discord. The findings suggest that the “double disadvantage” of lower socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic marginalization can potentially create cumulative disadvantages in later life for Other Bumiputera (Mutchler & Burr, 2011), where both factors detrimentally affect how marital quality influences intergenerational support.

While researchers and policymakers have focused on the motivations behind intergenerational support and the impact of state interventions on these dynamics (Bianchi et al., 2008), our findings collectively underscore the pivotal role of family dynamics in shaping the scope of familial support for older adults, thereby contributing to disparities in support provision. This demonstrates that family dynamics and marital quality wield significant influence over intergenerational support exchanges between older adults and their children. Given the aging demographic and cultural norms in Asia, where familial networks are the primary source of old-age support (He et al., 2022), policymakers should acknowledge that older adults from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds and racial/ethnic minorities (e.g., Other Bumiputera in Malaysia) are particularly vulnerable to familial conflicts or changes in family dynamics. Additional social protection and old age support may be necessary for racial/ethnic minorities, who are likely to face cumulative disadvantages and limited intergenerational support to safeguard their well-being in later life.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - How Parents’ Marital Quality Influences Intergenerational Support Between Older Adults and Their Children: Evidence Ffrom Malaysia

Supplemental Material for How Parents’ Marital Quality Influences Intergenerational Support Between Older Adults and Their Children: Evidence Ffrom Malaysia by Timothy QY Low, Bussarawan Teerawichitchainan and Norma Mansor in Research on Aging

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the Social Wellbeing Research Centre (SWRC) for permission to use the data from the Malaysia Ageing and Retirement Survey (MARS) 2018. The first author would also like to thank Drs Qiushi Feng, Zheng Mu and Shannon Ang for their comments on earlier drafts of the manuscripts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Timothy QY Low

Bussarawan Teerawichitchainan

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Timothy QY Low, M.Soc.Sci, is currently a PhD student at the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, National University of Singapore. His research interests lie in health disparity, aging and social demography. He is currently interested in exploring health inequalities amongst older adults in Southeast Asia.

Bussarawan Teerawichitchainan, PhD, holds joint appointments as Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Co-Director of the Centre for Family and Population Research at National University of Singapore. Her research interests lies at the intersection of family demography, social gerontology, population health, and social stratification. Her current research examines the roles of family, policy, and social structure in explaining the life course and well-being of older adults in the Asia Pacific region, particularly Southeast Asia.

Norma Mansor, PhD, is currently Emeritus Professor and Director of the Social Wellbeing Research Centre at Universiti Malaya. She is also a fellow of the Academy of Sciences Malaysia and the President of the Malaysian Economic Association. She has written extensively in books and scholarly journals in the area of public and social policy, aging and social protection.

References

Alatas

(1977). The myth of the lazy native: A study of the image of the Malays. Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th century and its function in the ideology of colonial capitalism. F. Cass.

Almeida

D. M.

Wethington

Chandler

A. L.

(1999). Daily transmission of tensions between marital dyads and parent-child dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/353882

Amato

P. R.

Afifi

T. D.

(2006). Feeling caught between parents: Adult children’s relations with parents and subjective well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(1), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00243.x

Amato

P. R.

Booth

(1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent-child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/353501

Antonucci

T. C.

Ajrouch

K. J.

Birditt

K. S.

(2014). The convoy model: Explaining social relations from a multidisciplinary perspective. The Gerontologist, 54(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt118

Baker

L. A.

Silverstein

(2012). The wellbeing of grandparents caring for grandchildren in China and the United States. In Arber

Timonen

(Eds.), Contemporary grandparenting (pp. 51–70). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781847429681.003.0003

Becker

G. S.

(1974). A theory of social interactions. Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1063–1093. https://doi.org/10.1086/260265

Bengtson

V. L.

Roberts

R. E. L.

(1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 53(4), 856–870. https://doi.org/10.2307/352993

Bianchi

S. M.

Hotz

McGarry

Seltzer

J. A.

(2008). Intergenerational ties: Theories, trends and challenges. In Booth

Crouter

Bianchi

S. M.

Seltzer

(Eds.), Intergenerational caregiving. Intergenerational ties: Theories, trends and challenges. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

10.

Bó

Zimmer

Rada

(2020). The structure and determinants of intergenerational support exchange flows in an Eastern European setting. Research on Aging, 42(9–10), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027520920026

11.

Bornstein

M. H.

Putnick

D. L.

(2016). Iv. Mothers’ and fathers’ parenting practices with their daughters and sons in low- and middle-income countries. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 81(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12226

12.

Bradbury

T. N.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 964–980. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00964.x

13.

Buyukkececi

Leopold

(2024). Parent–child relationships following gray divorce: Stronger ties with mothers, weaker ties with fathers. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 79(5), Article gbae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae004

14.

Carr

(2018). The linked lives principle in life course studies: Classic approaches and contemporary advances. In Alwin

D. F.

Felmlee

D. H.

Kreager

D. A.

(Eds.), Social networks and the life course: Integrating the development of human lives and social relational networks (pp. 41–63). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71544-5_3

15.

Carr

Utz

R. L.

(2020). Families in later life: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12609

16.

Cheong

K.-C.

Goh

K.-L.

(2018). Brain drain and talent capture in Malaysia: Rethinking conventional narratives. In The political economy of brain drain and talent capture. Routledge.

17.

Chin

(2014). Second class Bumiputera? The taming of the Dayaks and Kadazandusun of east Malaysia. In Lemière

(Ed.), Misplaced democracy: Malaysian politics and people (pp. 109–127). Strategic Information and Research Development Centre.

18.

Choo

W.-Y.

Low

W.-Y.

Karina

Poi

P. J. H.

Ebenezer

Prince

M. J.

(2003). Social support and burden among caregivers of patients with dementia in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 15(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/101053950301500105

19.

Collins

L. M.

Lanza

S. T.

(2009). Repeated-measures latent class analysis and latent transition analysis. In Latent class and latent transition analysis with applications in the social, behavioral and health sciences (pp. 179–224). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470567333.ch7

20.

Cong

Silverstein

(2012). Custodial grandparents and intergenerational support in rural China. In Mehta

Thang

L. L.

(Eds.), Experiencing grandparenthood: An Asian perspective. Springer.

21.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Martin

M. J.

(2010). Socioeconomic status, family Processes,and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x

22.

Cox

(1987). Motives for private income transfers. Journal of Political Economy, 95(3), 508–546. https://doi.org/10.1086/261470

23.

Craig

Mullan

(2011). How mothers and fathers share childcare: A cross-national time-use comparison. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 834–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411427673

24.

Crowley

J. E.

(2019). Does everything fall apart? Life assessments following a gray divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 40(11), 1438–1461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19839735

25.

Department of Statistics Malaysia . (2023). openDOSM | Malaysia open data ocean. https://open.dosm.gov.my/

26.

Erel

Burman

(1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent–child relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 108–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.108

27.

Fingerman

K. L.

Huo

Birditt

K. S.

(2020). A decade of research on intergenerational ties: Technological, economic, political, and demographic changes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12604

28.

Gabriel

S. P.

(2015). The meaning of race in Malaysia: Colonial, post-colonial and possible new conjunctures. Ethnicities, 15(6), 782–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796815570347

29.

Gabriel

S. P.

(2021). Racialisation in Malaysia: Multiracialism, multiculturalism, and the cultural politics of the possible. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 52(4), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463421000953

30.

Gao

(Miranda), Papp

L. M.

Cummings

E. M.

(2022). Typologies of daily relationship quality in marital and parent–child subsystems: Implications for child adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 574–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000929

31.

Glenn

N. D.

Uecker

J. E.

Love

R. W. B.

(2010). Later first marriage and marital success. Social Science Research, 39(5), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.002

32.

Guo

Chi

Silverstein

(2012). The structure of intergenerational relations in rural China: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 1114–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01014.x

33.

Hank

Steinbach

(2018). Intergenerational solidarity and intragenerational relations between adult siblings. Social Science Research, 76, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.08.003

34.

Goodkind

Kowal

Almasarweh

Islam

M. M.

Giang

Lee

Teerawichitchainan

Tey

(2022). Asia aging: Demographic, economic, and health transitions (P95/22-1). U.S. Census Bureau.

35.

Hermalin

A. I.

(1999). Challenges to comparative research on intergenerational transfers. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 27(2), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1163/030382499x00020

36.

Hirschman

(1986). The making of race in colonial Malaya: Political economy and racial ideology. Sociological Forum, 1(2), 330–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01115742

37.

Hirschman

Teerawichitchainan

(2003). Cultural and socioeconomic influences on divorce during modernization: Southeast Asia, 1940s to 1960s. Population and Development Review, 29(2), 215–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00215.x

38.

Hornstra

Ivanova

(2023). Kinkeeping across families: The central role of mothers and stepmothers in the facilitation of adult intergenerational ties. Sex Roles, 88(7–8), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01352-2

39.

Ibrahim

Tan

J.-P.

Hamid

T. A.

Ashari

(2018). Cultural, demographic, socio-economic background and care relations in Malaysia. In Care relations in Southeast Asia (pp. 41–98). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004384330_003

40.

Jones

G. W.

(2005). The “flight from marriage” in South-East and east Asia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36(1), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.36.1.93

41.

Kalmijn

(2007). Gender differences in the effects of divorce, widowhood and remarriage on intergenerational support: Does marriage protect fathers? Social Forces, 85(3), 1079–1104. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0043

42.

Kalmijn

(2013). Long-term effects of divorce on parent—child relationships: Within-family comparisons of fathers and mothers. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 888–898. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcs066

43.

Kling

(1995). The Malay family: Beliefs and realities. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.26.1.43

44.

Koh

S. Y.

(2017). Race, education, and citizenship | Mobile Malaysians, British colonial legacies, and a culture of migration. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link-springer-com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/book/10.1057/978-1-137-50344-2

45.

Kouros

C. D.

Papp

L. M.

Goeke-Morey

M. C.

Cummings

E. M.

(2014). Spillover between marital quality and parent-child relationship quality: Parental depressive symptoms as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 28(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036804

46.

Kreager

Schröder-Butterfill

(2008). Indonesia against the trend? Ageing and inter-generational wealth flows in two Indonesian communities. Demographic Research, 19(52), 1781–1810. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.52

47.

Lillard

L. A.

Willis

R. J.

(1997). Motives for intergenerational transfers: Evidence from Malaysia. Demography, 34(1), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061663

48.

Lino

Hashim

I. H. M.

(2019). Racial microaggression in multicultural Malaysia: Ethnic-specific experience of university students. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 6(3), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/262

49.

Mansor

Awang

(2021). Malaysia ageing and retirement survey (MARS) wave 1 – 2018/2019: Full report (978-629-96636-0–7). Social Wellbeing Research Centre. https://swrc.um.edu.my/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MARS-Wave-1-2018-2019-Full-Report-v2.pdf

50.

Mehmet

(1977). Colonialism, dualistic growth and the distribution of economic benefits in Malaysia. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 5(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1163/080382477x00010

51.

Mendez

Rueger

S. Y.

Yoo

Garcia

M. C.

(2021). Uniendo familias Latinas: Testing the spillover hypothesis with Latino mothers and fathers. The Family Journal, 29(4), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480720988121

52.

Mutchler

J. E.

Burr

J. A.

(2011). Race, ethnicity and aging. In Settersten

R. A.

Angel

J. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sociology of aging (pp. 35–49): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7374-0_3

53.

Muthen

(2012). Mplus version 7 user’s guide: Version 7. Muthen & Muthen.

54.

Nylund-Gibson

Choi

A. Y.

(2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000176

55.

Rashid

S. A.

Ghani

P. A.

Mahmud

Ismail

Aziz

A. A.

(2018). Fertility preferences in Malaysia. In Gietel-Basten

Casterline

Choe

M. K.

(Eds.), Family demography in Asia (pp. 185–196). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/edcoll/9781785363542/9781785363542.00017.xml

56.

Ravallion

(2020). Ethnic inequality and poverty in Malaysia since may 1969. Part 1: Inequality. World Development, 134, Article 105040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105040

57.

Seltzer

J. A.

Bianchi

S. M.

(2013). Demographic change and parent-child relationships in adulthood. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145602

58.

Shamsul

A. B.

(2001). A history of an identity, an identity of a history: The idea and practice of ‘Malayness’ in Malaysia reconsidered. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 32(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463401000194

59.

Silverstein

Conroy

S. J.

Gans

(2012). Beyond solidarity, reciprocity and altruism: Moral capital as a unifying concept in intergenerational support for older people. Ageing & Society, 32(7), 1246–1262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1200058X

60.

Silverstein

Gans

Yang

F. M.

(2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of Family Issues, 27(8), 1068–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06288120

61.

Silverstein

Giarrusso

(2010). Aging and family life: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1039–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00749.x

62.

Skinner

O. D.

Sun

McHale

S. M.

(2021). Links between marital and parent–child relationship in African American families: A dyadic approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(8), 1086–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000844

63.

Suitor

J. J.

Gilligan

Pillemer

(2016). Stability, change, and complexity in later-life families. In Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 205–226). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-417235-7.00010-X

64.

Teerawichitchainan

Low

T. Q. Y.

(2021). The situation and well-being of custodial grandparents in Myanmar: Impacts of adult children’s cross-border and internal migration. Social Science & Medicine, 277, Article 113914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113914

65.

Teerawichitchainan

Pothisiri

Long

G. T.

(2015). How do living arrangements and intergenerational support matter for psychological health of elderly parents? Evidence from Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand. Social Science & Medicine, 136–137, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.019

66.

Tey

N. P.

(2007). Trends in delayed and non-marriage in peninsular Malaysia. Asian Population Studies, 3(3), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730701746391

67.

Tey

N. P.

(2011). Understanding marriage and divorce trends in peninsular Malaysia. In Changing marriage patterns in Southeast Asia. Routledge.

68.

Tey

N. P.

Hamid

T. A. T.

(2014). Gender differential in work and income among older Malaysian. In Devasahayam

T. W.

(Ed.), Gender and ageing: Southeast Asian perspectives. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/70/edited_volume/book/35189

69.

Tey

N. P.

Siraj

S. B.

Kamaruzzaman

S. B. B.

Chin

A. V.

Tan

M. P.

Sinnappan

G. S.

Müller

A. M.

(2016). Aging in multi-ethnic Malaysia. The Gerontologist, 56(4), 603–609. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv153

70.

Torres

(Ed.), (2019). A new agenda: Where we are at and need to head for. In Ethnicity and old age: Expanding our imagination (pp. 145–170). Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781447328148.009

71.

Yang

Evandrou

Vlachantoni

(2023). The impact of living arrangements and intergenerational support on the health status of older people in China: Are rural residents disadvantaged compared to urban residents? Ageing & Society, 43(2), 469–494. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21000702

72.

Yeung

W.-J. J.

Desai

Jones

G. W.

(2018). Families in Southeast and South Asia. Annual Review of Sociology, 44(1), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041124

73.

Yoo

(2020). Relationships between Korean parents’ marital satisfaction, parental satisfaction, and parent–child relationship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(7), 2270–2285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520921462

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB