Intergenerational Solidarity With Grandparents in Emerging Adulthood: Associations With Providing Support to Older Parents in Established Adulthood

Abstract

We examined the link between types of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents among young adults in emerging adulthood and whether they provided instrumental and emotional support to their older parents in established adulthood. We used the 2000 and 2016 waves of the longitudinal study of generations and a sample of 229 grandmother–child and 175 grandfather–child dyads. Latent class analysis identified three classes describing intergenerational solidarity with grandparents (tight-knit, detached, and intimate-but-geographically distant) in grandmother–child and grandfather–child dyads in emerging adulthood. Path analyses showed that young adults who had a tight-knit relationship with their grandparents in emerging adulthood provided more instrumental and emotional support to their parents in established adulthood, compared with those who had a detached relationship with their grandparents in emerging adulthood. Results are interpreted in contexts of multigenerational interdependence within families and the sensitivity of young adults to the needs of older parents through their earlier connection to grandparents.

Keywords

intergenerational solidarity multigenerational families family caregiving emerging adulthood established adulthood

In 2019, 54.1 million Americans, or 16% of the total population, were aged 65 or older, and it is projected that 94.7 million Americans will be 65 and older by 2060 (Administration for Community Living, 2020). The demand for family caregiving of aging parents is growing rapidly as a consequence of population aging (Lutz et al., 2008). Family caregivers are often adult children of the individual needing care. Family nursing, as an approach to care management of older patients, could improve the situation for older patients and their family caregivers by adopting a family systems strategy and treating the family as the unit of care, based on assessments of family members’ health and well-being, and their capacity and ability to provide care for older patients (Lin & Wolf, 2020; Nyirati et al., 2012). Thus, a holistic understanding of family dynamics is highly useful to family nursing in a gerontological context (Esandi et al., 2021).

According to the life course perspective, early intergenerational relationships have long-term impacts on later behaviors with family members (Silverstein et al., 2003). There are reasons to believe that early positive exposure to older adults, particularly grandparents, and the resulting systemic family strengthening, will enhance the propensity of adult children later in life to provide for the care needs of their older parents. However, most studies of aging families have focused on solidarity in parent–child relationships as contributing to intergenerational family caregiving in later life and generally have not incorporated solidarity in relationships with grandparents (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Merz et al., 2009; Silverstein et al., 2006). As a result, little is known about the long-term impact of grandparent–grandchild relationships on adult children’s propensity to provide support to older parents. In this study, we take the intergenerational soli-darity perspective as our theoretical and analytic framework. Comprising seven distinct components of family relations, the intergenerational solidarity framework has been widely used to describe intergenerational relationships in family settings (Bengtson, 2001; Silverstein et al., 1997; Steinbach, 2008; van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006). We develop a typology of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents in emerging adulthood and examine the association between types of grandparental solidarity and support provision to parents when children reach established adulthood.

Literature Review

Intergenerational Solidarity With Grandparents

Intergenerational solidarity refers to the social cohesion of family members in different generations, characterized by mutual affection, care, and support (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Roberts et al., 1991). The paradigm of intergenerational solidarity represents the efforts to describe the emotions, behaviors, attitudes, structure, and functions in interpersonal relations in an intergenerational setting (Rossi & Rossi, 1990; Silverstein et al., 1997, 2010). Intergenerational solidarity is a multidimensional construct that initially depicted six dimensions of parent–child relations: association (frequency of interaction), affection (emotional closeness), consensus (agreement on values), structure (geographic proximity), function (exchange of assistance), and filial norms (familial obligations) (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991). Later, Bengtson et al. (2002) added conflict to the intergenerational solidarity model. Instead of considering conflict and affection as two ends of a continuum, they were treated as distinct facets of relationships; conflict did not necessarily imply the absence of affection (Bengtson et al., 2002). With conflict included in the model, the intergenerational solidarity paradigm better addressed the paradoxical, complicated nature of family life through the identification of various family types using case clustering approaches. The intergenerational solidarity paradigm, as a long-standing and fundamental measurement model of intergenerational relations, has been applied in numerous studies of parent–child relationships at various stages of the life course and used to understand filial arrangements and sources of well-being among aging parents (Hwang et al., 2021; Roberts & Bengtson, 1990; Silverstein et al., 1995, 1997).

Given the multidimensional nature of intergenerational solidarity, researchers have applied person-centered approaches to identify relationships that share similar relational attributes based on the six original dimensions. For example, Silverstein et al. (1997) identified five types of intergenerational solidarity in relationships between parents and their adult children: tight-knit, sociable, intimate but distant, obligatory, and detached. Similarly, Hwang et al. (2022) classified five types of intergenerational solidarity among middle-aged children and their older parents across four parent–child gender combinations: tight-knit, intimate-but-distant, socially supportive, socially unsupportive, and detached. However, most studies have focused on selected dimensions of the seven dimensions of intergenerational solidarity in their typological analyses (Guo et al., 2012; Li et al., 2019; Steinbach, 2008; Yi & Lin, 2009), and rarely is conflict considered. As parent–adult child relations remain the focal relationships in most typology studies, we know little about solidarity in grandparent–grandchild relations as a typological construct (Barrett & Gunderson, 2021; Mueller et al., 2002). In an aging society, it is increasingly likely that grandchildren will spend an extended amount of time with their grandparents into young adulthood and beyond, and potentially assist their own parents in providing informal care to those grandparents. This experience would give young adult children a better understanding of older people’s lives and enhance their awareness of how to eventually support their own parents when needs arise. Identifying how middle-aged children experienced their grandparents in the past may be a good indicator of how they might support their aging parents in the future. Furthermore, we take a typological approach to considering the nature of grandparent–grandchild relationships. Such an approach provides a multidimensional assessment that can be a valuable measurement tool for researchers, as well as for family nurses and practitioners interested in developing customized services and supports for multigenerational families who find themselves engaged in family caregiving of older family members.

Research demonstrates that grandparents serve as valuable assets for family cohesion and optimal family functioning, providing childcare when needed and, in the extreme, taking on the role of surrogate parent (Silverstein et al., 2003). Relationships with grandparents can take many forms, from fun-loving, to authoritative, to detached, and are arguably more diverse in form than relationships between parents and children. In addition to there being few social conventions guiding enact of the grandparent role, increased longevity means that grandchildren have more time with their grandparents, which expands the diversity of available grandparent roles (Barrett & Gunderson, 2021; Mueller et al., 2002). This diversity is exemplified by the foundational research that identified five distinct types of grandparenting: detached, passive, influential, supportive, and authoritative (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1985; Mueller et al., 2002).

In addition to substantial variation in grandparent role enactment, grandparent–grandchildren relationships evolve across grandchildren’s developmental stages (Duflos & Giraudeau, 2022; Giarrusso et al., 2001). When grandchildren are young, grandparents are often actively involved in their daily lives by providing childcare and participating in their social activities (Duflos & Giraudeau, 2022; Silverstein & Marenco, 2001). When grandchildren reach emerging adulthood and leave home, grandparents maintain affectionate and close relationships with them, despite decreased contact frequency and increased geographical distance (Sheehan & Petrovic, 2008; Silverstein & Long, 1998). Grandparents may still retain close relationships with their adult grandchildren, and provide them financial assistance, support, and advice (Silverstein et al., 2003). In a most recent typology study of grandparent–adult grandchild relationships, researchers identified three types of relationships: geographically distant/low contact, geographically close/high contact, and geographically close/low contact (Barrett & Gunderson, 2021).

This study contributes to the literature on grandparent–grandchild relationships by focusing on a young adult cohort and considering the full range of relational characteristics in the cluster analysis of intergenerational solidarity dimensions. In foundational work on this topic, Cherlin and Furstenberg (1985) and Mueller et al. (2002) examined relationships between adolescents and their grandparents based on dimensions of discipline, authority, intimacy, frequency of contact, and exchange of support. Although associational and functional solidarity were captured in these studies, other dimensions of relevance to grandparent–adult grandchild relationships in adulthood such as structural solidarity (geographic distance) and consensual solidarity (agreement of opinions) were not considered. Furthermore, discipline and authority, important as they are in assessing intergenerational relationships with minor grandchildren, are less relevant when grandchildren reach adulthood. Therefore, typologies derived from these studies may not represent common types of grandparent–grandchild relationships among grandchildren in emerging adulthood.

Similarly, Barrett and Gunderson (2021) focused on grandparent–grandchild relationships when grandchildren were in their 30s, but paid less attention to consensual solidarity and conflict, which are important elements of grandparent–adult grandchild relationships (Sheehan & Petrovic, 2008). In the current study, we examined relationships with grandparents when grandchildren reached adulthood (ages 18–29) and transitioning from late adolescence to early adulthood (Sciplino & Kinshott, 2019); furthermore, we incorporated all aspects of relational ties as theoretically itemized by the intergenerational solidarity paradigm.

Gender Considerations in Relationships With Grandparents

Engagement with grandchildren has been found to vary by the gender of grandparents (Giarrusso et al., 2001). Evidence shows that grandmothers are more frequently involved with their grandchildren than are grandfathers and engaged in qualitatively different types of activities with them (Danielsbacka & Tanskanen, 2012; Giarrusso et al., 2001; Smorti et al., 2012). For example, grandmothers are more likely to discuss personal concerns, participate in family gatherings, and talk about family history with their adult grandchildren, whereas grandfathers serve advisory and authority roles (Quéniart & Charpentier, 2013; Silverstein & Marenco, 2001; Van Ranst et al., 1995). In many studies, grandmothers are perceived as the closer and more important grandparent (Dubas, 2001; MaloneBeach et al., 2018; Silverstein & Marenco, 2001). However, almost all typological studies of grandparent–grandchild relationships include gender as a control variable, rather than as a contextual factor (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1985; Mueller et al., 2002). Few studies have examined gender differences in solidarity profiles, a notable exception being one study showing that relationships of grandmothers and grandfathers can be described by a similar profile based on four dimensions of solidarity (Barrett & Gunderson, 2021). The current research examines how the full complement of dimensions of intergenerational solidarity between grandparents and adult grandchildren categorically interrelate by gender of grandparent.

Providing Support to Parents in Established Adulthood

Our focus is on the consequences of grandparental relationships of grandchildren in early adulthood for their provision of support to older parents when they reach established adulthood. Established adulthood—a distinct period of life that has received increased attention in the scholarly literature—refers to the developmental period roughly spanning ages 30 to 45, when individuals experience intensive demands and responsibilities in work and family domains; such demands and responsibilities include committing to a career path, having children, and caring for aging parents (Mehta et al., 2020). While children in emerging adulthood tend to receive continued support from parents and grandparents, by established adulthood they begin to receive less support from these family members provide more support to them in later life (Mehta et al., 2020; Swartz, 2009).

As adult children reach established adulthood, their older parents are often at increased risk of experiencing chronic illnesses such as cancer, cardiovascular, and metabolic diseases (Chen & Sloan, 2015; Masters et al., 2018; Niccoli & Partridge, 2012). Although some parents in middle and late adulthood may face challenges such as declining physical health and require assistance from their adult children, support commonly flows in both directions (Silverstein et al., 2002; Swartz, 2009).

From the life course perspective, interpersonal relations can be understood as the outcome of prior social experiences (Elder, 1998). In the instance of grandparenting, solidarity with grandparents at a younger age plays an important role in the long-term development of grandchildren and contributes to interpersonal reciprocity with family members as they enter adulthood (Silverstein et al., 2003). The long-term impact of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents on grandchildren’s caregiving to aging parents is unexplored. However, some evidence shows that grandchildren who had more contact with grandparents were more likely to hold a positive attitude toward aging and stronger obligation to provide support older adults (Mebane & Pezzuti, 2020; Silverstein & Parrott, 1997). Research also reveals that grandparents influence the core values of their grandchildren through teaching, mentoring, and transmission of family culture (Hebblethwaite & Norris, 2011), an influence that likely extends to instilling filial responsibility for older parents. This expectation is supported by research showing that children who had good relationships with paternal grandparents in early childhood were more likely to have better relationships with their fathers in adolescence (Yi et al., 2006). Thus, to further expand our knowledge on how early family processes impact later intergenerational relationships, this investigation prospectively examined how grandchildren’s solidarity with grandparents in young adulthood impacted their provision of support to aging parents 15 years later.

The Current Study

The first aim of this study was to identify latent classes of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents as reported by grandchildren during emerging adulthood. On the basis of research by Silverstein et al. (1997), we included six dimensions of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents—affectual, associational (in-person and phone contact), consensual, structural, and functional (receiving and providing support) solidarity, and conflict—that were available in our data. Based on previous typological studies of parent–child relationships (Guo et al., 2012; Hwang et al., 2022; Silverstein et al., 1997), we hypothesized that strong and weak intergenerational solidarity types (e.g., tight-knit and detached) would similarly be found in grandparent–grandchild relationships. Based on this earlier research, we also hypothesized that heterogeneous types of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents would be identified—that is, strong on some dimensions and weak on others. The second aim was to determine whether these intergenerational solidarity latent classes influenced two aspects of support provided to parents (instrumental and emotional support) during established adulthood. We hypothesized that young adults who had strong solidarity with their grandparents in emerging adulthood would be more likely to provide instrumental and emotional support to their parents during established adulthood, compared with those with weak solidarity with their grandparents during emerging adulthood. Finally, although we have less firm expectations concerning grandchildren with heterogeneous types of solidarity with grandparents, we hypothesized that they would be less likely than those with weak solidarity with grandparents to provide instrumental and emotional support to parents.

Method

Sample

We used the longitudinal study of generations (LSOG), a multigenerational and multi-time point dataset collected from 1971 to 2016. The LSOG began as a cross-sectional study with 2,044 respondents, including 358 three-generation families consisting of grandparents (G1), their middle-aged adult children and spouses (G2), and their young adult grandchildren (G3). Grandparents and their spouses who were enrolled in the largest health maintenance organization in southern California were recruited through multistage, stratified random sampling. The LSOG became a longitudinal panel study in 1985 (Wave 2), with data collection continuing for eight additional waves. In 1991 (Wave 4), great-grandchildren aged 16 years and above (G4) were added to the study and in 2016, Wave 9 data collection was completed. Mailed-back paper survey was used for data collection, and in 2005 (Wave 8) and 2016 (Wave 9), paper survey and online surveys were used together for data collection (for more details, see Silverstein & Bengtson, 2019).

Data for the present study were derived from G4s in 2000 (Wave 7) and 2016 (Wave 9). The initial sample in the 2000 survey consisted of 701 G4 young adults. We selected the 2000 survey as baseline because it included data from the largest number of G4s participating during emerging adulthood. In this study, young adult G4s, aged 18 to 29 years, were included in the sample if they provided data on relationships with their grandparent(s) in 2000 and their surviving parent(s) in 2016 (n = 509). In the 2000 survey, G4s answered items individually measuring intergenerational solidarity with a paired grandmother and grandfather. These focal grandparents were selected based on whether one of the pair descended from an original great-grandparent in the study; thus, grandparent relationships could derive from a maternal or paternal line and include biological as well as step grandparents. Similarly, in 2000 and 2016 surveys, G4s individually answered questions about intergenerational solidarity with their mothers and fathers regardless of biological and step status. It is important to note here that only one parent could have descended from the grandparents answered about.

As our interest was in young adults who lived apart from their grandparents, we excluded four G4s who lived with either their grandmother or grandfather in 2000. From the remaining 505 young adults, we constructed two overlapping samples: young adults responding about their relationships with surviving grandmothers in 2000 and surviving parents in 2016 (n = 238) and young adults responding about their relationships with surviving grandfathers in 2000 and surviving parents in 2016 (n = 200). Given that biological grandparent–child relationships and stepgrandparent–grandchild relationships (or adoptive grandparent–child relations) are structurally different within multigenerational families, we excluded 25 step relationships grandparent–child and nine adoptive grandparent–child relationships from the sample. Thus, we considered 229 biological grandmother–grandchild relationships and 175 grandfather–grandchild relationships in the final sample.

Information of young adults’ grandparents and parents in the 2000 survey are presented in Table 1. Of the 229 young adults who responded about their grandmothers, 129 relationships were with maternal biological grandmothers and 100 were with paternal biological grandmothers. Of the 200 young adults who responded about their grandfathers, 93 relationships were with maternal biological grandfathers and 82 were with paternal biological grandfathers.

Table 1.

Information About Participants’ Grandparents and Parents in the 2000 Survey.

Variables	Grandmother–child relations (n = 229)	Grandfather–child relations (n = 175)
Variables	n (%)	n (%)
Grandmothers
Paternal line biological grandmothers	100 (43.7)	–
Maternal line biological grandmothers	129 (56.3)	–
Grandfathers
Paternal line biological grandfathers	–	82 (46.9)
Maternal line biological grandfathers	–	93 (53.1)
Mothers
Biological mothers	219 (95.6)	166 (94.9)
Adoptive mothers	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
Stepmothers	7 (3.1)	5 (2.9)
Former stepmothers	2 (0.9)	1 (0.6)
Missing	1 (0.4)	3 (1.7)
Fathers
Biological fathers	205 (89.5)	154 (88.0)
Adoptive fathers	2 (0.9)	3 (1.7)
Stepfathers	12 (5.2)	13 (7.4)
Former stepfathers	4 (1.7)	–
Missing	6 (2.6)	5 (2.9)

Measures

Intergenerational solidarity with grandparents

The LSOG collected data on six dimensions of intergenerational solidarity—affectual, associational, consensual, functional, structural, and conflict—with grandmothers and grandfathers separately in 2000. Affectual solidarity with grandmothers and grandfathers was measured by one item: “Taking everything into consideration, how close do you feel the relationship is between you and your grandmother/grandfather at this point in your life?” Responses ranged from (1) not at all close to (6) extremely close, and were dichotomized as low (not at all close-somewhat close) and high (pretty close-extremely close) for grandmothers and grandfathers.

Associational solidarity was measured by two separate items for frequency of in-person and phone contact with grandmothers and grandfathers. Responses ranged from (1) not at all to (6) daily or more often, and were dichotomized as low (not at all-several times a year) and high (every month or so-daily or more often) for grandmothers and grandfathers.

Consensual solidarity with grandmothers and grandfathers was measured by one item: “How similar are your opinions and values about life to those of your grandmother/grandfather at this point in time?” Responses ranged from (1) not at all similar to (6) extremely similar, and were dichotomized as low (not at all similar-somewhat similar) and high (pretty similar-extremely similar) for grandmothers and grandfathers.

Functional solidarity with grandmothers and grandfathers was measured by two items asking respondents to indicate if they were receiving support from grandparents or providing support to grandparents. Five types of instrumental support were considered: household chores, transportation, financial support, information and advice, and help when the recipient (respondent or grandparent) was sick. Two dichotomous variables were constructed for receiving support from grandmothers/grandfathers (0 = received no support from grandmother/grandfather, 1 = received support from grandmother/grandfather) and providing support to grandmothers/grandfathers (0 = never provided support to grandmother/grandfather, 1= provided support to grandmother/grandfather).

Structural solidarity with grandmothers and grandfathers was measured by one item regarding geographical proximity. Response ranged from (1) more than 500 miles from me to (6) less than 5 miles, and were dichotomized as low (more than 500 to 151–250 miles) and high (51–150 miles-less than 5 miles) for grandmothers and grandfathers.

Conflict with grandmothers and grandfathers was measured by one item: “Taking everything into consideration, how much conflict, tension, or disagreement do you feel there is between you and your grandmother/grandfather at this point in your life?” Responses ranged from (1) not at all to (6) a great deal, and were dichotomized as low (not at all-some) and high (pretty much-a great deal) for grandmothers and grandfathers.

Control variables

Baseline control variables derived from the 2000 data include respondents’ gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race (0 = others, 1 = White), paternal/maternal line grandparents (0 = paternal line grandparents, 1 = maternal line grandparents), biological/stepparent–child relations (0 = others, 1 = biological parents). In addition, control variables from the 2016 data include respondents’ education, annual income, marital status (0 = others, 1 = married or cohabitate). Because providing support to parents is closely related to quality of parent–child relationships and parents’ health status (Silverstein & Bengtson, 2019), we included controls for affectual solidarity (one item; 1= not at all close, 6 = extremely close) with parents in 2000 and parents’ health status in 2016. Parents’ health status was measured by five binary items about the presence of a chronic condition (heart problems, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease) in mothers/fathers as reported by respondents, which was converted to a dichotomous variable (0 = healthy or zero health issues, 1 = one or more health issues).

Analytic Strategy

To address the first aim, we conducted latent class analysis using Latent Gold 6.0 (Vermunt & Magidson, 2021). Latent class analysis is a person-centered approach, allowing for identification of unobserved subgroups (latent classes) on the basis of individuals’ responses to intergenerational solidarity indicators (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). Because intergenerational solidarity is a multidimensional construct (Bengtson & Roberts, 1991), latent class analysis represents an informative approach to simultaneously representing combined statuses on multiple intergenerational solidarity items (Hwang et al., 2022; Silverstein et al., 1997).

In this study, latent class analysis was conducted using eight dichotomized indicators of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents in 2000. We note that converting ordinal data into dichotomized data is a typical strategy to enhance interpretability of latent classes, and often provides better defined classes despite some loss of information (Macia & Wickham, 2019; Vasilenko, 2022).

We selected the optimal number of latent classes using three information criteria: Bayesian information criterion (BIC), consistent Akaike information criterion (CAIC), and entropy. The typologies with the smallest BIC and CAIC, and entropy values over .80 were considered the optimal number of latent classes of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018).

To address the second aim, path analysis was conducted using AMOS 25 (Arbuckle, 2017) to test how class memberships of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents in 2000 are associated with providing instrumental and emotional support to mothers and fathers in 2016. We exported respondents’ class membership probabilities from the latent class analysis and used them as predictors in path analysis. We tested the above associations in grandmother–child relations (Model A) and grandfather–child relations (Model B) separately. From the 2000 survey, we controlled for participants’ gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race (0 = others, 1 = White), paternal/maternal line grandparents (0 = paternal line grandparents, 1 = maternal line grandparents), biological/stepparents (0 = stepparents, 1 = biological parents), parents’ health status (0 = healthy or zero health issues, 1 = one or more health issues), and affectual solidarity with parents. In addition, from the 2016 survey, we controlled for participants’ education, annual income, and marital status (0 = others, 1 = married or cohabitate). Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI; a value > .90 indicates a good fit) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; a value < .08 indicates a good fit; McDonald & Ho, 2002). Missing data were handled by estimation with full information maximum likelihood (FIML).

Results

Results of Descriptive Analysis

Respondents’ descriptive characteristics are presented in Table 2. The age range of grandchildren in 2000 was 18 to 29 years old and the majority were white in both grandmother–child and grandfather–child subsamples. In 2016, grandchildren were 34 to 45 years of age, belonging to established adulthood. In terms of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents in 2000, most respondents had low conflict with grandmothers and grandfathers. Grandchildren in both grandmother–child and grandfather–child dyads reported providing higher emotional and instrumental support to mothers than fathers in 2016.

Table 2.

Descriptive Results of Demographic and Study Variables.

Variables	Range	Grandmother–child relations (n = 229)		Grandfather–child relations (n = 175)
Variables	Range	n (%)	M (SD)	n (%)	M (SD)
Age in 2000	18 to 29		22.67 (3.10)		22.44 (2.99)
Gender in 2000
Male		102 (44.5)		78 (44.6)
Female		127 (55.5)		97 (55.4)
Race in 2000
White		224 (97.8)		173 (98.9)
Other racial groups		5 (2.2)		2 (1.1)
Education in 2016	1 to 8		5.70 (1.30)		5.67 (1.32)
Annual income in 2016	1 to 21		11.13 (5.67)		10.98 (5.58)
Marital status in 2016
Married/Cohabitate		188 (82.1)		143 (81.7)
Others		41 (17.9)		32 (18.3)
Affectual solidarity with mothers in 2000	1 to 6		4.54 (1.30)		4.56 (1.31)
Affectual solidarity with fathers in 2000	1 to 6		3.93 (1.46)		3.86 (1.43)
Parents’ health status in 2016
Healthy mothers		155 (67.7)		116 (66.3)
Unhealthy mothers		74 (32.3)		59 (33.7)
Healthy fathers		142 (62.0)		105 (60.0)
Unhealthy fathers		87 (38.0)		70 (40.0)
Intergenerational solidarity with grandmothers/grandfathers in 2000
Low affectual solidarity		74 (32.3)		48 (27.4)
High affectual solidarity		102 (44.5)		74 (42.3)
Low conflict		203 (88.6)		152 (86.9)
High conflict		6 (2.6)		5 (2.9)
Low consensual solidarity		155 (67.7)		116 (66.3)
High consensual solidarity		63 (27.5)		50 (28.6)
Low structural solidarity		127 (55.5)		100 (57.1)
High structural solidarity		101 (44.1)		71 (40.6)
Low in-person contact		176 (76.9)		134 (76.6)
High in-person contact		52 (22.7)		39 (22.3)
Low phone contact		150 (65.5)		120 (68.6)
High phone contact		72 (31.4)		50 (28.6)
Low receiving support		140 (61.1)		118 (67.4)
High receiving support		89 (38.9)		57 (32.6)
Low providing support		157 (68.6)		134 (76.6)
High providing support		72 (31.4)		41 (23.4)
Providing support to parents in 2016
Instrumental support to mothers	1 to 8		1.89 (.98)		1.89 (.99)
Emotional support to mothers	1 to 8		3.70 (1.60)		3.72 (1.58)
Instrumental support to fathers	1 to 8		1.54 (.83)		1.54 (.88)
Emotional support to fathers	1 to 8		2.79 (1.45)		2.78 (1.44)

Results of Latent Class Analysis

Latent class analysis statistics and fit indices are displayed in Table 3. Two goodness of fit indices (BIC and CAIC) and entropy values suggested that a three-class model was the best fitting model for both grandmother–child dyads and grandfather–child dyads. Item response and latent class probabilities of the three-class model are displayed in Figure 1. We identified the following types of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents: (1) detached (all item response probabilities were low; 45.1% in grandmother–child relations and 54.3% in grandfather–child relations), (2) tight-knit (all item response probabilities were high except conflict; 26.1% in grandmother–child relations and 24.8% in grandfather–child relations), and (3) intimate-but-geographically distant (affectual and consensual solidarity were high, but geographical proximity, in-person contact, and phone contact were low; 28.8% in grandmother–child relations and 20.9% in grandfather–child relations).

Table 3.

Latent Class Analysis Statistics and Fit Indices.

Classes (n)	Grandmother–child relations (n = 229)			Grandfather–child relations (n = 175)
Classes (n)	BIC	CAIC	Entropy	BIC	CAIC	Entropy
1	2,028.41	2,036.41	–	1,486.48	1,494.48	–
2	1,872.78	1,889.78	.79	1,344.88	1,361.88	.82
3	1,831.88	1,857.88	.80	1,340.95	1,366.95	.82
4	1,841.50	1,876.50	.81	1,353.83	1,388.83	.84
5	1,863.18	1,907.18	.79	1,370.68	1,414.68	.87
6	1,894.436	1,947.43	77	1,402.03	1,455.03	.82

Note. Bolded values indicate best fit for each respective statistic. BIC = Bayesian information criterion; CAIC = consistent Akaike information criterion.

Figure 1.

Item response probability plot in grandmother–child (top) and grandfather–child (bottom) relations.

Results of Path Analysis

Results of path analysis for grandmother–child (Model A) and grandfather–child relations (Model B) are displayed in Table 4. We found that young adults who had a tight-knit relationship with grandmothers (Model A) and grandfathers (Model B) in 2000 provided more instrumental and emotional support to mothers and fathers in 2016 than those with a detached relationship with grandmothers and grandfathers in 2000. However, young adults in intimate-but-geographically distant and detached relationships with grandmothers and grandfathers did not provide significantly different levels of instrumental or emotional support to mothers and fathers in 2000.

Table 4.

Path Coefficients Predicting Support to Parents Based on Solidarity Class Membership in Relations With Grandmothers and Grandfathers.

	Model AGrandmother–child relations (n = 229)				Model BGrandfather–child relations (n = 175)
χ²(df)	87.03 (38)				61.95 (38)
CFI	.94				.95
RMSEA	.07				.06
Variables	Instrumental support to mothers W9	Emotional support to mothers W9	Instrumental support to fathers W9	Emotional support to fathers W9	Instrumental support to mothers W9	Emotional support to mothers W9	Instrumental support to fathers W9	Emotional support to fathers W9
Variables	b (se)	b (se)	b (se)	b (se)	b (se)	b (se)	b (se)	b (se)
Class memberships (reference: detached with grandmother/grandfather W7)
Tight-knit with grandmother/grandfather W7	.26 (.15)^†	.52 (.25)*	.35 (.15)*	.47 (.23)*	.35 (.17)*	.94 (.29)**	.37 (.18)*	.58 (.27)*
Intimate-but-geographically distant withgrandmother/grandfather W7	−.15 (.15)	−.15 (.26)	.09 (.15)	.40 (.24)	−.05 (.20)	−.01 (.34)	−.04 (.20)	.11 (.31)
Control variables
Female W7	.10 (.11)	.64 (.19)**	−.08 (.11)	.10 (.17)	.04 (.13)	.38 (.23)	−.17 (.14)	−.02 (.21)
White W7	.21 (.26)	–1.18 (.44)**	−.23 (.26)	.55 (.40)	–1.20 (.63)	–3.25 (1.08)**	−.72 (.65)	–2.02 (.98)*
Education W9	.00 (.04)	.02 (.07)	−.05 (.04)	−.00 (.07)	.01 (.05)	.03 (.09)	−.03 (.05)	.04 (.08)
Annual income W9	−.00 (.01)	.02 (.02)	−.00 (.01)	.01 (.01)	−.02 (.01)	−.00 (.02)	−.01 (.01)	.00 (.02)
Married/cohabitate W9	−.28 (.16)	−.59 (.27)*	.03 (.16)	−.24 (.25)	−.24 (.19)	−.36 (.32)	−.05 (.19)	−.05 (.29)
Maternal line grandmothers/grandfathers W7	.16 (.11)	.00 (.20)	.06 (.12)	−.07 (.18)	−.01 (.14)	−.29 (.24)	−.12 (.15)	−.49 (.22)*
Biological mothers W7	−.27 (.34)	.73 (.59)	.48 (.35)	1.27 (.53)*	−.23 (.37)	1.31 (.62)	.75 (.47)	1.65 (.71)*
Biological fathers W7	.02 (.22)	−.12 (.38)	.00 (.22)	.18 (.34)	.03 (.23)	−.41 (.40)	.05 (.21)	−.05 (.33)
	Model AGrandmother–child relations (n = 229)				Model BGrandfather–child relations (n = 175)
	Instrumental support to mothers W9	Emotional support to mothers W9	Instrumental support to fathers W9	Emotional support to fathers W9	Instrumental support to mothers W9	Emotional support to mothers W9	Instrumental support to fathers W9	Emotional support to fathers W9
Affectual solidarity with mothers W7	.09 (.05)	.24 (.08)**	−.08 (.05)	−.19 (.07)*	.08 (.05)	.21 (.10)*	−.07 (.06)	−.18 (.09)*
Affectual solidarity with fathers W7	−.09 (.04)*	−.00 (.07)	.04 (.04)	.37 (.06)***	−.15 (.05)**	−.06 (.09)	.00 (.05)	.29 (.08)***
Unhealthy mothers W9	.29 (.12)*	.51 (.21)*	.10 (.12)	.05 (.19)	.23 (.14)	.45 (.24)	.21 (.15)	.29 (.22)
Unhealthy fathers W9	−.21 (.11)	−.22 (.20)	−.12 (.12)	−.22 (.18)	−.21 (.13)	−.13 (.23)	−.15 (.14)	−.20 (.21)

Note. W7 = 2000 survey. W9 = 2016 survey.

†

p = .08. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

In the preceding analysis, we examined whether young adults’ intergenerational solidarity with grandparents during emerging adulthood played a role in the provision of support to their parents during established adulthood. We hypothesized that distinct latent classes of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents—including strong and weak solidarity types as well as heterogeneous types—would be identified among young adults in emerging adulthood. Our findings support the first hypothesis that the same three classes of intergenerational solidarity with grandmothers and grandfathers were identified: tight-knit, detached, and intimate-but-geographically distant. The tight-knit class scored high on all dimensions of intergenerational solidarity, whereas the detached class scored low on all dimensions. The intimate-but-geographically distant class was distinct from the tight-knit and detached classes, indicating strong emotional closeness and sharing values and attitudes between grandparents and grandchildren but a lack of in-person contact due to geographic distance. Given that most typology studies of intergenerational solidarity have focused on adult children and their older parents in later life (Barrett & Gunderson, 2021; Hwang et al., 2022; Mueller et al., 2002), our findings expand the spectrum of the intergenerational solidarity paradigm to include grandparent–grandchild relationships when grandchildren are in emerging adulthood.

We found two noteworthy characteristics of intergenerational relationships between young adults and their grandparents when young adults are in emerging adulthood. First, more than half of young adults had a detached relationship with their grandparents. Given that most young adults in emerging adulthood live separate from their parents for academic and employment reasons (Arnett, 2014), we speculate that young adults may have less opportunity to interact with their grandparents during emerging adulthood. Second, more young adults in emerging adulthood have close relationships with grandmothers than grandparents, consistent with previous studies (Dubas, 2001; MaloneBeach et al., 2018; Silverstein & Marenco, 2001). Although we found the same intergenerational solidarity types with grandmothers and grandfathers, more young adults had a detached relationship with grandfathers than grandmothers and more young adults had a tight-knit relationship with grandmothers than grandfathers. Consequently, our findings indicate that grandparents’ gender still matters in grandparent–grandchild relationships when grandchildren are in emerging adulthood.

We hypothesized that young adults who had strong solidarity with their grandparents in emerging adulthood would be more likely to provide instrumental and emotional support to their parents during established adulthood, compared with those with weak solidarity with grandparents during emerging adulthood. Our findings support this hypothesis. Given research showing that grandchildren’s early contact with grandparents strengthened their attitudes toward support for older parents (Silverstein & Parrott, 1997), our findings extend the life course perspective on family solidarity to the adult years of grandchildren and offers an application of the intergenerational interdependence framework (Monserud, 2008) with respect to behavioral responses to older parents.

Contrary to expectations, providing instrumental and emotional support to parents in established adulthood was not significantly different between detached and intimate-but-geographically distant relationships with grandparents in emerging adulthood. Given that the main differences between tight-knit and intimate-but-geographically distant classes are geographic proximity and frequency of in-person contact, our findings indicate that these two dimensions of solidarity (structural and associational) play an important role in differentiating grandparent–grandchild relationships.

We speculate that young adults’ tight-knit relationships with grandparents may have been influenced by their own parents’ tight-knit relationships with those grandparents. In other words, it is possible that young adults as children witnessed their parents caring for their older grandparents making the former more likely to support their parents—the so-called demonstration effect of modeling desired behavior to one’s children (Stark & Cukrowska-Torzewska, 2018). We recommend that future studies address the transmission of intergenerational solidarity from grandparent–parent dyads to parent–grandchild dyads over the family life course (Hank et al., 2017).

Finally, we dropped small numbers of stepgrandparent–child and adoptive grandparent–child relationships from our analysis. As a result, we were not able to identify variation in grandparent–grandchild relationships across complex multigenerational families. We hope that future studies will be able to identify whether the process we identified holds in various configurations of three generational step-families. It would also be fruitful if relationships with grandparents in maternal and paternal lines of decent can be compared within the same families.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that merit mentioning. First, the LSOG did not include a measure for normative solidarity, or filial norms, for grandchild–grandparent relationships. For this reason, we were not able to use all seven dimensions of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents in the analysis. Second, the LSOG did not include any measure of grandparents’ perceived solidarity with grandchildren. Therefore, we relied on young adults’ reports of intergenerational solidarity with grandparents. For this reason, our findings may include biased patterns of grandparent–grandchild solidarity. Third, the LSOG did not measure participants’ experiences with grandparents prior to age 16. As a result, we were not able to investigate the transition patterns of grandchildren’s intergenerational solidarity with grandparents from childhood to emerging adulthood. However, we note that research has shown life-span continuity in that emotional closeness with grandparents in childhood resulted in closer relations to grandparents in emerging adulthood (Geurts et al., 2012). Fourth, the LSOG underrepresented minority and low-income families and overrepresented residents in Southern California. Consequently, our findings should be carefully interpreted because the LSOG does not represent the national population.

Implications

Family nursing provides care to the wider family as a care unit. The family, in conjunction with nurses, set health goals with the patient (Anderson, 2000). The family nursing approach can be used to identify areas of concern and strength within the family, to consider resources available within the family and around the family in the community, and to develop a nursing care plan that documents family outcomes and family nursing interventions (Anderson, 2000; Bell, 2009; Iecovich, 2008). A review of the extant literature reveals that as a practice, family nursing focuses primarily on younger families or families providing care to pediatric patients. Although there are some applications for adults with chronic illness, few publications investigate family nursing as it relates to elder caregiving (Esandi et al., 2021; Phinney, 2006; Phinney et al., 2013; Qi et al., 2021).

In family caregiving of aging parents, familial support and sharing of care activities with the primary caregiver, often the spouse or one of the adult daughters of the older patient, empowers and enables the primary caregiver to provide care to the aging parent (Lin & Wolf, 2020; Tolkacheva et al., 2011). Too often, families find themselves in unknown territory when a parent develops acute or chronic age-related conditions that necessitate caregiving, and many families provide care in the absence of adequate support and guidance from an experienced third party (Cameron, 2021). For too many family caregivers, this means providing care in isolation, without support from the other members of their family, if not in conflict with them, as everyone in the family struggles with the realities of the increasing and ever-changing needs of the parent as they age (Checkovich & Stern, 2002). Understanding the importance and availability, or lack of availability, of supportive relationships within an older adult’s family can enable family nurse practitioners to address or reduce these conflicts, and to bring in appropriate community resources to supplement or strengthen those relationships and reduce caregiver isolation (Lee et al., 2022).

Our findings demonstrate that having a closer relationship with one’s grandparents in young adulthood increases the likelihood of providing support to one’s aging parents later in life, but these relationships may first lead to greater involvement in that grandparents’ care in later life. We have little understanding of the roles that grandchildren play in the care of their aging grandparents, or in supporting family caregivers in their parents’ generation, as the family orients itself around the care of its oldest members. Family nursing practice has the potential to build on the strengths of these intergenerational relationships and to develop intergenerational supports within the extended family for the older adult and their primary caregiver. Developing these additional supports can decrease caregiver isolation and caregiver burden, particularly when the family is dealing with chronic conditions like dementia, and improve quality of life for the caregiver and the person receiving care (Chiao et al., 2015; Iecovich, 2008; Lee et al., 2022).

Previous research has shown that eldercare norms (recognition of duties and obligations that adult children have toward their aging parents) influence caregiving behavior (Silverstein et al., 2006). Thus, norms may serve as a mediating factor that builds the obligation to provide care for one’s parents in need. Considering such an indirect pathway by which relationships with grandparents build elder-friendly attitudes will lead to a better understanding of intergenerational relationships and family dynamics and provide insight into available resources and support for both care recipients and their family caregivers as they navigate this latter stage of the family life course. By developing a better understanding of intergenerational relationships, adult child caregiving needs, and caregiving behavior, family nursing, as an approach to care management of older patients, could improve the situation for the older patient and their family caregivers by adopting a family systems approach and treating the family as the unit of care (Lin & Wolf, 2020; Nyirati et al., 2012).

Conclusion

Family nursing and family-focused care of older adults can be improved by including intergenerational solidarity measures in the family assessment process. Currently, prevailing models for client assessment in family nursing include the Calgary family assessment model, which collects information about family composition, gender, rank order, subsystems, boundaries, and external structures such as extended family and larger systems (Wright & Leahey, 2013). The answers to these questions can be incorporated within a family diagram or genogram, providing salient information about family structure and the supports and resources available to older adults and their potential caregivers.

As our findings indicate, an assessment of family history, and indirectly family culture, would be useful given its potential influence on the availability of contemporary family care by adult children. The influence of grandparents on their grandchildren, and of grandchildren’s involvement in family caregiving for older generations in the family, may well increase given that exposure to grandparents has grown with lengthening life expectancies and better health in the oldest generations. The percent of young adults in the United States living in multigenerational households that include grandparents has reached 20% (Cohn & Passel, 2018). It is likely that this percentage, as well as the general influence of grandparents, will continue to rise as a result of population aging and the need for surrogate and supplemental care of younger generations. Together, these trends argue for the enhanced importance of grandparental ties in the family mobilization of intergenerational caregiving activities.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project described was supported by awards #61457 from the John Templeton Foundation and R21AG064512 from the National Institute on Aging.

ORCID iD

Woosang Hwang

Author Biographies

Woosang Hwang, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Sciences at Texas Tech University, USA. He received a doctoral degree of human development and family science at Syracuse University. His research interests lie primarily in family dynamics and well-being over the life course. Recent publications include “Do Religious Transitions From Early to Established Adulthood Predict Filial Elder-Care Norms?” in Journal of Marriage and Family (2022, with J. Kim, M. T. Brown, & M. Silverstein), “Are Filial Eldercare Norms Related to Intergenerational Solidarity With Older Parents? A Typological Developmental Approach” in Journal of Family Psychology (2022, with J. H. Kim, M. T. Brown, & M. Silverstein), and “Reciprocal Associations Between Normative, Affectual, and Associational Solidarity With Parents During Children’s Early to Established Adulthood” in Innovation in Aging (2020, with J. H. Kim, K. J. Cheng, M. Brown, & M. Silverstein).

Xiaoyu Fu, MS, is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Development and Family Science and a research assistant in Aging Studies Institute at Syracuse University. Her research focuses on the role of intergenerational family relationships in individuals’ well-being, with particular interests in parent–child relationships in the middle and later years. Recent publications include “Typologies of Helicopter Parenting and American and Chinese Young-Adults’ Game and Social Media Addictive Behaviors” in Journal of Child and Family Studies (2022, with W. Hwang et al.).

Maria T. Brown, PhD, is an assistant research professor in Syracuse University’s School of Social Work and Aging Studies Institute and a fellow of the Gerontological Society of America. She is a social gerontologist who uses the life course perspective to research health disparities and the later-life experiences of socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities, and people with dementia and their caregivers. Recent publications include “Risk of Nursing Home Use Among Older Americans: The Impact of Psychiatric History and Trajectories of Cognitive Function” in The Journals of Gerontology: Series B (2022, with M. Mutambudzi), “Do Religious Transitions From Early to Established Adulthood Predict Filial Elder-Care Norms?” in Journal of Marriage and Family (2022, with W. Hwang, J. H. Kim, & M. Silverstein), and “The Support That Partners or Caregivers Provide Sexual Minority Women Who Have Cancer: A Systematic Review” in Social Science & Medicine (2020, with T. Thompson et al.).

Merril Silverstein, PhD, is inaugural holder of the Marjorie Cantor Chair in Aging Studies at Syracuse University and serves as professor in the Department of Sociology and the Department of Human Development and Family Science. In more than 200 research publications, he has focused on aging in the context of family life, with an emphasis on intergenerational relations over the life course and international-comparative perspectives. He currently serves as principal investigator of the longitudinal study of generations that has collected data from the same families between 1971 and 2021, and is co-originator of the Longitudinal Study of Older Adults in Anhui Province, China, which began collecting data in 2001 and has continued to 2021. He is a Brookdale Foundation Fellow, a Fulbright Senior Scholar, a Fellow of the Gerontological Society of America, and between 2010 and 2014 served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences. In 2019, he was awarded the Matilda White Riley Distinguished Scholar Award from the Section on Aging and the Life Course of the American Sociological Association. Recent publications include “Do Religious Transitions From Early to Established Adulthood Predict Filial Elder-Care Norms?” in Journal of Marriage and Family (2022, with W. Hwang, J. Kim, & M. T. Brown), “Grandparents’ Financial Contributions to Grandchildren in Rural China: The Role of Remittances, Household Structure, and Patrilineal Culture” in The Journals of Gerontology: Series B (2020, with W. Zhang), and “Intergenerational Religious Participation in Adolescence and Provision of Assistance to Older Mothers” in Journal of Marriage and Family (2019, with D. Zuo, J. Wang, & V. L. Bengtson).

References

Administration for Community Living. (2020). 2020 Profile of older Americans. https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20America/2020ProfileOlderAmericans.Final_pdf

Anderson

K. H.

(2000). The Family Health System approach to family systems nursing. Journal of Family Nursing, 6(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/107484070000600202

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2017). IBM SPSS Amos 25 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation, SPSS.

Arnett

J. J.

(2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press.

Barrett

A. E.

Gunderson

(2021). Grandparent–adult grandchild relationships: Development of a typology using latent class analysis. The Gerontologist, 61(5), 724–734. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa092

Bell

J. M.

(2009). Family systems nursing: Re-examined [Editorial]. Journal of Family Nursing, 15(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840709335533

Bengtson

Giarrusso

Mabry

J. B.

Silverstein

(2002). Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(3), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00568.x

Bengtson

V. L.

(2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x

Bengtson

V. L.

Roberts

R. E. L.

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

10.

Cameron

J. I.

(2021). Family caregiving research: Reflecting on the past to inform the future. Journal of Spinal Care Medicine, 44(Suppl. 1), S19–S22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2021.1970883

11.

Checkovich

T. J.

Stern

(2002). Shared caregiving responsibilities of adult siblings with elderly parents. Journal of Human Resources, 37(3), 441–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069678

12.

Chen

Sloan

F. A.

(2015). Explaining disability trends in the U.S. elderly and near-elderly population. Health Services Research, 50(5), 1528–1549. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12284

13.

Cherlin

A. J.

Furstenberg

(1985). Styles and strategies of grandparenting. In Bengtson

V. L.

Robertson

J. F.

(Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 97–116). SAGE.

14.

Chiao

C. Y.

H. S.

Hsiao

C. Y.

(2015). Caregiver burden for informal caregivers of patients with dementia: A systematic review. International Nursing Review, 62(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12194

15.

Cohn

Passel

J. S.

(2018). A record 64 million Americans live in multigenerational households. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/05/a-record-64-million-americans-live-in-multigenerational-households/

16.

Danielsbacka

Tanskanen

A. O.

(2012). Adolescent grandchildren’s perceptions of grandparents’ involvement in UK: An interpretation from life course and evolutionary theory perspective. European Journal of Ageing, 9(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-012-0240-x

17.

Dubas

J. S.

(2001). How gender moderates the grandparent-grandchild relationship: A comparison of kin-keeper and kin-selector theories. Journal of Family Issues, 22(4), 478–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251301022004005

18.

Duflos

Giraudeau

(2022). Using the intergenerational solidarity framework to understand the grandparent–grandchild relationship: A scoping review. European Journal of Ageing, 19, 233–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-021-00626-6

19.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (1998). Life course and human development. In Damon

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 939–991). John Wiley & Sons.

20.

Esandi

Nolan

Canga-Armayor

Pardavila-Belio

M. I.

Canga-Armayor

(2021). Family dynamics and the Alzheimer’s disease experience. Journal of Family Nursing, 27(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840720986611

21.

Geurts

van Tilburg

T. G.

Poortman

A. R.

(2012). The grandparent–grandchild relationship in childhood and adulthood: A matter of continuation? Personal Relationships, 19(2), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01354.x

22.

Giarrusso

Feng

Silverstein

Bengtson

V. L.

(2001). Grandparent-adult grandchild affection and consensus: Cross-generational and cross-ethnic comparisons. Journal of Family Issues, 22(4), 456–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251301022004004

23.

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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41678779

24.

Hank

Salzburger

Silverstein

(2017). Intergenerational transmission of parent-child relationship quality: Evidence from a multi-actor survey. Social Science Research, 67, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.06.004

25.

Hebblethwaite

Norris

(2011). Expressions of generativity through family leisure: Experiences of grandparents and adult grandchildren. Family Relations, 60(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00637.x

26.

Hwang

Kim

J. H.

Brown

M. T.

Silverstein

(2022). Are filial eldercare norms related to intergenerational solidarity with older parents? A typological developmental approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000920

27.

Hwang

Kim

J. H.

Cheng

K. J.

Brown

M. T.

Silverstein

(2021). Reciprocal associations between affectual, associational, and normative solidarity with parents during children’s early to established adulthood. Family Process. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12725

28.

Iecovich

(2008). Caregiving burden, community services, and quality of life of primary caregivers of frail elderly persons. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 27(3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464808315289

29.

Lee

Baik

Becker

Cheon

(2022). Themes describing social isolation in family caregivers of people living with dementia: A scoping review. Dementia, 21(2), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012211056288

30.

Guo

Stensland

Silverstein

Dong

(2019). Typology of family relationship and elder mistreatment in a U.S. Chinese population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67(S3), S493–S498. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15892

31.

Lin

I. F.

Wolf

D. A.

(2020). Division of parent care among adult children. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Science, 75(10), 2230–2239. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz162

32.

Lutz

Sanderson

Scherbov

(2008). The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature, 451, 716–719. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06516

33.

Macia

K. S.

Wickham

R. E.

(2019). The impact of item misspecification and dichotomization on class and parameter recovery in LCA of count data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(1), 113–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1499499

34.

MaloneBeach

E. E.

Hakoyama

Arnold

(2018). The good grandparent: Perspectives of young adults. Marriage & Family Review, 54(6), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2017.1414724

35.

Masters

R. K.

Tilstra

A. M.

Simon

D. H.

(2018). Explaining recent mortality trends among younger and middle-aged White Americans. International Journal of Epidemiology, 47(1), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyx127

36.

McDonald

R. P.

M.-H. R.

(2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64

37.

Mebane

M. E.

Pezzuti

(2020). Intergenerational solidarity in triads of adult grandchild, parent, and grandparent: The positive view of elders, positive expectations towards the future and young-elders divide. Educational Gerontology, 46(9), 512–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2020.1785672

38.

Mehta

C. M.

Arnett

J. J.

Palmer

C. G.

Nelson

L. J.

(2020). Established adulthood: A new conception of ages 30 to 45. American Psychologist, 75(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000600

39.

Merz

E.-M.

Consedine

N. S.

Schulze

H.-J.

Schuengel

(2009). Wellbeing of adult children and ageing parents: Associations with intergenerational support and relationship quality. Ageing and Society, 29(5), 783–802. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X09008514

40.

Monserud

M. A.

(2008). Intergenerational relationships and affectual solidarity between grandparents and young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00470.x

41.

Mueller

M. M.

Wilhelm

Elder

G. H.

(2002). Variations in grandparenting. Research on Aging, 24(3), 360–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027502243004

42.

Niccoli

Partridge

(2012). Ageing as a risk factor for disease. Current Biology, 22(17), R741–R752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.024

43.

Nyirati

C. M.

Denham

S. A.

Raffle

Ware

(2012). Where is family in the family nurse practitioner program? Results of a U.S. family nurse practitioner program survey. Journal of Family Nursing, 18(3), 378–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840712443872

44.

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

45.

Phinney

(2006). Family strategies for supporting involvement in meaningful activity by persons with dementia. Journal of Family Nursing, 12(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840705285382

46.

Phinney

Dahlke

Purves

(2013). Shifting patterns of everyday activity in early dementia: Experiences of men and their families. Journal of Family Nursing, 19(3), 348–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840713486727

47.

R. H.

Rui

Y. H.

Yan

F. H.

Hong

Y. S.

(2021). Trends and hotspots of family nursing research based on Web of Science: A bibliometric analysis. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 18(2), Article e12401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12401

48.

Quéniart

Charpentier

(2013). Initiate, bequeath, and remember: Older women’s transmission role within the family. Journal of Women & Aging, 25(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2012.720181

49.

Roberts

R. E.

Richards

L. N.

Bengtson

(1991). Intergenerational solidarity in families: Untangling the ties that bind. Marriage & Family Review, 16(1–2), 11–46. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v16n01_02

50.

Roberts

R. E. L.

Bengtson

V. L.

(1990). Is intergenerational solidarity a unidimensional construct? A second test of a formal model. Journal of Gerontology, 45(1), S12–S20. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/45.1.S12

51.

Rossi

A. S.

Rossi

P. H.

(1990). Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the life course. Aldine de Gruyter.

52.

Sciplino

Kinshott

(2019). Adult grandchildren’s perspectives on the grandparent-grandchild relationship from childhood to adulthood. Educational Gerontology, 45(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2019.1584354

53.

Sheehan

N. W.

Petrovic

(2008). Grandparents and their adult grandchildren: Recurring themes from the literature. Marriage & Family Review, 44(1), 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494920802185520

54.

Silverstein

Bengtson

V. L.

(2019). Longitudinal study of generations, California, 1971, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2005 [Data file and codebook]. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/NACDA/studies/22100

55.

Silverstein

Bengtson

V. L.

Lawton

(1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460. https://doi.org/10.1086/231213

56.

Silverstein

Conroy

S. J.

Wang

Giarrusso

Bengtson

V. L.

(2002). Reciprocity in Parent–child relations over the adult life course. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(1), S3–S13. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/57.1.S3

57.

Silverstein

Gans

Lowenstein

Giarrusso

Bengtson

V. L.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00745.x

58.

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

59.

Silverstein

Giarrusso

Bengtson

V. L.

(2003). Grandparents and grandchildren in family systems: A social-developmental perspective. In Bengtson

V. L.

Lowenstein

(Eds.) Global aging and challenges to families (pp. 75–102). Routledge.

60.

Silverstein

Long

J. D.

(1998). Trajectories of grandparents’ perceived solidarity with adult grandchildren: A growth curve analysis over 23 years. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 912–923. https://doi.org/10.2307/353634

61.

Silverstein

Marenco

(2001). How Americans enact the grandparent role across the family life course. Journal of Family Issues, 22(4), 493–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251301022004006

62.

Silverstein

Parrott

T. M.

(1997). Attitudes toward public support of the elderly: Does early involvement with grandparents moderate generational tensions? Research on Aging, 19(1), 108–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027597191005

63.

Silverstein

Parrott

T. M.

Bengtson

V. L.

(1995). Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters to provide social support to older parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.2307/353699

64.

Smorti

Tschiesner

Farneti

(2012). Grandparents-grandchildren relationship. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 895–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.219

65.

Stark

Cukrowska-Torzewska

(2018). Gender differentiation in intergenerational care-giving and migration choices. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 12, 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2017.11.005

66.

Steinbach

(2008). Intergenerational solidarity and ambivalence: Types of relationships in German families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.39.1.115

67.

Swartz

T. T.

(2009). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: Patterns, variations, and implications in the contemporary United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134615

68.

Tolkacheva

Van Groenou

M. B.

De Boer

Van Tilburg

(2011). The impact of informal care-giving networks on adult children’s care-giver burden. Ageing & Society, 31(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10000711

69.

van Gaalen

R. I.

Dykstra

P. A

. (2006). Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 947–960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00306.x

70.

Van Ranst

Verschueren

Marcoen

. (1995). The meaning of grandparents as viewed by adolescent grandchildren: An empirical study in Belgium. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 41(4), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.2190/PPLV-DWG7-HV9R-6LVB

71.

Vasilenko

S. A.

(2022). More than the sum of their parts: A dyad-centered approach to understanding adolescent sexual behavior. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00528-9

72.

Vermunt

J. K.

Magidson

(2021). Upgrade manual for Latent GOLD basic, advanced/syntax, and choice version 6.0. https://www.statisticalinnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/LG60manual.pdf

73.

Wright

L. M.

Leahey

(2013). Nurses and families: A guide to family assessment and intervention (6th ed.). F. A. Davis.

74.

Lin

(2009). Types of relations between adult children and elderly parents in Taiwan: Mechanisms accounting for various relational types. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.40.2.305

75.

C. C.

Pan

E. L.

Chang

Y.-H.

Chan

C. W.

(2006). Grandparents, adolescents, and parents: Intergenerational relations of Taiwanese youth. Journal of Family Issues, 27(8), 1042–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06288119