Do Religious Children Care More and Provide More Care for Older Parents? A Study of Filial Norms and Behaviors across Five Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religiosity has been largely overlooked by many studies on intergenerational support despite growing evidence to its significant role in shaping parent-child relationship. This study aims (1) to examine the congruence between commitment to eldercare and actual parental care in five countries; and (2) to investigate the role of religiosity in predicting the development of filial norms and the enactment of such norms to actual supportive behavior toward parents. Latent class analyses (LCA) and logistic regression analyses were performed using a sub-sample from the Role of Old Age Service Systems and Intergenerational Family Solidarity (OASIS) study, a nationally representative sample of four European countries (Norway, England, Spain, and Germany) and Israel (N=2,327). LCA demonstrated that the most frequent class across all countries (46%) was the committed-supporters, reporting high filial norms and a high probability of exhibiting filial behavior. The next most frequent class (31%) consisted of independent children, those weakly endorsing filial norms and unlikely to engage in supportive filial behavior. The final class (23%) consists of long-distance supporters—endorsing strong commitment for exchange of support and a strong likelihood of providing instrumental support without commitment to geographic proximity and without living close to parents. Logistic regression analyses show that non-religious adult children are more likely to be non-committed to and uninvolved in parental care; Very religious individuals were half as likely to belong to this independent group. Our results indicate that religiosity plays a significant role in shaping eldercare norms and behavior across countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".