Motives for Care that Adult Children Provide to Parents: Evidence from “Point Blank” Survey Questions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult children who care for aging parents incur costs along psychic, monetary, emotional, and even physical dimensions. What motivates them? Is it altruism, guilt, obligation, or gratitude? Perhaps the anticipation of a bequest? Familial norms, or desire for recognition? Understanding motivation for care is high on the agenda of both economics and sociology. A primary focus of economics is the prospect that public transfers may supplant or stimulate private transfers, depending on the motivation of the private donor. Motives are usually inferred indirectly, on the basis of observed behavior. In contrast, sociologists focus on how familial bonds and networks might be forged and maintained. We depart from each of these approaches to focus on direct questions from a special module in the Health and Retirement Study, which contains questions on motivations for, and concerns about, the provision of familial assistance. Our (deliberately) simple descriptive work reveals abundant new information about motivation for familial transfers and care. These not always provided free of pressure from relatives, for example, and obligations and traditions appear to matter. Findings suggest that the standard economic considerations like utility interdependence or exchange provide an incomplete account of transfer behavior, and that insights from sociological models are essential. We also find that women are far more likely to provide care and take seriously family obligations. Past experience in the provision of financial help and care matters as well, sometimes in intriguingly anomalous ways. Though self-reported motivations must be interpreted carefully, we nonetheless conclude that "point-blank" questions provide a worthwhile complement to conventional methods for unraveling motivations for private, intergenerational transfers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".