Support exchanges between adult children and their parents across life transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study examined whether adult children's transitions to marriage, parenthood, and divorce were related to intergenerational support exchanges. Background Intergenerational support fluctuates over the life span, often in response to major transitions, but surprisingly little research has examined longitudinally how life transitions shape the bidirectional flow of intergenerational support. Method Using data from adult children who participated in Waves 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the German Family Panel (pairfam) study, we estimated fixed effect models to explore how marital and parenthood transitions of adult children predict support exchanges between adult children and their parents (n = 5245 adult children's report of support exchanges with their mother and n = 4604 with their father; total 14,359 and 12,147 observations). Results Getting married was associated with adult children receiving less emotional support from mothers, while providing less instrumental support to their parents. Becoming a mother was associated with receiving more instrumental support from parents and receiving less material/financial support among adult children closer to their parents. When adult children became a parent, emotional and instrumental provision to mothers decreased. Getting divorced was associated with adult children receiving more emotional and material support from parents, but findings varied based on child gender and closeness with parents. Conclusion Adult children's life transitions influence patterns of support exchanged with their parents differentially based on parent–child gender composition and intergenerational closeness.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".