Cohabiting adult children's transfers to parents in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This brief report presents national estimates of transfers of time and money from cohabiting adult children (ages 18 to 65) to their parents (own and in-laws) to test whether cohabiting adults give differently from their counterparts. Background: Previous U.S. studies use data collected in the late 1980s and mid-1990s, when cohabitation was an emerging family form; they find mixed results. Rising rates of cohabitation and an aging population of parents who may rely on transfers from adult children necessitate updated estimates that can help develop the theory of institutionalization of cohabitation. Method: This study used the 2013 Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) Rosters and Transfers Module, a sample of U.S. households (N=6,340), and logistic and negative binomial models to estimate the likelihood of giving any time or any money to parents by the respondent's union status, the amounts given, and parent type (own, in-laws). Results: Cohabitors were less likely to give time to their own parents than their never married counterparts, and gave fewer hours, but were more likely to give time and gave more hours than married adults. For financial transfers to own parents, cohabitors and married respondents gave similarly, but both were less likely to give any money than are single respondents. Cohabitators gave more hours to their in-laws than married respondents. Conclusion: Cohabitors behave somewhere in-between marital "greedy institution" norms and broader norms of solidarity with parents. More work should be done to understand how union status affects transfers to parents.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".