Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Social Sciences
This content is subject to copyright.
Academic Editor: Morten Blekesaune
Received: 28 October 2024
Revised: 6 December 2024
Accepted: 23 December 2024
Published: 15 January 2025
Citation: Willems, Anna, Dimitri
Mortelmans, and Anina Vercruyssen.
2025. Perceptions of Fairness of
Support Between Older Parents and
Adult Children. Social Sciences 14: 44.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
socsci14010044
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Article
Perceptions of Fairness of Support Between Older Parents and
Adult Children
Anna Willems *, Dimitri Mortelmans and Anina Vercruyssen
Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium
*Correspondence: anna.willems@uantwerpen.be
Abstract: Increased life expectancy and reduced fertility mean more generations are living
simultaneously but with fewer members. There is also a growing group of older people
(aged 80 and over) who need care and support. This impacts mutual support within families
and the care provided by public or private care organisations. Across OECD countries, on
average, 60% of people aged 65 years and older in 2020 reported receiving support from
family members, friends and people in their social network, living inside or outside their
household but not care organisations. European research shows that when older persons
do not have a partner (anymore), they rely on their adult children for care and support.
Given that adult children frequently serve as primary providers of informal care, our study
examines their perspectives and motivations to provide future care alongside the demands
and expectations of their old parents. Our study adopts a multi-actor interview approach
and simultaneously looks at the perspective of 40 adult children and one of their older aged
parents (65 years or older). We apply the distributive justice theory to understand how
children and parents assess the expectation and fairness of support. This paper contributes
to the existing literature about support behaviour between parents and children, expanding
insights about the fairness of support, expectations and willingness from a multi-actor
approach. Through the lens of child–parent dyads, it is seen that the principles of the
distributive justice theory can be perceived as not so strict, and within family relationships,
one or more principles can coexist and have underlying mechanisms. This study shows the
complexity and often ambivalence of family solidarity by adopting a multi-actor approach.
One of the main findings is that contrasting dyads who reject the reciprocal act of support
experience feelings of guilt or misunderstanding, resulting in stress and worry. A child
may not follow the expected support pattern from the parent due to competing demands
such as work or the prioritisation of young children, which can reduce the support given to
the older parent. Besides general contrasts and similarities between child–parent support
perspectives, the analysis looked into differences regarding gender and legal relationships.
Our findings only found gendered care expectations. Future research should entangle this
by looking into feelings of closeness, emotional connection and considering the dynamic
character of filial support over time, especially between siblings.
Keywords: multi-actor support patterns; ageing; intergenerational ambivalence; multi-actor
interview approach
1. Introduction
Increased life expectancy and reduced fertility mean more generations are living
simultaneously but with fewer members (Bengtson et al. 1990;Harper 2003). There is also
a growing group of older people (aged 80 and over) who need care and support (United
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010044
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 2 of 21
Nations 2013;Victor 2024). This impacts mutual support within families and the care
provided by public or private care organisations (Blome et al. 2009;Saraceno 2019). Across
OECD countries, on average, 60% of people aged 65 years and older in 2020 reported
receiving support from family members, friends and people in their social network who
were living inside or outside their household, but not from care organisations (Rocard and
Llena-Nozal 2022). European research shows that when older people do not have a partner
(anymore), they rely on adult children for care and support (Vergauwen and Mortelmans
2021).
Given that adult children frequently serve as primary providers of informal care
(de Klerk et al. 2021), our study examines their perspectives and motivations for providing
future care alongside the demands and expectations of their elderly parents. Whereas
previous research has primarily focused on the perceptions of downward financial support
and its effect on care behaviour (e.g., Heath 2018;Tang and Wang 2022), reflecting a single
perspective on one type of support in the broad range of family interactions, we look more
broadly at care provision and relevant support resources in family relationships. Our study
also goes further by adopting a multi-actor interview approach and simultaneously looking
at the perspective of 40 adult children and 1 of their older-aged parents (65 years or older).
We apply the distributive justice theory to understand how children and parents assess the
expectation and fairness of support.
This paper contributes to the existing literature about support behaviour between
parents and children, expanding insights about the fairness of support, expectations and
willingness from a multi-actor approach. Through the lens of child–parent dyads, it is
seen that the principles of the distributive justice theory can be perceived as not so strict,
and within family relationships, one or more principles can coexist and have underlying
mechanisms. The study shows the complexity and often ambivalence of family solidarity
by adopting a multi-actor approach.
2. Theoretical Background
We start by defining different support activities between family members and describe
current trends in giving and receiving (informal) support in the context of our study. Then,
we look at the determinants of support within a family. Finally, we discuss a theoretical
framework and a concept that provide insight into how adult children and parents assess
the distribution, expectation and fairness of support: the distributive justice theory and the
idea of ‘intergenerational ambivalence’.
2.1. Intergenerational Support
Family members offer each other different forms of support. A typical subdivision is
by type of activity: personal care support, practical help and social support (Hashiguchi
and Llena-Nozal 2020). Personal care comes from a need for assistance and includes care
activities such as bathing and dressing (also called activities of daily living). Practical help
is usually sporadic and includes activities such as cleaning, shopping, or looking after
(grand)children (also called instrumental activities of daily living) (Brandt 2013). A third
activity is social support; these activities are important for maintaining social relationships
and participating in society. Throughout this paper, we will use the broader umbrella term
‘support’ to refer to all these exchanges between family members.
The process of ageing goes hand in hand with support needs. A large segment of the
population may potentially be in need of support, either now or in the near future. In 2022,
21% of the EU27 population was aged 65 and over. The proportion of those over 65 to those of
working age (20–64) was 36%, while in 2012, this was ‘only’ 29% (Eurostat 2023a). Our context,
Flanders, Belgium’s Dutch-speaking region, is at the European average (Eurostat 2023b). A
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 3 of 21
recent study in Flanders shows that the oldest age group (65+) receives the highest proportion
of informal care: 21%. In addition, most informal or non-professional support is given by
the 26–64 age group, the active working age par excellence, and about half (49%) provide
support to a (plus) parent or parent-in-law (Bracke et al. 2022). Support from family members
is an important link in meeting support needs. A study by the OECD (2021) shows that the
family members to whom support is provided vary by age. This confirms the findings of a
Flemish survey of informal care (Bracke et al. 2022) which shows that the oldest age group
(65 years and older) mainly provides support to a partner (34%), while the youngest group
(18 to 25 years) reports providing support mainly to their grandparent (33.7%) or parent (27%).
2.2. Factors of Intergenerational Support
Several factors influence support behaviour between family members. First, op-
portunity and cost (or resources) are intertwined: if someone needs support (opportu-
nity), those with more resources (e.g., time and money) will be more likely to provide it
(Szydlik 2016). Another factor in family theory explains intergenerational support within
families through the lens of social exchange theory (e.g., Nelson 2000;Rank and LeCroy
1983). This implies that reciprocity is expected within families, although not necessarily
simultaneously or in the same form (Hämäläinen et al. 2020;Silverstein et al. 2002). Social
contact and intimacy are also essential elements contributing to these reciprocal expecta-
tions in intergenerational contexts (Parrott and Bengtson 1999). Third, support for an older
parent with care needs in Europe is often shared between siblings, depending on their
ability and type of support, but such responsibilities fall more often upon the daughters in
the family (Aires et al. 2019;Vergauwen 2024). Fourth, intergenerational support patterns
between children and parents relate to cultural norms, welfare provisions and services. For
instance, in southern (and some central) European countries, there is a higher normative
expectation that adult children should support ageing parents combined with limited
provision of welfare services compared to northern European countries (Haberkern and
Szydlik 2010;Janus and Koslowski 2020;van Oorschot et al. 2008).
2.3. Distributive Justice Theory
An interesting framework for understanding how children and parents assess support
distribution, expectation and fairness is the distributive justice theory, as it encompasses
financial support, time and attention (Cook and Hegtvedt 1983). In addition to the reci-
procity norm discussed in the previous paragraph, which is strongly linked to the equity
principle (Kusa 2019), the fair distribution or allocation of support relies on the following
principles (Cohen 1987;Cook and Hegtvedt 1983;Deutsch 1975):
•
The equity principle: support should be proportional to individual inputs, which is
strongly linked to the principle of reciprocity;
•The equality principle: every individual should receive the same support;
•The needs principle: support should be proportional to individual needs.
Fiske (1992) advanced the need principle as the most relevant justice principle within
a family context, where everyone gets as much as they need to survive. He distinguished
three other types of social relationships besides the family and linked each with the most
relevant principle. Strong ties and long-term relationships characterise the family. However,
Heath (2018) found that the principles of equity and equality were also present when
discussing fair financial gifts from parents to children. Children perceive it as fair when
parents treat them equally to their siblings. When parents do not distribute money equally,
children use different approaches to manage ambivalence towards siblings or parents. For
example, they justified inequality by arguing that they were more responsible than their
siblings or because they believed they deserved more support. Another approach was
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 4 of 21
the belief that parents would financially support them when needed. On the other hand,
parents expected their children to act responsibly and be willing to save. In addition, the
author refers to intimacy and close contact between children and parents as an important
factor in parents’ willingness to provide support in times of need. In turn, the study by
Tisch and Gutfleisch (2022) found evidence for both the equality and need principles. They
conducted an experiment in which parents, in a hypothetical scenario, were asked to divide
a fixed amount of money fairly between children. Some participants divided it equally,
while others justified inequality regarding the need for real support from children. Both
authors point to a possible gender-specific application of justice principles in the case of
parental gifts. This could imply that unequal gifts are legitimised differently for daughters
and sons regarding their needs and support behaviour.
2.4. Intergenerational Ambivalence
Solidarity within families depends on shared values and normative obligations be-
tween family members. Still, it can also be broken because of conflict, as addressed
in Bengtson and Roberts’s (1991) solidarity–conflict model. However, this approach ig-
nores the reality that conflicting feelings may arise when giving or receiving support
(Bengtson et al. 2002;Katz et al. 2005). Therefore, Luescher and Pillemer (1998) introduced
the concept of ‘intergenerational ambivalence’ as an alternative to the solidarity versus
conflict dichotomy. For example, older adults may be reluctant to ask for support because
they do not want to burden their children, fear that the relationship will change, feel
ashamed to ask for support for certain activities, or feel that they are quietly losing their
autonomy (Bredewold et al. 2020).
Adult children mention the difficulty of managing all the different roles or feeling
inadequate in the support they give (Moen and DePasquale 2017). Another ambivalent
aspect of providing support to an older parent is feeling satisfied but, at the same time,
overwhelmed by their responsibilities (Shim et al. 2012). George (1986) observed during
the support process that children felt guilty because they were caught between solidarity
demands and the desire for reciprocity. This intergenerational ambivalence is an important
framework for studying child–parent support.
3. Data and Method
Participants were recruited through the interviewer’s networks (condition: no family
or close relationship). The interviewers were trained undergraduate students from the
qualitative research methods course at the University of Antwerp. All children and parents
were interviewed separately at different moments in their homes or places of choice. To
protect the privacy of our interviewees, pseudonyms are used when interview data are
reported. All of the respondents gave their informed consent. To be included in the sample,
child–parent dyads had to have (1) a legal or social relationship and (2) children older than
18 and parents aged 65 or older. This latter limit was set because the statutory retirement
age in Belgium is 65. However, we have made one exception because of a dyad of a
63-year-old stepparent and their stepchild, as the inclusion of a stepfamily was unique in
our database and was deemed necessary for studying changing family dynamics.
This study used a multi-actor approach in which we collected the perceptions of adult
children and their parent. We selected eighty interviews (40 adult children +40 of one of
their older-aged parents) from the large group based on quality criteria. Interviews were
selected if the interviewer achieved a high distinction in axial coding, graphic representation
of concepts, theorisation, and reflection on the quality of the assignment. Furthermore,
background data were gathered via a drop-off survey, which was processed using an
extensive classification sheet (collecting 17 background characteristics per interviewee).
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 5 of 21
The descriptive statistics of the study population in Table 1show an overrepresentation
of highly educated children and few people with a minority background. The sample
was taken from the interviewer’s network, and often, the child referred the parent for
participation in the study, which may provide an explanation for this overrepresentation.
However, 12% of the parents regarded themselves as belonging to a minority group,
which indicates a few representatives of other ethnical backgrounds. Next, 60 out of the
80 respondents are females, and the mean age is 59 (range 22 to 84). Sixty-three child–
parent dyads are biologically or legally related; two are a foster parent and child, one is a
stepparent and -child, and one is a grandparent and -child. Our study population does not
represent the Belgian population, as respondents participated without a random sample.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents.
Children Parents
Sample size (n) 40 40
Women 77.5% 72.5%
Age range Min. 22–Max. 59 Min.63–Max.84
Living with a partner 72.5% 71.1%
Belonging to a minority group15% 12.5%
Highest educational level2
Primary education 5% 42.5%
Secondary education 22.5% 25%
Tertiary education 72.5% 32.5%
The respondents were interviewed with semi-structured interview leads. These leads
let the interviewers precode in NVivo in a straightforward manner (Mortelmans 2017). All
interviews were conducted in person. The central theme of both the interviews was support
between parents and children. The general topics of the interviews were perspectives
on ageing; support needs now and in the future, reciprocity, frequency and quality of
contacts and digital contacts with family members, financial gifts and heritage, willingness
to maintain family, perspective on nursing homes, qualitative care, the responsibility
of the state to provide support, and perspectives on the increase in the cost of nursing
homes. These topics were on a topic list for the pilot study and were reworked, based
on the researcher’s experiences in the primary interviews, into interview leads for the
interviewers. We used NVivo to restructure the interviews and analyse the transcripts. All
interviews were thematically coded and classified into NVivo so we could easily select
relevant interview data for our study. This coding procedure allowed this study to process
the interview data using coding Queries in NVivo. Only interview questions on reasonable
support, fair exchanges and reciprocity were coded and analysed.
The analysis used grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2017), a classic structure
of grounded theory analysis with open and axial coding, to ensure reliability. This theory
was tested and expanded via constant comparison in the elaborative research population,
which consisted of all pre-coded student interviews merged in NVivo (Glaser 1998). Con-
stant comparison in the elaborative research population was enabled, thanks to structured
precoding by students (enlisting respondent answers via the semi-structured interview
leads) and extensive classification sheets (categorising respondents based on 17 character-
istics). By combining both structuring instruments (precoding and classification sheets),
we used coding queries to perform a focused comparison in the elaborative research popu-
lation (Mortelmans 2017). This comparison enabled the triangulation of the results in the
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 6 of 21
search for negative examples or more nuance in the analysis. This approach resulted in the
full-grown model we present in this article.
In constructing our framework, we followed three steps of grounded theory analysis.
First, open coding structures were utilised and relevant research material was selected.
Each relevant fragment was assigned a label. Next came axial coding, where the total
number of fragments was reduced and combined into concepts employed as building
blocks for theoretical construction. The third and final step, selective coding, connected the
aforementioned concepts into a theory (Mortelmans 2023).
4. Results
4.1. Perspective on Support for Children and Parents
We started with the three principles of distributive justice theory in our analysis
to understand the fairness of equitable support expectations between child and parent.
All relevant excerpts were coded according to the equity, equality and need principles.
The excerpts that matched multiple principles were included multiple times in the open
codes. During coding, it became clear that these principles had different motivations and
mechanisms. These were then linked to the relevant principle. First, we will discuss each
relevant principle and its mechanisms within the child and parent group. The Results
section ends with a dyadic analysis of why dyads agree or disagree. The results mainly
discuss the expectations and prospects related to parents getting older rather than actual
support behaviour, since most of the parents in the study cohort are not yet in need
of support.
Since the support relationship is a complex construct and is difficult to encompass,
this figure (Figure 1) helped us understand how principles work. We hope that our results
will act as a useful tool for the reader.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21
In constructing our framework, we followed three steps of grounded theory analysis.
First, open coding structures were utilised and relevant research material was selected.
Each relevant fragment was assigned a label. Next came axial coding, where the total
number of fragments was reduced and combined into concepts employed as building
blocks for theoretical construction. The third and final step, selective coding, connected
the aforementioned concepts into a theory (Mortelmans 2023).
4. Results
4.1. Perspective on Support for Children and Parents
We started with the three principles of distributive justice theory in our analysis to
understand the fairness of equitable support expectations between child and parent. All
relevant excerpts were coded according to the equity, equality and need principles. The
excerpts that matched multiple principles were included multiple times in the open codes.
During coding, it became clear that these principles had different motivations and mech-
anisms. These were then linked to the relevant principle. First, we will discuss each rele-
vant principle and its mechanisms within the child and parent group. The Results section
ends with a dyadic analysis of why dyads agree or disagree. The results mainly discuss
the expectations and prospects related to parents getting older rather than actual support
behaviour, since most of the parents in the study cohort are not yet in need of support.
Since the support relationship is a complex construct and is difficult to encompass,
this figure (Figure 1) helped us understand how principles work. We hope that our results
will act as a useful tool for the reader.
Figure 1. Perspective on support—meaning and mechanisms.
Figure 1. Perspective on support—meaning and mechanisms.
4.2. Equity Principle
The support relationship between a parent and child sometimes changes depending
on who gives support and who receives it. We asked respondents how they experienced
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 7 of 21
this, what and if they want something in return and why they (do not) (want to) give
that support.
4.2.1. Child to Parent
From the principle of ‘I give back in proportion to what the other has done’ (fair), we
see four mechanisms related to upward support. Children ‘give’ to parents when they
take such actions for granted, when they want to balance giving and taking more, when it
contributes to a good relationship with the parent and when they can do it of their own
free will.
Natural
In the first mechanism, we find children who describe supporting their ageing parents
as a natural process during the life course. These children find it natural to take care of a
parent when the roles reverse or feel it is their duty as children:
“
. . .
reciprocal is not a matter of” yeah, they helped me well, then I should also
do it in return”. No, it’s just a matter of course that you do that. Because, at a
particular moment, those roles were reversed. So, they always took good care, but
then it turned around. Then you have to take care of [them], I think. That’s only
logical. They have supported me and done very well, but it’s not like I have to do
that in return. I don’t think that’s logical; I guess that’s normal.” (Sandra, 54)
Giving support to a parent may feel natural, but at the same time, the child could be
insufficient to meet their parents’ needs (this mismatch of expectations will be described in
Section 4.5:
“
. . .
before, yes, she intensely took care of us, and now we’re taking care of her
more than she still has to take care of us. But I think that this all goes very
naturally and normally. I think it is normal for the roles to reverse a bit. It’s just
sometimes difficult for her to understand that we can’t always do everything on
top [of our things]. Because she never had a paid job and always cared for her
own parents. I have this feeling she expects the same from us, but if you and your
partner both have paid jobs, which is the case for me and my brother, you can’t
take everything on top [of things].” (Sophie, 52)
Imbalance
Children can also talk about matching or repaying parents’ efforts during their up-
bringing. Equating that imbalance feels impossible, but children do this by expressing
gratitude and respect:
“My mum has dedicated her whole life to her children and grandchildren. She
sacrificed herself for that. That’s how you can call that. (Yes) Yes, then, I now
find it no more than normal that I am, yes, one hundred to two hundred per cent
committed to my mum. I love her to death. When I see what she has done for us.
Yes, I don’t know if you can ever match that, if I can ever bring that, so (yes) on
par for her. If I have to give back what she has given me, yes, I don’t know how
to match that. (Yes) I don’t even know that, but that’s my duty. It’s your duty.
(yes) Like having children, you also must take care of them. (yes) Likewise, it is
your duty that you take care of your parents.” (Hilde, 60)
“That can be realised in many different facets. But yes, you should be grateful
and respectful to your parents. That they raised you that you grew up, in our
case, in a good situation, we didn’t live on the streets or anything like that, so
then you should show that in the opposite direction as well.” (Thomas, 34)
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 8 of 21
Bond
In addition, some children see giving support as evident or as a shared value in their
family. Support is perceived as building or maintaining the quality of their relationship
with their parent. They emphasise feeling good and note that the parent benefits or returns
their friendship:
“Reciprocity, uhm, for me is a, gosh, how should I put that in words, normality.
Do we help each other that there is open communication and talk to each other?
Yes, that is normal both from my mother to me and me to my mother. All I mean
is that I like to give support, and I don’t ask anything in return for that, either. I
get friendship in return.” (Martin, 58)
Spontaneous
For others, another aspect of fairness is not feeling obliged to return effort proportion-
ately. They stress the importance of keeping support spontaneous. If support becomes
compulsory, it can change the dynamics of the relationship between child and parent:
“But without it, it has to become an obligation. As long as it’s a feeling of: I want
to do this for him without feeling obliged if you have to do this now or you have
to come now, then it’s already become something different, of course. As long
as it remains spontaneous and that question can be asked, there shouldn’t be
anything in return.” (Marjolijn, 37)
4.2.2. Parent to Child
Regarding downward support, we find four mechanisms: parents give support to
children support because their unconditional support is natural, if it contributes to a good
relationship with the child, because they find the balance of giving and taking an imbalance
and because they see giving and taking as a reciprocal process.
Natural
Some parents see downward support as something normal, something unconditional.
This means they expect nothing in return from their child. These parents feel that supporting
children is never over and is even easier for parents than the other way around:
“I always say: we choose for children; the children didn’t choose us. You always
remain a mother, I think. That won’t go away. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but
as a parent, giving more support to a child than vice versa, I think it is normal.”
(Joke, 69)
Bond
Another mechanism in the support relationship from parent to child is the experience
that giving support strengthens the relationship or offers something meaningful to the
other person. We also often see this mechanism reflected by parents when talking about
grandchildren and how co-caring for them strengthens(ed) the bond with their children:
“I was at home. That was my big advantage, and I’m very grateful for that because
it enriched my life very much. And I also had much contact with my children.”
(Adriana, 72)
“I think if you have grandchildren or children, you shouldn’t expect reciprocity
from them. That might be neat, that that’s coming, and I know that’s coming
too. But, as a parent, you shouldn’t do anything to get something in return. You
do get that, but the fact is that they come. That’s reciprocal, I think; that comes
naturally. You shouldn’t expect that.” (Rosa, age unknown)
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 9 of 21
Imbalance
Parents can also motivate their expectations towards support as an imbalance in life.
This is not about reciprocation, but they expect respect:
“I think that’s the least you can give because a child can never give back what a
parent has done for the child. You can never give that back to that extent, and I
don’t want anything in return, but I want respect and honour, the honour you
deserve.” (Geertruida, 78)
Others do not feel the need for children to restore balance. The child’s priority lies
with their own family:
“I still try to help them where I can. And they have their jobs and own lives. I
should not be their main priority. Their lives, their children, their wives, come
first, and their mother gets second or third place, and I think that is normal.”
(Sonja, 83)
Reciprocity
Other parents see the support relationship as reciprocal. The relationship between
parent and child is reciprocal in se and has always been so. They expect support in this
reciprocal relationship, just as they did towards their parent(s):
“You hope, of course, when you give an upbringing to your children that they,
that they also, that they will remember you, that they, that they, that they won’t
forget and should you ever need them that you get that back. But that’s not
always, and
. . .
you can’t force that either, so you don’t do that for that, but I
wouldn’t, but as normal as I did it for my (
. . .
) father, I hope they will do their
father.” (James, 71)
Other parents do not want to accept support to keep their autonomy: “I do find it hard
to ask [for help] because then I’m forced to give up on something again that I used to be
able to do myself.” (Rita, 79)
4.3. Equality Principle
The equality principle defines fair support as everyone receiving the same reward.
In the child–parent relationship, each party gives or gets an equal share (or sometimes an
unequal share) of support.
4.3.1. Child to Parent
We can distinguish several mechanisms under this equality principle when supporting
a parent. Children support their parents because the balance of give and take normally
reaches an equilibrium throughout their lives. After all, willingness to support goes along
with the quality of the relationship, and comparisons are made between siblings to judge
what a fair degree of support giving and taking is.
Flexible over the Life Cycle
A frequently recurring theme among the children was the balance of give and take.
We saw earlier that for some, it will always remain an imbalance, and this will never be
able to be compensated for by the child. Others, however, deal with this differently; they
experience that the balance of support rectifies itself over the life course. They talk about
achieving a more balanced position in this balance of support as their parent gets older and
recognise the normality of this balance turning over at the stage of life when their parents
need much support:
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 10 of 21
“I think we are now in such a phase of our lives that it is rather much a bit
balanced, shall I say. He will wait at my house until the plumber comes, and I
will take care of his digital and other paperwork. So now we’re in balance, and I
think in a few years, I’ll mainly be a caregiver, and they’ll mainly be a receiver.
That’s how I see this reciprocity.” (Juliette, 46)
Emotional Connection
We asked respondents about support vis àvis the other parent(s) regarding this
equality principle. For some, we saw that the intensity of support given or willingness in
the future towards the parents differed. This discrepancy often results from the perceived
bond between child and parent. We describe this mechanism as an ’emotional connection’
because the focus is on the quality of contact and connection rather than the quantity:
“Because I have no emotional connection with him
. . .
I’ve already thought about
it, and if that person becomes severely needy now, I will take up my role as a
daughter. I won’t let that one out to die, but it won’t be wholeheartedly like with
my mum
. . .
So yes, more out of necessity then
. . .
I think it will be more purely
on the practical and the minimum (laughs). And yes, my mother, I would try to
pamper her.” (Elisabet, 42)
Contact and visits are described as important in the support relationship between
parent and child, but some children mention how a lack of time constrains the frequency of
their visits and that they feel guilty about this:
“Better? Yeah, sometimes you’d want to visit more often, but that doesn’t always
work, huh? That doesn’t always work because you still have your own home. I
have my daughter, who’s still studying, and yes, she also needs
. . .
uhm. So yes, I
also have my household, and I also have my paid job, and sometimes you’d want
to go more often, but it doesn’t work, and then you do feel guilty about that.”
(Karin, 59)
Balanced Relationships
Regarding siblings, some respondents mentioned feelings of unfairness in terms of
the support received from their parents compared to that of their siblings. They feel that
they receive more support than the others. To avoid this feeling of unfairness, they turn to
non-family members or set clear limits on the level of downward support:
“What I think is important may have nothing to do with that, but I want to say
that anyway. I always want to keep it as honest as possible towards my brothers.
I think that’s very important. My parents take care of me and go to the shops
for me, but I’ll always pay, for example. So maybe I take care of my brothers
or something
. . .
subconsciously. I don’t know if that’s caring, too, but
. . .
It is
always at the back of my mind, however. I don’t want to take advantage of it
or something like that. That you don’t want to have the feeling of being pushed
ahead compared to. . .” (Veerle, 39)
Yet some also find it logical that parents cannot support their children equally, as one
child has less time, struggles with health problems himself, or because the relationship
with the other child is disturbed.
4.3.2. Parent to Child
Regarding downward support, we find one mechanism, especially among parents
with more than one child: Parents give support to their children according to the child’s
needs at the time, temporarily creating an uneven distribution of support between children.
Parents indicated that they sometimes have different expectations of support for their
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 11 of 21
different children based on the connection with the child and the nature of the support
needed. This also revealed that specific support needs, such as psycho-emotional support
or care tasks, are more likely to be given to daughters than sons.
Differences by Needs
When parents talk about the (equal) distribution of support to children, some find that
they give varying degrees of support. They find that each child’s needs differ at any given
time, and consequently, not every child receives the same support at the same time, but
they strive for equality over time:
“No, no. Not at all. Because I think
. . .
Also, the help given to other children
differs because our one son has four children, our other two, and our daughter
also has two. With this one, I will help pick up the children from school and do
homework right now. Our other son in the beginning actually, then they had
a shop, a sandwich shop, that I started taking care of those children more then.
And our daughter, yes, now asks for help for her daughter; that is a bit more.”
(Els, 70)
Type of Support
Parents, in line with the child’s needs, also look to the child’s resources to support
them. Thus, this finding is not about the support a parent gives to a child but about the
different expectations of receiving support. This variety of expectations is based on the
connection between the child and the parent or the nature of support needs set by the
parent. They are also more likely to expect the daughter to offer specific activities like
personal care, medication administration, or psycho-emotional support. When there are
several daughters, and they assign more tasks to one of them, they give it to the one they
have the best relationship with:
“No, but it’s automatic with (child 1), well, not now
. . .
but in the past. But, yes,
you know what it is, our (child 1) has always been worried about me and uhm,
yes, it has grown that way, but our (child 2) has that just as well, but he didn’t
show it like that, and now I have found out, for several years, that he is certainly
as much worried as our (child 1).” (Martine, 74)
“Our (child 1), our (child 2), and our (child 3). For me, they are three equals.
Probably a difference for my wife, though, since our (child 1) is from two of us,
and the other two from my previous marriage. But basically, we expect the same
from all three, and they are treated the same way. Yes, at the moment, I don’t
need much support from our (child 1) myself. Yes, I will say it to my son because
he is handy. But from our (child 1) himself, I don’t expect support at the moment,
but I think if I asked, I would get it.” (Ludo, 67)
4.4. Need Principle
If one translates the need principle into a fair measure of support, each gets as much as
they need to survive. A support relationship between child and parent means that support
is proportional to one’s need. We saw with previous mechanisms that reciprocity can be
expected when support is needed. The need principle also forms a basis for the unequal
downward support towards different children (See Table 2).
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 12 of 21
Table 2. Summary of principles and mechanisms of (mutual) support exchange between children
and parents.
Child Parent
Equity
(No) Quid pro quo
Natural
Turning roles
Natural process
Sense of duty and responsibility
Natural
Unconditional
Life course
Guaranteed support (need)
Imbalance
Match and repay
Respect and gratitude
Imbalance
Expects respect and honour
Guarantee of reciprocal support (need)
Bond
Feeling good about yourself/others
Gratitude
Shared value
Guarantee of reciprocal support (need)
Bond
Valuable
Enrichment
By choice
No obligation
Spontaneity
Tension: when out of necessity (need)
Reciprocity
Shared value
Emotional connection
Demonstration effect
Availability guaranteed (need)
Equality
equal support
Flexible in the life course
Balance
Caregiver
Differences in needs
Flexible over the life course
Depending on others (need)
Emotional connection
Quality of contact
Interconnectedness
Type of support
Gender
Expertise
Interconnectedness
(Dis)honesty in relationships
Setting boundaries
Different means
Need
needs and demands
Out of necessity
First point of contact
Role conflict
Not wanting to be a burden
Spontaneous support
(In)dependence
Conflicting expectations
Guarantee of reciprocal support
Availability
Looking out for each other
Guarantee of reciprocal support
Reassurance
Interconnectedness
4.4.1. Child to Parent
Regarding upward support, we have identified three mechanisms: Children support
parents because the parents are in need of such support, and they are the first point of
contact or feel responsible for the parent in question. A second mechanism is linked to
the reciprocal nature of support; children expect to be supported in return when needed.
Finally, children describe that they and their parents can always fall back on each other,
mainly because the parent is always there for them.
Out of Necessity
Children may act out of necessity because they are the first point of contact or feel
responsible. Children may feel burdened if they cannot (entirely) comply with the parent’s
request because the different roles are challenging to combine:
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 13 of 21
“With my father, I took out thematic time credit, part-time, two years, for being
able to be at home more and for taking care of him more
. . .
People say, ‘Why
are you doing that?’ I say: ‘Yes, yes, I think that’s my duty anyway’. I would
do that for her, too, but now, in that situation, it is unnecessary. But when my
father was sick, she was also there, and she was still able to care for my father,
but if something happened to her, she had nobody but us. So then that situation
changes.” (Karin, 58)
“The visit to the retirement home, for example. That was agreed upon then, as
well as who did what and when. That is not the case with us; we cannot agree
with anyone. After all, we are alone as children. In that respect, that does worry
us. We go all out and want to do all we can to manage that. That, combined with
our work, does worry us, but we are willing to make sacrifices. We are. It’s not
that we’re not going to care. But because we do care, we are also worried about
this.” (Marc, 55)
And some children hope it never gets to the point that the parent becomes entirely
dependent:
“I give support to my mother because I love her very much. That’s my duty, but
you do this without thinking about someone you love. It’s just that I’m sometimes
frustrated because I’m the only one encouraging mom to do things herself. She
knows I’ll do anything for her, but she also knows I’m the one who wants her to
keep her independence, and because of that, there are some things that I won’t
do because our mom goes fast in a victim role since our dad died two years ago.
We’re not at the point where I need to do everything for mom. I just hope that
she can age gracefully and that she’ll remain capable of doing things herself.
My biggest fear now is that she’ll get dementia and that she’ll be dependent on
everything and won’t realise anything anymore. That’s really my biggest fear.”
(Annemie, 40)
Guarantee of Reciprocal Support
During the interviews, children indicated that they do not immediately expect any-
thing in return from their parents but do have an implicit expectation that the parents will
be there for them in times of need:
“No, I don’t find that more than normal, support between parents I don’t find
more than normal, that you don’t always have to get something in return. Except
if you need support, they must give it back.” (Tanya, 29)
Availability
Many children find it essential to know they can count on their parents when needed.
They describe their parent as someone they can turn to or who stands behind them or is
concerned about their well-being. This is not about reciprocity but a state of presence:
“Yes, but just that someone is thinking of you; they are concerned when things
don’t go well. That’s weird, huh, but I think that’s so important. If I were sick
now, our dad would call and email: ‘Is it going better already?’” (Marie, 59)
4.4.2. Parent to Child
Parents often express expectations regarding the future support they hope to receive
from their child, which is in line with the need principle. The first point is that parents
hope never to receive support from their children because they do not want to be a burden
and do not want to put their child in that role. However, the opposite is true for some
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 14 of 21
parents, who express reciprocity as a desire to receive support in need. In between these
two viewpoints, we find parents who do not necessarily expect support in return but find
it reassuring to know their child will be there when needed and spend time with them.
I Do Not Want to Be a Burden
Regarding receiving support from children, some parents stress that the support
given should be spontaneous and that the child should not feel obliged to provide it. This
argument is closely linked to the concept of intergenerational ambivalence. Parents are
aware of their (future) support needs but do not want to bother their children or lose their
independence. Some, from their frame of reference, do not understand why their child
does not have time for them:
“I don’t expect much of that because they don’t have time. I think there is no
time. I do think that’s weird, but that’s reality, I guess. That’s how I hear that,
anyway. That people who often have to visit their parents find it a burden. I find
that strange, but I think, yes, I don’t want to be a burden for the children either
because I hear that if you have to come often, you’d rather be dead if you’re going
to be a burden.” (Christiane, 72)
Guarantee of Reciprocal Support
Some believe that the child should not have to return support immediately but that it
should be returned in moments of need. One speaks of a desire to receive support in times
of need, and thus reciprocity:
“But it’s not because someone does something for another that the other has to
do something in return. Well, I don’t think that, at least. Let me say it this way:
You have to be there when needed, but it is unnecessary when the other doesn’t
need anything.” (Jan, 66)
Availability
Another aspect of the need principle is not about support but about reassurance that
the other person is there for them, and that spending time together is important to the
relationship between child and parent:
“No, they should remain happy to see me. Maybe also because I know a bit that
I can count on them. I don’t have to worry about it; maybe that’s also why it’s
easier that I don’t expect anything either. Because I think if you expect a lot, you
don’t get a lot. But I expect, well, expect, actually nothing, but I think it will be
there if it is needed. I’m sure of that.” (Els, 70)
“Gosh yes, that you do get a present unexpectedly or that there is a dinner party
unexpectedly, well, those things, unexpected cosy things, going out for dinner or
a present or, uhm, the grandchildren who draw pictures for you, such things so,
uhm, unannounced or that they insist on it anyway if we would like to go away
together for a weekend and so on and yes, that’s enough for me.” (Brigit, 70)
To summarise the perspectives on support for children and parents, Table 2lists an
overview of the mechanisms for each principle.
4.5. Perspective on Support Between Child and Parent Dyads
In the final phase of our analysis, we constructed a table outside of NVivo to determine
whether each dyad agreed or disagreed on a principle. This process is detailed in the online
appendix (supporting information, Table S1: Insight in analysis of dyads–agreement or
disagreement on principles). Next, a new variable was added to our classification sheet,
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 15 of 21
alongside the 17 background characteristics, to categorise each respondent within their
dyad into seven groups.
The groups were categorised as follows: (a) both disagree on the equity principle (the
“no quid pro quo” group); (b) both agree on the equity principle (the “quid pro quo” group);
(c) the child disagrees on the equity principle, while the parent agrees; (d) the child agrees
on the equity principle, while the parent disagrees; (e) there are no matching principles;
(f) both agree on the need principle and other coexisting principles; (g) both agree on the
equality principle and other coexisting principles. To simplify and better understand the
data, we consolidated these seven groups into two broader categories: one representing
similarities (A, B, F, G) and the other representing differences (C, D, E).
First, looking into the dyads that differ in their perceptions of fair support, we can
distinguish three concepts based on contrasting principles and mechanisms: a mismatch of
expectations, non- (or partial) acceptance of reciprocity and a rejection of the demonstration
effect. The first one is the result of a mismatch in expectations of giving and receiving
support. In these dyads, children may be reluctant to ask for parental support for various
reasons, such as because they do not want to burden their parents with their worries or
because their parents are in bad health. Conversely, parents could feel helpless or angry
because they want to help more. Second, it can be that the parent expresses the wish to
spend more time with the child. In turn, the child is not able to visit more frequently
because they do not have the time to help (more), which often goes along with feelings of
guilt because the child wishes to assist more or to help with smaller tasks but struggles
to combine different roles (work, family life), or prioritises spending time with their
own household.
The second one is the parent not accepting the reciprocity of the child. Children
express that supporting their parents is something natural that occurs over the life course.
They want to reciprocate out of gratitude, duty, or just because it is expected. The parent,
in return, does not accept this, because they do not want to lose their self-dependency;
secondly, some do not want to be a burden for their children or only want to receive social
support from their offspring, while they feel that intensive care tasks should be performed
by professionals. It is important to mention that some parents express that they do not
want to expect anything out of self-protection for fear of rejection from their child.
The final concept is the rejection of the demonstration effect. Parents anticipate that
their offspring will provide the same level of support they once offered to their parents.
However, this expectation goes unmet when children prioritise their offspring over their
parents. Additionally, children may lack the time to provide the same support due to
their employment in contrast with parents who never have worked and decided to stay
home, creating a different frame of reference (for more discussion and research on the
demonstration effect, see Cox and Stark (2005)).
Dyads who match in terms of support relationships highlight the importance of shared
attitudes or family social norms, respecting each other’s privacy and independence and
being guaranteed to receive support when needed. They stress the emotional proximity
and availability of support when needed, but also place importance on respecting each
other’s privacy and autonomy in multiple ways.
Table 3presents a summary of the dyadic analysis. Besides general contrasts and
similarities between dyads, we looked into other differences, such as gender and legal
relationships. We found no contrasting principles directly related to these characteristics,
except that the type of support is often divided into traditional gender roles (e.g., personal
care is more often expected to be provided by daughters than by sons). These findings are
already described in Section 4.3.
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 16 of 21
Table 3. Summary differences and similarities between dyads.
Dyads Who Differ Dyads Who Resemble
Mismatch of expectations Family social norm
Non- (or partial) acceptance of reciprocity Guarantee of support
Rejection of demonstration effect Respect autonomy
No contrasting principles in those who are biologically versus socially related.
Connectedness and previous shared experiences matter.
Resources (e.g., time, distance) affect support behaviour.
Types of support activity are often gendered.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
This paper used three principles of fair support to study support expectations and
motivations among eighty adult children and their older-aged parents: equity, equality,
and need principles. The study contributes by analysing multi-actor support perspectives
and studying changing family dynamics. Examining support from these two perspectives
allowed us to identify different interpretations behind the fair support distribution and its
complex nature. Regarding fair support and the equity and equality principles, we found
that both children and parents perceive family solidarity as natural over the life course.
Children describe reciprocity when they are caring for their ageing parent. However,
some parents decline this support to maintain a sense of autonomy or because they do
not wish to be a burden. Many parents mention they would prefer to stay at home and
have a combination of filial care and professional care services. This finding accords
with previous research showing the ambivalent attitude of parents towards filial care
(Bai et al. 2020). When we look into child–parent support relationships, some do not
match their expectations towards each other. A parent is dissatisfied with the frequency
of contact, and the child cannot fulfil this need because they have other time-consuming
roles to fulfil (such as working or supporting their own family). Another study aligns with
this ambivalent view of mismatched expectations (Peters et al. 2006), and our multi-actor
approach further contributes to this perception of children. They often feel guilty because
they wish to spend more time supporting their parent. Other children do not feel guilty
and choose to prioritise time with their close family, such as their partners and children.
Our results demonstrate that a child–parent support relationship can have ambivalent
motivations and expectations. The multi-actor analysis pointed again to children perceiving
filial support as restoring the balance of support. Their parents, in return, do not accept this
reciprocity because the child should prioritise their own family. Other parents acknowledge
this imbalance and ask for respect and gratitude in return. Other child–parent dyads give
us a good view of how generation and norms can differ; this is called the demonstration
effect in the literature (e.g., Cox and Stark 2005). This occurs when a child rejects the
expectations of the parent, who anticipates that their offspring will provide the same level
of support they once offered to their own parents. However, this expectation goes unmet
when children prioritise their offspring over their parents. Additionally, children may
lack the time to provide the same support due to their employment, which differs from
the experiences of parents who have never worked and decided to stay home, creating a
different frame of reference.
Some respondents described their support relationship as maintaining or strengthen-
ing the bond, where support is a family value. We saw that more similar dyads often share
this view on family solidarity. Another mechanism in dyads with similar perceptions is
spontaneity, which is support that is provided only when needed. These dyads identify
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 17 of 21
their support relationship as only being active when the other party requests support,
and they feel that this is an essential mechanism for respecting privacy or safeguarding
autonomy. Their faith that the other party will be available to assist them when necessary
is often enough to maintain their support relationship.
Besides general contrasts and similarities between child–parent support perspectives,
the analysis looked into differences regarding gender and legal relationships. Our findings
did not show big differences between legally or socially related child–parent dyads. Both
parents and children stress the relevance of emotional connection and quality of time spent
together as parameters for balanced solidarity. Previous studies emphasise feelings of
closeness and frequent contact, making children prone to becoming their parents’ expected
caregivers (Boerner et al. 2013;Pillemer and Suitor 2014). Due to the limitations of our sam-
pling method, we did not have a view of a wide range of different family forms. However,
4 of the 40 dyads were stepfamilies, foster families and other family structures. Also, the
sampling occurred such that a child referred to a parent or vice versa, making it almost
exceptional to observe a fractured relationship between the two. Nevertheless, we see in
the results here that there are struggles between parent and child, showing that solidarity
between child and parent is not always evident or apparent. Future research should include
a broader range of family structures and families with fractured relationships to give us a
broader perspective on how solidarity works in the current family dynamics.
Furthermore, in this study, the gender of the child–parent dyads does not show differ-
ences regarding motivations but hints at gendered care attitudes. This means that daughters
are more expected to provide personal care and socio-emotional help, while sons preferred
role is practical support (Haberkern et al. 2015). However, recent research has drawn
attention to the family context and the dynamic distribution of care between siblings in
studying filial care (Vergauwen and Mortelmans 2021). Since most respondents did not
need long-term care, these gendered support perspectives may change and influence par-
ents’ care expectations. These results show us how other factors, such as a close geographic
child–parent distance and fewer work responsibilities, facilitate children to maintain or
even start the care of the parent (Vergauwen 2024). An important limitation of our study is
the overrepresentation of women in our data. Also, in previous quantitative research on
informal support in the same context as this study, women’s participation was relatively
higher than men’s. There are clear (and stable) gendered differences both in response rates
and in giving and receiving informal support (Bracke et al. 2022;Willems et al. 2022). To
counter this overrepresentation of women, future research could actively recruit more male
participants to test if this mechanism of solidarity stands from a male perspective.
To conclude, the results of this study illustrate the power of an approach that accounts
for the complexity and multi-actor perspective of support patterns and support behaviour.
This analysis is an abstraction of reality and reflects the possible motivations or expectations
of the child and parent. Support’s ambivalent and complex nature is not (or hardly) reflected
here. After all, a person may have multiple expectations or motivations, which sometimes
contradict each other. Often, support behaviour is modelled through questions about
opportunities (e.g., ‘Do you know someone with a long-term illness, health problem or
disability?’), costs, frequency, care tasks, etc., from one perspective—often that of the
caregiver. Further research is needed to study whether expectations and motivations differ
according to the type of activities or support between parent and child. In this study, we
chose to look at support in its broad context so that we could include all forms in the
analysis. We should also reflect on the context of this study. Previous studies have revealed
how the care provision for older adults and cultural contexts influence care responsibilities
within families. Northern and central Europe, including Belgium, is known for its division
of care responsibilities between family and professional providers, where the care-intensive
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 18 of 21
tasks are mainly distributed to professional services. The World Health Organisation
addresses the concept of ageing in place within the broader context of active and healthy
ageing (WHO 2002,2007). The current policy framework of this study depicts ageing
well in the right place, where family solidarity plays a prominent part in the care network
of older adults, which ensures this multi-actor research on motivations and expectations
between children and parents is still relevant.
Finally, we briefly reflect on the strengths and limitations of this study. By adopting a
multi-actor approach, we have uncovered different dimensions of the support principles
used by adult children and their parents. In doing so, the text excerpts illustrate the
ambivalence and complexity of those support principles. This may inspire follow-up
research on support behaviour to establish more complex concepts in the questionnaire.
The diversity in child–parent relationships, including gender, is also a strength of this
study. Since this scope of the research was a broad view on (future) support willingness
and expectations, data on the following background characteristics were not collected.
Still, such data could be interesting for subsequent research, as we know the following
factors affect caregiving behaviour together with gender and would allow for a more
comprehensive analysis of the diversity in perceptions of fairness: health status of the child
and health and dependency status of the parent; geographic proximity between parent and
child, and socioeconomic factors (van Groenou and De Boer 2016;Verbakel et al. 2017). To
conclude, this study contributes to family support relationships and behaviour by adopting
a multi-actor approach and detecting mechanisms beyond the individual perspective. One
of the main findings is that contrasting dyads who reject the reciprocal act of support
experience feelings of guilt or misunderstanding, resulting in stress and worry. A child
may not follow the expected support pattern from the parent due to competing demands
such as work or the prioritisation of young children, which can reduce the support given to
the older parent. Besides general contrasts and similarities between child–parent support
perspectives, the analysis looked into differences regarding gender and legal relationships.
Our findings only found gendered care expectations. Future research should entangle this
by looking into feelings of closeness, emotional connection and considering the dynamic
character of filial support over time, especially between siblings.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/socsci14010044/s1, Table S1: Insight in analysis of dyads–agreement
or disagreement on principles.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; methodology, A.W., D.M. and A.V.;
software, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; validation, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; formal analysis, A.W., D.M. and A.V.;
investigation, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; resources, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; data curation, A.W., D.M. and
A.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; writing—review and editing, A.W.,
D.M. and A.V.; visualization, A.W., D.M. and A.V.; supervision, D.M. and A.V.; project administration,
D.M.; funding acquisition, D.M. and A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen, grant
number S00612N and S005221N.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee
for Social Sciences and Humanities (EASHW). A final positive clearance was given on 05/01/2021,
ID antigoon 43049.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are not available due to privacy
concerns and ethical reasons.
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 19 of 21
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Notes
1
This characteristic indicates whether the respondent identifies himself as belonging to a minority group. The respondent answered
with yes or no; the interviewee gave no further elaboration about what it means to belong to a minority group.
2
Highest educational level indicates the highest degree of the respondent. Primary education achievement includes less than
or equal to lower secondary education; secondary education covers upper secondary education, including postsecondary
non-tertiary education; and tertiary education indicates bachelor’s-, master ’s-, and doctoral-level education.
References
Aires, Marines, Fernanda Lais Fengler Dal Pizzol, Carla Cristiane Becker Kottwitz Bierhals, Duane Mocellin, Ana Claudia Fuhrmann,
Naiana Oliveira dos Santos, Carolina Baltar Day, and Lisiane Manganelli Girardi Paskulin. 2019. Filial responsibility in care for
elderly parents: A mixed study. Acta Paulista De Enfermagem 32: 691–99. [CrossRef]
Bai, Xue, Daniel W. L. Lai, and Chang Liu. 2020. Personal care expectations: Photovoices of Chinese ageing adults in Hong Kong.
Health & Social Care in the Community 28: 1071–81. [CrossRef]
Bengtson, Vern L., and Robert E. L. Roberts. 1991. Intergenerational solidarity in aging families–An example of formal theory
construction. Journal of Marriage and Family 53: 856–70. [CrossRef]
Bengtson, Vern L., Carolyn J. Rosenthal, and Linda M. Burton. 1990. Families and aging: Diversity and heterogeneity. In Handbook of
Aging and the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. Edited by Robert H. Binstock and Linda K. George. New York: Academic Press, pp. 263–87.
Bengtson, Vern L., Roseann Giarrusso, J. Beth Mabry, and Merril Silverstein. 2002. Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary
or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 568–76. [CrossRef]
Blome, Agnes, Jens Alber, and Wolfgang Keck. 2009. Family and the Welfare State in Europe. Intergenerational Relations in Ageing Societies.
Cheltenham: Elgar.
Boerner, Kathrin, Deborah Carr, and Sara Moorman. 2013. Family relationships and advance care planning: Do supportive and
critical relations encourage or hinder planning? Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 68: 246–56.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bracke, Margot, Dimtri Mortelmans, Aniana Declercq, Peter Raeymaeckers, Benedicte De Koker, and Leen Heylen. 2022. Zorgenquête
2021: Inhoudelijk Rapport. Leuven: Steunpunt Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Gezin.
Brandt, Martina. 2013. Intergenerational help and public assistance in Europe: A case of specialization? European Societies 15: 26–56.
[CrossRef]
Bredewold, Femmianne, Loes Verplanke, Thomas Kampen, Evelien Tonkens, and Jan Willem Duyvendak. 2020. The care receivers
perspective: How care-dependent people struggle with accepting help from family members, friends and neighbours. Health &
Social Care in the Community 28: 762–70. [CrossRef]
Cohen, Ronald L. 1987. Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research 1: 19–40. [CrossRef]
Cook, Karen S., and Karen A. Hegtvedt. 1983. Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality. In Annual Review of Sociology 9: 217–41.
[CrossRef]
Cox, Donald, and Oded Stark. 2005. On the demand for grandchildren: Tied transfers and the demonstration effect. Journal of Public
Economics 89: 1665–97. [CrossRef]
de Klerk, Mirjam, de Boer Alice, and Inger Plaisier. 2021. Determinants of informal care-giving in various social relationships in the
Netherlands. Health & Social Care in the Community 29: 1779–88.
Deutsch, Morton. 1975. Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice?
Journal of Social Issues 31: 137–49. [CrossRef]
Eurostat. 2023a. Population Structure Indicators at National Level. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2908/demo_pjanind (accessed on
22 December 2024).
Eurostat. 2023b. Population Structure Indicators by NUTS 2 Region. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2908/demo_r_pjanind2
(accessed on 22 December 2024).
Fiske, Alan P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review
99: 689. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
George, Linda K. 1986. Caregiver burden: Conflict between norms of reciprocity and solidarity. In Elder Abuse: Conflict in the Family.
Edited by Karl Pillemer and Rosalie Wolf. Dover: Auburn House, pp. 67–92.
Glaser, Barney G. 1998. Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 2017. Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Routledge.
First published 1967.
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 20 of 21
Haberkern, Klaus, and Marc Szydlik. 2010. State care provision, societal opinion and children’s care of older parents in 11 European
countries. Ageing & Society 30: 299–323.
Haberkern, Klaus, Tina Schmid, and Marc Szydlik. 2015. Gender differences in intergenerational care in European welfare states.
Ageing & Society 35: 298–320.
Harper, Sarah. 2003. Changing families as European societies age. Archives Europeennes De Sociologie 44: 155–84. [CrossRef]
Hashiguchi, Tiago Cravo Oliveira, and Ana Llena-Nozal. 2020. The Effectiveness of Social Protection for Long-Term Care in Old Age. Is
Social Protection Reducing the Risk of Poverty Associated with Care Needs? Paris: OECD.
Hämäläinen, Hans, Antti O. Tanskanen, Mirkka Danielsbacka, and Bruno Arpino. 2020. Short-term reciprocity between adult children
and parents: A within-person investigation of longitudinal data. Advances in Life Course Research 44: 100337. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Heath, Sue. 2018. Siblings, fairness and parental support for housing in the UK. Housing Studies 33: 284–98. [CrossRef]
Janus, Alexander L., and Alison Koslowski. 2020. Whose responsibility? Elder support norms regarding the provision and financing of
assistance with daily activities across economically developed countries. European Journal of Ageing 17: 95–108. [CrossRef]
Katz, Ruth, Ariela Lowenstein, Judith Phillips, and Svein Olav Daatland. 2005. Theorizing Intergenerational Family Relations:
Solidarity, Conflict and Ambivalence in Cross-National Contexts. In Sourcebook of Family Theory and Research. Edited by Vern
Bengtson, Alan Acock, Katherine R. Allen, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson and David. M. Klein. London: Sage, pp. 393–421.
Kusa, Nataliya. 2019. Financial Compensation for Intra-Familial Long-Term Care and Childcare in Germany. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues 40: 352–66. [CrossRef]
Luescher, Kurt, and Karl Pillemer. 1998. Intergenerational ambivalence: A new approach to the study of parent-child relations in later
life. Journal of Marriage and Family 60: 413–25. [CrossRef]
Moen, Phyllis, and Nicole DePasquale. 2017. Family care work: A policy-relevant research agenda. International Journal of Care and
Caring 1: 45–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mortelmans, Dimitri. 2017. Kwalitatieve Analyse met NVivo. Edited by Herwerkte Druk Tweede. Leuven: Acco.
Mortelmans, Dimitri. 2023. Handboek Kwalitatieve Onderzoeksmethoden. Edited by Derde uitgave. Leuven: Acco.
Nelson, Margaret K. 2000. Single Mothers and Social Support: The Commitment to, and Retreat from, Reciprocity. Qualitative Sociology
23: 291–317. [CrossRef]
OECD. 2021. Chapter 10. Ageing and long-term care. In Health at a Glance 2021. Paris: OECD.
Parrott, Tonya M., and Vern L. Bengtson. 1999. The effects of earlier intergenerational affection, normative expectations, and family
conflict on contemporary exchanges of help and support. Research on Aging 21: 73–105. [CrossRef]
Peters, Cheryl L., Karen Hooker, and Anisa M. Zvonkovic. 2006. Older parents’ perceptions of ambivalence in relationships with their
children. Family Relations 55: 539–551. [CrossRef]
Pillemer, Karl, and J. Jill Suitor. 2014. Who provides care? A prospective study of caregiving among adult siblings. The Gerontologist 54:
589–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rank, Mark R., and Craig W. LeCroy. 1983. Toward a multiple perspective in family theory and practice: The case of social-exchange
theory, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. Family Relations 32: 441–48. [CrossRef]
Rocard, Eileen, and Ana Llena-Nozal. 2022. Supporting Informal Carers of Older People. Paris: OECD.
Saraceno, Chiara. 2019. Retrenching, recalibrating, pre-distributing. The welfare state facing old and new inequalities. Structural
Change and Economic Dynamics 51: 35–41. [CrossRef]
Shim, Bomin, Julie Barroso, and Linda L. Davis. 2012. A comparative qualitative analysis of stories of spousal caregivers of people
with dementia: Negative, ambivalent, and positive experiences. International Journal of Nursing Studies 49: 220–29. [CrossRef]
Silverstein, Merril, Stephen J. Conroy, Haitao Wang, Roseann Giarrusso, and Vern L. Bengtson. 2002. Reciprocity in parent–child
relations over the 816 adult life course. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 57: S3–S13.
[CrossRef]
Szydlik, Marc. 2016. Sharing Lives: Adult Children and Parents. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Tang, Zequn, and Ning Wang. 2022. Will Downward Intergenerational Housing Support Increase Parents’ Expectations for Old-Age
Care from Adult Children? Evidence from China. Journal of Applied Gerontology 41: 2084–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tisch, Daria, and Tamara Gutfleisch. 2022. Unequal but just? Experimental evidence on (gendered) distributive justice principles in
parental financial gifts. Socio-Economic Review 21: 1369–90. [CrossRef]
United Nations (Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2013. World Population Ageing 2013. New York: United Nations.
van Groenou, Marjolein I. Broese, and Alice De Boer. 2016. Providing informal care in a changing society [Review]. European Journal of
Ageing 13: 271–79. [CrossRef]
van Oorschot, Wim, Michael Opielka, and Birgit Pfau-Effinger. 2008. Culture and Welfare State. Values and Social Policy in Comparative
Perspective. Cheltenham and North Hampton: Edward Elgar.
Verbakel, Ellen, Stian Tamlagsrønning, Lizzy Winstone, Erlend L. Fjær, and Terje A. Eikemo. 2017. Informal care in Europe: Findings
from the European Social Survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. European Journal of Public Health
27: 90–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Soc. Sci. 2025,14, 44 21 of 21
Vergauwen, Jorik. 2024. Children’s Opportunities and Constraints in European Parent Care Over Time: A Within-Family Approach.
Research on Aging 46: 01640275231226404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vergauwen, Jorik, and Dimitri Mortelmans. 2021. An integrative analysis of sibling influences on adult children’s care-giving for
parents. Ageing and Society 41: 536–60. [CrossRef]
Victor, Christina. 2024. Demographic and Epidemiological Trends in Ageing. In Redfern’s Nursing Older People, 5th ed. Edited by
Fiona M. Ross, Joanne M. Fitzpatrick, Ruth Harris and Clare Abley. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 15–21.
WHO. 2002. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Geneva: WHO.
WHO. 2007. Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva: WHO.
Willems, Anna, Margot Bracke, Aniana Declercq, Benedicte De Koker, Leen Heylen, and Dimitri Mortelmans. 2022. Zorgenquête 2021:
Technisch rapport. Leuven: Steunpunt Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Gezin.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
