| Literature DB >> 33919508 |
Meimei Wang1, Yongchun Yang1, Mengqin Liu2, Huailiang Yu3.
Abstract
Family composition impacts individual consumption habits, which may potentially transform urban integral space structure. Due to the reform in the housing system at the end of the 1990s and increases in residents' income, houses became more affordable, and intergenerational household cohabitation is no longer the primary pattern. Nonetheless, as families change, it still remains an important form of family composition. Intergenerational support is important in household habitation. This study examines the temporal changes and the structure of intergenerational household cohabitation. Moreover, intergenerational factors in groups of all genders and ages are analyzed. We found that intergenerational household cohabitation in Chengdu comprises three structures: elders living with married children, elders living with unmarried children, and elders living with grandchildren. According to multiple logistic regression, we can see that inadequate housing, economy of costs, cases of emergency, fear of loneliness, care of grandchildren, and poor health have marked effects on household cohabitation, and the positive or negative effects are distinct regarding different structures. To be more specific, the significance of financial support in family composition decreases, and that of support in daily care increases with age. The influence of financial support, daily care support, and emotional support peaks among those aged between 35-60, followed by individuals under 35, and those aged over 60. Financial support is comparatively important for individuals under 35, and females attach more importance to emotional support in intergenerational household cohabitation. The findings provide a basis for subsequent studies of family composition.Entities:
Keywords: Chengdu; elder; household habitation; intergenerational factors; relations
Year: 2021 PMID: 33919508 PMCID: PMC8073867 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Intergenerational relationships in Chinese and Western families.
Figure 2Aging population in China.
Sample distribution.
| Age | Elder Live with Married Children | Ratio (%) | Elder Live with Unmarried Children | Ratio (%) | Elder Live with Grandchildren | Ratio (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <25 | 25 | 1.01 | 92 | 3.73 | 1 | 0.04 |
| 25–34 | 354 | 14.36 | 192 | 7.79 | 6 | 0.24 |
| 35–44 | 303 | 12.29 | 55 | 2.23 | 91 | 3.69 |
| 45–54 | 271 | 10.99 | 42 | 1.70 | 84 | 3.41 |
| 55–64 | 183 | 7.42 | 37 | 1.50 | 108 | 4.38 |
| 65–74 | 187 | 7.59 | 31 | 1.26 | 181 | 7.34 |
| 75–84 | 95 | 3.85 | 24 | 0.97 | 85 | 3.45 |
| 85< | 6 | 0.24 | 3 | 0.12 | 9 | 0.37 |
Changes in household cohabitation from 2000 to 2010 (Ratio, %).
| District | One Elder | Two Elders | More Than Two Elders |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jinjiang | −10.94 | −6.97 | −0.17 |
| Qingyan | −11.24 | −9.04 | −0.10 |
| Jinniu | −7.56 | −5.37 | −0.07 |
| Wuhou | −12.52 | −9.37 | −0.11 |
| Chenghua | −9.40 | −7.19 | −0.08 |
Intergenerational factors in household cohabitation.
| Financial Support | Daily Care Support | Emotional Support |
|---|---|---|
| Inadequate house | In case of emergency | Fear of loneliness |
| Save costs | Doing the housework | Enjoyment of living with a big family |
| Poor health | Care of grandchildren |
Characteristics of sample (N = 2465).
| Factors | Mean | Standard Deviation | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inadequate house | 2.136 | 1.343 | 1–5 |
| Save costs | 2.796 | 1.442 | 1–5 |
| In case of emergency | 2.259 | 1.486 | 1–5 |
| Doing the housework | 1.845 | 1.367 | 1–5 |
| Poor health | 2.475 | 1.062 | 1–5 |
| Fear of loneliness | 2.562 | 1.604 | 1–5 |
| Enjoyment of living with a big family | 2.303 | 1.436 | 1–5 |
| Care of grandchildren | 2.505 | 1.463 | 1–5 |
Multiple logistic regression of intergenerational support in household cohabitation (N = 2465).
| Variables | Elderly with Grandchildren | Elderly with Unmarried Children | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Sig. | S.E. | Exp (B) | B | Sig. | S.E. | Exp (B) | |
| Inadequate house | −0.861 | *** | 0.159 | 0.423 | 0.612 | *** | 0.148 | 0.542 |
| Save costs | 0.346 | * | 0.177 | 0.708 | 0.717 | *** | 0.160 | 2.049 |
| In case of emergency | −0.518 | *** | 0.132 | 0.595 | 0.221 | * | 0.121 | 0.802 |
| Enjoyment of living with a big family | −0.376 | ** | 0.155 | 0.686 | ||||
| Doing the housework | 1.087 | *** | 0.193 | 2.966 | ||||
| Fear of loneliness | 0.600 | *** | 0.141 | 0.549 | −0.300 | ** | 0.128 | 0.740 |
| Care of grandchildren | 0.471 | *** | 0.156 | 0.624 | ||||
| Poor health | 0.418 | *** | 0.134 | 0.658 | 0.239 | * | 0.127 | 0.787 |
| Constant | 7.66 | *** | 1.119 | 1.593 | *** | 1.001 | ||
| −2 log likelihood | 530.137 | |||||||
| Chi-square | 407.54 | |||||||
| Df | 16 | |||||||
| Significance | 0.000 | |||||||
| Nagelkerke | 0.655 | |||||||
| McFadden | 0.435 | |||||||
Notes: Blank cells indicate that the result was not significant. * = p < 0.10, ** = p < 0.05, *** = p < 0.01.
Figure 3Intergenerational factors in different age groups.
Figure 4Intergenerational factors in different genders.
Figure 5Intergenerational factors in groups of all genders and ages.