| Literature DB >> 36017420 |
Chang Liu1, Shuai Zhou1, Xue Bai1,2.
Abstract
A positive attitude toward later life is crucial for wellbeing among older adults. Maintaining a healthy relationship with adult children can help reduce older parents' sense of loneliness and nurture a positive life attitude. This study aimed to investigate the associations between multidimensional intergenerational relationship quality and attitudes toward later life among aging Chinese adults in Hong Kong and examine the mediating effects of a sense of loneliness. Representative survey data were collected from 801 participants (aged 50 years and over) with at least one adult child. Multiple linear regression was employed to investigate the associations between overall intergenerational relationship quality with a sense of loneliness as well as the attitude toward later life. To examine the mediating effects of a sense of loneliness, causal mediational analyses were performed. Results demonstrated that overall intergenerational relationship quality was positively associated with aging parents' attitude toward later life, and this relationship could be partially mediated by a sense of loneliness. Among the four subdomains of intergenerational relationship quality, the influences of structural-associational solidarity and intergenerational conflict on attitude toward later life were almost fully mediated by a sense of loneliness, whereas the influences of consensual-normative solidarity and affectual closeness were partially mediated. These findings contributed to an improved understanding of the relationship between intergenerational relationship quality, sense of loneliness, and attitude toward later life, and could inform future policies and service programs that promote aging adults' social integration and positive aging.Entities:
Keywords: aging Chinese adults; attitude toward later life; family; intergenerational relationships; sense of loneliness
Year: 2022 PMID: 36017420 PMCID: PMC9397484 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.930857
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|
| 68.58 | 10.88 | 50 | 102 |
|
| ||||
| Female (n, %) | 453 | 56.55 | ||
| Male (n, %) | 348 | 43.45 | ||
|
| ||||
| Illiterate (n, %) | 166 | 20.91 | ||
| Elementary school (n, %) | 343 | 43.20 | ||
| Middle school or higher (n, %) | 285 | 35.89 | ||
|
| ||||
| Retired (n, %) | 203 | 25.34 | ||
| Working (n, %) | 598 | 74.66 | ||
|
| 2.95 | 0.60 | 1 | 5 |
|
| ||||
| Unpartnered (n, %) | 327 | 40.82 | ||
| Married (n, %) | 474 | 59.18 | ||
|
| 2.49 | 1.40 | 1 | 10 |
|
| 3.26 | 0.71 | 1 | 5 |
|
| ||||
| Independent (n, %) | 644 | 80.40 | ||
| Dependent (n, %) | 157 | 19.60 | ||
|
| 44.63 | 6.79 | 17 | 61 |
| Consensual-normative solidarity | 8.49 | 2.38 | 3 | 15 |
| Structural-associational solidarity | 13.14 | 3.61 | 4 | 20 |
| Affectual closeness | 11.01 | 2.24 | 3 | 15 |
| Intergenerational conflict (reversed) | 11.98 | 2.39 | 4 | 15 |
|
| 2.68 | 1.87 | 0 | 6 |
|
| 70.99 | 14.25 | 20 | 98 |
N = 801, SD, standard deviation.
Correlation matrix.
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1. Attitude toward later life | 1 | ||||||
| 2. Intergenerational relationship quality | 0.36*** | 1 | |||||
| 3. Consensual-normative solidarity | 0.21*** | 0.59*** | 1 | ||||
| 4. Structural-associational solidarity | 0.27*** | 0.74*** | 0.31*** | 1 | |||
| 5. Affectual closeness | 0.27*** | 0.62*** | 0.23*** | 0.31*** | 1 | ||
| 6. Intergenerational conflict (reversed) | 0.14*** | 0.41*** | 0.08* | −0.05 | 0.17*** | 1 | |
| 7. Sense of loneliness | −0.43*** | −0.45*** | −0.18*** | −0.22*** | −0.44*** | −0.33*** | 1 |
Spearman’s correlation coefficients are presented, *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.
Results of multiple linear regression predicting loneliness and attitude toward later life.
| Sense of loneliness | Attitude toward later life | |
|
| ||
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Age | −0.016+ (0.008) | −0.280*** (0.049) |
| Gender | 0.331* (0.132) | 0.746 (0.769) |
| Elementary school | −0.045 (0.173) | 0.401 (1.004) |
| Middle school or higher | −0.192 (0.202) | −0.788 (1.172) |
| Employment status | 0.253+ (0.152) | −2.651** (0.885) |
| Economic status | −0.339** (0.110) | 4.113*** (0.645) |
| Marital status | −0.547*** (0.127) | 0.923 (0.748) |
| Number of children | −0.293*** (0.048) | −0.309 (0.286) |
| Self-rated health | −0.321*** (0.092) | 4.175*** (0.535) |
| IADL | 0.187 (0.177) | −6.591*** (1.028) |
| Intergenerational relationship quality | −0.117*** (0.010) | 0.214*** (0.062) |
| Sense of loneliness | −1.731*** (0.216) | |
| Constant | 11.814*** (0.803) | 62.715*** (5.310) |
|
| 0.327 | 0.562 |
| Adjusted | 0.317 | 0.554 |
| F Statistic | 31.971*** | 77.083*** |
| AIC | 2723.015 | 5308.135 |
| BIC | 2782.814 | 5372.533 |
N = 735, Female = 0, male = 1. Reference group = illiterate. Retired = 0, working = 1. unpartnered = 0, married = 1. IADL was recoded into a dummy variable (0 = Independent, 1 = Dependent). AIC, Akaike’s information criterion; BIC, Bayesian information criterion. Standard errors are in parentheses, +p < 0.1; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Mediating effects of the sense of loneliness.
| Independent variable | Mediator | ACME | ADE | Total effect | Prop. mediated |
| Intergenerational relationship quality | Sense of loneliness | 0.202*** | 0.216*** | 0.418*** | 48.00*** |
| Consensual-normative solidarity | Sense of loneliness | 0.255*** | 0.504** | 0.758*** | 33.60*** |
| Structural-associational solidarity | Sense of loneliness | 0.220*** | 0.119 | 0.340** | Full mediation** |
| Affectual closeness | Sense of loneliness | 0.504*** | 0.818*** | 1.322*** | 38.10*** |
| Intergenerational conflict (reversed) | Sense of loneliness | 0.403*** | −0.080 | 0.324* | Full mediation* |
N = 735, Prop. Mediated, proportions of indirect effect on attitude toward later life via mediators (%). ACME, average mediation effect. ADE, average direct effect. All models adjusted for age, gender, education, employment status, economic status, marital status, number of children, self-rated health, and IADL. Quasi-Bayesian confidence intervals were not reported here, *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
FIGURE 1Results of the mediation analyses. Error bar shows 95% quasi-Bayesian confidence intervals. ACME, average mediation effect; ADE, average direct effect.