Family Life Cycle

The family life cycle is conventionally represented as a sequence of stages typical of many adults, moving from independence from the family of origin, through forming one's own family unit, raising kids, and becoming grandparents. Of course, many people do not follow the traditional sequence or pattern shown in this conventional family life cycle (Imrie & Golombok, 2020). It can be useful to broaden our definition of family life so it includes all varieties of domestic arrangement. If we do, "family" encompasses most of our activities in adult life other than work, friendships, and me-time. For many people, close friends are considered part of family.

We know that some families involve intimate relationships and children, but there are also other important facets. Family life revolves around the home. An important aspect of life for every adult is where they live and who lives with them. Another aspect is "home-making"--cooking, cleaning, and maintenance. Who does what? Family life also involves doing things together and enjoying a sense of community. For most adults in most cultures, the primary organizing factor in their lives is family, hence, the phrase "family life." Much of development during adulthood revolves around where a person finds themselves in the family life cycle, in terms of moving through a sequence of finding a partner, forming a household family unit, and having or not having and raising children.

Family life cycle patterns differ across cultures and subcultures, and shift with historical time (Imrie & Golombok, 2020; Lansford, 2022; McHale & Sirotkin, 2019). The overarching objective or task of the family life cycle is to create the life that fits and works for the individual, that is consistent with their personal characteristics and preferences, the life they want. Successful navigation of the family life cycle means finding a life that is personally meaningful and fulfilling for you and that works for the rest of your family (however constituted) as well.

Remember how the lifespan perspective reminds us that individuals are developing in a changing world? Nowhere is that more apparent than in this arena. Over the last 50 to 60 years, there have been significant shifts in the prevalence and timing of all the major milestones in the family life cycle.

• Increasing variety in living arrangement:
  • Increases in multigenerational households.
  • Increases in singlehood and young adults living without partners.
• Changes in patterns of committed relationships and marriage.
  • Increases in cohabitation.
  • Declines in marriage.
  • Increases in age at first marriage.
• Changes in patterns of parenthood and child rearing.
  • Declines in numbers of children.
  • Increases in age birth of first child.

And these patterns of change differ across  subgroups within the US (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, class, sexual orientation) and cultures around the world. A move away from old norms and conventional patterns opens up opportunities for individuals to tailor their lives during early adulthood (and to reconfigure their lives at later ages) to optimize their own development. At the same time, a lack of norms can also lead young adults to feel the weight of responsibility and some uncertainly about their own decisions, and to miss the societal "glue" (or pressure) that often holds more conventional patterns in place through challenging times.

Next sections summarize some of the societal changes in life cycle choices individuals are making in early and middle adulthood, including singlehood, cohabitation, marriage, parenthood, and grandparenthood.

Single Adulthood

Being single is the most common lifestyle for people in their early 20s, and there has been an increase in the number of adults choosing to remain single. In 1960, only about 1 in 10 adults age 25 or older had never been married, in 2019 that had risen to 1 in 5 (Wang & Parker, 2019). While just over half (53%) of unmarried adults say they would eventually like to get married, 32 percent are not sure, and 13 percent do not want to get married.

It is projected that by the time people who are currently young adults reach their mid-40s and 50s, almost 25% of them may never have married. The U.S. is not the only country to see a rise in the number of single adults. The table below lists some of the reasons young adults give for staying single. In addition, adults are marrying later in life, cohabitating, and raising children outside of marriage in greater numbers than in previous generations. Young adults also have other priorities, such as education, and establishing their careers.

Have not met the right person	30%
Do not have financial stability	27%
Not ready to settle down	22%
Too young to marry	22%

Historical trends in lifestyles and priorities may be reflected in changes in attitudes about the importance of marriage. In a recent Pew Research survey of Americans, respondents were asked to indicate which of the following statements came closer to their own views:

• “Society is better off if people make marriage and having children a priority.”
• “Society is just as well off if people have priorities other than marriage and children.”

Two thirds of adults endorsed the second statement (64%) whereas only one third chose the first (34%), with the remainder either selecting neither, both equally, or not responding (Pew Research Center, 2023). Young adults age 18-29 were even more likely to endorse this second view than adults age 30 to 49. In contrast, those age 50 or older were more likely to endorse the first statement.

Another interesting historical trend on singlehood can be seen in shifts in the percentage of people between the ages of 25 and 54 who are living "unpartnered"-- that is, without a spouse or cohabiting partner. In 1990, the majority of people in these age groups were married (67%), with only a few cohabiting (4%), and about a third unpartnered (29%). But by 2019, only 53% were married, whereas cohabiting had more than doubled to 9% and unpartnered rose to 38%. Clearly, more young and middle aged adults are choosing to live without a partner in residence.

Committed Relationships and Cohabitation

In American society, as well as in a number of other cultures, cohabitation has become increasingly commonplace (Gurrentz, 2018). For many emerging adults, age 18-24, cohabitation has become more common than marriage, as can be seen in Figure 8.6 below. While marriage is still a more common living arrangement for those 25-34, cohabitation has increased, while marriage has declined, as can be seen in Figure 8.7. Gurrentz also found that cohabitation varies by socioeconomic status. Those who are married tend to have higher levels of education, and thus higher earnings, or earning potential.

Copen, Daniels, and Mosher (2013) found that from 1995 to 2010 the median length of the cohabitation relationship had increased regardless of whether the relationship resulted in marriage, remained intact, or had since dissolved. In 1995 the median length of the cohabitation relationship was 13 months, whereas by 2025 it was 2 years. Cohabitation for all racial/ethnic groups, except for Asian women increased (see Table 8.4). Forty percent of the cohabitations transitioned into marriage within three years, 32% were still cohabitating, and 27% of cohabitating relationships had dissolved within the three years.

	1995	2006-2010
Hispanic	30%	47%
White	35%	49%
Black	35%	49%
Asian	22%	22%

Reasons for Historical Shifts in Cohabitation in Western Countries

Three explanations have been given for the rise of cohabitation in Western cultures. The first notes that the increase in individualism and secularism, and the resulting decline in religious observance, has led to greater acceptance and adoption of cohabitation (Lesthaeghe & Surkyn, 1988). Moreover, the more people observe couples cohabitating, the more normal this relationship seems, and the more couples will then cohabitate. Thus, cohabitation is both a cause and the effect of greater cohabitation.

A second explanation focuses on the economic changes. The growth of industry and the modernization of many cultures has improved women’s social status, leading to greater gender equality and sexual freedom, with marriage no longer being the only long-term relationship option (Bumpass, 1990). A final explanation suggests that changes in employment requirements, with many jobs now requiring more advanced education, has led to a delay in marriage while youth pursue post-secondary education (Yu & Xie, 2015). Since most people marry soon after they have competed their highest level of education (e.g., people who complete only high school generally marry at 18-19 years old whereas people who graduate college typically marry at age 24-25), this might account for the increase in the age of first marriage in many nations.

Taken together, the greater acceptance of premarital sex, and the economic and educational changes would lead to a transition in relationships. Overall, cohabitation may become a step in the courtship process or may, for some, replace marriage altogether. Similar increases in cohabitation have also occurred in other industrialized countries. For example, rates are high in Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia, France, and parts of Latin America (Panama, Argentina, and Uruguay). In fact, more children in Sweden are born to cohabiting couples than to married couples. The lowest rates of cohabitation in industrialized countries are in Ireland, Italy, and Japan (Benokraitis, 2005).

Cohabitation in Non-Western Cultures, the Philippines and China

Similar to other nations, young people in the Philippines are more likely to delay marriage, to cohabitate, and to engage in premarital sex as compared to previous generations (Williams, Kabamalan, & Ogena, 2007). Despite these changes, however, many young people are still not in favor of these practices. Moreover, there is still a persistence of traditional gender norms as there are stark differences in the acceptance of sexual behavior out of wedlock for men and women in Philippine society. Young men are given greater freedom. In China, young adults are cohabitating in higher numbers than in the past (Yu & Xie, 2015). Unlike many Western cultures, in China adults with higher, rather than lower, levels of education are more likely to cohabitate. Yu and Xie suggest this may be because cohabitation is seen as more “innovative” or "modern," and that those who are more highly educated may have had more exposure to Western cultures.

Marriage 

Cohen (2013) reviewed data assessing most of the world’s countries and found that rates of marriage have declined universally during the last several decades. Although this decline has occurred in both poor and rich countries, the countries with the biggest drops in marriage were mostly rich: France, Italy, Germany, Japan and the U.S. Cohen argues that these declines are due not only to individuals delaying marriage, but also to higher rates of non-marital cohabitation. Delays or decreases in marriage are associated with higher income and lower fertility rates that are observed worldwide.

Marriage in the United States

In 1960, 72% of adults age 18 or older were married, in 2025 this number had dropped to less than half (47%). At the same time, the age of first marriage has been increasing for both men and women. In 1960, the median age for first marriage was 20 for women and 23 for men.By 2025 this had increased to 30 for women and 32 for men (see Figure). Many of the explanations for increases in singlehood and cohabitation provided previously (especially increasing number of years of education) can also account for the drop and delay in marriage.

Note that there are also some differences in average marriage rates by race/ethnicity and by educational attainment (SES). For example, according to the Pew Research Center, in 2019, 57% of white adults and 63% of Asian adults were married, but fewer than half of Latino (48%) and only a third of Black adults (33%) were. Since 1995, marriage rates have declined among white, Black and Latino adults, but have stayed relatively stable for Asian-Americans. Moreover, individuals who have completed a college education marry at higher rates and stay married longer compared to those with fewer years of education. Marriage rates are falling more sharply for those with only a high school education, whereas rates are more constant for those with college degrees, creating a "marriage gap" drawn along SES lines. This trend differs from past decades, when people with less education were more likely to marry and at younger ages.

Same-Sex Marriage

In June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage. The decision indicated that limiting marriage to only heterosexual couples violated the 14th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. This ruling occurred 11 years after same-sex marriage was first made legal in Massachusetts, and at the time of the high court decision, 36 states and the District of Columbia had legalized same sex marriage.

Worldwide, 35 countries currently have national laws allowing gays and lesbians to marry (Pew Research Center, 2025). In the decade since this landmark legislation in the US, the number of same sex marriages has grown from around 242,000 couples to over 820,000, with significant increases especially in the South and Midwest, showing a clear upward trend in married same-sex couples representing the majority of partnered same-sex households.

Cultural Influences on Marriage

Many cultures have both explicit and unstated rules that specify who is an appropriate mate. Consequently, mate selection is not completely left to the individual. Rules of endogamy indicate the groups we should marry within and those we should not (Witt, 2009). For example, many cultures specify that people marry within their own race, social class, age group, or religion. For example, for most of its history, the US upheld laws that criminalized marriage between people from different races; the last such laws were struck down by a Supreme Court ruling in 1967. Endogamy reinforces the cohesiveness of the group. Additionally, these rules encourage homogamy or marriage between people who share social characteristics. The majority of marriages in the U. S. are homogamous with respect to race, social class, age and to a lesser extent, religion. Homogamy is also seen in couples with similar personalities and interests.

Arranged Marriages and Elopement

Historically, marriage was not a personal choice, but one made by one’s family. Arranged marriages often ensured proper transference of a family’s wealth and the support of ethnic and religious customs. Such marriages were considered a marriage of families rather than of individuals. In Western Europe, starting in the 18th century, the notion of personal choice in a marital partner slowly became the norm. Arranged marriages were seen as “traditional” and marriages based on love “modern.” Many of these early “love” marriages were accomplished by eloping (Thornton, 2005).

Around the world, more and more young couples are choosing their own partners, even in nations where arranged marriages are still the norm, such as India and Pakistan. Desai and Andrist (2010) found that in India only 5% of the women they surveyed, aged 25-49, had a primary role in choosing their partner. Only 22% knew their partner for more than one month before they were married. However, the younger cohort of women was more likely to have been consulted by their families before their partner was chosen than were the older cohort, suggesting that family views are changing about personal choice. Allendorf (2013) reports that this 5% figure may also underestimate young people’s choice, as only women were surveyed. Many families in India are increasingly allowing sons veto power over the parents’ choice of his future spouse, and some families give daughters the same say.

Happiness and Marital Satisfaction

Although research frequently suggests that marriage is associated with higher rates of happiness, this does not guarantee that getting married will make you happy! The quality of one’s marriage matters greatly. When a person remains in a problematic marriage, it takes an emotional toll. Indeed, a large body of research shows that people’s overall life satisfaction is affected by their satisfaction with their marriage (Umberson, Williams, Powers, Chen, & Campbell, 2005; Proulx, Helms, & Buehler, 2007).

Marital satisfaction has peaks and valleys during the course of the family life cycle (Bühler et al., 2021; Sullivan, 2021). Rates of happiness are highest in the years prior to the birth of the first child (Arul Prabhahar et al., 2021). It hits a low point with the arrival of the second (or more) child. Children bring new demands and expectations to the marital relationship, along with more financial hardships and stress. Many people who are comfortable with their roles as partners find added parental duties and expectations more challenging to meet. Some couples elect not to have children, for a variety of reasons. These child-free couples, for example, may choose to focus more time and attention on their partners, careers, and interests.

Changes in Gender Roles

With the coming of the first child, gender roles in committed relationships typically become more traditional. In western countries, women typically take on more domestic responsibilities and childrearing duties, devoting on average about two times as much as men to childcare and household work (Cooke, 2010; Saginak & Saginak, 2005; Sullivan, 2021). For many women, this shift away from a largely egalitarian relationship may be one of the reasons that martial satisfaction suffers (Koster et al., 2022). In a recent qualitative study, Twamley and Faircloth (2024) interviewed couples making the transition to parenthood to learn more about how they think about, practice, and assess gender equality. They uncovered four configurations, which they labeled:

• symmetry or the idea that both partners should put in the same amount of time, on the do the same tasks to the same degree;
• breaking gender stereotypes, which focused less on time and more on how their divisions of unpaid work did not follow gender stereotypes;
• fairness, which highlighted overall balance in tasks being aspired to – more equity than symmetry; and
• equality as respect, which focused on the larger value, influence, and power dynamics within the couples' relationship.

Note that the most egalitarian gender roles typically occur in the empty nest stage, when children are older and no longer require daily care.

Parenthood and Caregiving

Caring for children is sometimes a part of an individual's family life cycle. Just as there are an infinite number of "family" forms (Imrie & Golombok, 2020; McHale & Sirotkin, 2019), so too are there many ways to become parents and caregivers. We can adopt or foster children, we can become partners with someone who already has children, we can become responsible for the children of other family members or friends. We can first meet our children at birth as newborns, or at any other age along the way. People often talk about the "miracle of birth" but any way that children come into our lives and under our care is a miracle, don't you think?

We use the term "parenthood" and "parenting" as synonymous with "caregiver-hood" and "caregiving," because many kinds of people care for the next generations. And all of them have to reorganize their lives around these tasks to some extent. They must negotiate the cycles and transitions that having children in our lives brings-- the transition to parenthood, the experiences of caregiving itself, which are typically intense for decades or the entire rest of one's life. Then there are shifts in processes and goals of caregiving as both children and parents develop, when teenage or adult children leave the nest (or don't) or return. Caregivers must figure out how to optimize multigenerational living or long distance relationships with adult children, and potentially grandparenthood. When one cares for children, these can all become steps in the family life cycle.

Historical Changes in Number of Children and Timing of Parenthood

Parenthood, like every other aspect of the family life cycle, is undergoing changes in the United States and elsewhere else in the world. Women in the United States have fewer children than they did previously, and children are less likely to be living with both parents. In the early 1900s, the average fertility rate of women was about seven children. It declined in the early part of the 1900s, but then "boomed" during the post-wars years of the 1950s to 3.5-4 children. With the introduction of more effective contraception in the 1970s, the birth rate declined to about 2.1 and remained relatively stable for almost 40 years. Starting in the early 2010s, however, it started to decline again to about 1.6 today (Hamilton, Martin, & Ventura, 2011; Martinez, Daniels, & Chandra, 2012).

There are differences in birth rate by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, but not as big as you might imagine. Birth rates are declining across all groups, with Latina mothers consistently having the highest birth rate, averaging about 2, followed by Black, white, and Native American/Alaska Native women of 1.6, 1.5, and 1.4, respectively, which is at about the national average of 1.6, followed by Asian-American women with a slightly lower average birth rate of about 1.3 (except Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders who some estimates suggest have slightly higher rates, at about 2.2).

People are having children at older ages, too. This is not surprising given that many of the age markers for adulthood have been pushed back, including not only marriage, but also many of the typical precursors to marriage, like completing an education, establishing oneself at work, and gaining financial independence, In 1972, the average age at first birth, of 21, was relatively unchanged from 1900. In 2024, however, the average age for American first-time mothers was 28 years old (CDC, 2025).

Declines in birth rates reflect this trend. In the last decade, the birth rate for women in their early 20s has declined 9%, and  for those under 20 by 26%. At the same time, the birth rate for women in their late 30s has risen. In 2025, more than half of all births were to women ages 30 and older. For both American and Canadian women, birth rates were higher for women in their late 30s than in their early 20s. Improved birth control methods and good maternal reproductive health into their 30s and 40s have also enabled some women to postpone motherhood.

Despite the fact that young people are more often delaying childbearing, about half of 18- to 29-year-olds who are currently childless want to have children eventually. Many say that being a good parent is one of the most important things in life (Wang & Taylor, 2011). There are differences in this goal according to gender (with more young men than women expressing this desire) and divides along religious, ethnic/racial, and political lines. Societal trends, like the collapse in childcare during the pandemic or financial concerns arising from recessions and inflation, often delay or deter parenthood.

Not only are parents having fewer children, the context of parenthood has also changed. Parenting outside of marriage has increased dramatically among most socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups, although college-educated women are substantially more likely to be married at the birth of a child than are mothers with less education (Dye, 2010).

Influences on the Experience of Caregiving and Parenting

The experience of parenting has its ups and downs, with many people reporting that it is the hardest and most rewarding thing that they have ever done (Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2020). Parenting is a complex process that is not only developmental, in that parental age, location in the life cycle, and previous experience have a big impact on how parenting is experienced, but also contextual, in that it is shaped by the entire social ecology in which it unfolds (Bornstein, 2019). Remember the high-order contexts of parenting we discussed back in the unit on family? All those factors are in play. They influence both how parents parent, and how parents experience the aventure and challenges of caregiving.

Moreover, the day to day of parenting is also shaped by whether you are a single parent or others are parenting with you, like a co-parent, extended family, or community. And, of course, parents and children influence one another. The multiple influences on parenting are still being explored (Bornstein, 2019). Let's consider a few key ones. Parent characteristics, child characteristics, and contextual and sociocultural characteristics (Belsky, 1984; Bornstein, 2019; Demick, 1999).

Parent Characteristics

Parents bring unique attributes and qualities to the parenting relationship that affect their decisions and actions as parents. These characteristics include the age of the parent, gender, identity, personality, developmental history, knowledge about parenting and child development, and mental and physical health. For some women, the postpartum period is especially challenging, especially if they are dealing with postpartum mood disorders like distress or depression (Modak et al., 2023).

Fathers and mothers may parent differently (Yaffe, 2023). Parents’ personalities affect parenting behaviors. For example, mothers and fathers who are more agreeable, conscientious, and outgoing are warmer and provide more structure to their children. Parents who are more agreeable, less anxious, and less negative also support their children’s autonomy more than parents who are anxious and less agreeable (Prinzie, Stams, Dekovic, Reijntes, & Belsky, 2009). Parents who have these personality traits appear to be better able to respond to their children positively and provide a more consistent, structured environment for their children.

Parents’ developmental histories, or their experiences as children, also affect their parenting strategies. For example, parents may learn parenting practices from their own parents. Fathers whose own parents provided monitoring, consistent and age-appropriate discipline, and warmth were more likely to provide this constructive parenting to their own children (Kerr, Capaldi, Pears, & Owen, 2009). Patterns of negative parenting and ineffective discipline also appear from one generation to the next. However, parents who are dissatisfied with their own parents’ approach may be more likely to change their parenting methods with their own children.

Child Characteristics 

Parenting is bidirectional. Not only do parents affect their children, but children also influence their parents. Child characteristics, such as gender, birth order, temperament, and health status, affect parenting behaviors and roles (Jensen et al., 2025). For example, an infant with an easy temperament may enable parents to feel more effective, as they are easily able to soothe the child and elicit smiling and cooing. On the other hand, a cranky or fussy infant elicits fewer positive reactions from their parents and may result in parents feeling less effective in the parenting role (Eisenberg et al., 2008). Over time, parents of more difficult children may become more punitive and less patient with their children (Clark, Kochanska, & Ready, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 1999; Kiff, Lengua, & Zalewski, 2011). In fact, parents who have a fussy, difficult child are less satisfied with their marriages and have greater challenges in balancing work and family roles (Hyde, Else-Quest, & Goldsmith, 2004). Thus, child temperament is one of the child characteristics that influences how parents behave with their children.

Another child characteristic is the gender of the child. Parents respond differently to boys and girls (Jensen et al., 2025). Parents talk differently with their sons and daughters, providing more scientific explanations to their sons and using more emotion words with their daughters (Crowley, Callanan, Tenenbaum, & Allen, 2001). Parents also often assign different household chores to their sons and daughters. Girls are more often responsible for caring for younger siblings and household chores, whereas boys are more likely to be asked to perform chores outside the home, such as mowing the lawn (Grusec, goodnow, & Cohen, 1996). In a recent meta-analysis of differential treatment by parents (Jensen et al., 2025), the researchers concluded that parents tend to favor oldest children and daughters!

When children arrive with or evince developmental disabilities, like Down syndrome, autism, mental or physical health issues, or learning disabilities, this naturally presents as a life event for their parents also. Parents may need to reorganize their lives and those of their other children (if they have any) around the new and changing needs of the affected child or children (Eddaoudi et al., 2023; Pastor-Cerezuela et al., 2021). Once caregivers have the information, skills, and supports they need, most parents rise to the challenge and create an extended family system that is strong and resilient. Still, accommodating and enjoying children with special needs is a process, and one that often brings tension between co-parents or can feel like too much for single parents to deal with on their own (Eddaoudi et al., 2023; Pastor-Cerezuela et al., 2021).

Online or in-person support groups of parents facing similar challenges can be especially helpful as sources of compassionate and nonjudgemental validation and advice (Lee et al., 2024). Societies can also do their part by reducing the stigma associated with some of these conditions, providing more informational and financial resources, and funding research on how to better support both parents and children with these challenges (Curley et al., 2023; Jugovac et al., 2023; Sapiets et al., 2021; Seager et al., 2022). It is especially important to reach marginalized families who are already dealing with financial hardship and/or racial ethnic discrimination, since they typically have less access to resources and information.

Contextual Factors and Sociocultural Characteristics

The parent–child relationship unfolds in a complex social ecology. As we discussed in previous units on families and parenting, caregiving is influenced by higher-order sociocultural contexts. Sociocultural characteristics, including economic hardship, religion, politics, neighborhoods, communities, schools, and social support, also influence adults' experiences as caregivers. For example, parents who have to deal with economic hardship are more easily frustrated and depressed, and these emotional states can make it harder for them to fully engage in or enjoy parenting (Conger & Conger, 2002).

Culture also influences parenting behaviors in fundamental ways (Lansford, 2022). Although promoting the development of skills necessary to function effectively in one’s community is a universal goal of parenting, the specific skills necessary vary widely from culture to culture. Thus, parents have different goals for their children that partially depend on their cultural communities (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Parents vary in how much they emphasize goals for independence and individual achievements, maintaining harmonious relationships, and being embedded in a strong network of social relationships. Culture is also a contributing contextual factor. For example, Latina mothers who perceived their neighborhood as more dangerous showed less warmth with their children, perhaps because of the greater stress associated with living in a threatening environment (Gonzales et al., 2011).

Other important contextual characteristics, such as the neighborhood, school, and social networks, also affect parenting, even though these settings do not always include both the child and the parent (Brofenbrenner, 1989). This would be a good time to go back and re-re the chapter in Unit 4: Family on higher-order contexts of parenting,and the two papers that examined the ways that poverty and structural racism make parenting more challenging. As you may remember, there are three major ways that status hierarchies, like those organized around class and race, make parenting more difficult:

1. Inequities create objective living conditions that are developmentally hazardous to children and families;
2. Hardships and discrimination force people to parent under stressful conditions; and
3. Families must expend effort to counteract the pervasive effects of discrimination and prejudice on the development of their children and adolescents.

Pay special attention to the recommendations provided in that chapter about how to make higher-order contexts more supportive of the important jobs of parenting and providing for a family, which are challenging tasks even under the best of circumstances. Remember also that communities assigned to the lower rungs of these hierarchies have long histories of resistance and resilience, for example, in creating adaptive cultures that buffer and uplift both families and children (Garcia Coll et al., 1996).

The many factors that influence parenting are summarized in the following figure.

 

Family Life in Middle Adulthood

As the family life cycle progresses, all the members of the family get older, changing family dynamics and presenting new challenges and satisfactions. For middle age adults, family life can be full, and creating a healthy balance among the roles and activities of spouse/partner, parent, and worker, while staying healthy and maintaining one's friends and hobbies is an ongoing project. Because of the historical delays in ages of marriage and childbearing described previously coupled with increases in average life expectancy, an ever larger number of middle aged adults are also dealing the challenges of aging parents at the same time (Pan et al., 2022).

The sandwich generation refers to adults who have at least one parent age 65 or older while they are also either raising their own children or providing support for their grown children. According to a Pew Research survey in 2021, about 23% of adults are part of this sandwich generation, including over half of middle aged adults in their 40s and 50s.

In addition, 15% of middle-aged adults are providing financial support to an older parent while raising or financially supporting their own children (see Figure 8.12). And almost half of middle-aged adults have supported their adult children in the past year, and about a quarter are the primary source of support for their grown children.

About seventy percent of the sandwich generation is age 40-59, about 20% are younger than 40, and 10% were 60 or older. This latter group, sometimes called the "club sandwich" generation because of its double layers, may be caring for parents, adult children, and grandchildren. Latino families are more likely to find themselves supporting two generations: about 30% have parents 65 or older and a dependent child, compared with 25% of whites and 20% of Blacks (Parker & Patten, 2013). Women are more likely to take on the role of care provider for older parents in the U.S. and Germany (Pew Research, 2015). About 20% of women say they have helped with personal care, such as getting dressed or bathing, of aging parents in the past year, compared with 8% of men in the U.S. and 4% in Germany. In contrast, in Italy men are just as likely (25%) as women (26%) to have provided personal care.

Not surprisingly, these responsibilities can create both time and economic pressures, and take a toll on middle aged adults' current finances and capacity to save for retirement. The Pew survey found that about 30% of sandwich-generation adults were more likely to say they always feel rushed, while only about 20% of other adults said this.

Adults who are supporting both parents and children also reported greater financial strain (see Figure 8.13). Only 28% reported that they were living comfortably versus 41% of those who were not also supporting their parents. About 30% were just making ends meet, compared with 17% of those who did not have the additional financial burden of aging parents.

However, the survey suggests that those who were supporting both parents and children reported being just as happy as those middle-aged adults who did not find themselves in the sandwich generation (Parker & Patten, 2013). Being involved in the lives of ones' parents and one's children can create a satisfying feeling of richness and community. Moreover, seeing one's children form close relationships with one's parents (their grandparents) can also create a satisfying feeling of connection and legacy.

Empty Nest

The empty nest, or post-parental period, refers to the time period when children are grown up and have left home (Dennerstein, Dudley & Guthrie, 2002; Park & Mendoza, 2022; Royena, 2024). For most parents this occurs during midlife. This transition is recognized as a “normative event,” that is, parents are aware that their children will become adults and eventually leave home (Mitchell & Lovegreen, 2009). The empty nest creates complex emotions, both positive and negative, for many parents. Some theorists suggest this is a time of role loss for parents, others suggest it is one of role strain relief (Bouchard, 2013; Royena, 2024).

The role loss hypothesis holds that when people lose an important role in their life they experience a decrease in emotional well-being. It is from this perspective that the concept of the empty nest syndrome emerged, which refers to great emotional distress experienced by parents, typically mothers, after children have left home. The empty nest syndrome is linked to the absence of alternative roles for the parent in which they could establish their identity (Borland, 1982). In Bouchard’s (2013) review of the research, she found that few parents reported loneliness or a big sense of loss once all their children had left home.

In contrast, the role stress relief hypothesis suggests that the empty nest period should lead to more positive changes for parents, as the responsibility of raising children has been lifted. The role strain relief hypothesis has received much empirical support. A consistent finding throughout the research literature is that raising children has a negative impact on the quality of martial relationships (Ahlborg, Misvaer, & Möller, 2009; Bouchard, 2013). Most studies report that martial satisfaction often increases during the launching phase of the empty nest period, and that this satisfaction endures long after the last child has left home (Bühler et al., 2021; Gorchoff, John, & Helson, 2008).

However, most of the research on the post-parental period has been with American parents (c.f., Royena, 2024). A number of studies in China suggest that empty-nesters, especially in more rural areas of China, report greater loneliness and depression than their counterparts with children still at home (Wu et al., 2010). Family support for the elderly by their children is a cherished Chinese tradition (Wong & Leung, 2012). The fact that children move from the rural communities to the larger cities for education and employment may explain the more negative reaction of Chinese parents compared to American samples. The loss of an adult child in a rural region may mean a loss of family income and support for aging parents. Empty-nesters in urban regions of China did not report the same degree of distress (Su et al., 2012), suggesting that it not so much the event of children leaving, but the additional hardships this may place on aging parents.

Multigenerational Households

Young adults are living with their parents for a longer duration and in greater numbers than previous generations. In addition to those in early adulthood who are not leaving the home of their parents, there are also boomerang kids, a term used to refer to young adults who return after having lived independently outside the home. More American young people ages 25-35 are living at home with their parents today than at any time since 1940. As can be seen in the figure, younger adult children and children with less education are more likely to be living at home with their parents.

Researchers, however, have argued that labeling co-residence as either "failure to launch" or "boomerang" reflects a white middle class bias, and misunderstands both the decisions families are making and why they are making them (Evans et al., 2022). Many subgroups in the US, such as Latino, Black, Asian-American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, and American Indian/Alaska Natives, have always had higher rates of multigenerational living arrangements that white middle class Americans. In fact, in countries around the world, living with one's parents until or after marriage, and ongoing multigenerational households are the norm.

The figure with the European map, shows that more young adults 18-34 in Europe are also living with their parents (Desilver, 2016). In fact, . In the US and Europe, many of the same financial reasons that are influencing young people’s decisions to delay exit from the home of their parents are underlying their decisions to return home. In addition, some boomerang kids are returning because of emotional distress, such as mental health issues (Sandberg-Thoma, Snyder, & Jang, 2015). The financial and mental strains of the pandemic accelerated this trend.

What is the effect on parents when their adult children return home? Certainly, there is considerable research that shows that the stress of raising children can have a negative impact on parents’ well-being, and that when children leave home many couples experience less stress and greater life satisfaction (see the section on the empty nest).

Early research in the 1980s and 1990s (focusing largely on white middle class Americans) supported the notion that boomerang children, along with those who were failing to exit the home, placed greater financial hardship on the parents, and the parents reported more negative perceptions of this living arrangement (Aquilino, 1991).

However, more recent surveys suggest that today’s parents are more enthusiastic, or at least more tolerant, perhaps because this is becoming a more normative experience than in the past. Moreover, children who return are more likely to have had good relationships with their parents growing up, so there may be less stress between parents and their adult children who return (Sandberg-Thoma et al., 2015).

Parents of young adults who have moved back home because of economic reasons report that they are just as satisfied with their life as are parents whose adult children are still living independently (Parker, 2012). Parker found that adult children age 25 and older are more likely to contribute financially to the family or complete chores and other household duties. Parker also found that living in a multigenerational household may be acting as an economic safety net for young adults. In comparison to young adults who were living outside of the home, those living with their parents were less likely to be living in poverty (17% versus 10%).  Multigenerational households may also have some advantages down the roads, if aging parents need some help and support.

Linked Lives

So far, we have considered the impact that adult children who have returned home or have yet to leave the nest have on the lives of middle-aged parents. What about the effect on parents who have adult children dealing with serious life events, such as alcoholism, chronic health concerns, mental health issues, trouble with the law, poor social relationships, or academic or job-related problems, even if they are not living at home?

The life course perspective proposes the idea of linked lives (Greenfield & Marks, 2006). The notion that people in important relationships, such as children and parents, mutually influence each other’s developmental pathways. In previous chapters you read about the effects that parents have on their children’s development, but as we have been discussing, this relationship is bidirectional. The problems faced by children, even when those children are adults, influence the lives of their parents.

In studies of middle-aged parents and their adult children, those parents whose children were dealing with personal problems reported more negative affect, lower self-acceptance, poorer parent-child interactions, and more family relationship stress. The more problems the adult children were facing, the worse the lives and emotional health of their parents, with single parents faring the worst. These situations are made more difficult when the adult child's problems, like mental health issues, addiction, or incarceration, have been stigmatized by society. For example, a qualitative study of parents of adult children who were dealing with drug addiction revealed the emotional and psychological costs in terms of shame, guilt, and stressful social interactions that parents faced, as well as strategies they used (like seeking social support) to cope (Liahaugen et al., 2023).

Though the notion of linked lives, we see that being a parent is a life long commitment, and many parents suffer and use their resources to help, when their adult children are experiencing hardships (Pillemer & Suitor, 1991). Just as when children are younger, society can also play a helpful role role by de-stigmatizing these issues, providing more effective medical and psychological supports, and continuing to fund research aimed at prevention and treatment.

Committed Relationships in Middle Adulthood

Singlehood

As you know, singlehood is a valid lifestyle choice, and one that young and middle aged adults are increasingly making. Researchers used to track the percentage of men and women who had never been married, finding for example that about 16% of 45 to 54 year olds in 2012 had never married (with more men than women in that state, Wang & Parker, 2014), but now researchers project a notable increase to about 25% as current cohorts., whose rates of marriage are historically low, age into that bracket over the next 20-25 years. However, based on corresponding increases in cohabitation, it is clear that some of them are living with a partner.

Hence, researchers now document "unpartnered" adults. This group includes those who have never married and are not cohabiting, but also those who are single at midlife for other reasons, like divorce or widowhood. As we discussed earlier in the chapter, the percentage of unpartnered adults has been growing steadily over the last 30 years, with about a third of middle aged adults currently reporting that status (up from about 24% in 1990). Rates differ somewhat by gender and race/ethnicity, with women generally more likely to be unpartnered than men (although men's rates are also climbing), and Latino and Black adults ages 40-59 also reporting higher rates of singlehood compared to Asian and White adults. About half of single midlifers (ages 30-59) live alone, with this increasing with age (50% for 40-49, and 55% for 50-59).

Questioning the Marriage Benefit. For many years, researchers concluded that singles, especially the always single, fare worse emotionally and in health compared to those who are married. However, over the last decade, researchers have begun to question these conclusions, based on bias baked into how standard investigations are conducted. For example, researchers criticized typical study designs and heterogeneity within comparison groups (DePaulo, 2014). In terms of design, most studies examined whether people who are currently married are happier and healthier than people who are currently unmarried. But these kinds of cross sectional findings cannot distinguish between selection and social influence effects, that is-- does marriage make people happier or are happy people more likely to get married?

Most studies also failed to distinguish among different kinds of married versus unmarried individuals. For example, single people include those who have been recently divorced or widowed,  who may be suffering the ill effects of those stressful events. Perhaps most surprisingly, early research did not distinguish among married people who were happily versus unhappily  married! As you can imagine, once that is taken into consideration, studies typically find that happily married people generally do better than unhappily married people, with single people often falling in between. Few studies have distinguished between people who are happily versus unhappily single, but it is likely that comparisons of t here subgroups would show similar rankings.

Later studies also took into consideration how long people had been married. Researchers wondered whether any marriage benefit might be short-lived, based on findings that marital satisfaction typically peaks at about 4-7 years of marriage, after which it typically declines and does not recover until after all children have left the home. For example, DePaulo (2014) found that those who are married may be more satisfied with life than the divorced or widowed, but there is little difference between married and always single, especially when comparing those who are recently married with those who have been married for four or more years. It appears that once the initial blush of the honeymoon wears off, those who are wedded are no happier or healthier than those who remained single.

A recent investigation employed the ideal type of study design-- a developmental design-- to test these questions. Huntington and colleagues (2022) used six waves of longitudinal data over 20 months to see whether individuals would actually show improvements in wellbeing or thriving from before to after marriage. As the researchers explain, findings showed that "although some indicators of mental and physical health were improving up until the point of marriage, these indicators then stabilized or began to decline, with women experiencing these declines more than men. Findings are more consistent with selection effects (i.e., better-adjusted individuals are more likely to get married) than social causation effects (i.e., marriage causes improvements in mental and physical health) and suggest that if marriage does have a causal effect on well-being in the short term, it may actually manifest in the lead-up to the wedding" (Huntington et al., 2022, p. 608).

Dating in Midlife

Middle-aged people find dating partners in a variety of old and new fashioned ways, often tapping existing social circles for introductions. Especially effective are activities that include common interests and opportunities to get to know other participants, like volunteering, hobbies, classes, the workplace, and community events (like concerts, plays, folk dancing, and sports events). Moreover, middle aged adults, like all adults, have been increasingly using online dating sites to find potential partners. As might be expected, some of these sites target people of different age groups and sexual orientations.

Researchers have been interested in discovering what middle aged adults are looking for in their dating partners (McWilliams & Barrett, 2014; Menkin et al. 2015). For example, Montenegro (2003) surveyed over 3,000 singles aged 40–69, and almost half of the participants reported their most important reason for dating was companionship, that is, to have someone to talk to or do things with. Additionally, sexual fulfillment was also identified as an important goal for many. Alterovitz and Mendelsohn (2013) reviewed online personal ads for men and women over age 40 and found that romantic activities and sexual interests were mentioned at similar rates among the middle-age and young-old age groups, but less for the old-old age group. Similar patterns of results have been found in more recent studies (Watson & Stelle, 2021).

Marriage in Midlife

Trends seen in early adulthood also show up in relationships during middle adulthood, including declines in the rate of marriage, as more people are cohabitating, more are deciding to stay single, and more are getting married at a later age. As you can see in the Figure 8.16, 48% of adults age 45-54 are married; either in their first marriage (22%) or have remarried (26%). This makes marriage the most common relationship status for middle-aged adults in the United States.

Marital satisfaction tends to increase for many couples in midlife as children are leaving home (Landsford, Antonucci, Akiyama, & Takahashi, 2005). Not all researchers agree with these conclusions. Some argue that people who are unhappy with their marriage are likely to have gotten divorced by now, making the quality of marriages later in life only look more satisfactory (Umberson, Williams, Powers, Chen, & Campbell, 2005).

Divorce during Midlife

Rates of divorce in midlife are relatively low compared to that in early adulthood, but nevertheless on the rise. Most divorces take place within the first 5 to 10 years of the marriage, but a new phenomena, sometimes called "gray divorce" refers to divorce that occurs among adults aged 50 or older. In 1970, only about 8% of divorces involved middle aged adults in longer marriages, likely due to societal pressure, the stigma of divorce, and many women's financial dependence on their husbands. Note that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women (AARP, 2009).

Today, about a third of divorces involve adults 50 and older. Reviews of historical trends indicate that while the divorce rate in the U.S. has been declining overall in recent years, gray divorce rose dramatically starting in about 1990, until by 2010 the rate among those 50 and older had doubled, and among those 65 and older, has tripled. The rate increases for those 50-65 have flattened out since then, but those for adults 65 and older continue to rise.

These trends are likely driven by increased longevity, women's financial independence, and changing views on marital fulfillment.There is less stigma attached to divorce today than in the past. Some older women are out-earning their spouses, and thus may be more financially capable of supporting themselves, especially as most of their children have grown. Finally, given increases in human longevity, the prospect of living many more years or decades with an incompatible spouse may prompt middle-aged and older adults to leave the marriage.

Gottman and Levenson (2000) found that divorces in early adulthood were angrier and more conflictual, with partners blaming each other for the failure of the marriage. In contrast, they found that at midlife divorces tended to be more about having grown apart, or a cooling off of the relationship. A survey by AARP (2009) found that men and women had diverse motivations for getting a divorce. Women reported concerns about the verbal and physical abusiveness of their partner (23%), drug/alcohol abuse (18%), and infidelity (17%). In contrast, men mentioned they had simply fallen out of love (17%), no longer shared interests or values (14%), and infidelity (14%).

Both genders felt their marriage had been over long before the decision to divorce was made, with many of the middle-aged adults in the survey reporting that they stayed together because they were still raising children. Females also indicated that they remained in their marriage due to financial concerns, including the loss of health care (Sohn, 2015). However, only 1 in 4 adults regretted their decision to divorce.

The effects of divorce are varied. Overall, young adults struggle more with the consequences of divorce than do those at midlife, as they have a higher risk of depression or other signs of problems with psychological adjustment (Birditt & Antonucci, 2013). Divorce at midlife is more stressful for women, likely due to the increased financial burdens they often face. In the AARP (2009) survey, 44% of middle-aged women mentioned financial problems after divorcing their spouse; in comparison, only 11% of men reported such difficulties.

However, a number of women who divorce in midlife report that they felt a great release from their day-to-day sense of unhappiness. Hetherington and Kelly (2002) found that among the divorce enhancers, those who had used the experience to better themselves and seek more productive intimate relationships, and the competent loners, those who used their divorce experience to grow emotionally, but who choose to stay single, the overwhelming majority were women.

Dating Post-Divorce

Most divorced adults have dated by one year after filing for divorce (Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Greene, 2011). One in four recent filers report having been in or were currently in a serious relationship, and over half were in a serious relationship by one year after filing for divorce. Not surprisingly, younger adults were more likely to be dating than were middle aged or older adults, no doubt due to their greater interest in marriage and the larger pool of potential partners from which they could to draw. Of course, these relationships will not all end in marriage. Teachman (2008) found that more than two thirds of women under the age of 45 had cohabited with a partner between their first and second marriages.

Dating for adults with children can be more of a challenge. Courtships are shorter in remarriage than in first marriages. When couples are "dating", there is less going out and more time spent in activities at home or with the children. So, the couple gets less time together to focus on their relationship. Anxiety or memories of past relationships can also get in the way. As one Talmudic scholar suggests "when a divorced man marries a divorced woman, four go to bed" (Secombe & Warner, 2004).

Post-divorce parents gatekeep, that is, they regulate the flow of information about their new romantic partner to their children, in an attempt to balance their own needs for romance with consideration regarding the needs and reactions of their children. Anderson et al. (2004) found that almost half (47%) of dating parents gradually introduce their children to their dating partner, giving both their romantic partner and children time to adjust and get to know each other. Many parents who use this approach do so to protect their children from having to keep meeting someone new until it becomes clear that this relationship might be a lasting one.

It might also help if the adult relationship is on firmer ground so it can weather any initial push back from children when it is revealed. Forty percent of people are open and transparent with their children about their new relationships right from the outset. Thirteen percent do not reveal the relationship until it is clear that cohabitation and or remarriage is likely. Anderson and colleagues suggest that practical matters influence which gatekeeping method parents may use. Parents may be able to successfully shield their children from a parade of partners if there is reliable childcare available. The age and temperament of the child, along with concerns about the reaction of the ex-spouse, may also influence when parents reveal their romantic relationships to their children.

Rates of Re-marriage

About two thirds of Americans who have divorced will eventually remarry, and about half of them within the first five years. However, the rate for remarriage, like the rate for marriage, has been declining overall. Remarriage rates also differ by gender and age. Historically, men have been slightly more likely to remarry than women, but recent studies indicate that rates are about equal now, although men may remarry more quickly.

By the same token, younger adults (ages 18-24) are also likely to remarry more quickly, but less likely to remarry overall compared to older adults (ages 55-64) who have a higher rate of remarriage. For example, Brown and Lin (2013) found that the rate of remarriage, like the rate of first marriage, has been dropping more for younger adults than middle aged and older adults, and Livingston (2014) found that as we age, we are more likely to have remarried (see Figure 8.17).

This is not surprising as it takes some time to marry, divorce, and then find someone else we want to marry. However, Livingston found that unlike those younger than 55, those 55 and up are remarrying at a higher rate than in the past. In 2021, 67% of adults 55-64 and 50% of adults 65 and older had remarried, up from 55% and 34% in 1960, respectively. Just like young adults, more middle aged adults are choosing cohabitation as an alternative to remarriage.

Research also suggests that these trends differ by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. White individuals who were previously married are more likely to remarry than are individuals from other racial and ethnic groups (Livingston, 2014). Moreover, the rate of remarriage has increased among White people, while the rate of remarriage has declined for other racial and ethnic groups. This increase is driven by White women, whose rate of remarriage has increased, while the rate for White males has declined.

Success of Re-marriage

Research is mixed as to the happiness and success of remarriages (Santos et al., 2024). While some remarriages are more successful, especially if the divorce motivated the adult to engage in self-improvement and personal growth (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002), a number of divorced adults end up in very similar marriages the second or third time around (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Remarriages, especially when they involved blended families and children, have challenges not found in first marriages and they can create additional stress in marital relationships.

A common complication involves the task of incorporating new kin into the family structure. This often entails a lack of clarity in family roles and expectations. Even determining the appropriate terms for these kin, let alone their roles, can be a challenge. Spouses have to carefully navigate their role when dealing with their partners’ children. All of this may lead to greater dissatisfaction and even resentment among family members. Even though remarried couples tend to have more realistic expectations for marriage, they tend to be less willing to stay in unhappy situations. The rate of divorce among remarriages is higher than among first marriages (Payne, 2015), which can add additional burdens, especially when children are involved.

In a review of studies examining the factors that are associated with better adjustment in remarriage, Santos and colleagues (2024) identified four sets of factors that have been found in the literature to predict marital adjustment (MA):

1. sociodemographic factors (e.g., MA was higher for men, those with higher economic status, and earlier in the relationship);
2. individual factors related to psychological functioning (e.g., MA was higher for those with lower stress, higher social support from family and friends, greater intrinsic motivation for the marriage, and more adaptive coping styles);
3. stepfamily factors related to specific characteristics of the stepfamily (e.g., MA was higher in stepfamilies in which children were better behaved, parents had higher quality relationships with their own and their partner's children, fathers were more involved in childrearing tasks and family decisions, and family cohesion, expressiveness, and harmony were higher); and
4. relational factors related to relational dynamics (e.g., MA was higher for couples high in cooperation, trustworthiness and satisfaction with shared decision making, similar levels of closeness, and positive communication and skills, including discussions about problematic issues).

Children’s Influence on Re-partnering

Do children affect whether a parent remarries? Goldscheider and Sassler (2006) found children residing with their mothers reduces the mothers’ likelihood of marriage, only with respect to marrying a man without children. Further, having children in the home appears to increase single men’s likelihood of marrying a woman with children (Stewart, Manning, & Smock, 2003). There is also some evidence that individuals who participated in a stepfamily while growing up may feel better prepared for stepfamily living as adults. Goldscheider and Kaufman (2006) found that having experienced family divorce as a child is associated with a greater willingness to marry a partner with children.

When children are present after divorce, one of the challenges the adults encounter is how much influence the child will have in the selection  a new partner. Greene, Anderson, Hetherington, Forgatch, and DeGarmo (2003) identified two types of parents. The child-focused parent allows the child’s views, reactions, and needs to influence the repartnering. In contrast, the adult-focused parent expects that their child can adapt and should accommodate to parental wishes.

Anderson and Greene (2011) found that divorced custodial mothers identified as more adult focused tended to be older, more educated, employed, and more likely to have been married longer. Additionally, adult-focused mothers reported having less rapport with their children, spent less time in joint activities with their children, and the child reported lower rapport with their mothers. Lastly, when the child and partner were resisting one another, adult-focused mothers responded more to the concerns of the partner, while the child-focused mothers responded more to the concerns of the child. Understanding the implications of these two differing perspectives can assist parents in their attempts to repartner.

Grandparents

In addition to maintaining relationships with their children and aging parents, many people in middle adulthood take on yet another role, becoming a grandparent (Breheny et al., 2013; Dunifon, 2013; Xu et al., 2022). Studies suggest that warm and emotionally close relationships appear to benefit both grandparents and grandchildren, whether grandchildren are young or as they develop into adolescents and young adults (Duflos et al., 2022; Michałek-Kwiecień, 2024).

The role of grandparent varies around the world. In multigenerational households, grandparents often play a greater role in the day-to-day activities of their grandchildren. While this family dynamic is more common in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, it has been on the rise in the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2010), with the Census Bureau estimating that about 8% or 6 million people in the US lived in multigenerational households (three or more generations under one roof) in 2020. And these numbers increased during and following the pandemic. As can be seen in the map, these households are concentrated in the southern US, and they are especially common among Black, Latino, Asian-American, and immigrant families.

Around the world, even when not cohabitating with their children and grandchildren, grandparents are usually a major source of support for new parents and young families (Duflos et al., 2022; Dunifon, 2013; Michałek-Kwiecień, 2024). They can provide emotional validation, financial assistance, advice, and practical help, while also sharing wisdom and family history and traditions. through shared activities like celebrations, cooking, playing games, attending events, and in general strengthening the entire extended family unit.

The degree of grandparent involvement depends on the proximity of the grandparents’ home to the grandchildren. In developed nations, greater societal mobility means that many grandparents live long distances from their grandchildren. Over the last few decades, technology has brought grandparents and their more distant grandchildren closer together. Children's parents can facilitate this process when they are young, but as children grow older, they can be in touch with their grandparents more independently (Michałek-Kwiecień, 2024). For example, Sorenson and Cooper (2010) found that many of the grandfathers they interviewed would text, email, or video chat with their grandchildren in order to stay in touch.

Cherlin and Furstenberg (1986) described three styles of grandparents.

• Thirty percent of grandparents were remote because they rarely saw their grandchildren. Usually they lived far away from the grandchildren but may also have had a distant relationship. Contact was typically made on special occasions, such as holidays or birthdays.
• Fifty-five percent of grandparents were described as companionate because they did things with their grandchildren but had little authority or control over them. They preferred to spend time with them without interfering in parenting. They were more like friends to their grandchildren. Breheny and colleagues (2013) called this "involvement without interference."
• Fifteen percent of grandparents were described as involved because they took a very active role in their grandchild’s life. The involved grandparent had frequent contact with and authority over the grandchild, and their grandchildren might even live with them. Depending on the circumstances (which sometimes involve problems with the grandchildren's parents, such as illness or addiction), taking over the parenting role for grandchildren can be stressful or it can be rewarding, or both. Grandmothers, more so than grandfathers, played this role.

In contrast, more grandfathers than grandmothers saw their role as family historian and family advisor (Neugarten and Weinstein, 1964). Bengtson (2001) suggests that grandparents adopt different styles with different grandchildren, and over time may change styles as circumstances in the family change.

Today more grandparents are the sole care providers for grandchildren or may step in temporarily at times of crisis. In reviews of the effects of being raised by a custodial grandparent, studies suggest that children do not fare as well in terms of behavioral and mental health and educational outcomes, compared to children raised by their biological parents (Xu et al., 2022). Reviewers point out, however, that these are the wrong comparison groups. Groups need to be equated for whatever situations in the lives of children's parents resulted in their grandparents taking custody. Then studies can compare the actual options available to children in these circumstances, such as staying with impaired parents, foster care, or grandparent care, and see how children's development differs according to the option they experienced (Xu et al., 2022).

In general, many middle aged and older adults find the role of grandparent very satisfying, and savor their intergenerational connections (Duflos et al., 2022). Moreover, grandchildren also value these relationships over their lifetimes. As described, for example in an integrative review of the effects of grandparents on young adults, "Young adult grandchildren declare that they inherited a legacy, learned important skills and values, such as family cohesiveness, and shared wisdom and reciprocity in learning and teaching with their grandparent" (Michałek-Kwiecień, 2024, p. 80-81).

Family Caregivers

A disabled family member-- child, spouse, parent-- is part of the lives of some midlife adults. According to AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving, in 2025 one in four or 63 million Americans were providing unpaid caregiving for family members with disabilities or complex health care needs, up 20 million from 2015.  Of these, more than 90% (or 59 million) were caring for someone over the age of 18. Most caregivers (60%) are women and women put in more hours and on more hands-on tasks (like bathing and dressing) compared to men.

The typical caregiver is a middle aged female currently caring for an elderly female who needs care because of a long-term physical condition. Looking more closely at the age of the recipient of caregiving, the typical caregiver for recipients 18-49 years of age is a female caring mostly for her own child followed by a spouse or partner. When looking at older recipients (50+) who receive care, the typical caregiver is female caring for a parent or spouse. About 40% of caregivers are men, who are most likely to be providing care for a spouse.

Caregiving places an enormous burden on the caregiver, and is one of the most demanding and stressful roles that people can take on. Caregiving for a young or adult child with special needs is associated with poorer global health and more physical symptoms among both fathers and mothers (Seltzer, Floyd, Song, Greenberg, & Hong, 2011). Marital relationships are also a factor in how caregiving affects stress and chronic conditions. Fathers who were caregivers reported more chronic health conditions than non-caregiving fathers, regardless of marital quality. In contrast, caregiving mothers reported higher levels of chronic conditions when they also reported a high level of marital strain (Kang & Marks, 2014).

Age can also make a difference in how one is affected by the stress of caring for a family member with special needs. Using data from the Study of Midlife in the Unites States, Ha, Hong, Seltzer and Greenberg (2008) found that older parents were significantly less likely to experience the negative effects of having a disabled child than younger parents. They concluded that an age-related weakening of the stress occurred over time, as other non-disabled children became independent and left home.  The general trend of greater emotional stability noted at midlife may also have played a role.

Currently about a third of adult children, mainly baby boomers, provide personal or financial care to a parent (Metlife, 2011). Daughters are more likely to provide basic care and sons are more likely to provide financial assistance. Low income parents are more likely to need assistance, and low income adult children are more likely to provide it. Adult children 50+ who work and provide care to a parent are more likely to have fair or poor health when compared to those who do not provide care. Some adult children choose to leave the work force to care for a parent, however, the cost of leaving the work force early  is high. This loss can jeopardize the adult child’s financial future.

Spousal Care

Certainly, caring for a disabled, chronically ill, or dying spouse can be a difficult experience that can negatively affect one’s health. However, research indicates that there can also be positive health effects for caring for a disabled spouse. Beach, Schulz, Yee and Jackson (2000) evaluated health related outcomes in four groups: Spouses with no caregiving needed (Group 1), living with a disabled spouse but not providing care (Group 2), living with a disabled spouse and providing care (Group 3), and helping a disabled spouse while reporting caregiver strain, including elevated levels of emotional and physical stress (Group 4).

Not surprisingly, the participants in Group 4 were the least healthy and reported poorer health, an increase in health-risk behaviors, and an increase in anxiety and depression symptoms. However, those in Group 3 who provided care for a spouse, but did not experience caregiver strain, actually reported less anxiety and depression than Group 2 and were actually similar to those in Group 1. It appears that greater caregiving involvement was related to better mental health as long as the caregiving spouse did not feel overwhelmed. The beneficial effects of helping reported by the participants were consistent with previous research (Krause, Herzog, & Baker, 1992; Schulz et al., 1997).

When caring for a disabled spouse, gender differences have also been found. Female caregivers of a spouse with dementia experienced more burden, had poorer mental and physical health, exhibited increased depressive symptomatology, took part in fewer health-promoting activities, and received fewer hours of help than male caregivers (Gibbons et al., 2014). This study was consistent with previous research findings that women experience more caregiving burden than men, despite similar caregiving situations (Torti, Gwyther, Reed, Friedman, & Schulman, 2004; Yeager, Hyer, Hobbs, & Coyne, 2010). A primary factor contributing to women’s poorer caregiving outcomes is that disabled males tend to be more aggressive than females, especially males with dementia who display more physical and sexual aggression toward their caregivers (Eastley & Wilcock, 1997; Zuidema, de Jonghe, Verhey, & Koopmans, 2009).

Explanations for why women are not offered or do not use more external support, which may alleviate some of the burden, include society's expectations that they should assume caregiving roles (Torti et al, 2004) and women's concerns with the opinions of others (Arai, Sugiura, Miura, Washio, & Kudo, 2000). Female caregivers are certainly at risk for negative consequences of caregiving, and greater support needs to be available to them.

Caregiving takes its toll physically, emotionally, and financially. Family caregivers may face the physical challenges of lifting, dressing, feeding, bathing, and transporting a dying or ill family member. They may worry about whether they are performing all tasks safely and properly, as they receive little training or guidance. Many feel socially isolated. Such caregiving tasks may also interfere with their ability to take care of themselves and meet other family and workplace obligations. Financially, families often face high out of pocket expenses (IOM, 2015).

As can be seen in the table below, most family caregivers are providing care by themselves with little professional intervention, are employed, and have provided care for more than 3 years. In 2025, the annual loss of productivity in the U.S. was estimated at about $34 billion as a result of work absenteeism due to providing this care. As the prevalence of chronic disease rises, the need for family caregivers is growing. Unfortunately, the number of potential family caregivers is declining as the large baby boomer generation enters into late adulthood (Redfoot, Feinberg, & Houser, 2013).

Characteristic	Percentages
No home visits by health care professionals	69%
Caregivers are also employed	72%
Duration of employed workers who have been caregiving for 3+ years	55%
Caregivers for the elderly	67%

Crisis in Caregiving

Many organizations and researchers consider the current state of affairs to constitute a "crisis in caregiving," which will only get worse as people are living longer and the baby boomer generation changes from caregivers to recipients of care. This crisis is apparent in all developed countries with aging populations. In their 2025 report, the National Alliance for caregiving and AARP summarizes the psychological, emotional, health, financial, and workplace costs of caregiving today. They conclude that support systems are not keeping pace with the demand for family care, and recommend multiple action steps to deal with caregiver burden, including:

• More training and resources.
  • Greater access to free or low cost equipment and technology.
  • Increased tax credits to compensate caregivers for their out-of-pocket costs.
• More workplace flexibility and support.
  • Paid leave for caregiving.
• Programs that pay family caregivers, including. home visitors to relieve social isolation.
  • Respite services, so that caregivers can recover from their tasks.

Friendships in Middle Adulthood

Friendships are important at every age, and midlife is no exception (Fiori & Denckla, 2015; Pezirkianidis et al., 2023). Adults of all ages who reported having a confidante or close friend with whom they could share personal feelings and concerns, reported that these friends contributed to a sense of belonging, security, and overall wellbeing (Dunér & Nordstrom, 2007). Having a close friend is a factor in significantly lower odds of psychiatric morbidity including depression and anxiety (Harrison, Barrow, Gask, & Creed, 1999; Newton et al., 2008). The availability of a close friend has also been shown to lessen the adverse effects of stress on health (Kouzis & Eaton, 1998; Hawkley et al., 2008; Tower & Kasl, 1995). Additionally, poor social connectedness in adulthood is associated with a larger risk of premature mortality than cigarette smoking, obesity, and excessive alcohol use (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010).

Friendships are crucial to both men and women (Fiori & Denckla, 2015; Pezirkianidis et al., 2023). For women, friendships and social support networks at midlife contribute significantly to feelings of life satisfaction and well-being (Borzumato-Gainey, Kennedy, McCabe, & Degges-White, 2009). Degges-White and Myers (2006) found that women who have supportive people in their lives experience greater life satisfaction than do those who live a more solitary life. A friendship network or the presence of a confidante have both been found to be important to women's mental health (Baruch & Brooks-Gunn, 1984). Unfortunately, with numerous caretaking responsibilities at home, it may be difficult for women to find time and energy to build and maintain the friendships that would provide an increased sense of life satisfaction (Borzumato-Gainey et al., 2009).

Emslie, Hunt and Lyons (2013) found that for men in midlife, the shared consumption of alcohol was important to creating and maintaining male friends. Drinking with friends was justified as a way for men to talk to each other, provide social support, relax, and improve mood. Although the social support provided when men drink together can be helpful, the role of alcohol in male friendships can lead to health damaging behavior from excessive drinking.

The importance of social relationships begins in early adulthood by laying down a foundation for strong social connectedness and facilitating comfort with intimacy (Erikson, 1959). To determine the impact of the quantity and quality of social relationships in young adulthood on middle adulthood, Carmichael, Reis, and Duberstein (2015) assessed individuals at age 50 on measures of social connection (types of relationships and friendship quality) and psychological outcomes (loneliness, depression, psychological well-being). Results indicated that the quantity of social interactions at age 20 and the quality, but not quantity, of social interaction at age 30 predicted midlife social interactions. Those individuals who had high levels of social information seeking (quantity) at age 20 followed by fewer social relationships but greater emotional closeness (quality), ended up showing the most positive psychosocial adjustment at midlife.

A recent review of studies examining the connection between friendship and wellbeing during adulthood (Pezirkianidis et al., 2023) documented the robust connection between close relationships and social activities with friends, on the one hand, and multiple indicators of psychological, emotional, and physical wellbeing, on the other. In their discussion of future directions, reviewers did point out the need for more research examining how older adults make and keep friendships, and looking at differences in the impact of friendship relationships across different racial/ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups.

 

---

References

American Association of Retired People (AARP). (2009). The divorce experience: A study of divorce at midlife and beyond. Washington, DC: AARP.

American Association of Retired People (AARP) & National Alliance for Caregiving (2025). Caregiving in the US 2025.https://www.aarp.org/pri/topics/ltss/family-caregiving/caregiving-in-the-us-2025/

Ahlborg, T., Misvaer, N., & Möller, A. (2009). Perception of marital quality by parents with small children: A follow-up study when the firstborn is 4 years old. Journal of Family Nursing, 15, 237–263.

Allendorf, K. (2013). Schemas of marital change: From arranged marriages to eloping for love. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 453-469.

Alterovitz, S. S., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2013). Relationship goals of middle-aged, young-old, and old-old Internet daters: An analysis of online personal ads. Journal of Aging Studies, 27, 159–165.

Anderson, E. R., & Greene, S. M. (2011). “My child and I are a package deal”: Balancing adult and child concerns in repartnering after divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 741-750.

Anderson, E.R., Greene, S.M., Walker, L., Malerba, C.A., Forgatch, M.S., & DeGarmo, D.S. (2004). Ready to take a chance again: Transitions into dating among divorced parents. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 40, 61-75.

Aquilino, W. (1991). Predicting parents’ experiences with coresidence adult children. Journal of Family Issues, 12(3), 323-342.

Arai, Y., Sugiura, M., Miura, H., Washio, M., & Kudo, K. (2000). Undue concern for other’s opinions deters caregivers of impaired elderly from using public services in rural Japan. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 15(10), 961-968.

Arul Prabhahar, S., Ramanathan, G., Kalaivani, H., & Raja Jerald Selvakumar, G. (2022). A review on psychological well being of couples during first seven years of marital life. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(2).

Beach, S. R., Schulz, R., Yee, J. L., & Jackson, S. (2000). Negative and positive health effects of caring for a disabled spouse: Longitudinal findings from the caregiver health effects study. Psychology and Aging, 15(2), 259-271.

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96.

Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Families, intergenerational relationships, and kinkeeping in midlife. In N. M. Putney (Author) & M. E. Lachman (Ed.), Handbook of midlife development (pp. 528-579). New York: Wiley.

Benokraitis, N. V. (2005). Marriages and families: Changes, choices, and constraints (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Birditt, K. S., & Antonucci, T.C. (2012). Till death do us part: Contexts and implications of marriage, divorce, and remarriage across adulthood. Research in Human Development, 9(2), 103-105.

Borland, D. C. (1982). A cohort analysis approach to the empty-nest syndrome among three ethnic groups of women: A theoretical position. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 117–129.

Bouchard, G. (2013). How do parents reaction when their children leave home: An integrative review. Journal of Adult Development, 21, 69-79.

Bornstein, M. B. (Ed.) (2019). Handbook of Parenting (vols. 1-4). Routledge.

Breheny, M., Stephens, C., & Spilsbury, L. (2013). Involvement without interference: How grandparents negotiate intergenerational expectations in relationships with grandchildren. Journal of Family Studies, 19(2), 174-184.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, Vol. 6 (pp. 187–251). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. (2013). The gray divorce revolution: Rising divorce among middle aged and older adults 1990-2010. National Center for Family & Marriage Research Working Paper Series. Bowling Green State University. https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and- sciences/NCFMR/ documents/Lin/The-Gray-Divorce.pdf

Brown, S. L., & Lin, I. F. (2022). The graying of divorce: A half century of change. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 77(9), 1710-1720.

Bühler, J. L., Krauss, S., & Orth, U. (2021). Development of relationship satisfaction across the life span: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 1012-1053.

Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What’s happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27(4), 483–498.

Carmichael, C. L., Reis, H. T., & Duberstein, P. R. (2015). In your 20s it’s quantity, in your 30s it’s quality: The prognostic value of social activity across 30 years of adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 30(1), 95-105.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015a). Births and natality. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm

Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in the family, a life apart. New York: Basic Books.

Clark, L. A., Kochanska, G., & Ready, R. (2000). Mothers’ personality and its interaction with child temperament as predictors of parenting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 274–285.

Cohen, P. (2013). Marriage is declining globally. Can you say that? Retrieved from https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/marriage-is-declining/

Cohn, D. (2013). In Canada, most babies now born to women 30 and older. Pew Research Center.

Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373.

Cooke, L. P. (2010). The politics of housework. In J. Treas & S.Drobnic (Eds.), Dividing the domestic: Men, women, and household work in cross-national perspective (pp. 59-78). Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Copen, C.E., Daniels, K., & Mosher, W.D. (2013) First premarital cohabitation in the United States: 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. National health statistics reports; no 64. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Crowley, K., Callanan, M. A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science, 12, 258–261.

Curley, K., Colman, R., Rushforth, A., & Kotera, Y. (2023). Stress reduction interventions for parents of children with autism spectrum disorder: A focused literature review. Youth, 3(1), 246-260.

Demick, J. (1999). Parental development: Problem, theory, method, and practice. In R. L. Mosher, D. J. Youngman, & J. M. Day (Eds.), Human development across the life span: Educational and psychological applications (pp. 177–199). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Dennerstein, L., Dudley, E., & Guthrie, J. (2002). Empty nest or revolving door? A prospective study of women’s quality of life in midlife during the phase of children leaving and re-entering the home. Psychological Medicine, 32, 545–550.

DePaulo, B. (2014). A singles studies perspective on mount marriage. Psychological Inquiry, 25(1), 64-68.

Desai, S., & Andrist, L. (2010). Gender scripts and age at marriage in India. Demography, 47, 667-687.

Desilver, D. (2016). In the U. S. and abroad, more young adults are living with their parents. Retrieved from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/24/in-the-u-s-and-abroad-more-young-adults-are-living-with-their-parents/

Duflos, M., Giraudeau, C., & Ferrand, C. (2022). What is emotional closeness between grandparents and their adolescent grandchildren? A systematic review. Journal of Family Studies, 28(2), 762-784.

Dunifon, R. (2013). The influence of grandparents on the lives of children and adolescents. Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 55-60.

Dye, J. L. (2010). Fertility of American women: 2008. Current Population Reports. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-563.pdf.

Eastley, R., & Wilcock, G. K. (1997). Prevalence and correlates of aggressive behaviors occurring in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 484-487.

Eddaoudi, S., Zouine, M., Mehdaoui, A., Khabbache, K., El-Boussaadni, Y., & Oulmaati, A. (2023). Challenges and concerns of parents with children with Down syndrome. Archives of Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7(1), 015-017.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I.K., Murphy, B.C., & Reiser, M. (1999). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Development, 70, 513-534.

Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., Spinrad, T., Gershoff, E., Valiente, C., Losoya, S. L., Zhou, Q., Cumberland, A., Liew, J., Reiser, M., & Maxon, E. (2008). Understanding parent-adolescent conflict discussions: Concurrent and across-time prediction from youths’ dispositions and parenting. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 73, (Serial No. 290, No. 2), 1-160.

Emslie, C., Hunt, K., & Lyons, A. (2013. The role of alcohol in forging and maintaining friendships amongst Scottish men in midlife. Health Psychology, 32(10, 33-41.

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton & Company.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton & Company.

Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton & Company.

Evans, V. L., Ferrier, P. J., Pugh, S. M., Bohecker, L., & Edwards, N. N. (2022). Coresidence is not a failure to launch or boomerang children. The Family Journal, 30(3), 459-465.

Fehr, B. (2008). Friendship formation. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of Relationship Initiation (pp. 29–54). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Fiori, K. L., & Denckla, C. A. (2015). Friendship and happiness among middle-aged adults. Friendship and happiness: Across the life-span and cultures, 137-154.

Garcia Coll, C. G., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Garcia, H. V., & McAdoo, H. P. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child development, 67(5), 1891-1914.

Gibbons, C., Creese, J., Tran, M., Brazil, K., Chambers, L., Weaver, B., & Bedard, M. (2014). The psychological and health consequences of caring for a spouse with dementia: A critical comparison of husbands and wives. Journal of Women & Aging, 26, 3-21.

Goldscheider, F., & Kaufman, G. (2006). Willingness to stepparent: Attitudes about partners who already have children. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1415 – 1436.

Goldscheider, F., & Sassler, S. (2006). Creating stepfamilies: Integrating children into the study of union formation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 275 – 291.

Gonzales, N. A., Coxe, S., Roosa, M. W., White, R. M. B., Knight, G. P., Zeiders, K. H., & Saenz, D. (2011). Economic hardship, neighborhood context, and parenting: Prospective effects on Mexican-American adolescent’s mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 98–113.

Gorchoff, S. M., John, O. P., & Helson, R. (2008). Contextualizing change in marital satisfaction during middle age. Psychological Science, 19, 1194–1200.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 737-745.

Greene, S. M., Anderson, E. R., Hetherington, E., Forgtch, M. S., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2003). Risk and resilience after divorce. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes: Growing diversity and complexity (3rd ed., pp. 96-120). New York: Guilford Press.

Greenfield, E. A., & Marks, N. F. (2006). Linked lives: Adult children’s problems and their parents’ psychological and relational well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 442-454.

Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Cohen, L. (1996). Household work and the development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 32, 999–1007.

Gurrentz, B. (2018). For young adults, cohabitation is up, and marriage is down. US. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/11/cohabitaiton-is-up-marriage-is-down-for-young-adults.html.

Ha, J., Hong, J., Seltzer, M. M., & Greenberg, J. S. (2008). Age and gender differences in the well-being of midlife and aging parents with children with mental health or developmental problems: Report of a national study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49, 301-316.

Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., & Ventura, S. J. (2011). Births: Preliminary data for 2010. National Vital Statistics Reports, 60(2). Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Hawkley, L. C., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Masi, C. M., Thisted, R. A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). From social structural factors to perceptions of relationship quality and loneliness: The Chicago health, aging, and marital status transitions and health outcomes social relations study. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, 375–384.

Hayslip Jr., B., Henderson, C. E., & Shore, R. J. (2003). The Structure of Grandparental Role Meaning. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 1-13.

Hetherington, E. M. & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York, NY: Norton.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

Huntington, C., Stanley, S. M., Doss, B. D., & Rhoades, G. K. (2022). Happy, healthy, and wedded? How the transition to marriage affects mental and physical health. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(4), 608–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000913

Hyde, J. S., Else-Quest, N. M., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2004). Children’s temperament and behavior problems predict their employed mothers’ work functioning. Child Development, 75, 580–594.

Imrie, S., & Golombok, S. (2020). Impact of new family forms on parenting and child development. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 2(1), 295-316.

Institute of Medicine. (2015). Dying in America: Improving quality and honoring individual preferences near end of life. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Jensen, A. C., & Jorgensen-Wells, M. A. (2025). Parents favor daughters: A meta-analysis of gender and other predictors of parental differential treatment. Psychological Bulletin, 151(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000458

Jugovac, S., O’Kearney, R., Hawes, D. J., & Pasalich, D. S. (2022). Attachment-and emotion-focused parenting interventions for child and adolescent externalizing and internalizing behaviors: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 25(4), 754-773.

Kang, S. W., & Marks, N. F. (2014). Parental caregiving for a child with special needs, marital strain, and physical health: Evidence from National Survey of Midlife in the U.S. 2005. Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research, 8A, 183-209.

Kerr, D. C. R., Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., & Owen, L. D. (2009). A prospective three generational study of fathers’ constructive parenting: Influences from family of origin, adolescent adjustment, and offspring temperament. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1257–1275.

Kiff, C. J., Lengua, L. J., & Zalewski, M. (2011). Nature and nurturing: Parenting in the context of child temperament. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 251–301.

King, V., & Elder Jr, G. H. (1997). The legacy of grandparenting: Childhood experiences with grandparents and current involvement with grandchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 848-859.

Koster, T., Poortman, A. R., van der Lippe, T., & Kleingeld, P. (2022). Fairness perceptions of the division of household labor: Housework and childcare. Journal of Family Issues, 43(3), 679-702.

Krause, N. A., Herzog, R., & Baker, E. (1992). Providing support to others and well-being in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 47, P300-311.

Lachman, M. E. (2004). Development in midlife. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 305-331.

Lansford, J. E. (2022). Annual research review: Cross‐cultural similarities and differences in parenting. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(4), 466-479.

Landsford, J. E., Antonucci, T.C., Akiyama, H., & Takahashi, K. (2005). A quantitative and qualitative approach to social relationships and well-being in the United States and Japan. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 1-22.

Lee, J. D., Terol, A. K., Yoon, C. D., & Meadan, H. (2024). Parent-to-parent support among parents of children with autism: A review of the literature. Autism, 28(2), 263-275.

Lesthaeghe, R. J., & Surkyn, J. (1988). Cultural dynamics and economic theories of fertility change. Population and Development Review 14(1), 1–45.

Liahaugen Flensburg, O., Richert, T., & Väfors Fritz, M. (2023). Parents of adult children with drug addiction dealing with shame and courtesy stigma. Drugs: education, prevention and policy, 30(6), 563-572.

Livingston, G. (2014). Four in ten couples are saying I do again. In Chapter 3. The differing demographic profiles of first-time marries, remarried and divorced adults. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/11/14/chapter-3-the-differing-demographic-profiles-of-first-time-married-remarried-and-divorced-adults/

Lucas, R. E. & Donnellan, A. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847–861

Martinez, G., Daniels, K., & Chandra, A. (2012). Fertility of men and women aged 15-44 years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006-2010. National Health Statistics Reports, 51(April). Hyattsville, MD: U.S., Department of Health and Human Services.

McHale, J. P., & Sirotkin, Y. S. (2019). Coparenting in diverse family systems. In M. B. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 137-166). Routledge.

McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expectations and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35(3), 411-436.

Menkin, J. A., Robles, T. F., Wiley, J. F., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2015). Online dating across the life span: Users’ relationship goals. Psychology and Aging, 30(4), 987–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039722

Metlife. (2011). Metlife study of caregiving costs to working caregivers: Double jeopardy for baby boomers caring for their parents. Retrieved from http://www.caregiving.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/mmi-caregiving-costs-working-caregivers.pdf

Michałek-Kwiecień, J. (2024). Grandparent-grandchild relationships and the psychological and health outcomes of early adult grandchildren: An integrative review. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 22(1), 73-89.

Mitchell, B. A., & Lovegreen, L. D. (2009). The empty nest syndrome in midlife families: A multimethod exploration of parental gender differences and cultural dynamics. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1651–1670.

Modak, A., Ronghe, V., Gomase, K. P., Mahakalkar, M. G., & Taksande, V. (2023). A comprehensive review of motherhood and mental health: Postpartum mood disorders in focus. Cureus, 15(9), e46209.

Montenegro, X. P. (2003). Lifestyles, dating, and romance: A study of midlife singles. Washington, DC: AARP.

National Alliance for Caregiving. (2015). Caregiving in the U.S. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.caregiving.org/caregiving2015.

Neugarten, B. L., & Weinstein, K. K. (1964). The changing American grandparent. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 26, 199–204.

Newton, T., Buckley, A., Zurlage, M., Mitchell, C., Shaw, A., & Woodruff-Borden, J. (2008). Lack of a close confidant: Prevalence and correlates in a medically underserved primary care sample. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13, 185–192.

Nomaguchi, K., & Milkie, M. A. (2020). Parenthood and well‐being: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 198-223.

Pan, Y., Chen, R., & Yang, D. (2022). The relationship between filial piety and caregiver burden among adult children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Geriatric Nursing, 43, 113-123.

Park, C., & Mendoza, A. N. (2022). A scoping review of older empty nesters’ mental health and its contributors. Mental Health Review Journal, 27(2), 199-211.

Parker, K. & Patten, E. (2013). The sandwich generation: Rising financial burdens for middle-aged Americans. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/01/30/the-sandwich-generation/

Pastor-Cerezuela, G., Fernández-Andrés, M. I., Pérez-Molina, D., & Tijeras-Iborra, A. (2021). Parental stress and resilience in autism spectrum disorder and Down syndrome. Journal of Family Issues, 42(1), 3-26.

Payne, K. K. (2015). The remarriage rate: Geographic variation, 2013. National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from http://bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/payne-remarriage-rate-fp-15-08.html

Pew Research Center. (2010). The return of the multi-generational family household. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/18/the-return-of-the-multi-generational-family-household/

Pew Research Center. (2010a). How the great recession has changed life in America. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/30/how-the-great-recession-has-changed-life-in-america/

Pew Research Center. (2010b). Section 5: Generations and the great recession. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/section-5-generations-and-the-great-recession/

Pew Research Center. (2015). Caring for aging parents. Family support in graying societies. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/21/4-caring-for-aging-parents/

Pew Research Center. (2019). Same-sex marriage around the world. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/gay-marriage-around-the-world/

Pezirkianidis, C., Galanaki, E., Raftopoulou, G., Moraitou, D., & Stalikas, A. (2023). Adult friendship and wellbeing: A systematic review with practical implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1059057.

Pillemer, K., & Suitor, J. J. (1991). "Will I ever escape my child's problems?" Effects of adult children's problems on elderly parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 585-594.

Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J., Dekovic, M., Reijntjes, A. H., & Belsky, J. (2009). The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: A meta-review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 351–362.

Proulx, C. M., Helms, H. M., & Buehler, C. (2007). Marital Quality and Personal Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 576–593

Royena, P. M. (2024). Empty nest syndrome: Loneliness and social support among middle-aged parents. Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2(9), 121-136.

Saginak, K. A., & Saginak, M. A. (2005). Balancing work and family: Equity, gender, and marital satisfaction. Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 162-166.

Sandberg-Thoma, S. E., Synder, A. R., & Jang, B. J. (2015). Exiting and returning to the parental home for boomerang kids. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 806-818.

Santos, C., E. Costa, M., Pedro, J., J. Higginbotham, B., & V. Martins, M. (2024). Marital adjustment in remarriage: A systematic review. Family Transitions, 65(4), 291-322.

Sapiets, S. J., Totsika, V., & Hastings, R. P. (2021). Factors influencing access to early intervention for families of children with developmental disabilities: A narrative review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34(3), 695-711.

Schulz, R., Newsom, J., Mittelmark, M., Burton, L., Hirsch, C., & Jackson, S. (1997). Health effects of caregiving: The caregiver health effects study. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 110-116.

Seager, E., Sampson, S., Sin, J., Pagnamenta, E., & Stojanovik, V. (2022). A systematic review of speech, language and communication interventions for children with Down syndrome from 0 to 6 years. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 57(2), 441-463.

Seccombe, K., & Warner, R. L. (2004). Marriages and families: Relationships in social context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Seiter, G. M., Lopez, M. J., & Slavov, S. N. (2025). Boomerang children and parental retirement outcomes. Review of Economics of the Household, 23(1), 31-69.

Seltzer, M. M., Floyd, F., Song, J., Greenberg, J., & Hong, J. (2011). Midlife and aging parents of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Impacts of lifelong parenting. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 116, 479-499.

Stewart, S. D., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2003). Union formation among men in the US: Does having prior children matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 90 – 104.

Sullivan, O. (2021). The gender division of housework and child care. In Research Handbook on the Sociology of the Family (pp. 342-354). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R. K., & Niwa, E. Y. (2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17, 183–209.

Teachman, J. (2008). Complex life course patterns and the risk of divorce in second marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 294 – 305.

Thornton, A. (2005). Reading history sideways: The fallacy and enduring impact of the developmental paradigm on family life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Torti, F. M., Gwyther, L. P., Reed, S. D., Friedman, J. Y., & Schulman, K. A. (2004). A multinational review of recent trends and reports in dementia caregiver burden. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders, 18(2), 99-109.

Twamley, K., & Faircloth, C. (2024). Understanding ‘gender equality’: First-time parent couples’ practices and perspectives on working and caring post-parenthood. Sociological Research Online, 29(3), 694-711.

Umberson, D., Williams, K., Powers, D., Chen, M., & Campbell, A. (2005). As good as it gets? A life course perspective on marital quality. Social Forces, 81, 493-511.

Wang, W., & Parker, K. (2014). Record share of Americans have never married: As values, economics and gender patterns change. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/09/2014-09-24_Never-Married-Americans.pdf

Wang, W., & Taylor, P. (2011). For Millennials, parenthood trumps marriage. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Watson, W., & Stelle, C. (2021). Love in cyberspace: Self presentation and partner seeking in online dating advertisements of older adults. Journal of Family Issues, 42(10), 2438-2463.

Williams, L., Kabamalan, M., & Ogena, N. (2007). Cohabitation in the Philippines: Attitudes and behaviors among young women and men. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(5), 1244–1256.

Witt, J. (2009). SOC. New York: McGraw Hill.

Wu, Z., Sun, L., Sun, Y., Zhang, X., Tao, F., & Cui, G. (2010). Correlation between loneliness and social relationship among empty nest elderly in Anhui rural area, China. Aging and Mental Health, 14, 108–112.

Xu, Y., Wang, Y., McCarthy, L. P., Harrison, T., & Doherty, H. (2022). Mental/behavioural health and educational outcomes of grandchildren raised by custodial grandparents: A mixed methods systematic review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(6), 2096-2127.

Yaffe, Y. (2023). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices. Current psychology, 42(19), 16011-16024.

Yeager, C. A., Hyer, L. A., Hobbs, B., & Coyne, A. C., (2010). Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia: The complex relationship between diagnosis and caregiver burden. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(6), 376-384.

Yu, J., & Xie, Y. (2015). Cohabitation in China: Trends and determinants. Population & Development Review, 41 (4), 607-628.

Zuidema, S. U., de Jonghe, J. F., Verhey, F. R., & Koopman, R. T. (2009). Predictors of neuropsychiatric symptoms in nursing home patients: Influence of gender and dementia severity. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24(10), 1079-1086.