A Tracking Study of Intergenerational Conflict in Chinese Rural Elderly Families

Abstract

Based on the longitudinal survey data from the "Living Welfare Status of Rural Elderly in Anhui Province" conducted in three phases between 2009 and 2015, this study systematically examines the dynamic impact of changes in rural family structures on intergenerational conflict. The findings are as follows:Differentiated Effects of Family Structure Transitions: Transitions to single-person households, couple-only nuclear households, two-generation stem households, or persistently couple-only nuclear households significantly reduce the probability of intergenerational conflict compared to other types. Conversely, transitioning to a three-generation stem household notably increases the risk of such conflicts. Nonlinear Temporal Dynamics: Transitions to couple-only nuclear and two-generation stem households exhibit an inverted U-shaped trajectory in intergenerational conflict propensity, indicating age-stratified impacts mediated by power renegotiations and cultural role adaptation. Tripartite Conflict Formation Mechanism: Intergenerational conflicts primarily arise from: Axiological dissonance rooted in generational differences in socialization contexts and cultural capital accumulation; Structural ruptures due to resource allocation asymmetries within families; Relational simplification through nuclearization, which reduces resource competition and coercive interdependencies. This study provides theoretical insights into optimizing intergenerational relationships in rural families and enhancing the quality of elderly care by elucidating the relationship between family structure transformation and intergenerational conflict.

Keywords:

Family Structure

Rural Elderly༛Intergenerational Conflict༛Intergenerational support

1.Introduction

The data shows that since the end of 2001, when the proportion of the elderly population in China reached 7.1% and the country officially stepped into an aging society, the size of the elderly population has continued to rise. In just 23 years (by the end of 2024), the proportion of this aging group has surged to 15.6%⁽¹⁾.While increased longevity reflects advancements in public health, it simultaneously precipitates structural transformations in family systems and heightened complexity in intergenerational dynamics. Traditional extended family configurations are progressively fragmenting, giving way to diversified household typologies—including nuclear, empty-nest, and rural-urban migratory co-residence arrangements⁽²⁾.These shifts necessitate urgent scholarly attention to intergenerational cohesion mechanisms and conflict mitigation strategies within evolving familial contexts.Intergenerational conflicts in aging societies extend beyond conventional generational gaps, manifesting as value incongruence (e.g,filial piety norms vs.individualism), lifestyle dissonance (e.g,cohabitation preferences), and resource allocation disputes (e.g,eldercare responsibilities)^(3–5).Such tensions are exacerbated by paradoxical narratives framing intergenerational relations as either "youth exploitation of elders" or "elderly over-reliance on youth," which may erode familial solidarity⁽⁶⁾.Crucially, structural determinants—particularly the rise of spatially dispersed households and intergenerational co-residence driven by rural-urban migration—remain understudied as catalysts for conflict escalation⁽⁸⁾.

Existing scholarship predominantly examines intergenerational relationships through static theoretical lenses, focusing on unidirectional influence models (e.g,parental authority transmission) or specific interaction modalities such as intergenerational caregiving and marital value discrepancies^(7–11).However, three critical gaps persist:(1) insufficient longitudinal analysis of family structure transition trajectories and their dynamic impacts on conflict patterns;(2) limited empirical investigation into rural Chinese contexts, where rapid aging intersects with entrenched cultural norms and economic constraints;(3) inadequate integration of power-resource frameworks to decode intergenerational bargaining processes.This study fills these gaps by exploring how changes in family structure over time modulate intergenerational conflict intensity in rural aging populations, offering policy - relevant insights for maintaining family harmony in societies undergoing demographic transitions.

2. Literature review

Intergenerational conflict, conceptualized as a critical dimension of intergenerational dynamics⁽¹²⁾, encapsulates tensions arising from divergent values, resource distribution asymmetries, and role expectations across generations within familial systems. While anthropologist Margaret Mead's seminal work framed it as a sociocultural artifact reflecting disjunctures in intergenerational transmission during periods of rapid modernization⁽¹³⁾, contemporary scholarship remains divided over its conceptual boundaries due to contextual heterogeneity and multidimensional conflict drivers.Current theoretical bifurcation distinguishes two analytical lenses: Macro-structural perspectives posit intergenerational conflict as an inevitable byproduct of generational cohort differentiation⁽¹⁴⁾. These macro-level analyses emphasize how epochal shifts in political economies (e.g., post-reform China's market transition) and cultural paradigms (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism) engender intergenerational cleavages through differential socialization processes.Micro-relational perspectives, conversely, focus on intra-familial negotiation mechanisms, particularly in resource-dependent interactions. Grounded in exchange theory⁽¹⁵⁾, this strand highlights how unequal distribution of material capital (e.g., property inheritance) and affective resources (e.g., caregiving reciprocity) generates latent tensions, even within ostensibly harmonious relationships. Empirical studies under this paradigm frequently operationalize conflict through measurable proxies:This study, aiming to analyze the impact of family structure changes on intergenerational conflict among rural elderly populations, adopts Micro-relational perspectives of intergenerational conflict.

In order to delve into the enduring impact of rural family structure on intergenerational conflict, this paper conducts a literature review from three perspectives: family structure, intergenerational conflict, and the relationship between family structure and intergenerational relations.

Family structure, a foundational social institution in China, has undergone profound structural transformations in recent decades. Post-reform socioeconomic restructuring has catalyzed a paradigm shift from traditional multigenerational households to diverse typologies, including childless, empty-nest, grandparent-headed, DINK, single-person, and single-parent configurations⁽¹⁶⁾. Accelerated urbanization, economic modernization, and educational expansion have precipitated the decline of extended family systems, paralleled by the proliferation of nuclear and small-scale households⁽¹⁷⁾. Demographically, while nuclear families remain numerically dominant, their proportional growth stagnates despite overall household size reduction. Concurrently, lineal family units exhibit relative stability with marginal attrition, whereas single-person households demonstrate marked expansion. Current stratification reveals a tripartite pattern: nuclear households prevailing, supplemented by single-person and residual extended units⁽¹⁸⁾. Demographic projections anticipate a rise in one-to-two-person households, contraction of quintuple-plus member units, and sustained prevalence of three-to-four-person families⁽¹⁹⁾. Longitudinal analyses corroborate that post-reform familial miniaturization and intergenerational reconfiguration persist, with nuclear structures maintaining hegemony in China's evolving domestic landscape⁽²⁰⁾. These structural shifts not only mirror the miniaturization trajectory but also underscore the dynamic reconfiguration of kinship roles and intergenerational ties.

Intergenerational conflict scholarship employs multifocal theoretical lenses, predominantly deconstructing familial tensions through indirect observational proxies. Dominant explanatory frameworks coalesce around dual axes: axiological dissonance and resource allocation paradoxes. 1.Marital Value Dichotomies. Generational cleavages in matrimonial ideologies function as structural catalysts for conflict escalation⁽¹⁰⁾. Empirical evidence identifies marital pressures as byproducts of temporal misalignment between youth life-course trajectories and sociocultural transformations, epitomizing clashes between entrenched collectivist marital norms and emergent individualistic paradigms⁽²¹⁾. Gendered marital market disparities in rural contexts, coupled with heterogeneous marital strategies, engender familial psychological strain, amplifying intergenerational friction. Notably, filial marital transitions disproportionately affect maternal health outcomes, underscoring gendered vulnerability in intergenerational health dynamics⁽²²⁾. 2.Fertility Norm Transitions. Intergenerational reconfiguration of reproductive ideologies spawns novel conflict typologies. Post-1990s cohorts increasingly embrace self-actualization-oriented fertility schemas, diverging radically from pronatalist traditions⁽²³⁾. This cognitive schism manifests temporally (delayed childbearing) and qualitatively (preferential shifts from offspring quantity to cultivated capital)⁽²⁴⁾. Crucially, longitudinal studies reveal a positive association between progeny volume—particularly daughters—and parental longevity, complicating simplistic conflict narratives⁽²⁵⁾.3.Intergenerational Resource Contention. Resource competition theory elucidates conflict genesis through asymmetric capital distribution within kinship networks. Allocation disputes corrode relational quality, potentially triggering familial fragmentation⁽²⁶⁾. Such tensions peak in grandparent-headed households, where elders' ethical-altruistic resource allocation toward grandchildren embodies intergenerational duty transmission yet simultaneously fuels discord⁽²⁷⁾. Furthermore, parental favoritism toward specific offspring exacerbates sibling rivalry, as perceived equity violations destabilize familial cohesion⁽²⁸⁾.Collectively, these strands illuminate the dialectic between cultural metamorphosis, resource bargaining, and relational recalibration, foregrounding the fluidity of intergenerational negotiations within evolving societal matrices.

The impact mechanisms of family structure transformations on elderly well-being and intergenerational responsibility reconfiguration remain academically contested. Current scholarship reveals a theoretical bifurcation regarding the dualistic effects of intergenerational residential reorganization through modified familial interaction paradigms. Proponents of the intergenerational solidarity framework posit that co-residence configurations yield multidimensional benefits through established support systems: (1) enhanced accessibility to daily care provision^(29–30); (2) sustained emotional reciprocity mechanisms⁽²⁹⁾; (3) behavioral regulation efficacy against health-compromising practices (e.g., smoking, alcohol abuse)⁽³⁰⁾. Notably, the frequency of intergenerational interactions demonstrates significant positive correlations with cognitive maintenance in older adults, particularly in tri-generational households where optimized communication efficiency delays cognitive decline^(31–32). Grandparenting practices further reinforce familial functionality by consolidating elderly authority and strengthening collective risk resilience⁽³³⁾. Conversely, the conflict paradigm emphasizes risk amplification under specific cohabitation patterns. Multigenerational households exhibit heightened susceptibility to intergenerational tensions driven by resource allocation asymmetries^(34–35), with this dynamic equilibrium moderated by two critical factors: reciprocity in intergenerational exchanges and elderly vulnerability levels⁽³⁵⁾. Guo et al.⁽³⁶⁾ identified paradoxical outcomes in migrant worker families: while expanded physical distances constrain instrumental support (e.g., hands-on care), economic transfers and emotional bonds demonstrate greater resilience. Spatial separation may paradoxically reduce depressive risks and enhance cognitive preservation by mitigating co-residence conflicts⁽³⁷⁾. Empirical evidence further reveals differential parental impacts, with two-generation cohabitation accelerating paternal cognitive deterioration, whereas tri-generational arrangements yield gendered parental outcomes⁽³⁸⁾. Such cognitive alterations not only affect elderly quality of life but also trigger caregiving responsibility renegotiations among offspring, potentially inducing secondary family restructuring⁽³⁹⁾.

Existing longitudinal studies on family structure and intergenerational conflict are limited, particularly concerning empirical research on the causal relationship between rural elderly family structures and intergenerational conflict in China. This study aims to address this gap by utilizing tracking data to explore the following research questions:

1. What is the current state of family structures and intergenerational conflicts among rural elderly families?

2. Does the evolution of family structures significantly influence the development of intergenerational conflicts?

3. If so, how do these influences manifest, and what are their underlying causes?

3 Methods

3.1 Data sources

This study utilizes data from the nine-wave longitudinal survey on the "Living Welfare Conditions of Rural Elderly in Anhui Province," conducted by the Institute of Population and Development Studies at Xi'an Jiaotong University in the Chaohu area of Anhui Province from 2001 to 2021. The survey was conducted in 72 randomly selected villages in Chaohu, Anhui, and aims to understand the individual characteristics, intergenerational relationships, family characteristics, and overall living welfare conditions of rural elderly individuals. In the baseline year of 2001, a total of 1,800 elderly individuals were sampled. Throughout the follow-up surveys, issues such as loss to follow-up, refusal to participate, migration, and mortality were encountered. As a result, new samples were added in each wave to ensure a sufficient sample size, with new samples being considered as new tracking subjects in the subsequent wave. Since the key variable of this study—intergenerational conflict—was introduced as a survey item in 2009 and discontinued in 2015, this study focuses on the data from the 2009, 2012, and 2015 waves. Additionally, to investigate the changes in family structure between adjacent waves, the selected samples must have participated in two consecutive surveys, thereby excluding samples with missing data for the primary variables. The remaining sample sizes included in the model for 2009, 2012, and 2015 were 936, 936, and 733, respectively.

3.2 Variable selection

3.2.1 Dependent variables

The dependent variable in this study is intergenerational conflict within families. Since the survey sample consists of rural elderly individuals, intergenerational conflict primarily refers to the conflicts that exist between elderly parents and their children. Therefore, this study employs negative emotions in rural elderly families as the measurement for intergenerational conflict⁽⁴⁰⁾. The specific questions are as follows:

1. In the past few years, have you had any arguments with this child?

2. In the past few years, do you feel that this child has made too many demands on you? (For example, asking you for money, requesting help with chores, caring for children, etc.)

3. In the past few years, have you felt that this child has had objections or opinions about you?

Responses are measured on a four-point scale: "never," "rarely," "sometimes," and "often." The scores from these questions are summed to obtain the intergenerational conflict score for each child in relation to the elderly parent; a higher score indicates more severe intergenerational conflict. Considering that the number of children varies among different samples, the total score for family intergenerational conflict is averaged to reflect the level of intergenerational conflict within the family.

3.2.2 Independent variables

The independent variable in this study is family structure and its changes. Family structure was classified according to Wang Yuesheng's typology⁽⁴¹⁾, which categorizes households into five primary types: nuclear, stem, composite, single-person, and other families, with secondary classifications based on intergenerational relationships. Specifically:Nuclear families were subdivided into:Couple-only nuclear、Standard nuclear (parents with unmarried children)、Deficient nuclear (single parent with children)、Extended nuclear (parents with married children). Stem families included:Two-generation stem (elderly with one married child)、Three-generation stem、Four-generation stem、Skipped-generation stem (grandparents with grandchildren)、Composite families comprised two-generation and three-generation configurations. Due to data constraints, extended nuclear, composite, and four-generation stem families were excluded from analysis.

Family structure was determined through three survey items:Residential arrangement:"Do you currently live alone or with others? 1) Alone; 2) With others." Co-resident composition (multiple responses):"Who lives with you? 1) Spouse; 2) Mother; 3) Father; 4) Mother-in-law; 5) Father-in-law; 6) Brothers; 7) Sisters; 8) Other relatives; 9) Non-relatives; 10) Children < 16; 11) Children ≥ 16; 12) Daughter-in-law; 13) Son-in-law; 14) Grandchildren." Children's marital status:"What is this child's marital status? 1) Married and cohabiting; 2) Divorced/separated; 3) Separated due to migration; 4) Widowed; 5) Never married." Given the rural elderly focus and over 80 potential structural transitions, secondary family types representing < 5% of the sample (statistically insignificant) were excluded.

The independent variables were operationalized as follows:Transition to/Persistently Single-Person Household、Transition to/Persistently Couple-Only Nuclear Household、Transition to/Persistently Two-Generation Stem Household、Transition to/Persistently Three-Generation Stem Household、Transition to/Persistently Skipped-Generation Stem Household. Definition of Structural Transitions:Household structure transitions were defined through binary comparisons across two survey waves. For instance, a transition to a Single-Person Household was coded if:Baseline: Single-Person Household = 0 (non-single-person configuration). Follow-up: Single-Person Household = 1.

3.2.3 Control variables

The control variables include the socio-economic characteristics of the elderly population and intergenerational support. Specifically, these variables comprise: gender of the elderly (1 = male, 0 = female), age, marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married), educational level (1 = no formal education, 2 = primary school, 3 = middle school, 4 = high school, 5 = vocational school or technical school, 6 = associate degree, 7 = bachelor's degree or higher), independent economic income, number of chronic diseases (whether the individual suffers from any of 12 specified diseases, counted cumulatively), number of sons, and number of daughters (≥ 0). Intergenerational support is defined in three dimensions: upward mobility, downward mobility, and bidirectional mobility. Specific assignments are detailed in Table 1⁽⁴²⁾.

Table 1

Definition and Assignments of Intergenerational Support
	Variables	Definition	Assignment
Upward mobility	Receiving daily care	The assistance provided by adult children (including their spouses) to the elderly in household chores and daily activities is measured on a four-point scale: "1 = rarely, 2 = a few times a month, 3 = at least once a week, 4 = daily." The cumulative frequency of assistance indicates that a higher total frequency reflects a higher level of daily care received by the elderly.	≥ 0
Upward mobility	Receiving financial support	"The total value of money, food, or gifts provided by adult children to the elderly in the past 12 months?" (1 = below 50 CNY, 2 = 50–99 CNY, 3 = 100–199 CNY, 4 = 200–499 CNY, 5 = 500–999 CNY, 6 = 1000–2999 CNY, 7 = 3000–4999 CNY, 8 = 5000–9999 CNY, 9 = above 10000 CNY). The midpoint of each range and the actual amounts are summed and included in the model.	≥ 0
Downward mobility	Provide daily care.	The assistance that elderly individuals provide to their adult children (including their spouses) with household chores and daily living is measured using a four-point scale: "1 = rarely, 2 = a few times a month, 3 = at least once a week, 4 = daily." The frequencies for each care recipient are summed, with a higher cumulative frequency indicating a higher level of daily care provided by the elderly.	≥ 0
Downward mobility	Provide financial support.	"The total value of money, food, or gifts given by the elderly to their adult children in the past 12 months?" (1 = under 50 yuan, 2 = 50–99 yuan, 3 = 100–199 yuan, 4 = 200–499 yuan, 5 = 500–999 yuan, 6 = 1000–2999 yuan, 7 = 3000–4999 yuan, 8 = 5000–9999 yuan, 9 = over 10000 yuan). The midpoint of each interval is calculated and summed for those with actual amounts, which is then included in the model.	≥ 0
Bidirectional flow.	Emotional support.	Three questions were asked regarding the emotional closeness between the elderly and their adult children, including their interaction and willingness to listen to personal matters. A three-point scale was used: "1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often." The scores were summed to obtain an intimacy score for each elderly person with their children, ranging from 3 to 9. The average emotional support score across all children was calculated, with higher scores indicating a greater level of emotional support.	≥ 0

3.2.4 Empirical model

This study employs the individual growth model as the ideal method for analyzing observational data of elderly individuals at different survey time points, primarily based on three key advantages: First, it effectively handles the nested structure of the data, allowing for the accurate capture of patterns that change over time within individuals and the heterogeneity among individuals. Second, the complex yet precise estimation methods of the multilevel linear model enhance the overall accuracy of the estimates. Finally, this model flexibly addresses issues of sample imbalance and unequal time intervals in tracking data, thereby improving the applicability and accuracy of the analytical results. The specific model is as follows:

Family Structure Model:

Level 1 Model:

Level 2 Model:

Family Structure Change Model:

Level 1 Model:

Level 2 Model:

In the Level 1 model, Eqs. (1) and (7) define:

$\:{\text{Y}}_{\text{i}\text{j}}$

as the intergenerational conflict experienced by elderly individual j at survey point i, with the intercept

$\:{{\upbeta\:}}_{0\text{j}}$

representing the baseline level of intergenerational conflict for individual j at the initial survey period. (

$\:{\text{A}\text{g}\text{e}}_{\text{i}\text{j}}-60$

) denotes the actual age of elderly individual j at time i, subtracting 60.

$\:{\text{X}}_{\text{i}\text{j}}$

represents the family structure and changes in family dynamics of elderly individual j at survey point i, with the family structure change variable incorporated into the model as (

$\:{\text{X}}_{\text{i}\text{j}}-{\text{X}}_{\text{i}0}$

), indicating the change in family structure of individual j relative to the baseline period.

$\:{\text{I}\text{n}}_{\text{t}}$

refers to the level of intergenerational support within the family, encompassing emotional support, receipt and provision of daily care, as well as economic support.

$\:{\text{C}\text{o}\text{n}}_{\text{i}\text{j}}$

includes control variables related to family structure and dynamics, which consist of marital status, number of sons, and number of daughters. The Level 2 model accounts for individual differences among elderly individuals.In Equations (2) and (8), the variables Job, Edu, Gen, Dis, Eco, and Str represent the individual's occupational status, educational attainment, gender, number of chronic conditions (indicating baseline health status), independent income, and family structure at the baseline period. The random intercept in Level 2, which does not vary over time, determines the baseline

$\:{{\upbeta\:}}_{0\text{j}}$

, indicating that the initial level of intergenerational conflict for each elderly individual is influenced by their baseline sociodemographic characteristics. The statistical analysis of the individual growth model is conducted using the HLM6.02 software package.

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents a statistical summary of the basic characteristics of the three-year tracking samples from 2009, 2012, and 2015. Regarding intergenerational conflict, the data indicates a gradual decline in conflict within rural elderly households over the study period. Simultaneously, significant changes in family structure are observed, with an increasing number of elderly individuals living alone, in couple-headed families, and in two-generation nuclear families, while traditional large family structures, such as standard nuclear, three-generation, and skipped-generation households, have steadily decreased. The transition to living alone, two-generation nuclear, and three-generation nuclear families, as well as the persistence of living alone and skipped-generation households, show a downward trend, whereas the number of couple-headed families has increased.In terms of intergenerational support, there is a noticeable upward trend in both emotional and economic support received by elderly individuals, while the provision of daily care has decreased. This suggests a trend toward more harmonious intergenerational relationships and an increased flow of economic resources across generations. Furthermore, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics reveal that the sample has a relatively higher average age, a slightly higher proportion of females, a decline in the number of married elderly individuals, lower levels of economic independence, generally low educational attainment, and an increased prevalence of chronic diseases with advancing age.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics (N = 2605)
	Variable	2009(936)	2012(936)	2015(733)	总计(2605)
Family Structure	intergenerational conflict	3.979(1.346)	3.655(1.276)	3.529(1.196)	3.735(1.293)
	Single-Person Household	0.218(0.413)	0.262(0.440)	0.266(0.442)	0.248(0.432)
	Couple-Only Nuclear Household	0.351(0.478)	0.476(0.500)	0.493(0.500)	0.436(0.496)
	Standard Nuclear Family	0.021(0.145)	0.0235(0.152)	0.008(0.0886)	0.018(0.134)
	Deficient Nuclear Family	0.010(0.101)	0.0143(0.119)	0.0184(0.135)	0.014(0.117)
	Two-Generation Stem Household	0.024(0.155)	0.103(0.304)	0.114(0.319)	0.078(0.268)
	Three-Generation Stem Family	0.085(0.279)	0.0828(0.276)	0.071(0.257)	0.080(0.272)
	Skipped-Generation Stem Household	0.213(0.410)	0(0)	0(0)	0.076(0.266)
Changes in Family Structure	Transition to Single-Person Household		0.030(0.171)	0.028(0.166)	0.061(0.244)
	Transition to Couple-Only Nuclear Household		0.052(0.223)	0.087(0.282)	0.083(0.272)
	Transition to Two-Generation Stem Household		0.022(0.148)	0.015(0.124)	0.042(0.193)
	Transition to Three-Generation Stem Household		0.016(0.129)	0.011(0.105)	0.037(0.172)
	Transition to Skipped-Generation Stem Household		0.009(0.097)	0.011(0.108)	0.025(0.151)
	Persistently Single-Person Household		0.054(0.228)	0.041(0.200)	0.103(0.292)
	Persistently Couple-Only Nuclear Household		0.104(0.305)	0.103(0.304)	0.211(0.414)
	Persistently Two-Generation Stem Household		0.005(0.073)	0.006(0.080)	0.010(0.115)
	Persistently Three-Generation Stem Household		0.000(0.000)	0.000(0.000)	0.000(0.000)
	Persistently Skipped-Generation Stem Household		0.016(0129)	0.006(0.082)	0.022(0.157)
Intergenerational Support	Emotional Support	27.39(12.89)	27.58(12.63)	28.66(12.90)	27.82(12.80)
	Receiving Daily Care	1.624(2.459)	1.221(1.916)	1.480(2.221)	1.437(2.214)
	Providing Daily Care	1.974(2.182)	0.978(1.537)	1.145(1.732)	1.382(1.897)
	Receiving Financial Support	2.504(5.919)	8.255(10.03)	10.41(10.62)	6.793(9.570)
	Providing Financial Support	0.381(1.947)	1.158(3.504)	0.809(3.317)	0.780(2.993)
Control Variables	Number of Sons	1.925(1.166)	1.904(1.178)	1.907(1.172)	1.913(1.172)
	Number of Daughters	1.727(1.261)	1.719(1.268)	1.728(1.239)	1.724(1.256)
	Age	71.01(7.653)	74.06(7.692)	75.86(7.191)	73.46(7.790)
	Gender	0.495(0.500)	0.497(0.500)	0.503(0.500)	0.498(0.500)
	Occupation	0.934(0.248)	0.920(0.271)	0.868(0.338)	0.911(0.285)
	Education	0.330(0.470)	0.329(0.470)	0.342(0.475)	0.333(0.471)
	Marriage	0.643(0.479)	0.596(0.491)	0.600(0.490)	0.614(0.487)
	Number of chronic diseases	1.687(1.499)	1.990(1.659)	2.061(1.616)	1.900(1.598)
	Independent economic income	0.040(0.196)	0.466(0.499)	0.395(0.489)	0.293(0.455)
Note: Data source: "Rural Elderly Life Welfare Status in Anhui Province" Tracking Survey Data from 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. The values in parentheses represent robust standard errors.

4.2 Regression results

Table 3 presents the individual growth models examining the impact of four types of family structure changes on intergenerational conflict. Model 1 is the null model, which indicates that the individual growth model is suitable for studying intergenerational conflict in rural elderly families. In Model 2, without considering external factors, the results show that changes to living alone, couple cores, two-generation lineal families, as well as always living alone and always couple cores, significantly reduce the development of intergenerational conflict. After controlling for family structure variables in Model 3, the findings remain consistent, with changes to living alone, couple cores, two-generation lineal families, and three-generation lineal families significantly reducing intergenerational conflict development, while an increase in the number of daughters and being married are found to have moderating and exacerbating effects, respectively, on intergenerational conflict. Model 4 further includes the elderly population's socio-economic characteristics as fixed effects at Level 2, revealing that changes to living alone, couple cores, two-generation lineal families, always couple cores, and always skipped-generation families significantly reduce intergenerational conflict development. The number of daughters still significantly reduces intergenerational conflict, but marital status and the number of chronic diseases the elderly person has significantly increase intergenerational conflict. When baseline family structure is added to the fixed effects model (Model 5), the results show that changes to living alone, couple cores, two-generation lineal families, always living alone, and always couple cores all significantly reduce intergenerational conflict development. In Model 6, when controlling for intergenerational support but not including baseline family structure as a fixed effect, changes to living alone, couple cores, two-generation lineal families, and always couple cores significantly reduce intergenerational conflict. The number of sons, daughters, and marital status of the elderly significantly increase intergenerational conflict, while emotional support significantly reduces intergenerational conflict. Providing daily care and financial support significantly increase intergenerational conflict. Model 7, which incorporates the baseline family structure as fixed effects, finds that with the exception of the significant increase in intergenerational conflict resulting from changes to three-generation lineal families, the results largely align with those in Model 6.

Table 3

The individual growth model of the impact of family structure changes on intergenerational conflict (N = 2605)
	Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model5	Model 6	Model 7
Level 1	Intercept	4.018***	4.124***	4.092***	3.842***	3.676***	3.854***	3.752***
Level 1	Age	-0.019***	-0.014***	-0.009*	-0.010*	-0.009*	-0.009*	-0.009*
Changes in Family Structure	Transition to Single-Person Household		-0.340**	-0.265*	-0.265*	-0.260*	-0.227*	-0.211*
	Transition to Couple-Only Nuclear Household		-0.379***	-0.438***	-0.441***	-0.424***	-0.363***	-0.335**
	Transition to Two-Generation Stem Household		-0.449**	-0.525**	-0.421**	-0.415*	-0.327*	-0.325*
	Transition to Three-Generation Stem Household		0.027	-0.003*	-0.006	-0.028	0.031	0.024*
	Transition to Skipped-Generation Stem Household		-0.068	-0.085	-0.080	-0.035	-0.016	0.017
	Persistently Single-Person Household		-0.203*	-0.121	-0.125	-0.198*	-0.017	-0.044
	Persistently Couple-Only Nuclear Household		-0.356***	-0.432***	-0.434***	-0.370***	-0.316***	-0.273**
	Persistently Two-Generation Stem Household		-0.468	-0.426	-0.425	-0.413	-0.404	-0.409
	Persistently Skipped-Generation Stem Household		-0.209	-0.237*	-0.237*	-0.187	-0.213	-0.160
	Number of Sons			-0.009	-0.010	-0.016	0.510***	0.500***
	Number of Daughters			-0.075**	-0.079**	-0.077**	0.499***	0.497***
	Marriage			0.199*	0.186*	0.289*	0.153*	0.204*
	Emotional Support						-0.074***	-0.073***
	Receiving Daily Care						-0.001	-0.001
	Providing Daily Care						0.034*	0.037*
	Receiving Financial Support						-0.002	-0.002
	Providing Financial Support						0.032***	0.032***
Level-2 Intercept	Gender				0.079	0.086	0.009	0.016
	Education				0.058	0.068	0.094	0.098
	Occupation				0.169	0.173	0.196	0.203*
	Number of chronic diseases				0.048*	0.050*	0.027	0.027
	Independent economic income				-0.083	-0.090	-0.040	-0.058
Family Structure	Living Alone Families					0.250		0.138
	Couple-Only Households					-0.027		-0.001
	Two-Generation Lineal Family					0.098		0.084
	Three-Generation Lineal Family					0.145		0.071
	Standard Nuclear Family					0.566		0.516
	Deficient Nuclear Family					0.244		0.299
	Grandparent-Grandchild Family					0.080		-0.021
	Intercept	0.721***	0.725***	0.701***	0.683***	0.664***	0.575**	0.557**
	Slope	0.042*	0.042*	0.042*	0.040*	0.040*	0.035	0.035
	R	1.259	1.248	1.248	1.248	1.248	1.214	1.215
	Deviance	8843.736	8820.210	8815.863	8827.343	8826.758	8672.713	8678.736
Note: p < 0.05, p < 0.01, **p < 0.001. Same for subsequent tables.

4.3 Discussion

4.3.1 Regression Results Discussion

The regression analysis demonstrated that transitions to single-person households, transitions to couple-only nuclear households, persistently couple-only nuclear households, and transitions to two-generation stem households significantly reduced intergenerational conflicts, whereas transitions to three-generation stem households exacerbated such conflicts. This paper discusses the issue from five aspects:

First, the significant conflict-mitigating effect of transitioning to single-person households. This study posits that the underlying mechanism stems from the reconfiguration of intergenerational interaction dynamics and intra-familial power structures under single-person household arrangements, thereby fostering a more harmonious relational ecosystem for intergenerational coexistence. (1)Physical separation reduces daily frictions from intergenerational differences in lifestyle habits, consumption norms, and parenting practices, granting both the elderly and younger generations greater autonomy and mutual understanding. (2)spatial segregation enhances communication intentionality and depth. Limited face - to - face contact necessitates purposeful exchanges that strengthen reciprocal respect and emotional attunement. (3)influenced by the traditional cultural schema of he jia huan (family reunion ideology), single - residing elders experiencing intensified kinship longing due to "nest - leaving" and aging exhibit heightened conflict tolerance. They prioritize relational harmony over confrontational tendencies, a psychological adaptation further motivated by emotional reservoirs from prior cohabitation.

Second, regarding the significant reduction in intergenerational conflicts observed in transitions to couple-only nuclear households, this study posits that this phenomenon arises from the interplay of cultural norms of conflict internalization and enhanced elderly autonomy. First, when adult children marry and establish independent households, the resultant transition to couple-only nuclear structures aligns with traditional cultural maxims such as "every family has its internal challenges" and "domestic disputes should not be publicized." These norms incentivize conflict concealment within private familial spheres, rendering intergenerational tensions less observable. Second, residential separation through this structural transition empowers elderly parents to maintain independence, thereby bolstering self-efficacy and perceived control over their lives. This autonomy mitigates friction inherent to multigenerational cohabitation—such as disagreements over resource allocation or lifestyle preferences—effectively attenuating conflict manifestations. Importantly, the psychological benefits of autonomy coexist with persistent emotional bonds, reflecting a strategic balance between relational proximity and spatial independence in moderating intergenerational dynamics.

Third, regarding the persistent reduction of intergenerational conflicts in persistently couple-only nuclear households, this study attributes the phenomenon to four interconnected drivers: structural nuclearization, enhanced economic autonomy, functional transition of familial roles, and proactive relational maintenance. (1)Structural Nuclearization and Decision-Making Centralization. The nuclearization process centralizes decision-making authority within the spousal dyad, simplifying residential arrangements and insulating couples from entangled kinship obligations. This streamlined structure minimizes direct interactions with extended family members, thereby reducing exposure to potential conflict triggers. (2)Economic Autonomy and Resource Decoupling. Improved economic capacity among elderly couples, coupled with diminished reliance on offspring for financial support, fosters an autonomous economic ecosystem. This independence alleviates intergenerational tensions historically rooted in resource scarcity or unequal distribution, establishing a stable economic foundation for familial harmony. (3)Functional Transition from Obligation to Self-Actualization. As familial roles evolve, elderly parents increasingly disengage from traditional caregiving obligations, prioritizing quality-of-life optimization and self-development. This shift reduces psychological burdens associated with intergenerational dependency, mitigating conflicts over eldercare expectations. (4)Egalitarian Reconfiguration of Familial Authority. The decentralization of familial authority promotes democratic, equity-oriented interactions. Within couple-only nuclear households, spouses cultivate relational resilience through mutual respect, open communication, and reciprocal support—practices that preemptively neutralize conflict escalation pathways.

Fourth, regarding the significant reduction in intergenerational conflicts observed in transitions to two-generation stem households, this study interprets the findings through Harmony Theory⁽⁴³⁾, which posits that familial systems, after achieving long-term equilibrium, may experience destabilization due to life-course transitions (e.g, adult children's marriages) but paradoxically demonstrate conflict mitigation in practice. This counterintuitive outcome is attributed to the mediating role of newly integrated members (e.g, daughters-/sons-in-law), who rebalance familial dynamics through three mechanisms: proactive relational integration—where strategic acculturation behaviors (e.g, filial piety demonstrations and emotional investment) foster trust and cohesion; dual-role synergy in decision-making—leveraging their position as both "surrogate offspring" to elderly parents and coalition partners to adult children, bridging generational divides; and conflict buffering via interstitial positionality—exploiting their unique status as neither fully aligned with elder nor younger generations to mediate disputes, reframe contentious issues, and propose compromises. These mechanisms collectively transform marital alliances into harmonizing agents, illustrating how structural incorporation of external members mitigates destabilization risks while enhancing systemic stability in evolving households.

First, the cultural imperative of grandchild care—viewed as both a duty of lineage continuity and a transactional investment in elderly security—amplifies conflicts due to divergent educational philosophies (grandparents prioritizing material indulgence vs. adult children emphasizing disciplined child-rearing) and lifestyle clashes (traditional frugality vs. modern consumerism). Second, resource scarcity intensifies intergenerational bargaining: grandparents' "rational" investments of time, emotion, and finances in grandchild care—motivated by expectations of reciprocal eldercare support⁽⁴⁴⁾—breed resentment when adult children fail to reciprocate, creating dual pressures of material deprivation and emotional estrangement⁽⁴⁵⁾. Third, multigenerational cohabitation structurally multiplies conflict triggers, as evidenced by Mode 7's robust results post-inclusion of intergenerational support variables. While intergenerational support (e.g, emotional and economic transfers) facilitates resource circulation and temporarily mitigates structural tensions, it simultaneously introduces new friction points: unequal resource distribution in multi-child households escalates conflicts regardless of offspring gender, and instrumental caregiving paradoxically heightens tensions. This counterintuitive outcome stems from asymmetric dependency dynamics—elderly providers of daily care or financial support perceive reinforced familial authority, whereas adult children interpret such acts as implicit obligations, fueling entitlement disputes. Thus, the coexistence of rational choice-driven investments (grandparents) and unfulfilled reciprocity expectations (adult children) transforms three-generation households into arenas of intergenerational contestation, where cultural mandates collide with modernized aspirations, and resource scarcity exacerbates relational fragility. These findings underscore the duality of intergenerational support—a double-edged sword that both alleviates and amplifies conflicts depending on reciprocity alignment and power renegotiations.

4.3.2 Further discussion

To visually show how family structure changes affect intergenerational conflict development, this paper, based on different such changes, plots a quadratic fit graph of this conflict vs. age, shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Predicted Trajectories of Intergenerational Conflict Based on Different Family Structure Changes

The age-dependent impacts of household structure transitions on intergenerational conflicts manifest distinct temporal patterns across four configurations:

1.Transition to Single-Person Households:The conflict-mitigating effect gradually diminishes with advancing age, albeit at a subdued pace. This transition, typically triggered by widowhood/separation and offspring independence, correlates with elderly emotional adaptation: aging parents adopt more conciliatory perspectives due to reduced resource demands and amplified kinship longing. While intensified emotional needs enhance conflict tolerance, the absence of external mediation results in a slow, linear decline in conflict reduction efficacy.

2.Transition to Couple-Only Nuclear Households:The conflict trajectory follows an inverted U-shaped curve. Younger elderly individuals initially experience heightened conflicts due to resistance to diminished familial authority post-separation from adult children. However, as aging progresses, adult children's ascendant decision-making authority and parents' withdrawal from frontline familial roles reduce culture-driven friction through mutual role acceptance.

3.Transition to Two-Generation Stem Households:Similarly exhibiting an inverted U-shaped pattern, the conflict dynamics bifurcate by life stage. Early-stage transitions (younger elderly) amplify conflicts through status renegotiations and resource reallocation triggered by adult children's marriages. Late-stage transitions (older elderly) witness conflict attenuation as grandchildren's "nest-leaving" fulfills cultural expectations of lineage continuity, symbolizing familial legacy completion.

10.

4.Transition to Three-Generation Stem Households:Conflict intensity escalates during early aging phases due to resource allocation tensions with young grandchildren, peaking as grandchildren approach adolescence. Paradoxically, advanced age mitigates conflicts through the interplay of rationalized lineage preservation and cultural fatalism—aging parents increasingly prioritize ancestral continuity over resource disputes, aligning with traditional patrilineal imperatives that temper intergenerational bargaining.

4.3.3 Robustness Analysis

To validate the reliability of empirical findings, this study conducted robustness tests through variable substitution and winsorization, with results summarized in Table 4. Variable Substitution: The core explanatory variable—household structure transitions—was redefined into three categories:elderly living alone, cohabitation with adult children only, and grandchild-inclusive households. Regression results from Model 8 demonstrate that the substituted variables yield estimates nearly identical to the baseline model in both magnitude and statistical significance, confirming methodological consistency. Winsorization Adjustment: To mitigate extreme value bias, the dependent variable (intergenerational conflict index) was winsorized at the 1st and 99th percentiles. Re-estimation of Model 7 (Table 2) using the winsorized sample (Model 9) reveals that the effects of household structure transitions on intergenerational conflicts remain consistent with baseline results, further attesting to their robustness. These dual strategies—conceptual reoperationalization and distributional trimming—collectively affirm that the identified relationships are neither artifacts of variable operationalization nor outliers, thereby strengthening causal inference credibility.

Table 4

Robustness Analysis(N = 2605)
Variable	Model 8	Moedl 9
Fixed effects
Intercept(level 1)	3.750***	3.768***
Slope(level 1)
Age	-0.010*	-0.010**
Family structure changes
Elderly living alone	-0.228***
①Transition to Single-Person Household		-0.185*
②Transition to Couple-Only Nuclear Household		-0.283***
③Persistently Single-Person Household		-0.036
④Persistently Couple-Only Nuclear Household		-0.227***
Cohabitation with adult children only	-0.339**
①Transition to Two-Generation Stem Household		-0.308**
②Persistently Two-Generation Stem Household		-0.402
Grandchild-inclusive households	-0.008
①Transition to Three-Generation Stem Household		0.041
②Transition to Skipped-Generation Stem Household		0.066
③Persistently Skipped-Generation Stem Household		-0.116
Intergenerational support	Under control	Under control
The socio-economic characteristics of the elderly population	Under control	Under control
Slope(level 2)	0.548***	0.527***
Survey point-in-time slope(level 2)	0.035	0.034*
R(level 1)	1.216	1.163
Deviance	8674.885	8447.326
Note: p < 0.05, p < 0.01, **p < 0.001. Same for subsequent tables.

5 Conclusions

This study elucidates the dynamic interplay between family structure transitions and intergenerational conflicts among rural Chinese elderly, revealing three pivotal insights. First, intergenerational conflicts exhibit a secular decline, driven by nuclearization trends (e.g., rising single-person and couple-only households) and reduced co-residence pressures, reflecting broader societal shifts toward spatial autonomy and intentional proximity. Second, structural transitions differentially modulate conflicts: single-person, couple-only nuclear, and two-generation stem households mitigate tensions through friction reduction and economic decoupling, whereas three-generation stem households exacerbate conflicts via resource competition and unreciprocated caregiving investments. Third, nonlinear inverted U-shaped trajectories—observed in couple-only nuclear and two-generation stem transitions—underscore the dual temporality of conflicts, shaped by biological aging (emotional adaptation) and cultural chronologies (lineage fulfillment timelines). These findings challenge static conceptions of intergenerational solidarity, positioning family transitions as both conflict catalysts and resolvers contingent on power renegotiations and support reciprocity. The study advances a life course–grounded framework for decoding rural aging dynamics, advocating policies that balance elderly autonomy with culturally sensitive mediation mechanisms to harmonize familial evolution in transitional societies.

Author Contribution

Ping Wang: Methodology, Project administration, Writing review & editing. Xuhui Zhao: Writing original draft, Writing review & editing, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. Chaoqun Chang: Writing original draft, Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing review & editing. Yuhuan Zhang:Literature Collection and Writing.

References

National Bureau of Statistics. (2025, January 17). Wang Pingping: The Decline in Total Population Narrows, and Population Quality Continues to Improve. Retrieved from National Bureau of Statistics website.

Song, J., & Zhang, X. (2021). From demographic transition to family transition: A theoretical analysis approach.Exploration and Contention, 375(1), 129–136 + 180.

Clarke, E. J, Preston, M., Raksin, J., & Bengtson, V. L. (1999). Types of conflicts and tensions between older parents and adult children. The Gerontologist, 39(3), 261–270.

Wu, F, & Liu, L. (2022). Inheritance and change of family values among young people: Measurement and analysis based on intergenerational differences. Population Journal, 44(5), 60–71.

Ahlfeldt, G. M., Maennig, W., & Steenbeck, M. (2020). Direct democracy and intergenerational conflicts in ageing societies. Journal of Regional Science, 60(1), 129–155.

Long, J., Chen, Q., & Hu, Z. (2021). Construction paths of harmonious intergenerational psychological contracts in the aging era: From the perspective of positive psychology. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Sciences), (5), 55–63, 205–206.

Zhai, Z., & Feng, Y. (2023). Contradictions and countermeasures in family integration of migrant elderly in contemporary China. Zhongzhou Academic Journal, (2), 91–96.

Gilligan, M., Karraker, A., & Jasper, A. (2018). Linked lives and cumulative inequality: A multigenerational family life course framework. Journal of family theory & review, 10(1), 111–125.

Hünteler, B. (2022). A new perspective on the generational structures of families–Generational placements over the life course. Advances in Life Course Research, 51, 100450.

10.

Sun, X. (2023). Marriage squeeze and changes in rural intergenerational relationships. Journal of Wuhan University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), 76(2), 174–184.

11.

Song, L., Li, L., & Li, S. (2016). The impact of grandparents' childcare on rural family intergenerational conflicts. Psychological Science, 39(5), 1137–1143.

12.

Silverstein, M., & Giarrusso, R. (2010). Aging and family life: A decade review. Journal of marriage and family, 72(5), 1039–1058.

13.

Olea, M. A. (1971). Culture and Commitment: a study of the Generation Gap, de Margaret Mead. Revista de estudios políticos, (176), 203–205.

14.

Bengtson, V., Giarrusso, R., Mabry, J. B., & Silverstein, M. (2002). Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships?. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 568–576.

15.

Dowd, J. J. (1975). Aging as exchange: A preface to theory. Journal of gerontology, 30(5), 584–594.

16.

Peng, X., & Hu, Z. (2015). Family changes and family policy reconstruction in contemporary China. Social Sciences in China, (12), 113–132 + 207.

17.

Li, T., Liu, T., Liu, J., et al. (2020). Spatial analysis of influencing factors on three-generation immediate family distribution: Based on 2015 1% population sampling survey data. Population Research, 44(6), 3–19.

18.

Hu, Z., & Peng, X. (2014). Trend analysis of changes in Chinese contemporary households: An investigation based on census data. Sociological Studies, 29(3), 145–166 + 244.

19.

Fu, C., Fu, Y., Wu, L., et al. (2021). Changes in China's household size structure and its impact on household consumption. Population Research, 45(1), 98–113.

20.

Ma, G. (2023). Contemporary Chinese family changes: Characteristics, trends, and prospects. Population Research, 47(1), 43–57.

21.

Jia, Z., Sha, D., & Zhu, P. (2019). Mate selection pressure and social risks of rural elderly youth: A field study based on nine villages in North China. Journal of Hebei University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), 44(5), 140–147.

22.

Song, Y., Liu, Z., & Wang, J. (2022). The impact of children's divorce on the health of the elderly: An empirical analysis based on CLASS data. Population Journal, 44(1), 76–86.

23.

Mu, G. (2020). The "fear of childbearing" psychology and fertility views of contemporary youth. People's Tribune, (22), 120–122.

24.

Feng, X. (2017). From two to one: Changes in fertility intentions among two generations of urban parents. Journal of Nanjing University (Philosophy, Humanities & Social Sciences), 54(4), 74–87 + 159.

25.

Yang, H., Zhang, S., Zhang, S., et al. (2022). The impact of fertility quantity on the lifespan of rural parents in China. Population Journal, 44(2), 19–31.

26.

Wang, Y. (2011). Maintenance, changes, and trends of intergenerational relationships in Chinese families. Jianghuai Tribune, (2), 122–129.

27.

Di, J., & Zheng, D. (2016). Ethical decline or ethical transformation: A study on intergenerational distribution of family resources in rural China from the perspective of modernization. Society, 36(1), 186–212.

28.

Jin, W. (2021). Intergenerational care from the perspective of intergenerational cooperation theory: A concurrent discussion on the individualization of Chinese families. Journal of Anhui University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), 45(3), 107–116.

29.

Wu, W. (2021). Proximity effect of intergenerational economic support: Empirical evidence based on CHARLS. Population & Economics, (6), 68–87.

30.

Wang, J., & Xu, Q. (2020). Living arrangements, intergenerational support, and the subjective well-being of the elderly. Social Development Research, (3), 193–208.

31.

van Gelder, B. M., Tijhuis, M., Kalmijn, S., Giampaoli, S., Nissinen, A., & Kromhout, D. (2006). Marital status and living situation during a 5-year period are associated with a subsequent 10-year cognitive decline in older men: the FINE Study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(4), P213-P219.

32.

Chou, K. L., Ho, A. H. Y., & Chi, I. (2006). Living alone and depression in Chinese older adults. Aging and Mental Health, 10(6), 583–591.

33.

Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Grandparent-adult grandchild affection and consensus: Cross-generational and cross-ethnic comparisons. Journal of Family Issues, 22(4), 456–477.

34.

Ren, Q., & Tang, Q. (2014). Living arrangements and emotional health of the elderly in China. Chinese Journal of Population Science, (4), 82–91 + 128.

35.

Teerawichitchainan, B., Pothisiri, W., & Long, G. T. (2015). How do living arrangements and intergenerational support matter for psychological health of elderly parents? Evidence from Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand. Social science & medicine, 136, 106–116.

36.

Guo, M., Aranda, M. P., & Silverstein, M. (2009). The impact of out-migration on the inter-generational support and psychological wellbeing of older adults in rural China. Ageing & society, 29(7), 1085–1104.

37.

Ikeda, A., Iso, H., Kawachi, I., Yamagishi, K., Inoue, M., Tsugane, S., & JPHC Study Group. (2009). Living arrangement and coronary heart disease: the JPHC study. Heart, 95(7), 577–583.

38.

Wang, P., Wang, X., Yang, R., et al. (2022). Gender differences in the impact of family structure changes on cognitive function development of rural elderly. Northwest Population, 43(2), 64–74.

39.

Fei, X. (1983). The issue of elderly support in changing family structures: Revisiting the transformation of Chinese family structures. Journal of Peking University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), (3), 7–16.

40.

Song, L., & Li, S. (2017). Intergenerational relationships of rural elderly and their influencing factors: A latent class analysis based on gender perspective. Population & Economics, (6), 1–12.

41.

Wang, Y. (2006). An analysis of changes in contemporary Chinese family structures. Social Sciences in China, (1), 96–108 + 207.

42.

Chen, X., & Silverstein, M. (2000). Intergenerational social support and the psychological well-being of older parents in China. Research on aging, 22(1), 43–65.

43.

Xi, Y., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (1989). Harmony theory. Journal of Systems Engineering, (2), 79–89.

44.

Friedman, D., Hechter, M., & Kreager, D. (2008). A theory of the value of grandchildren. Rationality and Society, 20(1), 31–63.

45.

Guo, L., & Zeng, F. (2017). The dilution mechanism of family pension resources in China. Academic Sea, (4), 141–147.

Yes