Intergenerational Relations as Parents Age: Filial Values vs Behaviours Neena L. Chappell, PhD, FRSC Canada Research Chair in Social Gerontology University.

Intergenerational Relations as Parents Age: Filial Values vs

Behaviours

Neena L. Chappell, PhD, FRSC

Canada Research Chair in Social Gerontology

University of Victoria

For: Social Capital and Volunteering in Modern Ageing Cities: Building Intergenerational Inclusion, an international conference, City U, Hong Kong, Dec. 16, 2008

ORGANIZATION OF THIS TALK

• Gerontological caregiving research

• Filial responsibility in Chinese & Western cultures

• Caregiving behaviours in the 2 cultures

• First results from SSHRC study

• Conclusions

INFORMAL CAREGIVING

• Mainly family care.

• Mainly women (wives and daughters).

• First resort and mainstay of care.

• Increased demands with health reform.

• Most research on behaviours

• Less on attitudes such as filial responsibility.

• Less still on relationship between attitudes and behaviour.

• Attitudes not necessarily predictive of behaviour (Piercy, 1998; Stein et al, 1998).

FILIAL RESPONSBILITY

• A norm (cultural schema about appropriate behaviour towards parents, Holroyd, 2001).

• Cultural norms are internalized through socialization.

• Can be measured as individual attitudes.

• Attitudes about duty or obligation.

• And/or general attitudes favouring support for aging parents.

CHINESE CULTURE

• Historically filial piety

• Includes respect & care for elderly family members

• Explicitly taught from early age.

• Children, especially sons, obligated to be responsible for care.

• In practice, son’s wife provided most hands-on care.

• Mid 20th Century political, social, cultural shifts.

• Inheritance laws changed.

• Love and marriage emphasized and for children.

• Individual rather than lineage, given civil rights.

• Women more equal to men.

• Daughters share legal responsibility for parents with sons.

• Filial piety attacked as feudal.

• Late 1970s – embraced as a virtue and primary value of Chinese society.

• Focus now on support rather than obedience or producing descendents.

• Children, notably women, urged to support their parents.

CONCEPT EMBRACED BUT FORM CHANGING

• Networked families.

• Spouses increasing as care provider.

• Role of daughter-in-law is decreasing.

• Role of daughter is increasing.

• Sons continue to provide much care.

DIASPORIC CHINESE IN NORTH AMERICA

• Trans-national identity.

• Elements of Chinese culture (living arrangements, son/daughter-in-law caring unit).

• Similarities with western culture (care from daughters; care from spouses).

NORTH AMERICAN CULTURE

• Values individualism and independence.

• Family obligations less explicit.

• No explicit teaching of filial responsibility (vague mental awareness, Fry, 1996).

• No normative consensus (Finch & Mason, 1991).

• Not unconditional or automatic.

NEVERTHELESS

• Since 1970s, research shows families provide care to their elderly members.

• Spouses primary caregivers.

• Followed by daughters.

• Sons provide care in absence of spouses and daughters, or provide $ and advice.

• Chinese and Canadian cultures appear to be contrasts in their norms of filial responsibility.

• Both seem to have patterns of caregiving behaviours that diverge from espoused societal norms.

• In both cultures, children provide care but it can take different forms.

• Chinese Canadians appear to fall between Chinese culture and western culture.

CAREGIVING BEHAVIOURS

• Seem to be predicted by both cultural (strong family ties, filial piety, etc.) and structural (poverty, co-residents, etc.) factors.

THE RESEARCH:

• Funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to:

Chappell (University of Victoria)

Chou (University of Hong Kong)

Funk (University of Victoria)

METHODOLOGY

• N=315

• Caucasian Canadian = 100

• Chinese Canadian = 90

• Chinese in Hong Kong = 125

STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

• face-to-face structured interview

• Approximately 1.5 hrs

• Samples not random

INCLUSION CRITERIA• A parent ≥ 60 years of age.

• ≥ 3 hours of care per week (could be emotional support).

• Caucasian – ancestrally from: Canadian, French Canadian, English/Welsh/Irish/ Scottish, American, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, French, German, Dutch/Belgian, Eastern European (Russian, Ukrainian, Polish).

• Chinese Canadian (descendents from Hong Kong).

• Hong Kong Chinese (child and parent living in Hong Kong and Chinese).

SAMPLE DIFFERENCESCG

Group Gender Working Age

Caucasian .15 .66 56.8

Chinese-Canadian .48 .93 42.8

Chinese-HK .19 .60 46.3

(male) (employed) (older)

SAMPLE DIFFERENCES CONT’D

Group IncomeOther parent alive

Lives with CR

Caucasian 2.94 .21 .20

Chinese-Canadian 3.24 .67 .38

Chinese-HK 2.11 .67 .44

(lower) (no) (no)

NO GROUP DIFFERENCES

• Marital status of caregiver

• How close and affectionate caregiver is to care receiver.

ATTITUDES (means)

Group Filial Expectancy Filial Piety

Caucasian 18.1 23.0

Chinese Canadian 22.2 26.1

Chinese HK 22.1 26.1

(low) (low)

BEHAVIOUR

Group ADL Help IADL Help Emotional Support

Caucasian .47 1.00 3.20

Chinese-Canadian .04 .92 3.18

Chinese-HK .85 .77 2.56

(less) (less)

BEHAVIOUR CONT’D

Group Companionship* Finances**

Caucasian 3.10 .14

Chinese-Canadian 3.42 .76

Chinese-HK 2.98 .73

(more) (less)

CORRELATIONS: CAUCASIAN CANADIAN

Filial Expectancy Filial Piety

Help with ADL ns ns

Help with # ADL ns ns

Help with IADL ns ns

Help with # IADL ns ns

Emotional Support ns ns

Companionship ns ns

Finances ns ns

CORRELATIONS: CHINESE-CANADIAN

Filial Expectancy Filial Piety

Help with ADL ns ns

Help with # ADL ns ns

Help with IADL ns ns

Help with # IADL ns ns

Emotional Support .40*** .32**

Companionship .33** .24*

Finances .37*** .37***

CORRELATIONS: CHINESE-H.K.

Filial Expectancy Filial Piety

Help with ADL .18* .22**

Help with # ADL ns ns

Help with IADL ns ns

Help with # IADL ns ns

Emotional Support .30** .23**

Companionship .21* ns

Finances ns ns

OLS Regressions

ADL (#) IADL (#)

Caucasian .20** .18**

HK Chinese .50*** -.67***

CR ill health .26*** ns

CG lives with CR .12* .21***

Employment -.15** ns

CG education ns -.10

CG age ns .11

ADL: R² = .38 F = 37.46; df = 5 + 301; p<.000IADL: R² = .58; F = 83.38; df = 5 + 306; p<.000*p<.01; **p<.001; ***p<.001. (no asterisk = p<.05)

OLS RegressionsCompanionship Emotional

SupportFinances

Caucasian ns .36*** -.43***

HK Chinese -.29 ns ns

FES ns .21** ns

(FP) (ns) (.14*) (ns)

CG age ns .17* -.10

Enjoy CR time ns .23*** -.14*

CR health ns -.22*** ns

Confide in CR .41*** .17* .19*

Emotional support: R² = .29; df = 5 + 297; p<.000Finances: R² = .34; df = 4 + 306; p<.000

Companionship: R² = .18; df = 3 + 307; p<.000

*p<.01; **p<.001; ***p<.000 (no asterisk = p<.05)

Conclusions

• Cultural differences in caregiving attitudes confirmed

• Chinese-Canadians similar to Chinese-HK rather than in the middle

• Cultural groups vary depending on the caregiving behaviour examined

• Caucasians and Chinese-HK more similar in providing ADL help

• Caucasian Canadians and Chinese Canadians more similar in terms of IADL

• Chinese-HK distinctive in less companionship and less emotional support

• Caucasian-Canadian distinctive in lack of financial support

• The multivariate analyses confirm the importance of cultural group over and above attitudes of filial expectancy or piety for predicting caregiving behaviour

Neena L. Chappell, Ph.D, FRSC

Canada Research Chair in Social Gerontology

University of Victoria

British Columbia, Canada

V8W 2Y2

phone (250) 472-4465

fax (250) 721-6499

[email protected]