Youth Social Policy

TERESA TOGUCHI SWARTZ, MINZEE KIM, MAYUMI UNO, JEYLAN MORTIMER, AND KIRSTEN BENGTSON O’BRIEN University of Minnesota

Safety Nets and Scaffolds: Parental Support

in the Transition to Adulthood

Using longitudinal data from the Youth Devel- opment Study (analytic sample N = 712), we investigate how age, adult role acquisition and attainments, family resources, parent – child relationship quality, school attendance, and life events influence support received from parents in young adulthood. Parental assistance was found to be less forthcoming for those who had made greater progress on the road to adult- hood, signified by socioeconomic attainment and union formation. The quality of mother – child and father – child relationships affected parental support in different ways, positively for mothers, negatively for fathers. School enrollment, nega- tive life events, and employment problems were associated with a greater likelihood of receiving support. The findings suggest that parents act as ‘‘scaffolding’’ and ‘‘safety nets’’ to aid their children’s successful transition to adulthood.

During the mid-twentieth century, most individ- uals could expect to take on adult roles and attain independence from their parents by their early to mid-20s. In recent decades the transition to adulthood has changed greatly. Structural and cultural changes have resulted in an extension of this life stage; young people spend more years

University of Minnesota Department of Sociology, 267 19th Ave S., Social Sciences Building 909, Minneapolis, MN 55455 ([email protected]).

Key Words: family relations, intergenerational transfers, longitudinal, parent – child relations, social support, transition to adulthood.

pursuing education and take longer to establish careers and set up independent households in an economy that features unstable employment, low wages for the young, and high housing costs (Bell, Burtless, Gornick, & Smeeding, 2007; Set- tersten, Furstenberg, & Rumbaut, 2005). Some scholars now consider the contemporary transi- tion to adulthood, rather than being concentrated in the early 20s, to span the ages of 18 – 34 (Furstenberg, Kennedy, McLoyd, Rumbaut, & Settersten, 2004).

Many parents are responding to the elon- gated transition by providing their young adult children with continued assistance (Aquilino, 2005; Fingerman, Miller, Birditt, & Zarit, 2009; Schoeni & Ross, 2005; Yelowitz, 2007). Some academics and public commentators have expressed concern that parental support in young adulthood prolongs dependence (e.g., Bahney, 2006; Cote, 2000; Tyre, 2002). Others have argued that parental aid helps young people nav- igate the numerous challenges of early adulthood and supports their capacities for self-sufficiency (Aquilino, 2005; Eggebeen, 2005) by enabling young adults to develop the skills and experi- ence needed to succeed in adult roles (Aquilino, 1999). In any case, for many families, active parenting now extends beyond adolescence as the young adult’s goal of independence becomes a ‘‘joint enterprise’’ (Scabini, Marta, & Lanz, 2006). But if the transition to adulthood is now a collaborative effort, under what conditions or situations do parents intervene and at what point do parents leave their children to manage on their own?

414 Journal of Marriage and Family 73 (April 2011): 414 – 429 DOI:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00815.x

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 415

This study contributes to the literature by examining the conditions that lead to parental giving. By investigating factors that elicit sup- port, we can better assess whether aid pro- motes progress in the transition to adulthood and responds to challenging circumstances, or whether it primarily reflects other factors, such as parental resources or relationship quality. This research is particularly important given the protracted transition to adulthood and the implications that this has for families as depen- dence upon parents extends into the 20s. Lon- gitudinal survey data collected from young adults in the ongoing Youth Development Study (YDS) enable us to go beyond previ- ous research by examining how age, as well as changes in circumstances and life events, affects parental giving over the course of this transition.

This study focused on housing and financial assistance as indicators of support. Although parental giving during this life phase also includes nonmaterial assistance, such as guid- ance, emotional nurturance, and practical help (Fingerman et al., 2009), we focused on these two forms of support because they signal mate- rial dependence or semidependence. Previous research has established that substantial numbers of young adults receive these forms of support from their parents during their 20s (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1999; Schoeni & Ross, 2005; Yelowitz, 2007). Coresidence may be an espe- cially protective form of support in a difficult economy, as young adults who live with their parents are less vulnerable to poverty if they lose their jobs or suffer a wage decline (Bell et al., 2007). It is important to better understand how American families that try to help the next generation establish themselves as adults are responding to challenging conditions faced by young people.

We conceptualized and examined two cir- cumstances surrounding support that may foster progress in the transition toward independent adulthood. We referred to the first as scaffolding, which we defined as temporary parental sup- port that contributes to children’s human capital or the achievement of specific socioeconomic attainment goals. We referred to the second as a safety net, which we defined as temporary, intermittent help given during difficult circum- stances to minimize setbacks in the transition to adulthood.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Four theoretical perspectives informed our study of parental support. First, life course scholars have emphasized how normative expectations of age regulate people’s behavior and shape perceptions of what they should or should not be doing at a particular age (Settersten, 1998). Patterns of parental intervention to help children negotiate the challenges of transitioning to adulthood reflect age norms of young adulthood (Settersten, 1998). For instance, financial and housing aid to adult children has been found to be most forthcoming when offspring are in their 20s (Silverstein, Bengtson, & Lawton, 1997). Likewise, reliance on parental help has been found to be less common and less favored as young people age. For example, coresidence has been shown to decline after age 25 (Schoeni & Ross, 2005), and over 90% of adults reported believing children should leave home by age 25 (Settersten, 1998).

Parental support, however, may have decreased with the adult child’s age primar- ily because young people had taken on more adult roles signaling independence (Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Family formation, in particular, has been associated with greater independence from the natal family (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008; Smits, Van Gaalen, & Mulder, 2010). Still, some research found parental aid strongly age graded, even after accounting for life transi- tions, such as marriage, parenting, or student status, suggesting that age norms influenced giving decisions more than the accomplish- ment of adult statuses (Schoeni & Ross, 2005). Applying life course theory and research, we anticipated both age and progress in the transi- tion to adulthood would influence the receipt of parental aid.

Second, we drew on the status attainment tradition, which has investigated the effects of familial resources and class origins on attain- ment (Kerckhoff, 1995; Sewell & Hauser, 1980). According to this perspective, those with more education and resources would be better able to invest in the development of their children’s human, social, and cultural capital, contribut- ing to a greater likelihood of socioeconomic success. Whereas this approach has focused primarily on adolescence, the prolonged tran- sition to adulthood draws attention to the ways more-advantaged parents may strengthen their children’s prospects well after they leave high school, thus contributing to social class

416 Journal of Marriage and Family

reproduction. Consistent with this perspective, previous research found that parents with more economic resources gave more financial help to their grown children (Hogan, Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993; Schoeni & Ross, 2005). Fami- lies of higher SES were more likely to give money to meet living expenses, to purchase a house, or to obtain further education, all of which contributed to the greater human and financial capital of recipients (Semyonov & Lewin-Epstein, 2001; White, 1994). Beyond the availability of resources, Lareau (2003) found cultural differences in childrearing styles, with those from more class-advantaged back- grounds exerting concerted effort to cultivate children’s achievement. These parenting styles may persist into young adulthood. Accordingly, we anticipated families with more resources would be more likely to supply their offspring with support as they invest in their children’s attainment.

Third, existing theory and research have high- lighted the importance of relational quality to intergenerational relations and giving. Intergen- erational solidarity theory has predicted that family closeness would foster exchanges of support between generations (Silverstein et al., 1997). Adult children with closer relations with parents reported receiving more assistance from them (Eggebeen, 2005; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Evidence has suggested that family relation- ships in adulthood have become ‘‘volitional,’’ with exchanges of support motivated by affec- tion (Lye, 1996; Van Gaalen & Dykstra, 2006), perhaps because emotional solidarity and affec- tion trigger intergenerational giving (Rossi & Rossi; Silverstein, Gans, & Yang, 2006). If a volitional model of parent – adult child support applies in this life stage, high-quality relation- ships would increase the odds of young adults receiving parental support.

Other research has observed that, in times of need, parents respond with support regardless of relationship quality (Ward & Spitze, 2007). This leads to our fourth theoretical frame. Con- tingency theory has posited family assistance to be more forthcoming when warranted by dif- ficult life circumstances (Eggebeen & Davey, 1998; Fingerman et al., 2009; Silverstein et al., 2006). This approach conceptualized families as adaptive and responsive to members’ needs and troubles. Parental help may be especially likely when offspring experience problems attaining or maintaining adult statuses (Ryff, Schmutte,

& Lee, 1996). Parents may act as safety nets for their young adult children by offering aid that minimizes the negative effects of crises or difficulties, such as divorce, serious illness, or death of a spouse (Smits et al., 2010). The insta- bility and rapid pace of change during early adulthood may make young adulthood a partic- ularly vulnerable period necessitating a safety net more frequently than in other stages of life (Eggebeen, 2005).

Legitimate circumstances that garner parental aid may not be exclusively negative, but may also include positive opportunities that can bolster the adult child’s potential for achieve- ment and independence. Because the transition to adulthood has long-term consequences for socioeconomic attainment and security, parents may be especially inclined to offer help when it ‘‘scaffolds’’ offspring toward self-sufficiency through investment in human capital develop- ment (Lye, 1996). Indeed, parental attitudes toward continued support to adult children have been shown to depend on the circumstances, with greater approval for aid to those pursu- ing education (Aquilino, 2005; Goldscheider, Thornton, & Yang, 2001). Thus, support does not have to compete with an ideal of indepen- dence; it can be conceptualized as a step toward autonomy. We expected young adults would be more likely to receive parental support when they were students.

VARIATION IN PARENTAL SUPPORT BY RACE, GENDER, AND FAMILY STRUCTURE

Because intergenerational coresidence varies by race in the United States, with Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians living with parents longer than Whites (Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1999), we included race in our analysis. Gender was also included because research has shown gender differences in parental aid. For example, though sons and daughters were found to be equally likely to receive money from parents, sons were more likely to receive housing support (Ward & Spitze, 2007; White, 1994). Coresidence may be more comfortable for sons than daughters, as daughters perform more housework and are more closely supervised (Sassler, Ciambrone, & Benway, 2008).

We also controlled for family size and struc- ture. Family size has been found to influence the amount of intergenerational support; adult children with more siblings receive less money,

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 417

as there are more people with whom to share parental resources (Conley, 2004). Previous research has also found continuously married parents to be more likely to provide support to grown children than single, divorced, or remar- ried parents (Aquilino, 2005). These variations have been attributed to differences in resources, relationship quality and contact, and ambiguous norms for stepfamilies (Amato, Rezac, & Booth, 1995; Aquilino, 2005; White, 1994).

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES

This study contributes to scholarship on parental support during young adulthood in three ways. First, it examines factors that affect receipt of housing and financial support. Prior research has primarily focused on one or the other. Second, it is unique in its focus on provisions for basic living needs. Third, this longitudinal study moves beyond previous research in its ability to capture the effects of age, in addition to changes in life circumstances, on the receipt of parental support in young adulthood. The following hypotheses guided our analysis of parental support:

Hypothesis 1. Guided by life course theories, we anticipate that age norms of young adulthood and progress in attaining adult roles will affect parental giving. We expect that as respondents age, they will be less likely to receive financial and housing help from their parents. Moreover, young adults’ progress in the transition to adulthood, as indicated by their family formation and socioeconomic attainment, will diminish the likelihood of receiving parental support.

Hypothesis 2. Drawing on the attainment per- spective, we anticipate that the socioeconomic status of a young adult’s family of origin will affect the likelihood of receiving parental support. We expect that respondents from families with higher income and those who have more highly educated parents will be more likely to receive assistance.

Hypothesis 3. Testing intergenerational solidarity theory and a volitional model of family support, we anticipate that respondents who report higher quality parent – child relationships will be more likely to receive parental support.

Hypothesis 4. Guided by contingency theory, we anticipate that young adults’ own circumstances and needs, as indicated by school attendance, employment status, and negative life events, will positively affect the receipt of support, as parents

promote human capital acquisition (scaffolding) or respond to serious troubles (safety net).

METHOD

Data were drawn from the Youth Development Study (YDS), an ongoing longitudinal study beginning in 1988 (Mortimer, 2003). The initial sample (N = 1,010) consisted of randomly chosen ninth-grade students enrolled in the St. Paul public school district in Minnesota in the fall of 1987. A probit analysis of the census tract characteristics of respondents (64% of invitees) and those who chose not to participate showed that girls and younger students were somewhat more likely to enroll. There was no significant selection in the original sample with regard to neighborhood characteristics, including racial composition, family structure, and socioeconomic status (Finch, Shanahan, Mortimer, & Ryu, 1991).

In the first four years of the study (1988 – 1991), participants completed question- naires in their high schools. The data for 1992 – 2005 (Waves 5 – 16) were collected by mailed questionnaires asking about experiences in adolescence and the transition to adulthood, including family, work, school, and psychoso- cial characteristics. In 1988 and 1991, the respondents’ parents were surveyed by mail to obtain accurate information regarding socioeco- nomic background.

We analyzed parental economic and housing support during a 9-year period, starting 6 years after high school completion (1997 – 2005). Respondents completed up to eight surveys at ages 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32. We used data obtained from the parents and children from Waves 1 – 4 and 9 – 16. Wave 9 surveys took place in 1997, when most respondents were 24; Wave 16 data were collected in 2005, when they were 32 years old. In 2005, 710 respondents returned surveys. Women and Whites had higher retention than men and non-Whites; and youth without an employed parent during the year preceding the first wave (1987) had a higher risk of survey attrition than those who had at least one employed parent in 1987 (see Mortimer, 2003; Staff & Mortimer, 2007). In our analytic sample (N = 712), some 81% of participants identified as White and 19% identified as non-White (6.7% Black, 4.8% mixed race, 3.8% Hispanic, 1.7% Southeast Asian, 0.7% Other Asian, 0.7% Native American, and 0.7% other race/ethnicity).

418 Journal of Marriage and Family

Measures

Parental support. We examined the receipt of parental support during the latter period of transition to adulthood, after the traditional ages of college attendance. In each survey year (from age 24 in 1997 through age 32 in 2005), respondents were asked, ‘‘During the past year what share of your living expenses were covered by parents?’’ Economic support was a dichotomous variable indicating if any of the respondents’ living expenses in the preceding year were covered by parents (0 = none, 1 = at least some). Housing support was also a dichotomous variable drawn from life- history calendars. We did not consider residing at home during a summer break (June – August), common for college students, as living with parents. Respondents who lived with their parents for at least one month, excluding summer months, in the 12 months preceding each survey were coded as receiving housing support (coded 1). We dichotomized the two parental support variables because in any single year most respondents received no support. Throughout the eight waves, 52% of the respondents received economic support from parents at some point; 51% received housing support at some point. The data were converted to a person-year format, with variables indicating whether a respondent (i.e., child) received support in a given year (1) or not (0). Considering all person-years, 19% of the person-year units received economic support and 19% obtained housing support.

Table 1 lists the explanatory variables and their definitions. With the exception of age, time-varying explanatory variables refer to the year preceding measurement of the dependent variables. Background variables were measured in the first year of the study (1988).

Age and progress in the transition to adulthood. Because age and year were coterminous in this panel study, we measured age in years following the first year of the time series (with age set at 0 at the starting point at age 24 in 1997). The adult child’s parenthood, relationship status (marriage, cohabitation, and neither), education level, and annual household income were time-varying (see Table 1). Respondents were considered parents if they had a child born in, or before, a given year. For most respondents, parenthood status did not vary during the period of observation; 64% of the respondents either had a child prior to age 24

(28%) or did not become a parent through the end of observation at age 32 (36%). To better represent parental timing in our models, two dummy background variables reflected the two groups whose parenthood status did not change over the period of observation (not a parent by 2005 [age 32] and already a parent prior to 1997 [age 24]; the reference category consists of those who became parents during this period). Respondents were considered married if married at least 1 month of the year and cohabiting if they cohabited for at least 1 month and were not married during the prior year (neither cohabiting nor married is the reference).

Time-varying life circumstances associated with parental support. Life circumstances, including school attendance, negative life events, and employment states, were measured as time-varying dichotomous variables (see Table 1). Respondents were considered to be in school (coded 1) if they reported attending school for at least 1 month of the year. Respondents were considered to have experienced a negative event (coded 1) if one or more of several events, shown in Table 1, happened during the previous year. To measure employment problems, we examined periods of unemployment (1 – 11 months unemployed and 12 months unemployed; 0 months unemployed is the reference category), and periods without full-time work (0 full-time work during the year and 1 – 11 full-time work months; the reference category is 12 full-time work months).

Background variables: With the exception of parental timing, described above, background characteristics were derived from the Wave 1 child and parent surveys in 1988 (see Table 1). Though most of these could change over time (e.g., structure of the family of origin), for the purpose of this analysis they were considered background characteristics, referencing states in adolescence at the beginning of the study. The higher value of the mother’s or father’s education indicated the family’s educational background. Family income (in 1987) was represented by a 13-point scale. Race, gender, stepparent family, single-parent family, and other (the continuously married parent family is the reference) were dichotomous; number of siblings was continuous.

Parent – adolescent relationship: During high school, respondents were asked about their feel- ings of closeness to their fathers and mothers.

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 419

Table 1. Time-Varying and Background Variables: Descriptive Statistics (N = 712)

Variables Definition and Categories

Time-varying variables: coded annually from Wave 9 in 1997 through Wave 16 in 2005 Age Years following the first year of the time series (with age set at 0 at the starting point

at age 24 in 1997) Parenthood Coded (1) if a parent; if not, coded (0) Married Coded (1) if living w/ spouse in any month during the past 12 months preceding the

survey administration; if not, coded (0) Cohabiting Coded (1) if living w/ a partner in any month during the past 12 months preceding the

survey administration; if not, coded (0) R’s highest level of education Highest education completed: 1 = high school or less;

2 = technical/vocational school & associate degree; 3 = some college; 4 = bachelor’s degree or above

R’s income Respondents’ income during calendar year preceding the survey administration: 1 = under $5k; 2 = $5k – $9,999; 3 = $10k – $14,999; 4 = $15k – $19,999; 5 = $20k – $29,999; 6 = $30k – $39,999; 7 = $40k – $49,999; 8 = $50k – $59,999; 9 = $60k – $69,999; 10 = $70k – $79,999; 11 = $80k – $89,999; 12 = $90k – $99,999; 13 = $100k or more

School attendance Coded (1) if attended school in any month during the past 12 months preceding the survey administration; if not, coded (0)

Negative events Coded (1) if any of the following events happened during previous year: (a) breakup, (b) serious injury/illness, (c) spent time in jail, (d) assaulted, beaten up, robbed, or raped, (e) death of spouse/partner; if none, coded (0)

Unemployment months Coded as 0 months unemployed (the reference category), 1 – 11 months unemployed, or 12 months unemployed during the past 12 months preceding the survey administration

Full-time work months Coded as 0 months full-time employment, 1 – 11 months full-time employment, or 12 months full-time employment (the reference category) during the past 12 months preceding the survey administration

Background variables M SD Parental education in 1988 Parent’s highest level of education: 1 = less than high school;

2 = high school; 3 = some college/junior college; 4 = 4-year college degree; 5 = some graduate school; 6 = master’s degree; 7 = Ph.D. or professional degree

3.24 1.50

Family income in 1987 Family income: 1 = under $5k; 2 = $5k – $9,999; 3 = $10k – $14,999; 4 = $15k – $19,999; 5 = $20k – $29,999; 6 = $30k – $39,999; 7 = $40k – $49,999; 8 = $50k – $59,999; 9 = $60k – $69,999; 10 = $70k – $79,999; 11 = $80k – $89,999; 12 = $90k – $99,999; 13 = $100k or more

6.11 2.28

White Respondent’s race (1 = White, 0 = other) .81 Male Respondent’s gender (1 = male, 0 = female) .44 Stepparent family Coded (1) if R is from a stepparent family; if not (0) .15 Single-parent family Coded (1) if R is from a single-parent family; if not (0) .17 Other parent family Coded (1) if R is from other types of family; if not (0) .05 Continuously married parent

family (reference category) Coded (1) if R is from a continuously married parent family;

if not (0) .63

Number of siblings 1.43 1.16 Closeness to father during high

school in 1988 – 1991 Average of the closeness to father index in Waves 1

through 4 (each index ranges from 4 – 16) 9.49 2.71

Closeness to mother during high school in 1988 – 1991

Average closeness to mother (computed in the same way as closeness to father)

11.54 2.49

420 Journal of Marriage and Family

Table 1. Continued

Variables Definition and Categories

Not a parent by 2005 (age 32) Coded (1) if R is not a parent by 2005 (age 32); if not (0) .36 Already a parent prior to 1997

(age 24) Coded (1) if R is a parent prior to 1997 (age 24); if not (0) .28

Became a parent (reference category) between 1997 and 2005

Coded (1) if R became a parent between 1997 (age 24) and 2005 (age 31); if not (0)

.36

An additive index, based on the following items, was constructed for each year: (a) ‘‘How close do you feel to him/her?’’ (1 = Not close at all to 4 = Extremely close), (b) ‘‘When you are faced with personal concerns and decisions, do you talk them over with him/her?’’ (1 = Never to 4 = Often), (c) ‘‘How often does he/she talk over important decisions that he/she has to make with you?’’ (1 = Never to 4 = Often), and (d) ‘‘How often does he/she listen to your side of an argument?’’ (1 = Never to 4 = Often). Indices from the four years were averaged to form two closeness indices, one for father (α = .86) and one for mother (α = .86).

Analytic Strategy

We used multilevel models to estimate the effects of individual background characteristics, age, time-varying life circumstances, and indi- cators of progress in the transition to adulthood on parental economic and housing support. In our analyses, time points were nested within individuals. The assumption made for statisti- cal inference that error terms are independent was not likely to be satisfied, because error terms associated with the same person are likely to be positively correlated (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). A multilevel framework appro- priately addressed the nested nature of the data. Two-level hierarchical generalized linear mod- els (HGLM) were estimated with a Bernoulli distribution log-link function; the population average models with robust standard errors were reported (Raudenbush & Bryk).

This multilevel analysis had several advantages over conventional analyses such as ordinary least squares regression (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). It took into account not only the correlated residuals, but by mean-centering the time-varying explanatory variables, controlled for a host of potential sources of spuriousness. Another advantage of the multilevel framework was that it handled unbalanced and incomplete

data appropriately in estimating the parameters. The estimation procedure essentially weighted for the number of observations per person; those respondents who participated in fewer than eight waves contributed less to the overall estimates.

The multilevel framework incorporated covariates that vary with respect to time in the Level 1 model. Covariates considered invariant with respect to time (background variables) were incorporated into Level 2 of the model as predic- tors of person-specific intercepts and age slopes.

A separate set of HGLMs was estimated for each dependent variable, parental economic support and parental housing support. The first step in estimating this model was to create a person-year data set for each survey year from 1997 through 2005; there were 4,387 observations for the economic support models and 4,414 observations for the housing support models. The person-year was the unit of analysis at Level 1 and each person-year was nested within an individual at Level 2 (N = 712 respondents). Sample loss is due to attrition (those who dropped out of the study by 1997 would have no Level 1 variables during the period of observation) as well as the absence of particular background variables.

The values of the dependent variable were transformed from 1 (receiving parental support) and 0 (not receiving parental support) to the linearized log odds of receiving parental sup- port. Because the outcome was dichotomous, we specified a Bernoulli model with a logit link. The Level 1 variance was fixed by the proportion receiving parental support. Conse- quently, the variance could not be apportioned within and between individuals as is custom- ary with hierarchical linear models (HLM). HGLMs also differ from standard HLM models because an appropriate deviance statistic cannot be estimated to assess change in model fit. The Level 1 equation of the final full model for receiving parental support for person i at time

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 421

t was written: Yit = log[Pit/(1 − Pit)] = β0i + β1i ∗ (timeit) + β2i ∗ (parenthoodit) + β3i∗ (marriedit) + β4i ∗ (cohabitingit) + β5i ∗ (highest level of educationit) + β6i ∗ (incomeit) + β7i ∗ (school attendanceit) + β8i ∗ (negative eventsit) + β9i ∗ (1 – 11 months unemployedit) + β10i ∗ (12 months unemployedit) + β11i ∗ (0 months full-time workit) + β12i ∗ (1 – 11full- time work monthsit).

Both Y , referring to the odds of receiving parental support, and the β parameters were uniquely estimated for each person i. β1i is the average rate of change in the odds of receiving parental support per year, and time was measured as years passed since 1997. All Level 1 predictors were centered around their means (person mean over the 8-year period) in order to control for between-individual differences in time-varying variables and thus minimize sources of unobserved heterogeneity that might influence the odds of receiving parental support (Halaby, 2003; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

The Level 2 equations of the final full model were written as:

β0i = γ00 + γ01 ∗ (parental educationi) + γ02 ∗ (family incomei) + γ03 ∗ (Whitei) + γ04 ∗ (malei) + γ05 ∗ (stepparenti) + γ06 ∗ (single parenti) + γ07 ∗ (other parenti) + γ08 ∗ (siblingi) + γ09 ∗ (closeness to fatheri) + γ010 ∗ (closeness to motheri) + γ011 ∗ (not a parent by 2005i) + γ012 ∗ (already a parent prior to 1997i) + μ0i

β1i = γ10 + γ11 ∗ (parental educationi) + γ12 ∗ (family incomei) + γ13 ∗ (Whitei) + γ14 ∗ (malei) + γ15 ∗ (stepparenti) + γ16 ∗ (single parenti) + γ17 ∗ (other parenti) + γ18 ∗ (siblingi) + γ19 ∗ (closeness to fatheri) + γ110 ∗ (closeness to motheri) + μ1i

βxi = γx0

β0i, the individual intercept at t = 0 (i.e., at age 24), and β1i, the rate of change over time, were modeled as a function of specified individual characteristics (γ ). In order to bet- ter represent the two large groups that did not change their parenthood status during the obser- vation period, we included two dummies (not a parent by 2005 [age 32] and already a parent prior to 1997 [age 24]) to predict the Level 1 intercept. Both groups had a score of 0 in all time-varying, mean-centered parenthood spells although their likelihood of receiving support was quite different. Because of multicollinearity (overlap of ‘‘parenting during the observation period,’’ the reference category of the dummies, and the Level 1 parenting variable), we did not include the dummies to predict the age slope. The random error components, μ0i and μ1i, indicated the individual variation around the intercept and the average rate of change.

We did not model other Level 1 parameters (β2i through β12i ) as a function of specific individual characteristics because of the absence of theory as to why these parameters should be considered related to those characteristics and because of the limited degrees of freedom. Thus, the effects of other time-varying covariates, βxi, were fixed across people and did not have an error term specified at Level 2.

To test our hypotheses, variables were entered in a staged sequence, guided by our conceptual model (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). In Model 1 both the Level 1 intercept and the age slope were set to vary randomly, but no attempt was made to predict this variation (Raudenbush & Bryk, p. 26). In Model 2, we considered progress in the transition to adulthood; the receipt of support was modeled as a function of age, parenthood, relationship status, and socioeconomic attain- ments at Level 1. Family socioeconomic char- acteristics and structure, race, gender, number of siblings, parent – adolescent relationship quality, and the dummy variables indicating invariant parental status (always and never during the period of observation) also entered into Model 2 at Level 2. In Model 3, to test the contin- gency model and the scaffolding and safety-net hypotheses, we added the youth’s life circum- stances, including educational attendance, neg- ative events, and employment states at Level 1.

FINDINGS

Tables 2 and 3 present the population-average model results, which indicate how a change

422 Journal of Marriage and Family

Table 2. HGLM Results for Receiving Parental Economic Support (Population Average Models)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

β SE Odds β SE Odds β SE Odds

Intercept −1.40 .05 .25∗∗∗ −2.39 .36 .09∗∗∗ −2.42 .36 .09∗∗∗ Age −.16 .01 .85∗∗∗ .03 .07 1.03 .02 .07 1.02 Parenthood .20 .11 1.22 .18 .11 1.20 Married −.69 .12 .50∗∗∗ −.64 .12 .53∗∗∗ Cohabiting −.46 .09 .63∗∗∗ −.43 .10 .65∗∗∗ R’s highest level of education −.16 .08 .85∗ −.12 .07 .88 R’s income −.08 .02 .92∗∗∗ −.05 .02 .95∗∗ School attendance .42 .08 1.52∗∗∗

Negative event .15 .08 1.16 1 – 11 months unemployed .27 .11 1.31∗

12 months unemployed .37 .28 1.44 0 full-time work months .29 .11 1.34∗∗

1 – 11 full-time work months .25 .09 1.29∗∗

Level 2 variables predicting the intercept Parental education .12 .04 1.13∗∗ .12 .04 1.13∗∗

Family income .02 .03 1.02 .02 .03 1.02 White −.07 .13 .93 −.07 .13 .93 Male .11 .10 1.12 .12 .10 1.12 Stepparent −.45 .13 .64∗∗∗ −.45 .13 .64∗∗∗ Single parent −.13 .15 .88 −.13 .15 .88 Other parent .19 .24 1.21 .20 .24 1.22 Number of siblings −.07 .04 .93 −.07 .04 .93 Closeness to father −.03 .02 .97 −.03 .02 .97 Closeness to mother .06 .02 1.06∗∗ .06 .02 1.06∗∗

Not a parent by 2005 .72 .12 2.05∗∗∗ .71 .12 2.03∗∗∗

Already a parent prior to 1997 −.33 .13 .72∗ −.34 .13 .71∗ Level 2 variables predicting the slope of age

Parental education −.01 .01 .99 −.01 .01 .99 Family income .01 .01 1.01 .01 .01 1.01 White −.02 .03 .98 −.03 .03 .97 Male .02 .02 1.02 .03 .02 1.03 Stepparent .02 .03 1.02 .01 .03 1.01 Single parent .10 .03 1.11∗∗ .09 .03 1.10∗∗

Other parent .05 .05 1.05 .04 .05 1.04 Number of siblings −.01 .01 .99 −.01 .01 .99 Closeness to father .00 .00 1.00 .00 .00 1.00 Closeness to mother −.01 .00 .99∗∗∗ −.01 .00 .99∗∗∗

Note: N = 4, 387 (Level 1), 712 (Level 2). ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

in each predictor affects the overall population odds of receiving any parental economic support and housing support, respectively, from age 24 (in 1997) through age 32 (in 2005).

Economic Support

Turning first to economic support (Table 2), Model 1 confirmed Hypothesis 1, that economic

support decreases as respondents age. On aver- age, the odds of receiving economic sup- port decreased by 15% per year (p < .001). Model 2 also supported Hypothesis 1 in that some indicators of progress in the transition to adulthood lessened the likelihood of receiv- ing economic support from parents. Being married (versus neither married nor cohabit- ing) decreased the odds of receiving economic

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 423

Table 3. HGLM Results for Parental Housing Support (Population Average Models)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

β SE Odds β SE Odds β SE Odds

Intercept −1.37 .05 .25∗∗∗ −1.05 .33 .35∗∗ −1.07 .33 .34∗∗ Age −.20 .01 .82∗∗∗ .01 .08 1.01 .00 .08 1.00 Parenthood .16 .12 1.17 .14 .12 1.15 Married −1.12 .13 .33∗∗∗ −1.06 .13 .35∗∗∗ Cohabiting −.81 .11 .44∗∗∗ −.78 .11 .46∗∗∗ R’s highest level of education −.14 .07 .87∗ −.11 .07 .90 R’s income −.00 .02 1.00 .01 .02 1.02 School attendance .31 .08 1.36∗∗∗

Negative event .22 .08 1.25∗∗

1 – 11 months unemployed .15 .11 1.17 12 months unemployed −.02 .29 .98 0 full-time work months .13 .11 1.14 1 – 11 full-time work months .14 .09 1.15 Level 2 variables predicting the intercept

Parental education −.14 .03 .87∗∗∗ −.14 .03 .87∗∗∗ Family income −.03 .03 .97 −.03 .03 .97 White −.05 .12 .95 −.05 .12 .95 Male .19 .10 1.21∗ .19 .10 1.21∗

Stepparent −.24 .13 .79 −.24 .13 .78 Single parent −.28 .15 .75 −.29 .15 .75 Other parent .09 .21 1.09 .09 .21 1.10 Number of siblings −.01 .04 .99 −.01 .04 .99 Closeness to father −.04 .02 .96∗ −.04 .02 .96∗ Closeness to mother .04 .02 1.04∗ .04 .02 1.04∗

Not a parent by 2005 .91 .12 2.49∗∗∗ .91 .12 2.48∗∗∗

Already a parent prior to 1997 −.48 .13 .62∗∗∗ −.47 .13 .62∗∗∗ Level 2 variables predicting the slope of age

Parental education .01 .01 1.01 .01 .01 1.01 Family income .00 .01 1.00 .00 .01 1.00 White −.05 .03 .95 −.05 .03 .95 Male −.01 .03 .99 .00 .03 1.00 Stepparent .04 .04 1.04 .04 .04 1.04 Single parent .05 .04 1.05 .04 .04 1.04 Other parent −.05 .06 .95 .05 .07 .95 Number of siblings −.01 .01 .99 −.01 .01 .99 Closeness to father .00 .00 1.00 .00 .00 1.00 Closeness to mother −.01 .00 .99∗ −.01 .00 .99∗

Note: N = 4, 414 (Level 1), 712 (Level 2). ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

support by 50% (p < .001), and cohabitation decreased the odds by 37% (p < .001). More- over, each increase in the young adult’s educa- tional attainment and household income (across the 13 categories) decreased the odds of sup- port by 15% (p < .05) and 8% (p < .001), respectively. These findings were generally robust across Models 2 and 3 and confirmed our hypotheses that age and progress in the transition

to adulthood, as indicated by union formation and socioeconomic attainment, diminish eco- nomic support from parents. The respondent’s level of education had a significant negative independent effect on the odds of receiving economic support in Model 2 but the effect diminished when the young adult’s chang- ing life circumstances were controlled for in Model 3.

424 Journal of Marriage and Family

Although parenthood is an important marker of transition to adulthood, having a child between ages 24 and 32 did not affect the odds of receiving economic support. Effects of the dummy variables representing those whose parental status was time invariant (those who already had a child before age 24 and those who remained childless through age 32), however, suggested that parental status matters for sup- port. Compared to those who became a parent between ages 24 – 32, those who remained child- less throughout the study period had much higher odds of receiving economic support at age 24 (by 105%, p < .001) and those who already had a child before age 24 had lower odds of receiving economic support at age 24 (by 28%, p < .05).

Model 2 also provided partial support for Hypothesis 2 that family socioeconomic back- ground affects the likelihood of receiving parental support. Parental education was found to be positively related to support at the start of the observation period. Each increase in parental educational level increased the odds of support by 13% at age 24 (p < .01). Family income did not significantly influence financial support.

Hypothesis 3 focused on the quality of the parent – adult child relationship as a correlate of support. Although closeness to father was not associated with economic support at age 24, closeness to mother increased the odds of support. Each increase in closeness to mother increased the odds by 6% (p < .01). The positive effect of closeness to mother on the intercept was stable across Models 2 and 3. Respondents who were closer to their mothers, however, had significantly steeper declines in economic support as they aged.

Model 3 showed partial support for Hypoth- esis 4 that parental support is contingent on the young adult’s changing life circumstances. Vari- ables introduced at Level 1, indicating needs for scaffolding and safety nets, increased parental support. School attendance increased the odds of receiving economic support by 52% (p < .001), supporting our scaffolding hypothesis. ‘‘Legitimate need,’’ as indicated by employment problems, was associated with greater likelihood of economic support. Partial-year unemploy- ment was associated with significantly higher odds of receiving economic support. Those who were partly unemployed during the preceding year were 31% more likely to receive economic support than those who were never unemployed (p < .05). Full-year unemployment, however,

did not change the odds. No full-time work or only partial-year full-time work also increased the odds of receiving support (versus full-year, full-time work) by 34% (p < .01) and 29% (p < .01), respectively. Contrary to the contingency hypothesis, experiencing one or more negative events during the preceding year did not change the odds of receiving parental financial support.

Whereas children from single-parent families were not less likely to receive economic support than those from continuously married parent families at the start of observation, they experienced less decline in support with age than did children from continuously married families. Those from stepfamilies appeared to be at a disadvantage at the outset. The odds of receiving economic support at age 24 for those from a stepparent household were 36% lower than respondents from a continuously married parent household (p < .001). Neither gender nor number of siblings were significant factors in receiving economic support.

Housing Support

Table 3 displays the results for housing assis- tance, or, more specifically, coresidence in the parental home. There was substantial similarity in findings for the two sets of models.

Hypothesis 1 was supported, as age had a strong negative effect on housing support (Model 1, p < .001). Like economic support, in Model 2, union formation, but not the onset of parenthood between ages 24 and 32, sig- nificantly decreased the odds of coresidence. Being married (vs. neither married nor cohabit- ing) decreased the odds of coresidence by 67% (p < .001). Cohabiting (vs. neither married nor cohabiting) decreased the odds of coresidence by 56% (p < .001). Also similar to the results for economic support, those who became a par- ent between ages 24 – 32 had significantly lower odds of receiving housing support at the begin- ning of the observation period than those who remained without a child by age 32, but much higher odds than the early parents, those who already had a child before age 24. Progress in the transition to adulthood, as indicated by change in respondents’ educational attainment and income, were not significantly associated with the odds of coresidence.

Contrary to Hypothesis 2, that greater parental resources would increase the likelihood of housing support, young adults whose parents

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 425

were more highly educated actually received less residential support than those whose parents had less education. Family income did not sig- nificantly predict the odds of receiving housing support.

With respect to Hypothesis 3, implicating the quality of parent – child relationships, we found the opposite impacts of closeness to father and mother on the odds of receiving housing support; closeness to father decreased the odds and closeness to mother increased the odds. Like economic support, closeness to mothers in adolescence predicted a steeper decline in residential support with age.

Relevant to our fourth contingency hypoth- esis, Model 3 showed that school attendance increased the odds of living with parents by 36% (p < .001). Unlike economic support, neg- ative events increased the odds of coresidence by 25% (p < .01). Changes in unemployment or full-time-work problems were not significantly associated with the odds of coresidence.

With respect to the variables entered as controls, Model 2 showed that men were 1.2 times more likely to receive housing support than women (p < .05) at the outset; men’s greater likelihood of living with parents was apparent in both Model 2 and Model 3. Variables representing structure of the family of origin did not predict the odds of receiving housing support at age 24 or the rate of change in residential support with age. Number of siblings had no significant effects on housing support.

DISCUSSION

The extended transition into adulthood has implications for families, as many parents continue to support their young-adult children. Although almost half of young adults in the YDS received at least one of the two forms of parental assistance—financial or housing support—in their early 20s, only 10 – 15% received help in their early 30s. The robust effect of age suggests a strong normative framework supporting the independence of children as they grow older.

Also consistent with the life course perspec- tive, the child’s own progress toward becoming an adult, as indicated by intimate partnership and income attainment, diminished parental aid. Parents were especially disinclined to provide money or housing to young-adult children who were married or cohabited. This finding is consistent with other research that has found

lower levels of intergenerational support from parents to married adult children compared to their single counterparts (Hogan et al., 1993; Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2008). Those who remained childless through the study period received more support than those who had children. These results suggested that family formation was viewed as an important marker of adulthood, signaling that independence and autonomy were expected. Our data cannot assess who initiated support. Possibly, parents viewed offspring who had begun to form families as having transi- tioned into adulthood and believed it was no longer appropriate to provide for them. Or per- haps these young adults felt it was inappropriate to seek or accept parental help once they had formed their own families. Additionally, mar- ried or cohabiting respondents may have had less need for parental aid because they had partners to turn to when problems arose.

From the status-attainment perspective, we anticipated that young adults from families with greater resources would be more likely to receive financial assistance from their parents. Yet we found parents across income groups were sim- ilarly inclined to provide at least some money for living expenses to their adult children. We found, however, more highly educated parents to be more likely to provide money. This pattern offered some evidence of a social class differ- ence in cultural expectations for prolonged sup- port during young adulthood and the possibility that more highly educated parents viewed their young-adult child’s success as a kind of joint project that required their ‘‘concerted cultiva- tion’’ (Lareau, 2003) and continued investment. The large differences by social class reported in other studies (Hogan et al., 1993; Schoeni & Ross, 2005) likely reflect the amount of money given or gifts for extras or education, which our data did not capture.

We found mixed evidence for a volitional model of parent – adult child relationships that would encourage assistance depending on prior relationship quality; close relationships with mothers fostered both kinds of support ini- tially, but relationship quality with fathers had either no effect (economic support) or a neg- ative effect (housing support). Perhaps close relationships with mothers facilitated young adults asking for help, or mothers who were closer to their children were more aware of their needs. Although those who were closer to their mothers in adolescence received more help in

426 Journal of Marriage and Family

early adulthood, they had a steeper decline in support as they aged. It may be that in addi- tion to this early material assistance, those who were closer to their mothers also received other types of parental aid, such as advice, emotional support, and practical help that could have con- tributed to their ability to become self-sufficient.

Effects for relationships with fathers ran counter to solidarity or volitional model predic- tions. One plausible interpretation for the unan- ticipated negative effect of closeness to father on housing support is that movement toward early independence fostered good relationships or, alternatively, that strong relationships with fathers in adolescence encouraged earlier res- idential independence. These findings, taken together, suggest that relationship quality with mothers and fathers may be based on different criteria, with distinct implications for intergen- erational support. Further research in this area is needed. We may have found more consistent evidence that solidarity activates aid if we had examined other forms of help, such as services, occasional gifts, or emotional support in addition to housing or supplements for living expenses.

Our findings regarding safety nets and scaf- folding are particularly revealing. Lending cre- dence to our hypotheses, negative life events and school attendance instigated parental assistance. The situational nature of parental assistance sup- ported the contingency theoretical approach and mirrored findings of other studies of intergener- ational help (Fingerman et al., 2009; Silverstein et al., 2006; Ward & Spitze, 2007). Different types of problems, however, elicited distinct forms of help. Financial assistance was respon- sive to situations representing temporary unem- ployment, lasting less than a full year, suggesting that when young adults are temporarily derailed by interruptions in employment, parents come to the rescue with money for living expenses. Yet parents did not increase financial support to those adult children who experienced more serious, chronic unemployment. Thus, our data suggested that parents acted as safety nets that helped their children get back on their feet, rather than offering long-term support that could pro- long dependence as proposed in the media of late (e.g., Bahney 2006; Tyre 2002). Parents, though, were more likely to support adult chil- dren financially who did not work full time, whether temporarily or not. This may indi- cate parents’ willingness to partially provide for their young-adult children as they encounter

difficulties securing full-time jobs or as they take longer to explore work options.

Housing support was forthcoming for those who experienced other problems and crises not related to employment, such as divorce, serious illness, or death of a spouse. Financial support may be a more easily transferable asset that is responsive to temporary problems like intermit- tent unemployment. In contrast, moving in with parents could be a more consequential response in reaction to a serious negative life event, such as divorce or separation (signaling more durable shifts in resources and statuses) or serious illness that may require multiple forms of help. Whether in the form of financial or housing assistance, results from this study demonstrated that parents served as safety nets when their young-adult children encountered difficult circumstances.

The significant positive effects of school attendance across models supports the scaf- folding hypothesis. Student status promoted both financial and housing help, independent of age, family resources, parent – child relation- ship quality, and important life circumstances. Parents helped their children to take advan- tage of opportunities to build human capital and improve their chances for achievement by providing for them while they acquired more education.

Consistent with previous research, men were more likely than women to receive residen- tial help from parents. Previous research has suggested that gendered expectations have con- tributed to coresident daughters having more household responsibilities and being more closely monitored and controlled than sons (Sassler et al., 2008). If women have greater desire to escape onerous conditions in the parental home, this could motivate earlier fam- ily formation and other activities that reduce the likelihood of coresidence.

Family structure had some bearing on receipt of parental aid. Those from stepfamilies were less likely to receive financial transfers than those from continuously married parent families. Others have explained this pattern as deriving from the diffusion of responsibility among cus- todial and noncustodial parents, as well as less close parent – child relations (Aquilino, 2005).

Conclusions

A central finding of this study was that parental support in young adulthood depended

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 427

on contemporaneous circumstances. Young adults’ life events and needs influenced parents’ willingness to help them: When young people were moving toward socioeconomic attainment or when they had experienced a crisis, they were more likely to receive financial and housing assistance. In this way, parents served as collaborators in their children’s transition to adulthood, acting as scaffolding systems to help young people reach their goals and as safety nets to catch them before they fell too far.

This study provides evidence that parental assistance in young adulthood promoted progress toward self-sufficiency under changed structural conditions. In an economy that required advanced education for good jobs, par- ents were more likely to aid their children when they were students. As the labor market offered fewer opportunities for stable, full-time, well- paid work for the young, parents often filled in when needed. As young people progressed toward becoming adults, parents stepped back.

A few limitations of this study warrant atten- tion. Respondents in this study came from St. Paul public schools, and were recruited during a time when there was less racial and ethnic diver- sity than today. Regional samples have been used in other important studies of parental giving (Fingerman et al., 2009; Rossi & Rossi, 1990), yet future research would benefit from nationally representative and more diverse samples. This study probably underrepresents the wealthiest families, many of whom send their children to private schools. Also, time-varying measures of relationship closeness may have yielded more support for the volitional hypothesis.

Still, these findings validate the assertion that intergenerational relations may become increas- ingly important as people delay marriage and as marriage becomes less stable (Bengtson, 2001). Perhaps individuals rely on their partners when they have them, but turn to their parents when they do not have partners. Alternatively, parents may withdraw support to uphold the boundaries of the newly forming nuclear family, viewing self-reliance as essential for nuclear family well- being. In either case, even when young people delay or forgo partnering or experience relation- ship instability, many have family to turn to in times of need. Indeed, the findings suggest that families are adaptive to changing situations that threaten the well-being of their members.

Prolonged family support is not without its drawbacks. It may play a role in solidifying,

or even exacerbating, economic inequalities and may cause strain for families with few resources. In addition, these findings hold implications for policy. Young adults without access to families who can provide for them during difficult times or when they need further education may find themselves at a decided disadvantage. Additionally, policymakers and institutions should keep in mind that dependency does not necessarily end at the age of majority, but that parents may extend their support to children a decade or more beyond this. Thus, families are absorbing some of the problems associated with an economy that requires more education but offers less stable employment and lower wages for young people. In any case, what is apparent is the ongoing significance of family, especially with respect to the increasing importance and relevance of intergenerational assistance.

NOTE The Youth Development Study is supported by a grant, ‘‘Work Experience and Mental Health: A Panel Study of Youth,’’ from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD44138). It was previously supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (MH42843). We thank Jeremy Staff for his helpful advice on the data analysis. The content of this paper is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R., Rezac, S. J., & Booth, A. (1995). Help- ing between parents and young adult offspring: The role of parental marital quality, divorce and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 363 – 374.

Aquilino, W. S. (1999). Rethinking the young adult life stage: Prolonged dependency as an adap- tive strategy. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M. J. Shanahan (Eds), Transitions to adulthood in a changing economy: No work, no family, no future (pp. 168 – 175). Westwood, CT: Praeger.

Aquilino, W. S. (2005). Impact of family structure on parental attitudes toward the economic support of adult children over the transition to adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 143 – 167.

Bahney, A. (2006, April 20). The bank of mom and dad. New York Times, pp. G1 – 2.

Bell, L., Burtless, G., Gornick, J. C., & Smeed- ing, T. M. (2007). Failure to launch: Cross- national trends in the transition to economic independence. In S. Danziger & C. Rouse (Eds.), The price of independence: The economics of early adulthood (pp. 27 – 55). New York: Russell Sage.

428 Journal of Marriage and Family

Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1 – 16.

Conley, D. (2004). The pecking order: Which siblings succeed and why. New York: Pantheon.

Cote, J. (2000). Arrested adulthood: The changing nature of maturity. New York: New York University Press.

Eggebeen, D. J. (2005). Cohabitation and exchanges of support. Social Forces, 83, 1097 – 1110.

Eggebeen, D. J., & Davey, A. (1998). Do safety nets work? The role of anticipated help in times of need. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 939 – 950.

Finch, M. D., Shanahan, M. J., Mortimer, J. T., & Ryu, S. (1991). Work experience and control orientation in adolescence. American Sociological Review, 56, 597 – 611.

Fingerman, K. L., Miller, L. M., Birdett, K. S., & Zarit, S. (2009). Giving to the good and the needy: Parental support of grown children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 1220 – 1233.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Kennedy, S., McLoyd, V. C., Rumbaut, R. G., & Settersten, R. A., Jr. (2004). Growing up is harder to do. Contexts, 3, 21 – 33.

Goldscheider, F., & Goldscheider, C. (1999). The changing transition to adulthood: Leaving and returning home. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goldscheider, F. K., Thornton, A., & Yang, L. S. (2001). Helping out the kids: Expectations about parental support in young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 727 – 740.

Halaby, C. N. (2003). Panel models for the analysis of change and growth in life course studies. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 503 – 527). New York: Kluwer.

Hogan, D. P., Eggebeen, D. J., & Clogg, C. C. (1993). The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families. American Journal of Sociol- ogy, 98, 1428 – 1458.

Kerckhoff, A. C. (1995). Social stratification and mobility processes: Interaction between individu- als and social structures. In K. C. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. A. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 476 – 496). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Lye, D. N. (1996). Adult child – parent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 79 – 102.

Mortimer, J. T. (2003). Working and growing up in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchi- cal linear models (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Ryff, C. D., Schmutte, P. S., & Lee, Y. H. (1996). How children turn out: Implications for parental self-evaluation. In C. D. Ryff & M. M. Selzer (Eds.), The parental experience at midlife (pp. 853 – 866). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2008). Till marriage do us part: Adult children’s relationships with their parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 360 – 376.

Sassler, S., Ciambrone, D., & Benway, G. (2008). Are they really mama’s boys/daddy’s girls? The negotiation of adulthood upon returning to the parental home. Sociological Forum, 23, 670 – 698.

Scabini, E., Marta, E., & Lanz, M. (2006). The transition to adulthood and family relations: An intergenerational perspective. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.

Schoeni, R. F., & Ross, K. E. (2005). Material assis- tance from families during the transition to adult- hood. In R. A. Settersten, Jr., F. F. Furstenberg, Jr., & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy (pp. 396 – 416). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Semyonov, M., & Lewin-Epstein, N. (2001). The impact of parental transfers on living standards of married children. Social Indicators Research, 54, 115 – 137.

Settersten, R. A., Jr. (1998). A time to leave home and a time never to return? Age constraints on the living arrangements of young adults. Social Forces, 76, 1373 – 1400.

Settersten, R. A., Jr., Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Rum- baut, R. G. (Eds.). (2005). On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sewell, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1980). The Wiscon- sin longitudinal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 1, 59 – 99.

Silverstein, M., Bengtson, V. L., & Lawton, L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child – parent relations in American society. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 429 – 460.

Silverstein, M., Gans, D., & Yang, F. M. (2006). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1068 – 1084.

Smits, A., Van Gaalen, R. I., & Mulder, C. H. (2010). Parent-child coresidence: Who moves in with whom and for whose needs? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1022 – 1033.

Staff, J., & Mortimer, J. T. (2007). Educational and work strategies from adolescence to early adult- hood: Consequences for educational attainment. Social Forces, 85, 1169 – 1194.

Parental Support in the Transition to Adulthood 429

Tyre, P. (2002, March 25). Bringing up adultoles- cents. Newsweek, pp. 38 – 40.

Van Gaalen, R. I., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 947 – 960.

Ward, R. A., & Spitze, G. (2007). Nestleaving and coresidence by young adult children: The role of family. Research on Aging, 29, 257 – 277.

White, L. (1994). Coresidence and leaving home: Young adults and their parents. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 81 – 102.

Yelowitz, A. S. (2007). Young adults leaving the nest: The role of the cost of living. In S. Danziger & C. Rouse (Eds.), The price of independence (pp. 170 – 207). New York: Russell Sage.