Grandparents as the Primary Care Providers for Their Grandchildren: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Chinese and U.S. Samples

Abstract

This study compared American and Chinese caregiving grandparents regarding variables reflecting challenges and resources in dealing with the demands of raising a grandchild. A total of 238 grandparent caregivers in the United States and 106 Chinese grandparent caregivers were sampled and completed research questionnaires for this study. Analyses indicated that after controlling for grandparents’ gender, age, health, length of caregiving, and number of grandchildren, main effects for culture were significant for parental efficacy, authoritative parenting style, grandchild negative interpersonal dynamics, role satisfaction, well-being, and attachment to the grandchild. Correlational findings provided further understanding of cross-cultural similarities and differences in grandparent caregiving. Findings are discussed in the context of the globality of grandparent caregiving and the salience of family dynamic and values among Chinese grandparent caregivers. These findings also underscore the lack of supportive services for Chinese grandparents in light of their personal adaptive qualities and the demands of raising a grandchild.

Keywords

caregivers custodial grandparent grandparenthood family culture

Over the past decade, greater attention has been given to the social-interpersonal, cultural, and policy-related contexts in which grandparent caregiving occurs (Dolbin-MacNab & Yancura, 2017; Hayslip, 2009; Hayslip & Musil, 2017). Such work can sensitize researchers, practitioners, and laypersons to the limits of what we know about grandfamilies based upon findings from Western societies; this awareness is a critical dimension of cultural competence (Alizadeh & Chavan, 2016). Ultimately, such research can contribute to an understanding of the mechanisms by which culture influences grandfamilies (see Cole, 2005) and reinforce the need to understand the contextual uniquenesses and globality of grandfamilies’ experiences, as argued by Dolbin-MacNab and Yancura (2017). It is noteworthy that cross-cultural comparisons of grandparent caregivers are extremely rare in the literature (see Cox & Miner, 2014; Hank & Buber, 2009; Hayslip, Baird, Toledo, Toledo, & Emick, 2006; Ko & Hank, 2014).

U.S. grandparents take on the responsibility of raising their grandchildren due to a variety of disruptive and often stigmatizing events within the family, for example, parental death, parents’ divorce, incarceration, drug addiction or alcoholism, child abuse and neglect, teen pregnancy, or AIDS (Cox, 2008; Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017; Park & Greenberg, 2007), often with little or no advance knowledge or preparation. Many, but not all, grandparents who raise their grandchildren are at risk for social isolation, stress, poor health, and financial strain (Brown & Mars, 2000; Cox, 2008). These factors ultimately disenfranchise grandfamilies, causing many to feel discriminated against, powerless, and invisible (Wohl, Lahner, & Jooste, 2003).

The population of Chinese grandparents as the primary care providers for their grandchildren has evolved from a different context versus such persons in the United States. After the Chinese economic reform was launched in 1978, a series of special economic zones were created by the government in several major cities and coastal regions to attract foreign investment. As a result, many young adult parents left rural areas to seek better-paid work in these areas given the economic opportunities in the past 20+ years, which has yielded a large number of what are termed left-behind children (LBC) to be cared for by grandparents (Burnette, Sun, & Sun, 2013). Such children tend to be younger than 15, with many being under the age of 6 years (Burnette et al., 2013; Zhang, Bécares, Chandola, & Callery, 2015). More than 40% of LBC are raised by their grandparents in China, and 26% of children in rural provinces lived with only their grandparents in a skipped-generation family (J. Sun, 2013). Over the last decade, there has been a decline in part-time care provided by grandparents and a corresponding increase in full-time caregiving (Silverstein & Cong, 2013).

Compared with research in countries other than the United States, there is extensive work regarding grandparents raising grandchildren in China focusing on LBC in the past 10 years. Research consistently reveals that LBC, compared with their peers of similar age who live with parents, report greater social and behavioral problems at school, experience more psychological difficulties, and have lower academic performance (Albin, Qin, & Hong, 2013; Cheng & Sun, 2015; Jia & Tian, 2010; Lu, Lin, Vikse, & Huang, 2016; X. Sun et al., 2015; L. Wang et al., 2015). Although these outcomes generally parallel those raised by grandparents in the United States (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017; Park & Greenberg, 2007), work focusing on the adjustment and well-being of the grandparent care-providers for these children is extremely scarce.

Chinese grandparents who care for LBC so their adult children and children-in law who migrate to the city for work can save money have been termed “family maximizers” (Baker & Silverstein, 2012). Burnette et al. (2013) found that Chinese grandparent caregivers, who despite the “culturally normative and thus expected nature of this role” (p. 47), lacked formal support in the form of programs and services, experienced poor health, and found the task of caring for a grandchild “very difficult.” As is true in the United States, Goh and Kuczynski (2010) have documented the changing intergenerational dynamics (e.g., disagreements over child-rearing and discipline) and the difficult choices made by grandparents (e.g., retiring and enjoying one’s freedom vs. meeting one’s familial responsibilities and obligations) among grandfamilies in China. As is also true in the United States, the strengths (i.e., resilience) of grandparent caregivers have largely been ignored (Goh & Kuszynski, 2010). Significantly, however, J. Sun (2013) argued that by taking care of others, grandparents demonstrate both their capacity to cope and personal strength, remain productive, and gain a sense of satisfaction and achievement via caregiving.

In contrast to much of the published work in the United States (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017), Guo, Pickard, and Huang (2008) found that Chinese caregiving grandparents experienced better mental or physical health than their noncaregiving peers, which the authors explained in terms of the similarity of culturally prescribed roles as authoritative family members and actual role behaviors and responsibilities, wherein respect for one’s elders and compliance enriched the caregiving role for Chinese grandparents (Nagata, Cheng, & Tsai-Chae, 2010). On the other hand, Chen and Liu (2012) found greater intensity care for the most part to accelerate health declines among grandparent caregivers in China, though the skipped generation grandparents with higher incomes did not experience such declines.

In the lone published comparison study of grandparent caregivers in the United States and China, Baker and Silverstein (2012), relying on secondary data targeting patterns of depressive symptoms over time across skipped generation or nonskipped generation households, found that Chinese grandparents were least depressed before and after they entered a skipped generation household arrangement and most depressed when they were not of a skipped generation household. This pattern was reversed among U.S. grandparents where declines in such health over time were found for American grandparent caregivers. This suggests that Chinese grandparents entered the custodial role in better psychological health and that such health improved over time in that role, largely attributable to economic resources provided to them by their children (Baker & Silverstein, 2012).

The Present Study

Although this study is largely exploratory, it focuses upon empirically based comparisons of grandparent caregivers in the United States and China on a number of carefully selected variables that reflect the challenges and the resources in dealing with raising grandchildren. Not only are such comparisons virtually absent in the literature, but they can also serve as a starting point in understanding the similarity or lack of similarity in underlying processes and outcomes related to the potential impact of the cultural context in which grandparent caregiving occurs (e.g., negative family life events in the United States vs. rapid economic reform resulting in parents’ migrating from rural to urban areas to find work in China).

The cross-cultural comparison of grandparent caregivers in this study focused on three general areas: (a) psychological strengths or resources of grandparent caregivers, (b) parenting practices and perceived outcomes of parenting (see Smith & Richardson, 2008), and (c) grandchildren’s adjustment. The specific variables measured in the study include resilience, general psychological well-being, and grandparent role satisfaction to reflect the first focus; parenting style, parental efficacy, and attachment with the grandchild related to the second focus; and emotional, interpersonal, and behavioral problems reflecting the third focus. The selection of variables in each area of interest was guided by the grandparent caregiver literature (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017). More detailed rationales for the selection of each variable measured in this study are presented in the Measure section.

Given the exploratory nature of this study, no specific hypotheses were developed. Nevertheless, following some key principles highlighted in the Hofstede Cultural Dimension Model (e.g., Hofstede, 2011), the general expectation we had about the findings was that U.S. grandparent caregivers would differ significantly from their Chinese counterparts in measures that reflect a smaller power distance between grandparents and grandchild (e.g., U.S. grandparents would report lower authoritarian parenting scores than their Chinese counterparts). Alternatively, given the individualistic cultural norm in the United States, it may also be that U.S. grandparents would report higher authoritative parenting and attachment to grandchild scores. It might also be that given the collectivistic nature of Chinese culture as it bears on grandparents as caregivers (see Chen, Liu, & Mair, 2011; Chen, Short, & Entwisle, 2000; Hu, Lonne, & Burton, 2014), such grandparents might report being more resilient than their U.S. counterparts, for whom familial social support might be lacking and given the nature of the grandparent caregiver role and the associated stigma attached to it (e.g., brought about by adult children’s drug use, divorce, parental incompetence, or abandonment) in the United States (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017; Park & Greenberg, 2007).

Method

Samples and Procedures

The U.S. sample consisted of 42 male participants and 196 female grandparent caregivers; 6 persons did not indicate their age. Table 1 presents its sociodemographic characteristics, where most (79%) were Caucasian, with African American grandparents making up 13.8% of this sample. Grandparent caregivers were recruited predominantly from within and around a southwest state metropolitan area as well as from other states using a variety of resources (e.g., grandparents.com, Generations United, the Brookdale Foundation, local support groups, the community at large). Grandparents qualified for the study if they were currently caring for a grandchild on a full-time basis. Based upon stated institutional review board criteria specifying that grandparents who volunteered for the study would being raising their grandchildren without the assistance of the adult child or parent, nearly all grandparents were of skipped-generation families, though no such data were collected given the recruitment criteria. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that participants’ grandfamilies would have been coparenting in nature, though there is of course a possibility that of a small minority of U.S. participants were raising a grandchild with the assistance of the child’s parent.

Table 1.
Sociodemographic Characteristics Across Samples.

United States (n =232)
China (n = 106)

M SD M SD

Grandparent Age^a 58.04 8.30 61.39 8.54

Number of grandchildren 1.61 1.19 1.34 .58

Length of time raising GC 6.47 4.68 7.01 4.18

Overall health 24.75 5.46 12.82 2.38

Grandchild age 9.64 4.65 9.74 3.94

Self-reported SES 2.64 1.47 3.50 .85

Grandparent gender^a 42 men and 196 women 40 men and 66 women

Grandchild gender^b 125 men and 102 women 44 men and 60 women

Note. GC = grandchild; SES = socioeconomic status.

^aSix missing cases in the U.S. sample.

^bEleven missing cases in the U.S. sample.

A total of 270 survey packets were mailed to grandparent caregivers who indicated an interest in the project, described in terms of studying resilience among such persons, wherein 88.1% were returned. A letter of invitation, an informed consent form, a demographic information sheet, and the survey packet were mailed to each participant, and the signed consent form was returned by mail separate from the demographic information sheet and the survey packet.

The Chinese sample (see Tables 1 and 2) was composed of 106 grandparent caregivers (40 men and 66 women), all of whom were from skipped generation households. Tables 1 and 2 present its sociodemographic characteristics. The recruitment of Chinese participants was carried out in two methods: 47 grandparent guardians of LBC (15 men and 32 women) attending an elementary school in JiaYu County, Hubei, China were recruited by a research team based upon in-person visits. Sixty-two grandparent caregivers (25 men and 34 women) were invited through an online social media.

Table 2.
Sociodemographic Characteristics Across Chinese Subsamples.

Jia Yu (n = 46)
Online (n = 60)

M SD M SD

Grandparent age 65.22 6.67 59.44 8.57

Number of grandchildren 1.50 .62 1.24 .51

Length of time raising GC 8.89 3.44 5.55 4.25

Overall health 13.34 2.21 12.37 2.51

Grandchild age 11.33 2.96 8.31 4.34

Self-reported SES 4.04 .19 3.09 .17

Grandparent gender 15 men and 31 women 25 men and 34 women

Grandchild gender^a 19 men and 21 women 27 men and 31 women

Note. SES= higher scores reflect less self-reported income status; figures reflect cases with no missing data. GC = grandchild; SES = socioeconomic status.

^aSix cases missing in Jia Yu sample.

For the in-person recruitment, the research team (led by the third author) scheduled a 2-day visit after receiving permission from district officials and school principal, wherein the recruitment days were recommended by the school because it was the time in which a 2-day special school event sponsored by the Women’s Federation of XianNing City took place. This event intended to help the care providers of the 400 LBC who attended this elementary school by enhancing their knowledge, answering their questions related to care provision, and child discipline. It included psychoeducational programs, round table, and panel discussions.

Although 100 potential grandparent participants attended this event, 48 indicated that they were not able to read on their own (commonplace in rural areas of China). The illiteracy rate among those aged more than 60 years in this region is approximately 42.5% (National Bureau of Statistics [China], 2005). Because the research team did not have sufficient personnel to read to each individual, recruitment focused on those grandparents who could read, where the project was described as an effort to understand grandparent caregivers’ experiences and adjustment. Forty-five of 52 (86.5%) who could read completed the survey package. Upon returning the completed survey package, participants received 30 Yuan as compensation for their time.

WeChat is the most popular smart phone-based social media app in China and it is reported that WeChat has 963 million active users in 2017 (Tencent: China Internet Watch, 2017). An online recruitment effort was made via WeChat to reach out to a larger group of potential participants. The research opportunity message with a link to the online survey was posted on four WeChat groups (membership ranging from 100 to 200) that all focused on advancing parenting practices. Description of the study was the same as those used in the in-person recruitment and it was explicitly stated that participants should be grandparents who were currently the primary caregivers of their grandchildren whose parents did not reside in the same household. Because WeChat users typically belong to multiple WeChat groups, receivers of this message were encouraged to forward it to those who were qualified. Potential participants were instructed to complete the online survey, and the system was set up in a way such that each cell phone IP address was allowed one time access to the survey. Upon completion, each participant received 30 Yuan via the WeChat’s Red Envelope function as compensation. This recruitment lasted for 3 weeks and 62 grandparent caregivers from 14 provinces across China completed the online surveys. Compared with those recruited from JiaYu County of Hubei Province, the online participants tended to have more education and live in larger cities, which were consistent with the researchers’ expectations.

The Jia Yu subsample was older, healthier, and had been raising more children, who were also older, all Fs(1, 98) exceeding 4.14, ps <.01 (see Table 2), for a longer period of time. In addition, Jia Yu Chinese grandparents reported lower income levels than did those Chinese grandparents recruited online, F(1, 98) = 43.62, p < .01 (see Table 2).

The Chinese subsamples also differed, all ps < .01, critical F(1, 92) = 4.14, p < .01, adjusting for covariates, in terms of all parental styles and perceived grandchild difficulties (see descriptions of scales later), all favoring the online recruited Chinese subsamples (see Table 3). The Chinese subsamples were similar (p > .05) in terms of resilience, parental efficacy, role satisfaction, and grandchild attachment, and adjusting for covariates (see descriptions later and Table 3).

Table 3.
Means and Differences in Psychosocial Functioning Variables Between U.S. and Chinese Grandparent Samples.

U.S. China JiaYu
Online

Adjusted M Adjusted M Adjusted M Adjusted M F(1, 329)

Resilience 33.28 41.39 39.70 43.16 32.11^a C > U

Parental efficacy 36.27 32.99 32.49 34.23 8.01^a U > C

Authoritative style 46.97 53.26 40.71 62.44 9.55^a C > U

Authoritarian style 16.68 17.43 12.20 21.61 .49 C = U

Laissez-Faire style 18.13 19.95 15.10 23.71 3.07 C = U

GC psychological dysfunction 19.71 31.51 18.15 41.38 49.50^a C > U

Role satisfaction 53.59 47.11 46.82 48.05 20.31^a U > C

Well-being 45.63 37.68 37.20 39.34 19.29^a U > C

GC attachment 108.91 89.98 87.88 92.68 53.39^a U > C

Notes. GC = grandchild; ANCOVA = analyses of covariance; MANCOVA= multivariate analyses of covariance. a = p <.01; C = China sample (n = 106); U = US sample (n = 221). The F scores reflect findings from ANCOVAs following a significant (p < .01) MANCOVAs comparing U.S. and Chinese samples. Chinese subsamples’ data (ns = 46 and 54 respectively) are presented for descriptive purposes only.

Measures

Prior to their administration to Chinese participants, Chinese versions of the instruments described later were developed following a translation back-translation procedure. First, two bilingual Chinese international psychology doctoral students in the United States independently translated the selected English instruments into Chinese. Discrepancies between these two translations were thoroughly discussed until a consent was reached which resulted in a draft of Chinese translations agreed upon by both translators. Then, a Chinese graduate student with a major in English Translation and Interpretation helped to back translate the Chinese version to English. The first and third authors of the study carefully examined differences in item wordings between the back-translated English version and the original instruments. The aforementioned procedures were repeated on several items that were deemed to be nonequivalent until the back-translated and original English versions were believed to be equivalent; the final version of each instrument from this procedure was administered to the Chinese participants.

Participants completed a basic Demographic Information Form that assessed variables such as gender, age, and health, where overall self-rated health was indexed via the sum of self-rated health (1 = very bad/poor to 5 = very good/excellent) and the rating of the extent to which health difficulties interfered with everyday routines (in the U.S. sample, this reflected the average across nine domains of everyday life, e.g., grocery shopping, bathing or dressing, walking, while in the Chinese sample, this aspect of health was indexed by a single question targeting everyday routines and schedules). Overall health in these respects was coded so that higher scores indexed better overall health (fewer health limitations). Participants then completed measures assessing constructs that have proven relevant to the personal, relational, and parental adjustment of grandparents raising grandchildren (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017; Park & Greenberg, 2007).

Psychological adjustment of the grandchild

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001) was selected to assess the psychological adjustment of children and adolescents as perceived by their grandparents because of its strong psychometric properties and comprehensive coverage of potential areas of concern to grandparents given the demands of raising a problematic grandchild (Hayslip, Shore, Henderson, & Lambert, 1998; Smith & Palmieri, 2007; Smith, Palmieri, Hancock, & Richardson, 2008). The SDQ is a self-report measure that consists of 25 items answered along a 3-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = not true and 3 = certainly true. The 25 items are organized into five subscales that look at prosocial behavior, emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention, and peer relationship problems. Higher scores reflect greater perceived grandchild dysfunction. The internal consistency reliability has been demonstrated for all scales except peer relationship problems (alphas ranging from .41 to .62), and the scale’s retest stability was found to have a lower bound estimate of .62 at 4 to 6 months. For this study, we used total scores for this scale, wherein the alpha coefficients were .72 and .95 for the U.S. and Chinese samples, respectively.

Resilience

The Resilience Scale (RS; Neill & Dias, 2001) was used in the study to assess the strength of grandparent caregivers. The selection of the resilience variable represents a strength-focused perspective in contrast to the emphasis on the difficulties grandparents face in raising their grandchildren typically seen in the custodial grandparent literature (Hayslip, David et al., 2013; Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017). The RS is a 15-item self-report survey modified from Wagnild and Young’s (1993) Resilience Measure used to measure themes of personal resilience, where responses are on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Concurrent validity is supported by significant correlations between RS scores and measures of morale, life satisfaction, and depression (Neill & Dias, 2001). Our samples demonstrated strong internal consistent reliability (U.S. sample alpha = .90, China sample alpha = .87). Higher scores represented higher levels of resilience.

Parental efficacy

To measure parental efficacy, a nine-item scale (Bachicha, 1997) was selected to assess grandparents’ perceptions of their ability as parents to solve problems and understand their grandchild. Each of the nine items was answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Higher scores (U.S. sample alpha = .89; Chinese sample alpha = .86) indicated greater parental efficacy. This scale was selected because it has been successfully used to assess the impact of a psychosocial intervention targeting grandparent caregivers (Hayslip, 2003) and is relevant to parenting in that it is a key dimension of grandparents’ ability to effectively raise their grandchildren via such practices as setting limits and boundaries, employing effective techniques of discipline, giving rewards and reinforcement, and being supportive and nurturant (Dolbin-MacNab, 2006; Kaminski, Hayslip, Wilson, & Casto, 2008).

Grandparent role satisfaction

Satisfaction with grandparenting (RoleSat) was assessed using 15 questions (U.S. sample alpha = .77 and Chinese sample alpha = .72), wherein the scale was used by Thomas (1990) to study grandparents’ perceptions of their roles, as well as to evaluate the impact of raising problematic grandchildren on grandparents (Hayslip, Shore, Henderson, & Lambert, 1998). Each question was answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), and higher scores indicated greater satisfaction. An important reason to include this variable was because in light of the role confusion many grandparents feel, assessing satisfaction with the grandparent role is relevant to understanding the impact of raising a grandchild on their views about how such responsibilities have impacting their views of themselves as grandparents (Hayslip, Herrington, Glover, & Pollard; Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017).

Psychological well-being

The Psychological Well-Being (Liang, 1985) scale, a 15-item self-report scale, was used to assess respondents’ feelings about their lives. Total scores were utilized here (U.S. sample alpha = .90 and Chinese sample alpha = .69), with higher scores indexing greater overall personal well-being. The variable of psychological well-being was selected because it is a key dimension of the distress many, but not all, grandparents feel in meeting the demands of raising a grandchild (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017).

Grandparent attachment to the grandchild

The grandparents’ attachment to their grandchildren was assessed via a 28-item measure modified from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA, Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). The original IPPA assessing adolescents’ and young adults’ perceptions of their relationship to a parent reflected three underlying dimensions of trust, commitment, and anger or alienation. For the purpose of this study, all IPPA items were subsequently reworded to reflect custodial grandparents’ views of their attachment to the grandchild they were raising, for example, “I respect my grandchild’s feelings.” Each item was answered along a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 = never true to 5 = greatly true. Higher total scores reflected stronger attachment to or bond with the grandchild (U.S. sample alpha = .82 and Chinese sample alpha = .80). This variable was selected because feeling close to the grandchild is a key dimension of the quality of the grandparent’s relationship to the grandchild (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017), and consequently, an important index of the quality of the grandparent–grandchild bond.

Parenting practices

The Parenting Practices Scale (Robbins, Briones, Schwartz, Dillon, & Mitrani, 2006) is a 30-item self-report measure of one’s behaviors and attitudes reflecting parental involvement, child behavior control via the use of effective discipline, the avoidance of ineffective discipline, and the monitoring of a child’s daily activities. For this study, we reorganized these items to parallel three dimensions of parenting, that is, parenting styles as extensively discussed by Baumrind (1971, 2013), where laissez-faire or permissive parents are high on nurturance, but low on demands for or expectations of maturity, authoritarian parents are high on maturity demands or expectations and control over the child, and authoritative parents are high in control in setting realistic and consistent boundaries and are nurturant and communicate well with their children. These dimensions of parenting subsume the aforementioned constructs of parental involvement, behavior control or the use of discipline, and the monitoring of a child’s daily activities. Thirteen items (e.g., “I allow my grandchild input into family rules,” “I give my child reasons why rules should be obeyed”) defined the authoritative style; U.S. sample alpha = .76 and Chinese sample alpha = .75. Eight items (e.g., “I spank when my child is disobedient,” “I punish by taking privileges away from my child with little if any explanation”) defined the authoritarian style; U.S. sample alpha = .70 and Chinese sample alpha = .73. Eight items defined the laissez-faire style (e.g., “I state punishments to my child and do not actually do them,” “I ignore my child’s behavior.” “I threaten my child with punishment more often than I give it”); U.S. sample alpha = .75 and Chinese sample alpha = .77 (one item was eliminated because it substantially undermined the internal consistency of the laissez-faire scale). This variable is critical because the parenting practices grandparents utilize are impacted by the distress they may be experiencing and may undermine the adjustment of the child they are raising (Smith et al., 2008).

Results

Prior to a formal analysis of the data, the extent and patterns of missing data were explored as a prelude to multiple imputation of missing values for the dependent variables and covariates (Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010). As recommended by these authors, we explored the extent of missing data in each sample and subsequently explored missingness as a correlate of the principal analytic variables (culture, outcome variables, and covariates) here. In the U.S. sample, the extent of missing data ranged from 0% to 11%; in the Chinese sample, the extent of missing data ranged from 0% to 8%. Importantly, relationships of existing data (culture, outcome variables, and covariates) to missingness (where missing was dummy variable coded as 1 and nonmissing was coded as 0) were both minimal in strength and infrequent (6 of 225 potential relationships). Such relationships were statistically significant but low in an absolute sense; collectively, the extent and patterns of missingness argue for the data being missing at random (see Schlomer et al., 2010), justifying multiple imputation of the data to manage such missingness in the present dataset.

Data were analyzed via both multivariate and univariate analyses of covariance, with the SDQ total scores, parental efficacy, resilience, well-being, attachment to the grandchild, and role satisfaction as dependent variables, culture (United States vs. China) as the independent variable, and gender of the grandparent, grandparent age, grandparent health, length in years of caregiving, self-reported socioeconomic status (SES), and number of grandchildren as covariates. Self-reported SES was assessed in the Chinese sample by asking grandparents to rate their income level along a 5-point continuum ranging from 1 = affluent to 5 = poor. In the U.S. sample, income levels were categorized in a parallel 5-point continuum fashion ranging from the most affluent ($60K or more per year) to the least affluent (less than $10K per year) (see Pew Research Center, 2018). Indeed, comparisons across these subsamples indicated that those Jia Yu Chinese grandparents reported lower income levels than did those Chinese grandparents recruited online, F(1, 98) = 43.62, p < .01 (see Table 2).

Cultural Differences: Entire Samples

When comparing the entire U.S. sample (n = 230) to the Chinese sample (n = 106) (see Table 3), the multivariate main effect of culture was statistically significant, F(9, 321) = 24.57, p < .001, partial η² = .41. At the univariate level, the following variables differentiated U.S. and Chinese samples, controlling for the aforementioned covariates: parental efficacy, F(1, 329) = 8.01,p < .02, authoritative parental style, F(1, 329) = 9.55, p < .01, resilience, F(1, 329) = 32.11, p < .01, overall grandchild psychological dysfunction, F(1, 329) = 49.50, p < .01, role satisfaction, F(1, 329) = 20.31, p < .01, well-being, F(1, 329) = 19.29, p < 01, and grandchild attachment, F(1, 329) = 53.39, p < .01. The samples were similar in terms of both laissez-faire or permissive and authoritarian parental styles (all ps > .05). As presented in Table 3, adjusted means were higher in the U.S. sample for parental efficacy, role satisfaction, well-being, and attachment. The Chinese sample evidenced higher resilience and authoritative parenting style scores as well as higher grandparent-rated grandchild dysfunction.

Cultural Differences: Similarly Sized Samples

Given that the substantial differences in sample sizes by culture might produce an unduly biased picture of higher means in the U.S. sample, we reran an identical set of analyses on a randomly selected n of 130 U.S. grandparents (M_age = 57.90, SD = 8.18, 102 women and 28 men) versus the 106 Chinese grandparents. In this case as well, the main effects of culture were statistically significant at the multivariate level, F(10, 218) = 14.88, p < .001, partial eta² = .41. At the univariate level, the main effects of culture remained for resilience, parental efficacy, authoritative parental style, role satisfaction, grandchild dysfunction, well-being, and attachment. As described earlier, the samples were similar regarding laissez/faire/permissive and authoritarian parental styles. Also consistent with the aforementioned description, the U.S. sample scored higher on measures of parental efficacy, authoritative parental styles, role satisfaction, well-being, and attachment, while the Chinese sample again evidenced higher scores for grandchild dysfunction, resilience, and authoritative parenting style.

Selected Correlational Findings Across Cultures

Although our original intent was not to examine these data correlationally, several consistent differences in terms of the absolute magnitude of relationships (.30 or greater) in concert with statistical significance (p < .05 or higher) of relationships between the covariates and the major variables of interest across cultures were observed. Given the rarity of cross-cultural comparison research in grandparent caregivers, we report these findings, focusing here on grandparent age and gender, grandchild gender, duration of caregiving, self-reported income level, and health (see Tables 4 and 5), as these variables have been shown to impact the experience of grandparent caregiving in the U.S. literature (see Brown & Mars, 2000; Park & Greenberg, 2007), as well as many of the principal outcome variables.

Table 4.
Correlation Matrix Involving Covariates and Dependent Variables by Culture.

U.S. sample (n = 232)

Age SES #GC Duration Health Res Par Eff Auth LF Auth Rolesat WB ATT SD

Res .06 −.02 .04 .03 .19* — .43 .22 −.21 −.07 .20 .48 .35 −.21**

ParEff −.01 .07 −.14* .00 .18* — .18 −.25 −.05 .29 .41 .53** −.16*

Authoritative¹ −.03 .12 .06 .05 .04 — −.21** −.15* .04 .04 .24 .08

LF −.07 .00 .00 −.04 −.08 — .70 .03 −.14 .01 .71

Authoritarian² −.11 .03 .07 −.06 −.09 — .06 −.18 .01 .65

RS −.05 .03 −.08 −.01 .13 — .35 .50 −34

WB .04 −.07 .02 −.07 .41 — .28* −.31**

ATT −.03 .02 −.13 −.03 .19* — −.32**

SD −.17* −.01 .08 .05 .19* —

Note. Res= Resilience; ParEff = parental efficacy; LF = Laissez-Faire; Rolesat = role satisfaction; WB = well-being; ATT = attachment; SD = strength/difficulty.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 5.
Correlation Matrix Involving Covariates and Dependent Variables by Culture.

China Sample (n = 106)

Age SES #GC Duration Health Res Par Eff Auth¹ LF Auth² Rolesat WB ATT SD

Res .10 −.18 .00 −.09 −.23* — .57 .29 −.02 −.07 .36 .57 .56 .16

ParEff −02 .00 −.10 −.07 −.33 — .23* −.14 −.17 .53 .99 .67 .07

Authoritative¹ −.39 −.48 .14 −.30 −.31 — .43 .43** .03 .23* .28 .71

LF −.19* −.50 −.32 −.30 .03 — .70 .03 −.14 .01 .71**

Authoritarian² −.18* .28** −.14 −.23* .02 — .06 −.18 .01 .65

RS −.12 −.06 .05 .08 −.08 — .52 .46 .08

WB −.01 −.11 .12 −.06 −.32 — .66 .08

ATT −.05 −.13 .03 −.08 −.32 — .16

SD −.41 −.60 −.26 −.46 −.16 —

Note. Res= Resilience; ParEff = parental efficacy; LF = Laissez-Faire; Rolesat = role satisfaction; WB = well-being; ATT = attachment; SD = strength/difficulty.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Grandparent age

Regarding grandparent age, in China, older grandparents reported less grandchild dysfunction (r = − 42) and were lower in both authoritative (r = −.39) and laissez-faire/permissive (r = − .19) parenting styles, whereas no such relationships were found in the U.S. sample.

Grandparent gender

Regarding gender, female grandmothers in the United States were more likely to adopt an authoritative style (r = .17), to express more parental self-efficacy (r = .14), and felt more closely attached to the grandchild (r = .15); this was not the case in the Chinese sample.

Grandchild gender

Regarding grandchild gender, raising a male grandchild in China was linked to an authoritative parental style (r = .35). This was not the case in the U.S. sample.

Grandchild age

Regarding grandchild age, older grandchildren were linked to less intense attachment (r = −.17) in the United States; this was not the case in China. However in China, older grandchild age was correlated with less child dysfunction (r = −.42), and lower authoritative (r = −.30) and laissez-faire (r = −.27) parental style scores.

Grandparent health

In China, surprisingly, physically healthier grandparents were less resilient (r = −.23), expressed less parental efficacy (r = −.34), less well-being (r = −.33), and less strong grandchild attachment (r = −.32); they also had lower authoritative parental style scores (r = −.31). In contrast, in the United States, healthier grandparents reported less child dysfunction (r = −.19), greater parental efficacy (r = .18), greater well-being (r = .41), and deeper grandchild attachment (r = .19). In neither sample was grandchild gender related to any of the principal outcome variables.

Self-reported income level

Although no relationships between SES and any dependent variables were observed in the U.S. sample, higher SES was associated with higher authoritative (r = −.48) and higher (r = .50) laissez-faire parental styles but with lower (r = .28) authoritarian styles among Chinese grandparents. Higher self-reported income levels were also associated with greater grandchild difficulties (r = −.60) among Chinese grandparents.

Parental efficacy

Regarding parental efficacy, in China, we found that grandparents expressing more parental efficacy were more resilient (r = .57), more likely to be authoritative in style (r = .23), reported greater well-being (r = .99), more role satisfaction (r = .53), and were be more deeply attached to the grandchild (r = .67). Among U.S. grandparents, such persons were also more resilient (r = .43) and more likely to be authoritative in style (r = .18). Moreover, as in China, they were more likely to express more role satisfaction, greater well-being, and stronger attachment to the grandchild (rs = .29, .41, and .53, respectively). In contrast to China were no relationship was found, U.S. grandparents were less likely to be laissez-faire (r = −.25) and they also ascribed less dysfunction to their grandchild (r = −.16); these were not the case in China.

Resilience

Regarding resilience, where in the United States, its relationship to childhood difficulties was negative (r = −.21), indicating higher resilience to be associated with fewer such difficulties. There was no such relationship in China.

Attachment

Attachment and grandchild interpersonal difficulties were negatively related in China (r = −.32). This relationship was nil in the U.S. sample.

Discussion

This article presents empirically based comparisons of grandparent caregivers in the United States and China, significant in light of the paucity of published research comparing such persons across the two cultures. Findings here suggested that U.S. and Chinese grandparent caregivers are less alike than they are different, though our findings do also suggest some similarities across cultures despite contextual and cultural differences in the factors giving rise to grandfamilies, for example, (a) socioeconomic necessity borne of modernization in China versus family upheaval in the United States and (b) centralizing the family in China in the context of caregiving versus viewing the experience of caregiving as an acquired role interfering with one’s life plans and relationships with others in that raising a grandchild is stigmatized in the United States (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017).

Although the samples were similar in terms of laissez-faire/permissive and authoritarian parental styles, (all ps > .05), adjusted means were significantly higher in the U.S. sample for parental efficacy, role satisfaction, well-being, and attachment. In contrast, the Chinese sample evidenced higher scores for resilience, authoritative parent style, and perceived grandchild dysfunction. Our findings regarding Chinese grandparent caregivers are to an extent, in contrast to those of Baker and Silverstein (2012) who found among such caregivers less depression and indeed more improvement in well-being over time relative to an American sample of custodial grandparents. It is to be noted that the Baker and Silverstein data are significantly older (2001–2003) than are ours (collected in 2016–2017), and these authors were limited in studying depression in contrast to the wider array of measures utilized here, though our data are not longitudinal in nature. Clearly, our findings seem to paint a more negative picture of grandparent caregivers in China than do those of Baker and Silverstein. Since the overall economics in the Chinese society has rapidly improved in the past 15 years, perhaps our findings suggest a historical shift in grandparent caregivers’ well-being in China. Clearly, the present data shed some light on the otherwise lack of a clear picture regarding the impact of full-time grandchild caregiving on grandparents’ health and well-being in China, as noted by Dolbin-MacNab and Yancura (2017). More intensive and longitudinal investigations regarding this issue among Chinese grandparents are clearly in order, building on our findings as well as those of Baker and Silverstein (2012).

Speaking to issues of process and context (see Cole, 2005), it is important to observe that Chinese grandparents were comparatively speaking more resilient and reported employing authoritative parenting styles more often than their U.S. counterparts (which is contrary to our general expectations based on Hofestede Cultural Dimension Model), despite reporting greater grandchild dysfunction. However, relationships between all three parenting styles as well as resilience and grandchild dysfunction were positive (greater dysfunction) in China, in contrast to the U.S. sample, where they were all negative. It may be that greater child dysfunction was accompanied by greater resilience, and more intense efforts transcending specific parental styles to parent a child in China could be interpreted in that the latter are outgrowths of the necessity to cope with the greater demands of raising a dysfunctional child (in the absence of formal service support for coping with such demands). A greater tolerance for grandchild difficulties among Chinese grandparents may also be explained in terms of having more material resources (i.e., SES, see Table 5).

Understanding the cultural and contextual backgrounds in which Chinese custodial grandparenting is taking place may shed light on some of the seemingly confusing findings found here. Perhaps, it is that the salience of the family unit has a greater influence on the tolerance for or parenting approaches to raising a grandchild with behavioral or emotional difficulties in China, allowing one to persist in the face of greater such challenges. Such qualities might be viewed as contextual in nature in China versus their being volitional in the United States. It may also be that in China, such relationships are otherwise obscured by other factors that were not measured here; these may or may not speak to issues of culture per se.

In light of the paucity of services and programs for grandparent caregivers in China (Burnette et al., 2013; Dolbin-MacNab & Yancura, 2017), it would not be surprising to find that a lack of adequate financial resources and community or governmental support may contribute to Chinese grandparents’ lower parental self-efficacy, role satisfaction, and well-being relative to the U.S. sample, where programs and services for grandparents raising their grandchildren are more numerous. Indeed, Jiayu County, from which approximately half of the Chinese participants were recruited, is one of the poorest regions in Hubei province. However, it is important to note that U.S. grandparent caregivers’ access to available services and programs is also sometimes limited by a number of attitudinal and structural barriers (Hayslip, Furhauf, & Dolbin-MacNab, 2017).

It is also of note to observe that correlationally, in China, we surprisingly found that better health was linked to less parental efficacy, less resilience, less well-being, and less authoritative parental styles (see Table 5), in contrast to the United States where such relationships were reversed in direction and more in line with what one would expect of persons reporting better health. This again suggests that in China, in addition to the earlier discussed volitionally acquired skills or qualities (i.e., resilience, authoritative parenting style), greater personal resources (better health) are not advantageous in managing difficult grandchildren, wherein among Chinese grandparents, a familistic orientation to raising such children (see Chen et al., 2011) may reinforce a norm of self-sacrifice. That older Chinese grandparents, who were less authoritative, would report fewer grandchild difficulties could reflect a process of more completely internalizing this familistic norm of self-sacrifice in the service of supporting their children seeking employment in the cities. On the other hand, that higher attachment scores in China only were related to less reported child dysfunction might reflect a closeness with a grandchild despite that child’s difficulties, reflecting a familistic dedication to the child’s welfare.

The findings for health might also point to the lack of good health as indirectly problematic in the face of dealing with a problem grandchild, especially if that child was younger and male, among Chinese grandparents. More cross-cultural comparison research is needed to clarify these inferences before conclusions can be drawn.

In this context, the Confucian teaching of familism has a large impact on Chinese family culture, which emphasizes family connectedness and obligation fulfillment (Hu et al., 2014; C. D. Wang & Song, 2010), wherein cultural or self-expectations are endorsed by grandparents to raise their grandchildren when their adult children migrate to large cities for work (Dolbin-MacNab & Yancura, 2017). Such culturally prescribed responsibility might leave grandparents to struggle with the demands of caregiving and deal with their own feelings of being thrust into a role which is “culturally normative and thus expected” (Burnette et al., 2013). Complicating matters is the lack of government programmatic support, which has created what Dolbin-MacNab and Yancura (2017) have termed familism by default (Saraceno & Keck, 2010). This underscores the lack of attention to their strengths (Burnette et al., 2013) and yet highlights the fact that in spite of the documented lack of formal support, programs, and services for them, Chinese grandparents were more resilient than their counterparts in the United States. Having said this, it is significant that Causadias, Vitriol, and Atkin (2018) have argued that culture is not necessarily salient in explaining difference between racial and ethnic minorities. Such a perspective should be explored in explaining cultural differences in custodial grandparenting.

In both cultures, parental efficacy, role satisfaction, well-being, attachment, and authoritative styles all covaried positively, speaking to their cultural irrelevance. Indeed, that such relationships between key constructs were similar across cultures is consistent with this point of view, while cultural differences in patters of relationships between key constructs may speak to explanatory processes unique to each culture (see Cole, 2005).

Chinese grandparents reported higher scores for grandchild dysfunction than those reported by their American counterparts. This finding suggests the possibility that grandchildren being raised by their grandparents in China may also experience emotional and behavioral problems (Burnette et al., 2013) in adjusting to a new family system. It is noteworthy that such grandchildren were rated more highly by their Chinese grandparents in terms of experiencing more behavioral and emotional difficulties, which may also contribute to the lack of advantageousness of having higher parental self-efficacy, which would otherwise be associated with less grandchild dysfunction, as was true in the U.S. sample. The social stigma attached to raising a grandchild may be a possible factor that contributes to the higher grandchild dysfunction and lower parental self-efficacy. Due to the traditional cultural norms and unspoken societal expectation, children raised by grandparents in China may have to face a higher level of stigma from peers and other adults than those in the United States (C. D. Wang & Song, 2010). Collectively, these findings highlight the importance of reducing societal stigma and providing Chinese grandparent caregivers with baseline support and formal service-related resources to enhance their parenting efficacy and help them deal with grandchildren behavioral and interpersonal difficulties and support their resilience in the face of doing so.

Our correlational findings suggested grandmothers in the United States to be more likely to adopt an authoritative style and express more parental efficacy (this was not the case in the Chinese sample); Yet, raising a male grandchild in China was linked to an authoritative parental style. This suggests, in light of the aforementioned findings, that Chinese grandmothers may be facing special challenges in managing the behavioral or emotional problems of such children in that their parental style is inconsistent with the demands of parenting a male grandchild. That the propensity of grandparent caregiving falls on the shoulders of Chinese grandmothers (Burnette et al., 2013; Dolbin-MacNab & Yancura, 2017) underscores this interpretation. This finding also suggests that elders, especially those in rural areas in China, tend to hold traditional views of gender roles that value sons over daughters in the family. This is described by Chinese researchers as the son preference value (Das Gupta et al., 2003). In addition, male teens in rural China are expected to become the head of the family in the near future (C. D. Wang & Song, 2010). These cultural norms might have affected Chinese grandmothers to give greater autonomy and be more responsive to their grandsons’ requests (characteristic of authoritative parenting styles) in contrast to their parenting behavior with granddaughters.

The finding that Chinese sample’s attachment to grandchild scores were lower compared with their U.S. counterparts might be associated with cultural differences in ways of showing affection in parenting. Chinese parenting tends to put more emphasis on taking care of children’s basic needs (e.g., eating, being adequately clothed) and attending to their behavior (e.g., teaching good manners and appropriate social behaviors) rather than attending to their emotions per se. On the other hand, Western cultures tend to value parental emotional support and connection with their children (see Baumrind, 2013). These cultural differences in parenting practice might have contributed to the difference in attachment across cultures. Some researchers (C. D. Wang & Scalise, 2012) have argued that the expression of attachment may vary across cultural contexts, which may be an important direction for the future research in grandparent caregiving.

Limitations of the Present Study

These data are limited in being in part restricted to a relatively small sample of Chinese grandparents from China and thus may not generalize to larger or urban areas of the country. Yet, the reliance on multiple avenues (face-to-face recruitment versus online recruitment) in China mitigates this issue to an extent. Indeed, we feel that sampling from distinct subsamples from China differing along multiple parameters enhances the generalizability of our findings.

In addition, we lacked reliable data on the extent of informal social supports in China, likely as key to the physical and mental health of such grandfamilies as well as those in the United States (see Dolbin-MacNab & Yancura, 2017). More detailed work is therefore necessary to examine the family dynamics of Chinese grandparents as well as how these dynamics intersect with cultural values and norms in the context of relationships with extended family members and sociopolitical factors influencing such caregiving (see Dolbin-MacNab & Yancura, 2017). It is important to note that the aforementioned interpretations are to an extent speculative, as we lacked data directly speaking to cultural norms as well as to the existence of supportive services and grandparents’ access to such services (Fruhauf, Pevney, & Bundy-Fazioli, 2015).

Despite the value of these cross-cultural comparisons in understanding and establishing a knowledge-based dialogue regarding the globality of grandparents raising grandchildren, it is again important to point out that descriptive culture-comparative work on the heterogeneity and cultural or global diversity of custodial grandparents may beg the question of how culture differentially shapes grandparents raising grandchildren (Cole, 2005), though we argue that the correlational findings here permit some insight into cultural universality in such processes versus their cultural specificity. Our interpretations of the present data tentatively suggest that familism (Ihara, Tompkins, & Sonethavilay, 2012) may be an operative process in differentiating U.S. and Chinese grandparent caregivers. How such caregiving influences the transmission of cultural values and either reflects or influences the salience of cultural beliefs regarding child rearing has yet to be explored.

Likewise, the apparent flexibility in family system boundaries that gives rise to grandparent caregiving in other cultures, that is, Mexico (Hayslip, 2009) may not only not characterize U.S. grandparents but also influence Chinese grandparents in being thrust into the role of “going it alone” with little formal programmatic government support, that is, familism by default.

Despite these limitations, cross-cultural comparisons are important in addressing the globality of grandfamilies’ functioning. In emphasizing the understanding of such globality along a continuum of similarity–dissimilarity, these findings may ultimately provide further insight into how culture shapes grandparent caregiving.

	United States (n =232)	China (n = 106)
Grandparent Age^a	58.04	8.30	61.39	8.54
Number of grandchildren	1.61	1.19	1.34	.58
Length of time raising GC	6.47	4.68	7.01	4.18
Overall health	24.75	5.46	12.82	2.38
Grandchild age	9.64	4.65	9.74	3.94
Self-reported SES	2.64	1.47	3.50	.85
Grandparent gender^a	42 men and 196 women	40 men and 66 women
Grandchild gender^b	125 men and 102 women	44 men and 60 women

	Jia Yu (n = 46)	Online (n = 60)
Grandparent age	65.22	6.67	59.44	8.57
Number of grandchildren	1.50	.62	1.24	.51
Length of time raising GC	8.89	3.44	5.55	4.25
Overall health	13.34	2.21	12.37	2.51
Grandchild age	11.33	2.96	8.31	4.34
Self-reported SES	4.04	.19	3.09	.17
Grandparent gender	15 men and 31 women	25 men and 34 women
Grandchild gender^a	19 men and 21 women	27 men and 31 women

	U.S. China JiaYu	Online
Resilience	33.28	41.39	39.70	43.16	32.11^a	C > U
Parental efficacy	36.27	32.99	32.49	34.23	8.01^a	U > C
Authoritative style	46.97	53.26	40.71	62.44	9.55^a	C > U
Authoritarian style	16.68	17.43	12.20	21.61	.49	C = U
Laissez-Faire style	18.13	19.95	15.10	23.71	3.07	C = U
GC psychological dysfunction	19.71	31.51	18.15	41.38	49.50^a	C > U
Role satisfaction	53.59	47.11	46.82	48.05	20.31^a	U > C
Well-being	45.63	37.68	37.20	39.34	19.29^a	U > C
GC attachment	108.91	89.98	87.88	92.68	53.39^a	U > C

U.S. sample (n = 232)
Res	.06	−.02	.04	.03	.19*	—	.43**	.22**	−.21**	−.07	.20**	.48**	.35**	−.21**
ParEff	−.01	.07	−.14*	.00	.18*		—	.18**	−.25**	−.05	.29**	.41**	.53**	−.16*
Authoritative¹	−.03	.12	.06	.05	.04			—	−.21**	−.15*	.04	.04	.24**	.08
LF	−.07	.00	.00	−.04	−.08				—	.70**	.03	−.14	.01	.71**
Authoritarian²	−.11	.03	.07	−.06	−.09					—	.06	−.18	.01	.65**
RS	−.05	.03	−.08	−.01	.13						—	.35**	.50**	−34**
WB	.04	−.07	.02	−.07	.41**							—	.28*	−.31**
ATT	−.03	.02	−.13	−.03	.19*								—	−.32**
SD	−.17*	−.01	.08	.05	.19*									—

China Sample (n = 106)
Res	.10	−.18	.00	−.09	−.23*	—	.57**	.29**	−.02	−.07	.36**	.57**	.56**	.16
ParEff	−02	.00	−.10	−.07	−.33**		—	.23*	−.14	−.17	.53**	.99**	.67**	.07
Authoritative¹	−.39**	−.48**	.14	−.30**	−.31**			—	.43**	.43**	.03	.23*	.28**	.71**
LF	−.19*	−.50**	−.32**	−.30**	.03				—	.70**	.03	−.14	.01	.71**
Authoritarian²	−.18*	.28**	−.14	−.23*	.02					—	.06	−.18	.01	.65**
RS	−.12	−.06	.05	.08	−.08						—	.52**	.46**	.08
WB	−.01	−.11	.12	−.06	−.32**							—	.66**	.08
ATT	−.05	−.13	.03	−.08	−.32**								—	.16
SD	−.41**	−.60**	−.26**	−.46**	−.16									—

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Chiachih DC Wang is Chair of the doctoral program in Counseling Psychology at the University of North Texas. His interests are in cultural influences as they impact both counseling process and outcome.

Bert Hayslip Jr. is a regents professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of North Texas. His interests are in aging and death and dying.

Qiwu Sun is on the Psychology faculty of Central China Normal University. His interests are in the clinical, social, and personality aspects of psychological functioning.

Wenzhen Zhu is a graduate student in the Counseling Psychology program at the University of North Texas.

References

Albin

Qin

Hong

(2013). Mental health in the left-behind children in the Fijian province of China. Journal of Public Mental Health, 12, 21–31. doi:10.1108/17465721311304212

Alizadeh

Chavan

(2016). Cultural competence dimensions and outcomes: A systematic review of the literature. Health and Social Care in the Community, 24, e117–e130. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12293

Armsden

Greenberg

(1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454. doi: 10.1007/BF02202939.

Bachicha

(1997). A validation of the Parental Efficacy Scale (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico, USA.

Baker

Silverstein

M. D.

(2012). The wellbeing of grandparents caring for grandchildren in rural China and the United States. In Arber

. Timonen

(Eds.), Contemporary grandparenting: Changing family relationships in global contexts (pp. 51–70). Bristol, England: The Policy Press.

Baumrind

(1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4, 2. doi:10.1037/h0030372

Baumrind

(2013). Authoritative parenting revisited: History and current status. In Larzelere

, Morris

. Harrist

(Eds.), Authoritative parenting: Synthesizing nurturance and discipline (pp. 11–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brown

D. R.

Mars

(2000). Profile of contempooray grandparenting in African American families. In Cox

(Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay (pp. 203–217). New York, NY: Springer.

Burnette

Sun

(2013). A comparative review of grandparent care of children in the U.S. and China. Ageing International, 38, 43–57. doi: 10.1007/s12126-012-9174-z

10.

Causadias

J. M.

Vitriol

J. A.

Atkin

A. L.

(2018). Do we overemphasize the role of culture in the behavior of racial/ethnic minorities? Evidence of a cultural (mis)attribution bias in American Psychology. American Psychologist, 73, 243–255. doi:org/10.1037/amp000099

11.

Chen

Liu

(2012). The health implications of grandparents caring for grandchildren in China. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological and Social Sciences, 67, 99–112. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr132

12.

Chen

Liu

Mair

(2011). Intergenerational ties in context: Grandparents caring for grandchildren in China. Social Forces, 90, 571–593. doi:10-1093/sf/sur012

13.

Chen

Short

Entwisle

(2000). The impact of grandparental proximity on maternal childcare in China. Population Research and Policy Review, 19, 571–590.

14.

Cheng

Sun

(2015). Depression and anxiety among left‐behind children in China: A systematic review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 41, 515–523. doi:10.1111/cch.12221

15.

Cole

(2005). Culture in development. In Bornstein

M. H

. Lamb

M. E

(Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 45–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Cox

C. B.

(2008). Empowerment as an intervention with custodial grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6, 465–477. doi:10.1080/15350770802466161

17.

Cox

C. B.

Miner

(2014). Grandchildren raised by grandparents: Comparing the experiences of African-American and Tanzanian grandchildren. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(1), 9–24. doi:10.1080/15350770.2014.870412

18.

Das Gupta

Zhenghua

Bohua

Zhenming

Chung

Hwa-Ok

(2003). Why is son preference so persistent in East and South Asia? A cross-country study of China, India, and Repulic of Korea. The Journal of Development Studies, 40, 153–187. doi:10.1080/00220380412331293807

19.

Dolbin-MacNab

M. L.

(2006). Just like raising your own: Grandparents’ perceptions of parenting a second time around. Family Relations, 55, 564–575. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00426.x

20.

Dolbin-MacNab

Yancura

(2017). International perspectives on grandparents raising grandchildren: Contextual considerations for advancing global discourse. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 85, 1–31. doi:10.1177/0091415016689565

21.

Fruhauf

C. A.

Pevney

Bundy-Fazioli

(2015). The needs and use of programs by service providers working with grandparents raising grandchildren. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 34, 138–157. doi:10.1177/0733464812463983

22.

Goh

E. C.

Kuczynski

(2010). Only children” and their coalition of parents: Considering grandparents and parents as joint caregivers in urban Xiamen, China. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 221–231. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01314x

23.

Guo

Pickard

Huang

(2008). A cultural perspective on the health outcomes of caregiving grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5, 25–40. doi:10.1300/J194v05n04_03

24.

Goodman

(2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345. doi:10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015

25.

Hank

Buber

(2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: Findings from the 2004 Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 53–73. doi:10.1177/0192513X08322627

26.

Hayslip, B. (2003). The impact of a psychosocial intervention on the parental efficacy of grandparents raising grandchildren. In . Hayslip

Jr. & . Patrick

(Eds.), Working with custodial grandparents (pp. 163–178). New York, NY: Springer.

27.

Hayslip, B., Shore, R. J., Henderson, C., & Lambert, P. (1998). Custodial grandparenting and the impact of grandchildren with problems on role satisfaction and role meaning. The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53, S164–S173. doi:10.1093/geronb/53B.3.S164

28.

Hayslip, B., Davis, S., Neumann, C., Goodman, C., Smith, G., Maiden, R., & Carr, G. (2013). The role of resilience in understanding grandparents raising their grandchildren. In . Hayslip

Jr. & . Smith

(Eds.), Resilient grandparent caregivers: A strengths-based perspective (pp. 48–67). New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Hayslip, B., Herrington, R., Glover, R., & Pollard, S. (2013). Assessing attitudes toward grandparents raising their grandchildren. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 11, 1–24. doi:10.1080/15350770.2013.839321

30.

Hayslip, B., Fruhauf, C., & Dolbin-MacNab, M. (2017). Grandparents raising grandchildren: What have we learned in the last decade? The Gerontologist. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnx106

31.

Hayslip, B., & Musil, C. (2017). Introduction to the Special Issue: Grandfamilies and culture. Grandfamilies, 4, 2–5. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grandfamilies/vol4/iss1/5

32.

Hayslip

Jr. (2009). Ethnic and cross-cultural perspectives on custodial grandparenting. In . Sokolovsky

(Ed.), The cultural context of aging: Worldwide perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 346–356). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

33.

Hayslip

Jr. Baird

Toledo

Emick

(2006). Cross cultural differences in traditional and custodial grandparenting: A qualitative approach. In . Hayslip

Jr. & . Patrick

(Eds.), Custodial grandparents: Individual, cultural, and ethnic diversity (pp. 169–182). New York, NY: Springer.

34.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Reading in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1-26. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc

35.

Lonne

Burton

(2014). Informal kinship care in rural China: The influence of Confucianism and attachment. Family Relationships and Societies, 3, 287–302. doi:10.1332/204674314X13898785887043

36.

Ihara

E. S.

Tompkins

C. J.

Sonethavilay

(2012). Culture and familism: An exploratory case study of a grandparent headed household. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 10, 34–47. doi:10.1080/15350770.2012.645737

37.

Jia

Tian

(2010). Loneliness of left-behind children: A cross-sectional survey in a sample of rural China. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36, 812–817. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01110.x

38.

Kaminski

P. L.

Hayslip

Jr. Wilson

J. L.

Casto

L. N.

(2008). Parenting attitudes and adjustment among custodial grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6, 263–284. doi:10.1080/15350770802157737

39.

Hank

(2014). Grandparents caring for grandchildren in China and Korea: Findings from CHARLS and KLoSA. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B, Psychological and Social Sciences, 69, 646–651. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt219.

40.

Liang

(1985). A structural integration of the Affect Balance Scale and the Life Satisfaction Index A. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 552–561. doi:10.1093/geronj/40.5.552

41.

Lin

Vikse

J. H.

Huang

(2016). Well‐being of migrant and left‐behind children in China: Education, health, parenting, and personal values. International Journal of Social Welfare, 25, 58–68. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12162

42.

Nagata

D. K.

Cheng

Tsai-Chae

A. H.

(2010). Chinese American grandmothering: A qualitative examination. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1, 151–161. doi:10.1037/a0019963

43.

National Bureau of Statistics [China]. (2006). The situation and protection of aging population in Jiangxi Province. Retrieved from http://www.stats.gov.cn/ztjc/ztfx/dfxx/200610/t20061017_32862.html

44.

Neill

J. T.

Dias

K. L.

(2001). Adventure education and resilience: The double-edged sword. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1, 35–42. doi:10.1080/14729670185200061

45.

Park

H. H.

Greenberg

J. S.

(2007). Parenting grandchildren. In Blackburn

. Dulmus

(Eds.), Handbook of gerontology: Evidence-based approaches to theory, practice, and policy (pp. 397–425). New York, NY: Wiley.

46.

Pew Research Center. (2018). The American middle class is stable in size, but losing ground to upper income families. Retrieved from http://www.Pewresearch.org/Staff/Rakesh.Kochhar

47.

Robbins

M. S.

Briones

Schwartz

Dillon

Mitrani

(2006). Differences in family functioning in grandparent and parent-headed households in a clinical sample of drug-using African American adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 84–100. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.12.1.84

48.

Saraceno

Keck

(2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? Journal of European Societies, 12, 675–696.

49.

Schlomer

G. L.

Bauman

Card

N. A.

(2010). Best practices for missing data management in Counseling Psychology, 37, 1–10. doi:10.1037/a0018082

50.

Silverstein

Cong

(2013). Grandparenting in rural China. Generations, 37, 46–52.

51.

Siordia

(2015). Demographic, economic, household, and health profile of grandparents responsible for grandchildren. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 2661–2667. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0068-4

52.

Smith

G. C.

Palmieri

P. A.

(2007). Risk of psychological difficulties raised by custodial grandparents. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1303–1310. doi:10.1176/ps2007.58.10.1303.

53.

Smith

G. C.

Palmieri

P. A.

Hancock

G. R.

Richardson

R. A.

(2008). Custodial grandmothers’ psychological distress, dysfunctional parenting, and grandchildren’s adjustment. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 67, 327–357. doi:10.2190/AG.67.4.c

54.

Smith

G. C.

Richardson

R. A.

(2008). Understanding the parenting practices of custodial grandmothers: Overcompensating, underserving, or overwhelmed? In Hayslip

Jr. & Kaminski

(Eds.), Parenting the custodial grandchild: Implications for clinical practice (pp. 131–147). New York, NY: Springer.

55.

Sun

(2013). Chinese older adults taking care of grandchildren: Practices and policies for productive aging. Ageing International, 38, 58–70. doi:10.1007/s12126-012-9161-4.

56.

Sun

Tian

Zhang

Xie

Heath

M. A.

Zhou

(2015). Psychological development and educational problems of left-behind children in rural China. School Psychology International, 36, 227–252. doi:10.1177/0143034314566669

57.

Thomas

J. L.

(1990). The grandparent role: A double bind. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31, 169–177. doi:10.2190/80J9-FGK7-2966-QHCB

58.

Wagnild

Young

(1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.

59.

Wang

Feng

Yang

Dai

Zhao

(2015). The epidemiological characteristics of depressive symptoms in the left-behind children and adolescents of Chongqing in China. Journal of Affective Disorders, 17, 736–741. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.002

60.

Wang

C. D.

Scalise

(2012). Adult attachment, culturally adjusted attachment, and interpersonal difficulties of Taiwanese adults. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 6–31.

61.

Wang

C. D.

Song

(2010). Reconceptualization of adult attachment from the Chinese cultural context. In Erdman

, Ng

K. M

. Metzger

. (Eds.), Attachment: Expanding the cultural connections (pp. 16–32). Oxford, England: Taylor and Francis.

62.

Wohl

Lahner

Jooste

(2003). Group processes among grandparents raising grandchildren. In Hayslip

Jr. & Hicks-Patrick

(Ed.), Working with custodial grandparents (pp. 163–178). New York, NY: Springer.

63.

Zhang

Bécares

Chandola

Callery

(2015). Intergenerational differences in beliefs about healthy eating among carers of left-behind children in rural China: A qualitative study. Appetite, 95, 484–491. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.024

	U.S. China JiaYu			Online
	Adjusted M	Adjusted M	Adjusted M	Adjusted M	F(1, 329)
Resilience	33.28	41.39	39.70	43.16	32.11^a	C > U
Parental efficacy	36.27	32.99	32.49	34.23	8.01^a	U > C
Authoritative style	46.97	53.26	40.71	62.44	9.55^a	C > U
Authoritarian style	16.68	17.43	12.20	21.61	.49	C = U
Laissez-Faire style	18.13	19.95	15.10	23.71	3.07	C = U
GC psychological dysfunction	19.71	31.51	18.15	41.38	49.50^a	C > U
Role satisfaction	53.59	47.11	46.82	48.05	20.31^a	U > C
Well-being	45.63	37.68	37.20	39.34	19.29^a	U > C
GC attachment	108.91	89.98	87.88	92.68	53.39^a	U > C

U.S. sample (n = 232)
	Age	SES	#GC	Duration	Health	Res	Par Eff	Auth	LF	Auth	Rolesat	WB	ATT	SD
Res	.06	−.02	.04	.03	.19*	—	.43**	.22**	−.21**	−.07	.20**	.48**	.35**	−.21**
ParEff	−.01	.07	−.14*	.00	.18*		—	.18**	−.25**	−.05	.29**	.41**	.53**	−.16*
Authoritative¹	−.03	.12	.06	.05	.04			—	−.21**	−.15*	.04	.04	.24**	.08
LF	−.07	.00	.00	−.04	−.08				—	.70**	.03	−.14	.01	.71**
Authoritarian²	−.11	.03	.07	−.06	−.09					—	.06	−.18	.01	.65**
RS	−.05	.03	−.08	−.01	.13						—	.35**	.50**	−34**
WB	.04	−.07	.02	−.07	.41**							—	.28*	−.31**
ATT	−.03	.02	−.13	−.03	.19*								—	−.32**
SD	−.17*	−.01	.08	.05	.19*									—