Intergenerational Solidarity and Individual Adjustment During Emerging Adulthood

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to extend research on the theory of intergenerational solidarity by examining the associations between solidarity dimensions and individual adjustment among an ethnically diverse sample of college-attending emerging adults (age range: 18-25 years; N = 600). We proposed a multiple mediator model, hypothesizing that normative solidarity (familism) would be associated with individual adjustment, particularly academic satisfaction, psychological distress, and loneliness, directly and indirectly through associational solidarity, affectual solidarity, and functional solidarity. Analysis results showed that familism was directly and positively related to depressive symptoms. Indirect effects based on bootstrapping also were found in that affectual solidarity mediated the association between familism and loneliness, and functional solidarity mediated the relationships between familism and each of the three adjustment criterion variables examined in this study. Findings lend support to the importance of family influence, through intergenerational solidarity, on the well-being of emerging adults attending college.

Keywords

college adjustment intergenerational solidarity multiple mediation emerging adulthood familism

In recent years, increasing attention has been drawn to the role of family in individual development during the transition to adulthood. Although it is widely assumed that family influence is salient during this developmental period, often referred to as “emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2000), whether the influence is ultimately helpful or harmful is a matter of debate. Some research suggests that family influence is positively associated with well-being for emerging adults (Adams, Ryan, & Keating, 2000; Fingerman & Bermann, 2000). This is consistent with the proposition that the developmental challenges in emerging adulthood render it a particularly vulnerable developmental period, which makes continued parental aid necessary to enhance capabilities for self-sufficiency (Aquilino, 2005; Eggebeen, 2005). Such assistance thereby increases the probability of success in adjusting to adult roles (Swartz, Kim, Uno, Mortimer, & O’Brien, 2011). Other research, along with the popular press (e.g., Marano, 2008) and cultural references to “helicopter parenting,” suggest that parents’ prolonged involvement may inhibit their adult children’s healthy development by interfering with their completion of major developmental tasks, such as individuation, independence, and autonomy (Cote, 2000; Tyre, 2002).

Over the past 40 years, the number of youth going to college after high school has increased substantially. However, the percentage of students persisting and graduating from college is still low (Brock, 2010). Although it is a major determinant of academic performance, intellectual ability alone is not sufficient to explain students’ success in college (e.g., completion within a reasonable period of time). Many college students are faced with considerable emotional and psychological stresses and challenges, especially those who are in the transition to adulthood. As a result, almost half of the students seeking a bachelor’s degree from a 4-year institution did not finish it within 6 years (Aud et al., 2010). It is therefore both essential and urgent to identify protective factors that promote success in college. Using an ethnically diverse sample of college youth, this study aimed to investigate how intergenerational solidarity was related to individual adjustment during emerging adulthood.

Intergenerational Solidarity and Individual Adjustment

The theoretical model on intergenerational solidarity (Bengtson, 2001) frames intergenerational solidarity as a multidimensional concept composed of normative, associational, affectual, and functional solidarities. According to Bengtson (2001), normative solidarity refers to “expectations regarding filial obligations and parental obligations, as well as norms about the importance of familism values”; associational solidarity refers to “the type and frequency of contact between intergenerational family members”; affectual solidarity refers to “the sentiments and evaluations family members express about their relationship with other members”; and functional solidarity refers to “the giving and receiving of support across generations, including exchange of both instrumental assets and services as well as emotional support” (all quotes on p. 8). The model proposes that (a) children’s greater endorsement of familism is associated with their greater affection for and more frequent association with parents; (b) affectual and associational solidarities are closely related (Rossi & Rossi, 1990; Silverstein, Parrott, & Bengtson, 1995); and (c) affectual solidarity promotes exchanges of support between generations (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Silverstein, Bengtson, & Lawton, 1997; Swartz et al., 2011). Empirical evidence to support the solidarity model has been established through research using adolescent samples (e.g., Ghazarian, Supple, & Plunkett, 2008; Niemeyer, Wong, & Westerhaus, 2009) and adult samples (e.g., Bengtson & Roberts, 1991; Eggebeen, 2005; Rossi & Rossi, 1990).

It remains unclear whether normative solidarity (i.e., familism or the endorsement of family values) has a direct impact—whether positive or negative—on individuals’ developmental adjustment or well-being. Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco (1995) suggested that students from a culture placing high value on familism may find themselves caught in the middle, struggling with the balance of fulfilling their educational requirements while simultaneously managing their duty and responsibility to the family. Fuligni and Pedersen (2002) echoed this concern, contending that young adults endorsing higher levels of family values, such as a strong obligation to assist the family, might need to compromise their ability to pursue postsecondary schooling (e.g., taking fewer courses, commuting from home) to maintain sufficient bandwidth required to meet family responsibilities. They found a positive relationship between a sense of obligation to the family and emotional well-being using a sample of ethnically diverse emerging adults. However, using a sample of Mexican American college men, Ojeda, Navarro, and Morales (2011) did not find a direct relationship between familism and college persistence intentions, but found the relationship to be mediated by parental encouragement. In fact, the research examining a direct association between familism and psychological functioning—most of which has focused on dementia caregivers (Kim, Knight, & Longmire, 2007; Knight et al., 2002; Losada et al., 2010)—has seldom found support for a direct relationship. It is important to note, however, that virtually no research has examined whether familism promotes individuals’ social functioning or might induce feelings of loneliness.

The benefits of positive intergenerational solidarity, manifested by parent–child closeness and family support, on child and adolescent development have been well documented in the literature (Ge, Natsuaki, Neiderhiser, & Reiss, 2009; Polo, Zychinski, & Roundfield, 2012; Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004). However, much less attention has been paid to its role in individual development postadolescence, including the stage of emerging adulthood. An exception is research on attachment theory, which proposes that secure, close relationships with one or both parents will benefit children’s development by enhancing their self-worth, self-confidence, and self-efficacy, diminishing their risks for depression and cultivating their relationships with others (Ainsworth, 1982; Bowlby, 1973). One study found that when facing academic and social challenges in college, individuals with secure relationships with their parents were more likely to develop greater self-differentiation and coping skills, leading to better adjustment (Mattanah, Hancock, & Brand, 2004). In a similar vein, Fingerman, Cheng, Tighe, Birditt, and Zarit (2012), using a multidimensional approach, suggested that parent–child relationships high in contact, emotional closeness, and support were associated with young adult children’s well-being. Furthermore, both the school-to-work approach (Blustein, Juntunen, & Worthington, 2000) and the social and capital model (Cote, 2002) suggest that a supportive family may facilitate emerging adults’ successful transitions.

Research with samples of college students has typically found that associational, affectual, and functional solidarities are positively associated with individual adjustment. Specifically, more contact with parents, higher levels of parent–child closeness, and stronger support from family are consistently linked to healthier adjustment during college, as indicated by better academic performance and persistence (Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1996; Ojeda et al., 2011; Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006; Yazedjian, Toews, & Navarro, 2009), lower levels of emotional distress, such as fewer depressive symptoms (Castillo, Conoley, & Brossart, 2004; Castillo & Hill, 2011; Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1994; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Mounts, 2004; Mounts, Valentiner, Anderson, & Boswell, 2006; Sheets & Mohr, 2009; Shulman, Kalnitzki, & Shahar, 2009), and lower levels of loneliness (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Mounts, 2004; Mounts et al., 2006; Wiseman, Mayseless, & Sharabany, 2006). A notable exception was reported in a study by Eshbaugh (2010), which unexpectedly found that college women living in the university’s residence halls with higher levels of family support actually felt lonelier than those with lower levels of support. This may suggest that those with a strong support system at home are vulnerable to feeling isolated and lonely when separated from family, even when the separation is due to attending college.

The purpose of this study is to extend research on the theory of intergenerational solidarity by investigating both direct and indirect relationships among several dimensions of intergenerational solidarity (i.e., normative, associational, affectual, and functional solidarities), and adjustment among emerging adults in the context of college. Most of the research on family in the lives of emerging adults focuses on the transfer of material resources rather than on dynamics within families, such as relationship quality and emotional support (Johnson & Benson, 2012). Given the discrepancies in research findings regarding whether familism is directly related to individual adjustment, this study tests a possible direct relationship. However, we also expect an indirect relationship, such that those who endorse higher levels of familism will report higher levels of associational solidarity (parent–child contact), affectual solidarity (affection for parents), and functional solidarity (support from family), which, in turn, will be associated with better adjustment, particularly higher levels of satisfaction with academic performance, fewer depressive symptoms, and lower levels of loneliness.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 600 undergraduate students from a midsized public university in the northeast of the United States. Most respondents (79.5%) were women (20.5% were men). The average age was 19.9 years (SD = 1.5; Range = 18-25 years), with 33.8% freshmen, 23.8% sophomore, 26.3% junior, and 15.7% senior. Two individuals (0.3%) did not identify their school year. About half of the participants (52%) self-identified as White, 21.7% as Hispanic, 13.7% as Black or African American, 3.8% as Asian American, 6.8% as multiracial, and 2% as other. The range and proportions of the ethnicities or racial identities is representative of the campus where the study was conducted. Participants were recruited in a variety of ways, including e-mail, flyers, word of mouth, in classrooms, at the student center, and at student organization meetings, and were offered a $5 incentive for completing the survey.

Measures

After providing informed consent, participants were administered by a survey that included demographic questions and the following measurement instruments:

Normative Solidarity (Familism)

Normative solidarity refers to expectations about filial obligations and parental obligations, as well as norms about the importance of family values (Bengtson, 2001), and was assessed by the Attitudinal Familism Scale (Lugo Steidel & Contreras, 2003). The scale consisted of 18 items measuring the importance placed on family bonds and on obligations to family members, the scores for which combine to yield a total score. Sample items include “A person should live near his or her parents and spend time with them on a regular basis” and “A person should help his or her elderly parents in times of need, for example, helping financially or sharing a house.” Respondents indicated to what extent they agreed with each statement using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Scores were computed by calculating the mean for the scale with a higher score indicating higher endorsement of familism. Lugo Steidel and Contreras reported a coefficient alpha of .83 for the scale. Construct validity has been supported by evidence yielding (as hypothesized) positive correlations with Latino orientation scores and negative correlations with Anglo orientation scores measured by the ARSMA-II (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). In addition to Latino study samples, this familism scale was found to be applicable for other ethnic groups as well, including non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Asian (East, South, and Middle Eastern; Schwartz, 2007; Schwartz et al., 2010). Cronbach’s alpha for scores in the current study was .86.

Associational Solidarity for Parents

Associational solidarity taps the frequency of contact between parents and children. The associational solidarity for parents was assessed by asking the participants, “How often do you see or talk to your mother/father in person or by phone, e-mail, and/or instant messaging or Skype, and so on?” (1 = never, 7 = daily). Given that they were highly correlated (r = .41, p < .001), the responses for either parent were averaged to represent the participant’s perceived associational solidarity for parents with higher scores indicating higher levels of associational solidarity (Silverstein et al., 1995).

Affectual Solidarity for Parents

Affectual solidarity is concerned with the sentiments and evaluations expressed by family members about their relationship with other members (Bengtson, 2001). The affectual solidarity for parents in the present study was measured using Roberts and Bengtson’s (1993) four-item Perceived Parent–Child Affection Scale. The items ask participants to rate how close they felt toward, and how well they got along with, each parent; how well they felt each parent understood them; and how well they understood each parent. The items use a 6-point response scale (1 = not at all close/well, 6 = extremely close/well). For the current sample, Cronbach’s alphas for mothers and fathers were .89 and .90, respectively. Given the magnitude of their correlation (r = .35, p < .001), the responses for either parent were averaged to represent the participant’s perceived affectual solidarity for parents, with higher scores indicating higher levels of affectual solidarity, as was done in Roberts and Bengtson (1996).

Functional Solidarity

Functional solidarity refers to the perceived support received from family, and was measured by the subscale of family support (four items) in the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988). The respondents indicated to what extent they agreed with each statement using a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Sample items include, “I get the emotional help and support I need from my family,” “I can talk about my problems with my family,” and “My family is willing to help me make decisions.” The mean scores of the family support subscale were calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of functional solidarity. Zimet et al. (1988) reported coefficient alphas of .87 for the family support subscale and .88 for the total scale, and test–retest reliability over a 2 to 3 months interval was reported to be .85 for both the subscale and the total scale. Validity has been supported in part by negative correlations with depression and anxiety as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenluth, & Covi, 1974). Cronbach’s alpha for this study was .92.

Overall Satisfaction With Academic Performance

Overall satisfaction with school performance was assessed by asking the participants a single question, “Overall, how satisfied are you with your school performance?” (1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = satisfied, 4 = very satisfied; Lee, Anderson, & Klimes-Dougan, 2016). Satisfaction with performance is conceptually linked to actual performance, but provides a more direct indication of psychological adjustment by prioritizing how students feel about their performance, regardless of their actual performance.

Psychological Distress

Psychological distress was measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale (Radloff, 1977). The 20-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale is a widely used scale and was developed to screen for depressive symptomology in nonclinical populations. Participants were asked to indicate in the past week, how often they might have felt each of the 20 ways listed, including “I felt sad” and “I had crying spells” (1 = rarely or none of the time, 2 = some or little of the time, 3 = occasionally or a moderate amount of time, 4 = most or all of the time). Mean ratings of the 20-item responses were used, with higher scores indicating higher levels of psychological distress. Radloff reported a coefficient alpha of .85 for the scale using nonclinical samples. Convergent validity was supported by positive correlations with other depression scales, such as the Symptom Checklist 90. Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was .90.

Loneliness

Loneliness was evaluated by the eight-item short-form of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Hays & DiMatteo, 1987). Participants rated how often they felt the way described in each of the eight statements (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often). Sample statements are “I feel isolated from others” and “I lack companionship.” Mean scores were calculated so that higher scores signify higher levels of loneliness. Hays and DiMatteo reported a coefficient alpha of .84 for the scale. Support for construct validity was found via positive correlations with personality characteristics, such as alienation and social anxiety. Cronbach’s alpha for the study was .83.

Analyses

PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) was conducted to test the proposed multiple mediator model for each adjustment outcome separately. Models with multiple mediators allow all possible mediators to be tested concurrently, and the results provide information about the effect of a specific mediator in the presence of other mediators (i.e., its ability to mediate the effect controlling for all other mediators). Based on a regression-based analytic approach, PROCESS is a newly developed computational tool that can be used to test path analysis-based mediation and moderation. For continuous outcomes, it uses ordinary least squares regression to estimate unstandardized model coefficients, standard errors, t and p values, and confidence intervals (CIs). In mediation models with a single or multiple mediators, PROCESS generates direct, as well as indirect effects which are estimated by bootstrapping. This approach overcomes the normality assumption required in other mediation tests, such as the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) and thereby more accurately estimates standard errors and obtains confidence limits for the significance levels of the indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In this study, the indirect effect was tested with 10,000 bootstrap samples and a bias-corrected 95% bootstrap CI, and the indirect effect is statistically significant when zero is not located in the CI. Given that PROCESS assumes complete data, participants with incomplete data on the study variables (ns of 23, 24, and 25, respectively, representing less than 5% of the sample) were excluded from the analyses.

Our model of multiple mediators hypothesized the relationships between several elements of intergenerational solidarity and individual adjustment. Specifically, our analyses examined (a) whether individuals’ endorsement levels of familism had direct relationships with their psychological adjustment, particularly overall satisfaction with academic performance, psychological distress (i.e., depressive symptoms), and feelings of loneliness and (b) whether endorsement levels of familism were indirectly related to individuals’ adjustment through associational, affectual, and functional solidarities. Gender, ethnicity, and parents’ current marital status were controlled in all analyses (i.e., included as covariates), given that they might confound the associations of interest. Table 1 presents the correlation matrix with means and standard deviations for the predictor/mediator variables, criterion variables, and controlled variables (covariates) in the study.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study and Controlled Variables (N = 600).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Gender	—
2. Ethnicity	.05	—
3. Parents’ marital status	−.03	−.10*	—
4. Normative solidarity	.09*	−.04	−.04	—
5. Associational solidarity	.25***	.11**	−.37***	.13**	—
6. Affectual solidarity	.01	.10*	−.20***	.24***	.32***	—
7. Functional solidarity	.22***	.13**	−.16***	.32***	.31***	.56***	—
8. Academic satisfaction	.21***	.05	−.06	.04	.14**	.15***	.23***	—
9. Depressive symptoms	−.03	−.10*	.01	.00	−.14**	−.23***	−.31***	−.26***	—
10. Loneliness	−.09*	−.09*	.04	−.10*	−.14**	−.32***	−.39***	−.18***	.56***	—
M	1.80	3.59	2.05	3.66	5.67	4.45	5.70	3.02	0.83	1.92
SD	0.40	1.18	1.43	0.50	1.39	1.06	1.36	0.69	0.56	0.62

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Table 2 and Figure 1 present the results of testing the multiple mediator models. In terms of the hypothesized direct effects (c’) between normative solidarity (familism) and adjustments (satisfaction with academic performance, depressive symptoms, and loneliness), the results showed that familism was found to have a direct relationship only with depressive symptoms (B = .13, SE = .05, t = 2.68, p < .01). The relationship was positive, meaning that higher endorsement of familism was associated with more depressive symptoms reported.

Table 2.

Multiple Mediation Results for Intergenerational Solidarity and Individual Adjustment.

Dependent variable	Path/effect	B	SE	t	Bias-corrected 95% bootstrap CI
Academic Satisfaction (AS)	C	.04	.06	0.67
	a1 (Normative → associational)	.26	.10	2.55*
	a2 (Normative → affectual)	.51	.08	6.10***
	a3 (Normative → functional)	.82	.10	7.97***
	b1 (Associational → AS)	.01	.02	.32
	b2 (Affectual → AS)	.02	.03	.72
	b3 (Functional → AS)	.10	.03	3.62***
	c’	−.06	.06	−.95
	a1 × b1	.00	.01		[−.01, .02]
	a2 × b2	.01	.02		[−.02, .05]
	a3 × b3	.08	.03		[.03, .13]
	Total	.09	.03		[.05, .15]
Depressive Symptoms (DEP)	C	−.01	.05	−.14
	a1 (Normative → associational)	.25	.10	2.49*
	a2 (Normative → affectual)	.50	.08	6.01***
	a3 (Normative → functional)	.81	.10	8.03***
	b1 (Associational → DEP)	−.03	.02	−1.80
	b2 (Affectual → DEP)	−.06	.03	−2.14*
	b3 (Functional→ DEP)	−.12	.02	−5.41***
	c’	.13	.05	2.68**
	a1 × b1	−.01	.01		[−.03, .00]
	a2 × b2	−.03	.02		[−.06, .00]
	a3 × b3	−.09	.02		[−.14, −.06]
	Total	−13	.02		[−.18, −.09]
Loneliness (LONE)	C	−.11	.05	−2.22*
	a1 (Normative → associational)	.25	.10	2.45*
	a2 (Normative → affectual)	.51	.08	6.10***
	a3 (Normative → functional)	.81	.10	7.98***
	b1 (Associational → LONE)	−.00	.02	−0.08
	b2 (Affectual → LONE)	−.09	.03	−3.31**
	b3 (Functional → LONE)	−.15	.02	−6.32***
	c’	.05	.05	1.03
	a1 × b1	−.00	.01		[−.01, .01]
	a2 × b2	−.05	.02		[−.09, −.02]
	a3 × b3	−.12	.03		[−.17, −.07]
	Total	−.17	.03		[−.23, −.12]

Note. C = total effect of independent variable (IV) on dependent variable (DV); a = IV to mediator; b = direct effect of mediator on DV; c’ = direct effect of IV on DV; a × b = indirect effect of IV on DV through mediator; CI = confidence interval. Participants’ gender, ethnicity, and parents’ marital status were included as covariates in the analyses.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Results for the multiple mediator model among intergenerational solidarity and individual adjustment.

With regard to the hypothesized indirect effects (ab), our results showed that affectual solidarity mediated the relationship between familism and adjustment—loneliness in particular. Specifically, familism was positively related to affectual solidarity for parents, which, in turn, was negatively associated with loneliness (ab = −.05, 95% CI [−.09, −.02]). Those endorsing higher levels of familism reported higher levels of affectual solidarity for their parents, which, in turn, were related to lower levels of loneliness.

Additional indirect effects were found in that functional solidarity was a mediator of familism and each of the three adjustments. Specifically, familism was positively related to functional solidarity, which, in turn, was positively associated with satisfaction with academic performance (ab = .08, 95% CI [.03, .13]), negatively associated with depressive symptoms (ab = −.09, 95% CI [−.14, −.06]), and negatively related to loneliness (ab = −.12, 95% CI [−.17, −.07]). Those with higher levels of endorsement on familism perceived having received more support from the family, which, in turn, was associated with higher levels of satisfaction with academic performance, fewer depressive symptoms, and lower levels of loneliness. However, associational solidarity was not found to be a mediator.

Discussion

This study is the first to examine both direct and indirect effects between intergenerational solidarity and individual adjustment during emerging adulthood using a multiple mediation model, allowing examination of several mediators concurrently (Hayes, 2013). Results from a large and ethnically diverse sample lend support to the association of family influence, through intergenerational solidarity, with the well-being of emerging adults attending college. Specifically, emerging adults’ connectedness to family was associated with adaptive functioning (Grotevant, 1989), which in turn is associated with successful development.

The direct, positive relationship between normative solidarity (familism) and depressive symptoms (Knight et al., 2002) suggests that, perhaps for some, endorsing higher levels of familism leaves them vulnerable when they are situated away from family and in the college environment, where the cultural norms are typically rooted in individualism and independence (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). This vulnerability may trigger higher levels of emotional distress, specifically more depressive symptoms. Of course, it is possible that the reverse is true, and depression prompts people to endorse familism to a greater extent, or that bidirectional causality or the influence of a third variable are at work.

In light of the fact that most research has not found any direct relationship between familism and individuals’ well-being, it might be that familism exerts its influence indirectly, for example, through social support quantity and quality, as proposed in Knight et al. (2002). We explored this indirect relationship by testing a model with multiple mediators, hypothesizing that the endorsement of familism might be associated with individual adjustment through its positive influence on associational, affectual, and functional solidarities. Overall, results supported our hypothesized model, as individuals’ affectual solidarity for parents mediated the relationship between familism and loneliness. Functional solidarity also mediated the relationships between familism and satisfaction with academic performance, depressive symptoms, and loneliness. In other words, emerging adults who endorsed higher levels of familism tended to report feeling closer to and getting along better with parents, having better sense of mutual understanding with their parents, and perceiving a stronger level of support from family (e.g., getting emotional support, advice, help with decision making). This pattern was associated with better psychological adjustment, particularly greater satisfaction with academic performance, fewer depressive symptoms, and/or lower levels of loneliness. As Settersten (2012) indicated, although resources (e.g., positive family relationships) alone do not guarantee success, they may foster desirable outcomes.

Contrary to expectations, however, we did not find associational solidarity for parents as measured by the frequency of contact to mediate any of the relationships between familism and individual adjustments when the other two solidarities were present in the models, although endorsing familism was linked to increased parent–child contact. Thanks to today’s advanced technology that assists interpersonal communication, there are many ways for college youth to stay in contact with their parents, including phone calls, e-mails, Skype sessions, instant messages, Facebook status updates, Tweets, and so on (Fingerman et al., 2012). In addition, many emerging adults today continue to live with their parents to reduce their financial constraints; this is perhaps especially true of many college students. Therefore, it may be that easy access of contact with parents may restrict variability and place a low ceiling on the unique impact of associational solidarity in explaining the relationship of familism with adjustment, particularly when affectual and functional solidarities are considered concurrently. It is also worth noting that our measure of associational solidarity only taps frequency of parent–child interactions; nothing was assessed about types of activities college youth shared with their parents. Perhaps, it is not how often emerging adults experience contact with their parents, but what they do when they are together, that determines its impact on adjustment, thereby potentially mediating the relationship. Future research should explore this other aspect of associational solidarity to help us better understand its role and function in the relationships. We suggest that the effects of familism on individual adjustment may be transmitted by more than one means (i.e., affectual and functional solidarities), which helps advance our understanding of how family continues to exert its influence on emerging adults’ well-being. Of course, despite our speculation of a possible Type II error, the possibility cannot be ruled out that associational solidarity is simply not an important predictor of adjustment. Perhaps, too much parental involvement is simply not a good thing for emerging adults, another possible interpretation for future research to investigate directly.

Our study advances the ongoing development of intergenerational solidarity theory, as called for by Bengtson and Roberts (1991). Specifically, not only does it find support for the theorized relationships among several elements of solidarity (i.e., normative, associational, affectual, and functional solidarities) but also suggests that these elements are linked to emerging adults’ well-being. While intergenerational solidarity generally serves as a protective factor in promoting young family members’ adjustment, different solidarity dimensions may function differently in helping members adjust to their adult roles. Among them, functional solidarity appears to be the most salient factor, as it mediates the endorsement of familism and adjustment in academic learning, psychological well-being, and social functioning.

Limitations

Despite the strengths of this study, there are several limitations that should be noted. First, data were all based on participants’ self-reports, which likely contributed to greater associations among the variables due to shared method variance. Replications of this study should use multiple informants, such as reports from parents on the solidarity elements (Thornton, Orbuch, & Axinn, 1995). Second, this study was cross-sectional in design. Thus, no causal inferences can be made. Longitudinal research design is necessary for causal interpretations and would provide stronger evidence for directionality in the relationships proposed in our model. Third, the study sample consists of only college youth; the extent to which results generalize to emerging adults who do not attend college is unclear. Although the number of youth attending colleges has increased significantly in recent years (Brock, 2010), there are still many youth who do not go to college. It is widely known that this particular group of young individuals is underrepresented in research (Arnett, 2000), and that college students do differ from nonstudent emerging adults on demographic, socioeconomic, and psychosocial variables (Halperin, 2001). Subsequent research should recruit research participants from this understudied population of nonstudents.

Implications for Parenting and Helping Professions

Our results provide additional research support encouraging parents to maintain or recreate close relationships with, and to provide strong support for, their young adult children to promote healthy developmental outcomes. Emerging adulthood represents a developmental platform for individuals to explore many of life’s possibilities (Arnett, 2000). While many will probably agree that it is a stage full of excitement and potential, stresses, and challenges from various sources appear to be inevitable as well, perhaps especially for those youth attending college. Thus, there will be times when emerging adults are confused and stressed, and thereby are in need of advice and support. Research has shown that parents often are the preferred source of support when major decisions are considered (Aquilino, 1997; Shulman et al., 2009). It is worth noting, however, that although the literature has suggested that emerging adults can benefit from their parents’ continual involvement with their lives, parental involvement is not always beneficial, and has been shown to be detrimental at times (Fingerman et al., 2012). Silverstein, Chen, and Heller (1996) have pointed out that more is not necessarily better in intergenerational solidarity. Johnson and Benson (2012) found that excessive parental involvement or monitoring effort in adolescence was negatively associated with later assessment of success, as it may hinder the development of autonomy and skills that youth need to navigate the transition to adulthood.

Despite the belief that many higher education institutions promote individualistic values, evidence in this study demonstrated how influential familism and family-oriented values are in a higher education setting. We offer several implications for helping professionals, such as college counselors and advisors, psychologists, social workers, family practitioners, and so forth, who work with college youth and/or their families. First, our data revealed the large impact that intergenerational solidarity may have on youth’s academic, emotional, and social adjustments to college. Even those who are residing away from home may be closely connected via phone calls and the Internet and deeply influenced by their families, given the familial values to which they adhere. Considering the inverse effect family support has on loneliness and depressive symptoms, and the positive effect that it has on satisfaction with academic performance, family is not something that can be overlooked, but instead should be recognized as a potentially supporting force that facilitates college youth’s success and development (Adams et al., 2000).

Second, this research demonstrates the importance of asking questions in a therapeutic relationship about family life, and how support, or lack of support, from the family unit may affect a student’s adjustment at school. Therefore, it is important for helping professionals to not only help college youth assess their relationships with parents but also encourage them to seek support from their parents when it is needed (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991). Furthermore, recent research has shown that institutions that place a large emphasis on individualistic values may provide potential barriers to students’ adjustment (Castillo et al., 2004; Stephens et al., 2012). While many institutions are starting to implement programs that incorporate family into college life, such as family weekends, sibling weeks, and family orientations, our study extensively showed how affection for parents and support from family may assist in the process of a healthy adjustment in college youth’s life on campus (Mattanah et al., 2004), and consequently how creating more family involvement within a campus could be advantageous to college youth’s adjustment (Yazedjian et al., 2009).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

G. R.

Ryan

B. A.

Keating

(2000). Family relationships, academic environments, and psychosocial development during the university experience: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 99-122. doi:10.1177/0743558400151006

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

(1982). Attachment: Restrospect and prospect. In Parkes

C. M.

Stevenson-Hinde

(Eds.), The place of attachments in human behavior (pp. 3-30). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Aquilino

W. S.

(1997). From adolescents to young adult: A prospective study of parent-child relations during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 670-686. doi:10.2307/353953

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. doi:10.1177/0192513X04265950

Arnett

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Aud

Hussar

Planty

Snyder

Bianco

Fox

. . . Drake

(2010). The condition of education 2010 (NCES 2010-028). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Bengtson

V. L.

(2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1-16. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00001.x

Bengtson

V. L.

Roberts

R. E.

(1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 856-870. doi:10.2307/352993

Blustein

Juntunen

Worthington

(2000). The school-work transition: Adjustment challenges of the forgotten self. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 435-470). New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

11.

Brock

(2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. Future of Children, 20, 109-132.

12.

Castillo

L. G.

Conoley

C. W.

Brossart

D. F.

(2004). Acculturation, White marginalization, and family support as predictors of perceived distress in Mexican American female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 151-157. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.151

13.

Castillo

L. G.

Hill

R. D.

(2011). Predictors of distress in Chicana college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 234-248. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00630.x

14.

Cote

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

15.

Cote

J. E.

(2002). The role of the identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The individualization thesis examined. Journal of Youth Studies, 5, 117-134.

16.

Cuellar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.

17.

Cutrona

C. E.

Cole

Colangelo

Assouline

S. G.

Russell

D. W.

(1996). Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369-378. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.369

18.

Derogatis

L. R.

Lipman

R. S.

Rickels

Uhlenluth

E. H.

Covi

(1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science, 19, 1-15.

19.

Eggebeen

D. J.

(2005). Cohabitation and exchanges of support. Social Force, 83, 1097-1110. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0027

20.

Eshbaugh

E. M.

(2010). Friend and family support as moderators of the effects of low romantic partner support on loneliness among college women. Individual Differences Research, 8, 8-16.

21.

Fingerman

K. L.

Bermann

(2000). Applications of family systems theory to the study of adulthood. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51, 5-29. doi:10.2190/7TF8-WB3F-TMWG-TT3K

22.

Fingerman

K. L.

Cheng

Y-P.

Tighe

Birditt

K. S.

Zarit

(2012). Relationships between young adults and their parents. In Booth

Brown

S. L.

Landale

N. S.

Manning

W. D.

McHale

S. M.

(Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 59-85). New York, NY: Springer.

23.

Fuligni

A. J.

Pedersen

(2002). Family obligation and the transition to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 38, 856-868. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.856

24.

Natsuaki

M. N.

Neiderhiser

J. M.

Reiss

(2009). The longitudinal effects of stressful life events on adolescent depression are buffered by parent-child closeness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 621-635.

25.

Ghazarian

S. R.

Supple

A. J.

Plunkett

S. W.

(2008). Familism as a predictor of parent–adolescent relationships and developmental outcomes for adolescents in Armenian American immigrant families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 599-613. doi:10.1007/s10826-007-9177-7

26.

Grotevant

H. D.

(1989). Child development within the family context. In Damon

(Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow (pp. 34-51). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Halperin

(2001). The forgotten half revisited: American youth and young families, 1988-2008. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Hays

R. D.

DiMatteo

(1987). A short-form measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 69-81. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6

30.

Holahan

C. J.

Valentiner

D. P.

Moos

R. H.

(1994). Parental support and psychological adjustment during the transition to young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 215-223. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.8.2.215

31.

Johnson

M. K.

Benson

(2012). The implications of family context for the transition to adulthood. In Booth

Brown

S. L.

Landale

N. S.

Manning

W. D.

McHale

S. M.

(Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 87-103). New York, NY: Springer.

32.

Kenny

M. E.

Donaldson

G. A.

(1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479-486.

33.

Kim

J.-H.

Knight

B. G.

Longmire

C. V. F.

(2007). The role of familism in stress and coping processes among African American and White dementia caregivers: Effects on mental and physical health. Health Psychology, 26, 564-576. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.5.564

34.

Knight

B. G.

Robinson

G. S.

Longmire

C. V. F.

Chun

Nakao

Kim

J.-H.

(2002). Cross cultural issues in caregiving for persons with dementia: Do familism values reduce burden and distress? Ageing International, 27, 70-94.

35.

Lee

C-Y. S.

Anderson

J. R.

Klimes-Dougan

(2016). Potentially traumatic experiences, academic performance, and psychological distress: The role of shame. Journal of Counseling & Development, 94, 41-50.

36.

Losada

Marquez-Gonzalez

Knight

B. G.

Yanguas

Sayegh

Romero-Moreno

(2010). Psychosocial factors and caregivers’ distress: Effects of familism and dysfunctional thoughts. Aging & Mental Health, 14, 193-202. doi:10.1080/13607860903167838

37.

Lugo Steidel

A. G.

Contreras

J. M.

(2003). A new familism scale for use with Latino populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 312-330.

38.

Marano

H. E.

(2008). A nation of wimps: The high cost of invasive parenting. New York, NY: Crown Archetype.

39.

Mattanah

J. F.

Hancock

G. R.

Brand

B. L.

(2004). Parental attachment, separation-individuation, and college student adjustment: A structural equation analysis of meditational effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 213-225. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.213

40.

Mounts

N. S.

(2004). Contributions of parenting and campus climate to freshmen adjustment in a multiethnic sample. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 468-491. doi:10.1177/0743558403258862

41.

Mounts

N. S.

Valentiner

D. P.

Anderson

K. L.

Boswell

M. K.

(2006). Shyness, sociability, and parental support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 71-80. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-9002-9

42.

Niemeyer

A. E.

Wong

M. M.

Westerhaus

K. J.

(2009). Parental involvement, familismo, and academic performance in Hispanic and Caucasian adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 613-632.

43.

Ojeda

Navarro

R. L.

Morales

(2011). The role of la familia on Mexican American men’s college persistence intentions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 216-229. doi:10.1037/a0020091

44.

Ong

A. D.

Phinney

J. S.

Dennis

(2006). Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 961-979. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.010

45.

Polo

A. J.

Zychinski

K. E.

Roundfield

K. E.

(2012). The parental schoolwork support measure-youth: Development and psychometric evaluation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 297-306. doi:10.1037/a0028729

46.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

47.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306

48.

Roberts

R. E. L.

Bengtson

V. L.

(1993). Relationships with parents, self-esteem, and psychological well-being in young adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 263-277.

49.

Roberts

R. E. L.

Bengtson

V. L.

(1996). Affective ties to parents in early adulthood and self-esteem across 20 years. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 96-106.

50.

Rossi

A. S.

Rossi

P. H.

(1990). Of human bonding: Parent-child relations across the life course. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

51.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2007). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic groups: A preliminary study. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 101-118.

52.

Schwartz

S. J.

Weisskirch

R. S.

Hurley

E. A.

Zamboanga

B. L.

Park

I. J.

Kim

S. Y.

. . . Greene

A. D.

(2010). Communalism, familism, and filial piety: Are they birds of a collectivist feather? Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 548-560.

53.

Settersten

R. A.

(2012). The contemporary context of young adulthood in the USA: From demography to development, from private troubles to public issues. In Booth

Brown

S. L.

Landale

N. S.

Manning

W. D.

McHale

S. M.

(Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Springer.

54.

Sheets

R. L.

Mohr

J. J.

(2009). Perceived social support from friends and family and psychosocial functioning in bisexual young adult college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 152-163. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.56.1.152

55.

Shulman

Kalnitzki

Shahar

(2009). Meeting developmental challenges during emerging adulthood: The role of personality and social resources. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 242-267. doi:10.1177/0743558408329303

56.

Silverstein

Bengtson

V. L.

Lawton

(1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child-parent relations in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 429-460.

57.

Silverstein

Chen

Heller

(1996). Too much of a good thing? Intergenerational social support and the psychological well-being of aging parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 970-982. doi:10.2307/353984

58.

Silverstein

Parrott

T. M.

Bengtson

V. L.

(1995). Factors that predispose middle-aged sons and daughters to provide social support to older parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 465-475.

59.

Sobel

(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.

60.

Stephens

N. M.

Fryberg

S. A.

Markus

H. R.

Johnson

C. S.

Covarrubias

(2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1178-1197. doi:10.1037/a0027143

61.

Stice

Ragan

Randall

(2004). Prospective relations between social support and depression: Differential direction of effects for parent and peer support? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.155

62.

Suarez-Orozco

(1995). Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

63.

Swartz

T. T.

Kim

Uno

Mortimer

O’Brien

K. B.

(2011). Safety nets and scaffolds: Parental support in the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 414-429. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00815.x

64.

Thornton

Orbuch

T. L.

Axinn

W. G.

(1995). Parent-child relationships during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 538-564.

65.

Tyre

(2002, March 25). Bringing up adultolescents. Newsweek, pp. 38-40.

66.

Wiseman

Mayseless

Sharabany

(2006). Why are they lonely? Perceived quality of early relationships with parents, attachment, personality predispositions and loneliness in first-year university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 237-248. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.015

67.

Yazedjian

Toews

M. L.

Navarro

(2009). Exploring parental factors, adjustment, and academic achievement among White and Hispanic college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 458-467.

68.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2