Advertisement

European Journal of Ageing

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 287–299 | Cite as

Family reciprocity of older Singaporeans

  • Lois M. VerbruggeEmail author
  • Shannon Ang
Original Investigation
  • 211 Downloads

Abstract

Reciprocity is a powerful motivation in social life. We study what older people give to their family for help received. Data are from the Panel on Health and Aging of Singaporean Elderly, Wave 2 (2011; persons aged 62+; N = 3103). Giving and receiving help are with family members other than spouse in the same household, in the past year. Types of help given and received are money, food/clothes/other material goods, housework/cooking, babysitting grandchildren, emotional support/advice, help for personal care, and help for going out. Multivariate models predict each type of giving help, with independent variables about the older person’s resources, needs, and help received. Reciprocity is demonstrated by positive relationships between receiving and giving help. Results show two kinds of reciprocity: “nontangibles for tangibles” and “same for same.” First, older people give their time and effort in return for money and material goods. This aligns with contemporary Singapore circumstances, in that older people tend to have ample time but limited financial resources, while family members (often midlife children) have the reverse. Second, same-for-same exchanges, such as housework both given and received, are shared tasks in families or normative behaviors in Singapore society. The results replicate and extend prior ones for Singapore. We discuss prospects for change in frequency and shape of family reciprocity as the state continues to modernize.

Keywords

Social exchange Older adults Reciprocity Family relations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Angelique Chan, Director, Centre for Ageing Research and Education, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School for launching and overseeing the Panel on Health and Aging of Singaporean Elderly (PHASE) longitudinal study of older Singaporeans. The PHASE Wave 2 survey (2011) was supported by the Singapore Ministry of Health’s National Medical Research Council under its Singapore Translational Research Investigator Award, as part of the project “Establishing a Practical and Theoretical Foundation for Comprehensive and Integrated Community, Policy and Academic Efforts to Improve Dementia Care in Singapore” (P.I.: D. Matchar, NMRC-STAR-0005-2009). The authors gratefully acknowledge use of the services and facilities of the Population Studies Center at the University of Michigan, funded by NICHD Center Grant P2CHD041028.

Funding

This analysis was conducted with no grant or contract funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

The PHASE Wave 2 survey was reviewed and approved by the National University of Singapore Institutional Review Board (NUS-IRB).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beel-Bates CA, Ingersoll-Dayton B, Nelson R (2007) Deference as a form of reciprocity among residents in assisted living. Res Aging 29:626–643.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027507305925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengtson VL, Putney NM, Johnson ML (2005) The problem of theory in gerontology today. In: Johnson ML (ed) The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610714.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blau PM (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronstein RF (1990) Publication politics, experimenter bias and the replication process in social science research. J Soc Behav Personal 5:71–81Google Scholar
  5. Carstensen L (1992) Social and emotional patterns in adulthood: support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychol Aging 7:331–338.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan A (1997) An overview of the living arrangements and social support exchanges of older Singaporeans. Asia Pac Popul J 12:35–50Google Scholar
  7. Chin CWW, Phua K-H (2016) Long-term care policy: Singapore’s experience. J Aging Soc Policy 28:113–129.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1145534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cong Z, Silverstein M (2008) Intergenerational time-for-money exchanges in rural China: does reciprocity reduce depressive symptoms of older grandparents? Res Hum Dev 5:6–25.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600701853749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Singapore (2001a) Census of Population 2000 statistical release 1: demographic characteristics. Release date July 2001. ISBN 981-04-4448-6Google Scholar
  10. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Singapore (2001b) Census of Population 2000 statistical release 2: education, language and religion. Release date October 2001. ISBN 981-04-4459-1Google Scholar
  11. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Republic of Singapore (2011) Census of Population 2010 statistical release 1: demographic characteristics, education, language and religion. Release date January 2011. ISBN 978-981-08-7808-5Google Scholar
  12. Earp BD, Trafimow D (2015) Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Front Psychol 6:621.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerson RM (1972a) Exchange theory, part I: a psychological basis for social exchange. In: Berger J, Zelditch M Jr, Anderson B (eds) Sociological theories in progress, vol 2. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, pp 38–57Google Scholar
  14. Emerson RM (1972b) Exchange theory, part II: exchange relations and networks. In: Berger J, Zelditch M Jr, Anderson B (eds) Sociological theories in progress, vol 2. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, pp 58–87Google Scholar
  15. Emerson RM (1981) Social exchange theory. In: Rosenberg M, Turner R (eds) Social psychology: sociological perspectives. Basic Books, New York, pp 30–65Google Scholar
  16. Fingerman K, Miller L, Birditt K, Zarit S (2009) Giving to the good and the needy: parental support of grown children. J Marriage Fam 71:1220–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00665.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrison RW (1984) Time and money: the universals of macroeconomic theorizing. J Macroecon 6:197–213.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0164-0704(84)90005-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geurts T, Poortman A-R, van Tilburg TG (2012) Older parents providing child care for adult children: does it pay off? J Marriage Fam 74:239–250.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00952.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 25:161–178.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gubhaju, B, Chan A, Østbye T (2018) Intergenerational support to and from older Singaporeans. In: Yeung JW, Hu S (eds) Family and population change in Singapore: half a century of development and policies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Homans GC (1961) Social behavior: its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York (Revised edition 1974) Google Scholar
  22. Horioka CY, Gahramanov E, Hayat A, Tang X (2016) Why do children take care of their elderly parents? Are the Japanese any different? NBER Working paper No. 22245. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts.  https://doi.org/10.3386/w22245
  23. Hüffmeier J, Mazei J, Schultze T (2016) Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: a replication typology. J Exp Soc Psychol 66(S1):81–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT (2004) A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging 26:655–672.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027504268574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ingersoll-Dayton B, Saengtienchai C (1999) Respect for the elderly in Asia: stability and change. Int J Aging Hum Dev 48:113–130.  https://doi.org/10.2190/G1XR-QDCV-JRNM-585P CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Isherwood LM, Luszcz MA, King DS (2016) Reciprocity in material and time support within parent–child relationships during late-life widowhood. Ageing Soc 36:1668–1689.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X15000537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jung Y, Hall J, Hong R, Goh T, Ong N, Tan T (2014) Payback: effects of relationship and cultural norms on reciprocity. Asian J Soc Psychol 17:160–172.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohout FJ, Berkman LF, Evans DA, Cornoni-Huntley J (1993) Two shorter forms of the CES-D depression symptoms index. J Aging Health 5:179–193.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089826439300500202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kolm S-C (2008) Reciprocity. An economics of social relations. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kranton RE (1996) Reciprocal exchange: a self-sustaining system. Am Econ Rev 86:830–851. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118307
  31. Leopold T, Raab M (2011) Short-term reciprocity in late parent–child relationships. J Marriage Fam 73:105–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.174103737.2010.00792.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin I-F, Wu H-S (2014) Intergenerational exchange and expected support among the young-old. J Marriage Fam 76:261–271.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowenstein A, Katz R, Gur-Yaish N (2007) Reciprocity in parent-child exchange and life satisfaction among the elderly: a cross-national perspective. J Soc Issues 63:865–883.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00541.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lubben J (1988) Assessing social networks among elderly populations. Fam Community Health 11:42–52.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-198811000-00008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lubben J, Gironda M (2004) Measuring social networks and assessing their benefits. In: Phillipson C, Allan G, Morgan DHJ (eds) Social networks and social exclusion: sociological and policy perspectives. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 20–34Google Scholar
  36. Malhotra R, Chan A, Malhotra C, Østbye T (2010) Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in the elderly population of Singapore. Hypertens Res 33:1223–1231.  https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2010.177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malmendier U, te Velde VL, Weber RA (2014) Rethinking reciprocity. Annu Rev Econ 6:849–874.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcum CS, Koehly LM (2015) Inter-generational contact from a network perspective. Adv Life Course Res 24:10–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2015.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mauss M (1925) Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. L’Année Sociologique, 1923–24. Alcan, Paris. English translation by Cunnison I (1954) The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. Cohen and West, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Mehta K (1997) Respect redefined: focus group insights from Singapore. Int J Aging Hum Dev 44:205–219.  https://doi.org/10.2190/8L57-YT6L-XQCL-8DDP CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mehta K (1999) Intergenerational exchanges: qualitative evidence from Singapore. Southeast Asian J Soc Sci 27:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1163/030382499X00075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mehta KK (2006) A critical review of Singapore’s policies aimed at supporting families caring for older members. J Aging Soc Policy 18:43–57.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J031v18n03_04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mehta KK, Ko K (2004) Filial piety revisited in the context of modernizing Asian societies. Geriatr Gerontol Int 4:577–578.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2004.00157.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mehta K, Osman MM, Lee AEY (1995) Living arrangements of the elderly in Singapore: cultural norms in transition. J Cross Cult Gerontol 10:113–143.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Milagros MGA, Domingo L, Knodel J, Mehta K (1995) Living arrangements in four Asian countries: a comparative approach. J Cross Cult Gerontol 10:145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00972034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Molm LD (1997) Risk and power use: constraints on the use of coercion in exchange. Am Sociol Rev 62:113–133.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2657455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Molm LD (2003) Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociol Theor 21:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Molm LD, Collett JL, Schaefer DR (2007a) Building solidarity through generalized exchange: a theory of reciprocity. Am J Sociol 113:204–242.  https://doi.org/10.1086/517900 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Molm LD, Schaefer DR, Collett JL (2007b) The value of reciprocity. Soc Psychol Quart 70:199–217.  https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250707000208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Morgan DL, Schuster RL, Butler EW (1991) Role reversals in the exchange of social support. J Gerontol B Psychol 46:S278–S287.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/46.5.s278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ofstedal MB, Knodel J, Chayovan N (1999) Intergenerational support and gender: a comparison of four Asian countries. Southeast Asian J Soc Sci 27:21–42.  https://doi.org/10.1163/030382499X00039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):943.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parrott TM, Bengtson RL (1999) The effects of earlier intergenerational affection, normative expectations, and family conflict on contemporary exchanges of help and support. Res Aging 21:73–105.  https://doi.org/10.1086/517900 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pearlin LI, Schooler C (1978) The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav 19:2–21.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2136319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phua KH (2001) The savings approach to financing long-term care in Singapore. J Aging Soc Policy 13:169–183.  https://doi.org/10.1300/j031v13n02_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Phua VC, Loh J (2008) Filial piety and intergenerational co-residence: the case of Chinese Singaporeans. Asian J Soc Sci 36:659–679.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853108X327155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pillemer K, Suitor JJ, Mock SE, Sabir M, Pardo TB, Sechrist J (2007) Capturing the complexity of intergenerational relations: exploring ambivalence within later-life families. J Soc Issues 63:775–791.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00536.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Purdam K, Tranmer M (2014) Expectations of being helped in return for helping—citizens, the state, and the local area. Popul Space Place 20:66–82.  https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, Van Hoewyk J, Solenberger P (2001) A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Surv Methodol 27:85–95Google Scholar
  60. Ring PS (1996) Fragile and resilient trust and their roles in economic exchange. Bus Soc 35:148–175.  https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039603500202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt S (2009) Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Rev Gen Psychol 13:90–100.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shi L (1993) Family financial and household support exchange between generations: a survey of Chinese rural elderly. Gerontologist 33:468–480.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/33.4.468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Silverstein M, Conroy SJ, Gans D (2012) Beyond solidarity, reciprocity and altruism: moral capital as a unifying concept in intergenerational support for older people. Ageing Soc 32:1246–1262.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12000058X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simmel G (1907) [Exchange]. In idem, Philosophie des geldes [Philosophy of wealth]. Duncker and Humblot, Leipzig, Germany, pp 33–61. English translation by Levine DN (1971) Georg Simmel: on individuality and social forms. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 43–69Google Scholar
  66. Simmel G (1922) Die kreuzung sozialer kreise [The web of group affiliations]. In idem, Soziologie [Sociology]. Duncker and Humblot, Munich, Germany, pp 305–344. English translation by Wolff KH, Bendix R (1955) Conflict and the web of group affiliations. Free Press, New York, pp 125–195Google Scholar
  67. StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software: release 13. StataCorp LP, College Station, TXGoogle Scholar
  68. Teo P (2004) Health care for older persons in Singapore: integrating state and community provisions with individual support. J Aging Soc Policy 16:43–67.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J031v16n01_03 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teo P, Mehta K (2001) Participating in the home: widows cope in Singapore. J Aging Stud 15:127–144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-4065(00)00022-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thomas PA (2010) Is it better to give or to receive? Social support and the well-being of older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol 65B:351–357.  https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbp113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomése F, van Tilburg T, Broese van Groenou M, Knipscheer K (2005) Network dynamics in later life. In: Johnson ML (ed) The Cambridge handbook of age and ageing. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 463–468.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610714.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verbrugge LM, Chan A (2008) Giving help in return: family reciprocity by older Singaporeans. Ageing Soc 28:5–34.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X07006447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wu T-F, Cross SE, Wu C-W, Cho W, Tey S-H (2016) Choosing your mother or your spouse: close relationship dilemmas in Taiwan and the United States. J Cross Cult Psychol 47:558–580.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115625837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Population Studies CenterUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Sociology, School of Social SciencesNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations