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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Other theories about giving and receiving behaviors, and their motivations, have been developed in economics, sociology, social psychology, and anthropology (Bengtson et al. 2005; Carstensen 1992; Emerson 1972a, b, 1981; Garrison 1984; Marcum and Koehly 2015; Mauss 1925; Ring 1996; Thomas 2010; Wu et al. 2016). They do not contradict social exchange and reciprocity, but approach social relations from other perspectives.
Motivations resist direct measurement. Surveys sometimes ask about perceptions and expectations, but not motives for actual behaviors. Experimental research tries to tap motivations by giving different games to study groups, then assessing the game-behavior differences and participant attitudes about their game-mates (Jung et al. 2014; Malmendier et al. 2014; Molm et al. 2007b).
These topics were reviewed in Verbrugge and Chan (2008, pp. 6–8). Recent research has some new directions (reference list is available on request): (1) coresidence of parents and their adult children is declining due to improved financial resources of older people, migration of adult children, more residence types with care services, and the ethos of late-life independence. On the other hand, coresidence is boosted by more time that contemporary unmarried adult children stay with their parents. (2) For filial piety, much is written about its "erosion" in Asia. Some studies query people's attitudes about filial piety. These suggest reshaping (not erosion) of filial piety, especially its behavioral expression. Helping behaviors are changing worldwide to include conscious affective displays of caring and love, finding and monitoring others to care for older parents, planning and administrative tasks, and assuring security. (3) For intergenerational transfers, new foci are their long-range stretch over years and geography, and their psychosocial impact on older persons (receiving and giving help act as buffers for stress and loneliness).
This matter has troubled some readers, so we provide a metaphor. The items differ, so we have "apples and pears". For social change, we need "apples and apples". For substantive replication, "apples and pears" are fine; we ask if they look and behave quite similarly as fruits.
Empirical comparison: Both analyses have high percentages of significant effects of receive help on give help (79% 2011; 86% 1995/1999). Of those, the percentage of positive ones is higher for 2011 (61%; 38% 1995/1999). Strength of other predictors (besides receive) is about the same (similar percentages of significant effects overall and per hypothesis). For predictors that appear in both analyses, direction of effects on give help is the same. Explained variance for models is higher in 2011 (.243 on average; .167 1995/1999). Prevalences of receive/give help cannot be compared for 2011 and 1995/1999 because items differ so much.
Substantive replication: We arranged the 1995/1999 items into nontangibles and tangibles. Positive links between receive and give are not very common in the prior analysis, but better for "nontangibles for tangibles" (4/12) than the other combinations (nontangibles for nontangibles, 0/12; tangibles for nontangibles, 1/2; tangibles for tangibles, 1/2). (Results are stronger for 2011: 4/6, 4/12, 1/8, and 2/4, respectively; see “Results” section.) Regarding "same for same", replication cannot be assessed. It could not be assessed in the prior analysis, because receive and give items were so different.
Transitions in Health, Employment, Social Engagement and Inter-Generational Transfers in Singapore Study (THE SIGNS Study), funded by the Singapore Ministry of Health.
References
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
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
Blau PM (1964) Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New York
Bronstein RF (1990) Publication politics, experimenter bias and the replication process in social science research. J Soc Behav Personal 5:71–81
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
Chan A (1997) An overview of the living arrangements and social support exchanges of older Singaporeans. Asia Pac Popul J 12:35–50
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
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
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 981-04-4448-6
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 981-04-4459-1
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 978-981-08-7808-5
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
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 38–57
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 58–87
Emerson RM (1981) Social exchange theory. In: Rosenberg M, Turner R (eds) Social psychology: sociological perspectives. Basic Books, New York, pp 30–65
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
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
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
Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. Am Sociol Rev 25:161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
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, London
Homans GC (1961) Social behavior: its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York (Revised edition 1974)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Kolm S-C (2008) Reciprocity. An economics of social relations. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kranton RE (1996) Reciprocal exchange: a self-sustaining system. Am Econ Rev 86:830–851. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118307
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
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
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
Lubben J (1988) Assessing social networks among elderly populations. Fam Community Health 11:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-198811000-00008
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 20–34
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
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
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
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, London
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
Mehta K (1999) Intergenerational exchanges: qualitative evidence from Singapore. Southeast Asian J Soc Sci 27:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1163/030382499X00075
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
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
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
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
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
Molm LD (2003) Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociol Theor 21:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00171
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
Molm LD, Schaefer DR, Collett JL (2007b) The value of reciprocity. Soc Psychol Quart 70:199–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250707000208
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
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
Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349(6251):943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
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
Pearlin LI, Schooler C (1978) The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav 19:2–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136319
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
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
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
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
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 27:85–95
Ring PS (1996) Fragile and resilient trust and their roles in economic exchange. Bus Soc 35:148–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039603500202
Rubin DB (1987) Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. Wiley, New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696
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
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
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
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 43–69
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 125–195
StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software: release 13. StataCorp LP, College Station, TX
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Additional information
Responsible editor: M. J. Aartsen.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Verbrugge, L.M., Ang, S. Family reciprocity of older Singaporeans. Eur J Ageing 15, 287–299 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0452-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-017-0452-1