Social Indicators Research

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 323–343 | Cite as

The Strains and Gains of Caregiving: An Examination of the Effects of Providing Personal Care to a Parent on a Range of Indicators of Psychological Well-Being

  • Thomas HansenEmail author
  • Britt Slagsvold
  • Reidun Ingebretsen


This study explores the effect of providing regular help with personal care to a resident or non-resident parent or parent-in-law on different aspects of psychological well-being. We use cross-sectional data from the Norwegian Life Course, Ageing and Generation (LOGG) study (N ~ 15,000, age 18–79) and two-wave panel data from the Norwegian study on Life course, Ageing and Generation (NorLAG) (N ~ 3,000, age 40–79). We separate outcomes into cognitive well-being (life satisfaction, partnership satisfaction, self-esteem), affective well-being (happiness, positive and negative affect, depression, loneliness) and sense of mastery. Caregiver status is largely unrelated to these aspects of well-being, both in cross-section and longitudinally. One notable exception is that caring for a resident (but not a non-resident) parent relates to lower affective well-being among women, also longitudinally. This effect is more marked among unpartnered and lower educated women. In addition, caring for a non-resident parent is associated with a positive change in sense of mastery among women. The results reviewed and presented indicate that caregiving has less detrimental effects in the Nordic countries than in other countries, highlighting the role of social policies and care systems in shaping the impact of caregiving on well-being.


Psychological well-being Caregiving Personal care Parent Norway 



This research is supported by grants from the Norwegian Research Counsil (project EqualCare 196425/V50 and NorPAN 187783).


  1. Borg, C., & Hallberg, I. R. (2006). Life satisfaction among informal caregivers in comparison with non-caregivers. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 20(4), 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowling, A. (2005). Measuring health: A review of quality of life measurement scales (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20(4), 872–882.Google Scholar
  4. Carmichael, F., & Charles, S. (2003). The opportunity costs of informal care: Does gender matter? Journal of Health Economics, 22(5), 781–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1005–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung, J., & Hocking, P. (2004). Caring as worrying: The experience of spousal carers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(5), 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clench-Aas, J., Nes, R. B., Dalgard, O. S., & Aaro, L. E. (2011). Dimensionality and measurement invariance in the satisfaction with life scale in Norway. Quality of Life Research, 20(8), 1307–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daatland, S. O. (2001). Ageing, families and welfare systems: Comparative perspectives. Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 34(1), 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daatland, S. O., & Herlofson, K. (2004). Familie, velferdsstat og aldring: familiesolidaritet i et europeisk perspektiv. Oslo: Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring.Google Scholar
  10. Daatland, S. O., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. (2011). Balancing generations: On the strength and character of family norms in the West and East of Europe. Ageing and Society, 31, 1159–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daatland, S. O., Veenstra, M., & Lima, I. (2009). Helse, familie og omsorg over livsløpet. Oslo: NOVA.Google Scholar
  12. Daatland, S. O., Veenstra, M., & Lima, I. (2010). Norwegian sandwiches: On the prevalence and consequences of family and work role squeezes over the life course. European Journal of Ageing, 7(4), 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Jong-Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. (1999). Manual of the loneliness scale. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, Department of Social Research Methodology.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psycholical Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ekwall, A. K., & Hallberg, I. R. (2007). The association between caregiving satisfaction, difficulties and coping among older family caregivers. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(5), 832–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eurostat. (2006). ESSPROS. European system of integrated social protection statistics, from
  19. Eurostat. (2011). Active ageing and solidarity between generations: A statistical portrait of the European Union 2012 (2012th ed.). Luxembourg: Publications Office.Google Scholar
  20. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal, 114, 641–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fevang, E., Kverndokk, S., & Røed, K. (2009). Omsorg for foreldre: Hvordan påvirkes yrkesaktiviteten? Søkelys på arbeidslivet, 1, 113–123.Google Scholar
  22. Gautun, H., & Hagen, K. (2010). How do middle-aged employees combine work with caring for elderly parents? Community Work & Family, 13(4), 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gautun, H., Werner, A., & Luras, H. (2011). Care challenges for informal caregivers of chronically ill lung patients: Results from a questionnaire survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(1), 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant, G., & Nolan, M. (1993). Informal carers: Sources and concomitants of satisfaction. Health and Social Care in the Community, 1, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen, T. (2010). Subjective well-being in the second half of life: The influence of family and household resources. Dissertation. University of Oslo, Faculty of Medicine.Google Scholar
  26. Hansen, T., Slagsvold, B., & Moum, T. (2009). Childlessness and psychological well-being in midlife and old age: An examination of parental status effects across a range of outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 94, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haybron, D. M. (2007). Life satisfaction, ethical reflection, and the science of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 99–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huber, M., Rodrigues, R., Hoffman, F., Gasior, K., & Marin, B. (2009). Facts and figures on long-term care: Europe and North America: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research.Google Scholar
  29. Hvinden, B. (2010). The Nordic welfare model and the challenge of globalisation. In M. Böss (Ed.), The Nation State in transformation: Economic globalisation, institutional mediation and political values (pp. 292–314). Århus: University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D. (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: Comparing statistical methods for studying the effects of transitions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(4), 1061–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotsadam, A. (2011). Does informal eldercare impede women’s employment? The case of European welfare states. Feminist Economics, 17(2), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kramer, B. J. (1997). Gain in the caregiving experience: Where are we? What next? Gerontologist, 37(2), 218–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowenstein, A., & Ogg, J. (2003). OASIS.Old age and autonomy. The role of service system and intergenerational family solidarity. Israel: University of Haifa.Google Scholar
  34. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marks, N. F. (1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family conflict, and midlife well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(4), 951–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marks, N. F., Bumpass, L., & Jun, H. J. (2004). Family roles and well-being during the middle life course. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. Kessler (Eds.), How healthy are we? A national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 514–549). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Marks, N. F., & Lambert, J. D. (1998). Marital status continuity and change among young and midlife adults—Longitudinal effects on psychological well-being. Journal of Family Issues, 19(6), 652–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marks, N. F., Lambert, J. D., & Choi, H. J. (2002). Transitions to caregiving, gender, and psychological well-being: A prospective US national study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64(3), 657–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mencarini, L., & Sironi, M. (2012). Happiness, housework and gender inequality in Europe. European Sociological Review, 28(2), 203–219.Google Scholar
  41. Michalos, A. C. (1980). Satisfaction and happiness. Social Indicators Research, 8(4), 385–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2003). Social causes of psychological distress (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2005). The OECD health project: Long-term care for older people. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. (2011). Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  46. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.Google Scholar
  48. Pearlin, L., Menaghan, E., Lieberman, M., & Mullan, J. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 22, 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pettus, M. (2001). Kudos for me: Self-esteem. In R. J. McComb (Ed.), Eating disorders in women and children: Prevention, stress management and treatment (pp. 283–291). Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar
  50. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003a). Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood: A meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(2), P112–P128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003b). Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurements, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  54. Romøren, T. I. (2001). Den fjerde alder. Funksjonstap, familieomsorg og tjenestebruk hos mennesker over 80 år. Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  55. Rønning, R., Schanke, T., & Johansen, V. (2009). Frivillighetens muligheter i eldreomsorg. Lillehammer: Østlandsforskning.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Rostgaard, T., & Szebehely, M. (2012). Changing policies, changing patterns of care: Danish and Swedish home care at the crossroads. European Journal of Ageing, 9(2), 101–109.Google Scholar
  59. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12(5), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  62. Shevlin, M., Brunsden, V., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Satisfaction with life scale: Analysis of factorial invariance, mean structures and reliability. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 911–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Toljamo, M., Perala, M. L., & Laukkala, H. (2012). Impact of caregiving on Finnish family caregivers. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 26(2), 211–218.Google Scholar
  64. Tucker, K. L., Ozer, D. J., Lyubomirsky, S., & Boehm, J. K. (2006). Testing for measurement invariance in the satisfaction with life scale: A comparison of Russians and North Americans. Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vikat, A., Speder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F. C., Buhler, C., Desesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and gender survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Winqvist, M. (2010). Individualisering, utvärdering och utveckling av anhörigstöd. Nationellt kompetenscentrum Anhöriga: En kunnskapsoversikt. Kalmar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Hansen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Britt Slagsvold
    • 1
  • Reidun Ingebretsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Norwegian Social Research (NOVA)OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations