Non-coresidential intergenerational relations from the perspective of adult children in China: typology and social welfare implications

Rapid population aging, declining fertility, and longer life expectancy have transformed family structures and welfare demands globally and in China. These demographic and social shifts—smaller family sizes, nuclearization, increased mobility, and diversified living arrangements—have weakened traditional co-residential caregiving models and increased non-co-residential (non-co-residence) living among adult children and their older parents. China faces a growing share of empty-nest older adults with rising needs for chronic disease and long-term care. Older adults living alone face elevated risks (e.g., chronic conditions, depression, mortality, limited healthcare access), and many report dissatisfaction with family and community services. Given enduring cultural expectations of filial piety and the central role of family-based care, the study asks how adult children not living with parents support them and how these intergenerational relationships differ. Grounded in intergenerational solidarity theory (affectual, associational, structural, functional, normative, and consensual dimensions), the study focuses on five measurable dimensions (excluding consensual) to identify latent profiles of intergenerational relations among non-co-residing dyads and examine demographic and personal factors that shape these profiles.

The intergenerational solidarity framework conceptualizes family ties along six dimensions: affectual (emotional closeness), associational (interaction frequency), structural (geographical proximity), functional (resource exchanges and support), normative (filial responsibilities), and consensual (value/attitudinal agreement). The model has been refined to include ambivalence and conflict, and adapted to contemporary contexts (e.g., digital solidarity). In China, modernization and mobility have increased non-co-residence, giving rise to varied arrangements (e.g., quasi-coresidence, network families, multi-locational households). Prior typological work using latent class/profile approaches in Western and Chinese contexts has identified categories such as tight-knit, supportive but distant, detached, receiving/giving/reciprocal/low exchange, instrumental, independent, and parental support. However, most studies: (1) mix co-resident and non-co-resident cases rather than focus exclusively on non-co-residence; (2) are based on older adults’ perspectives more than adult children’s; and (3) often use non-latent clustering. There remains a need to typologize non-co-residential intergenerational relations from adult children’s viewpoint and to assess how socio-demographic factors (gender, urban–rural, marital status, education, income, well-being, health) shape these types.

Data: 2017 China General Social Survey (CGSS2017), a nationally representative stratified multi-stage probability sample of adults 18+ across mainland China (21 provinces, 3 autonomous regions, 4 municipalities). The Family Questionnaire (Section D) enabled measurement of intergenerational solidarity. Target sample: respondents whose parents live most of the time with a partner, alone, or in institutions (i.e., not co-residing with the respondent). After excluding co-resident cases and missing key variables, N=1,270 adult children (555 males; 715 females; hukou and ethnicity distributions reported). Measures: Latent profile indicators (24 items) across five solidarity dimensions: - Affectual: 2 items on listening to parents/parents listening to child (5-point, reverse-coded). - Associational: 2 items on seeing/contacting parents (7-point, reverse-coded). - Functional: 4 items on upward/downward exchanges of money and help with chores/childcare (5-point, reverse-coded). - Normative: 15 items capturing filial norms, family obligations (various 5- or 7-point items; reverse-coded where appropriate). - Structural: 1 item on geographical distance (6-point; reverse-coded so closer= higher). Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha across dimensions ranged 0.69–0.98. Consensual solidarity was not included due to data limitations and conceptual independence from other dimensions. Independent variables: Demographics (gender; living area urban/rural; education: primary or less, junior high, senior high, university+; marital status: with vs without legal spouse) and personal characteristics (annual income bands for 2016; self-rated well-being: unhappy/average/happy; self-rated health: bad/average/good). Analytic strategy: - Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) in Mplus 8.0 using continuous indicators, comparing 1–6 profile solutions based on log-likelihood, AIC, BIC, aBIC, entropy, Lo-Mendell-Rubin (LMR) and bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT). The 5-profile solution was selected: lower AIC/BIC/aBIC than 4-profile, adequate entropy (0.760), and significant LMR/BLRT compared to 4-profile; 6-profile did not significantly improve over 5-profile. - Multinomial logistic regression (IBM SPSS 21.0) predicting profile membership using the above covariates; reference category: traditional-reciprocal (P5). Model fit: Nagelkerke pseudo-R2=0.121; −2LL=1721.897.

Latent profiles of non-co-residential intergenerational relations (N=1,270): - P1 Distant-emotional (n=291; 22.91%): High normative and associational solidarity; far geographical distance (low structural); moderate functional support. High contact and filial norms despite distance; resembles “intimate but distant.” - P2 Proximity-detached (n=76; 5.98%): Nearer distance (structural high), but lowest functional, normative, and affectual solidarity; relatively high contact yet weak support and emotional closeness; akin to “detached.” - P3 Proximity-loose (n=510; 40.16%): Close distance but moderate norms and lower affectual/associational/functional; largest group; reflects common contemporary pattern of living near but with limited reciprocal support. - P4 Distant-support (n=219; 17.24%): Geographically distant yet higher emotional connection and instrumental/financial support; intergenerational exchanges persist across distance. - P5 Traditional-reciprocal (n=174; 13.70%): Closest geographical proximity; highest functional, normative, and affectual solidarity; moderate associational (possibly due to more in-person contact rather than remote contact). Model fit summary: 5-profile solution chosen; entropy=0.760. Multinomial regression (reference=P5): - Gender: Men more likely than women to be P2 vs P5 (OR=2.086, p<0.05). - Living area: Rural residence associated with higher odds of P4 vs P5 (urban vs rural OR=0.531, p<0.01), implying rural > urban for distant-support. - Marital status: Without legal spouse more likely to be P1 (OR=2.434, p<0.01) and P4 (OR=1.999, p<0.05) vs P5. - Education (vs university+): Primary or below more likely P1 (OR=2.756, p<0.01), P2 (OR=8.075, p<0.01), and P3 (OR=1.941, p<0.10) vs P5; junior high more likely P2 (OR=4.258, p<0.01); senior high more likely P2 (OR=2.300, p<0.10). - Income (vs ≥50,001 RMB): 5,001–20,000 (OR=0.493, p<0.10) and 20,001–50,000 (OR=0.618, p<0.10; for P4 vs P5 OR=0.477, p<0.01) show relatively greater likelihood of P5 (traditional-reciprocal) than the highest income group, contradicting prior expectations that lower income leads to detachment. - Well-being (vs happy): Unhappy (OR=2.586, p<0.05) and average (OR=2.644, p<0.01) more likely P1 vs P5; average more likely P3 (OR=1.784, p<0.10) and P4 (OR=2.032, p<0.10) vs P5. - Health (vs good): Bad health less likely P1 (OR=0.291, p<0.01) and P4 (OR=0.256, p<0.01) vs P5, suggesting those in poorer health cluster in traditional-reciprocal where proximity and mutual aid may be higher.

The study answers three questions: (1) Five latent profiles of intergenerational relationships among non-co-residing dyads were identified, capturing combinations of proximity, emotional closeness, norms, contact, and support. (2) The largest group is proximity-loose, indicating that many adult children live near parents but offer limited emotional, instrumental, and interactional support—reflecting modernization’s attenuation of filial practices absent co-residence. (3) Profile membership varies significantly by gender, urban–rural residence, marital status, education, income, self-rated well-being, and health. Interpretation and implications: The presence of proximity-detached, albeit small, flags a vulnerable segment of older adults with minimal informal care despite physical proximity. Distant-emotional and distant-support show that strong norms, contact, and even substantial support can persist over distance, shaped by migration and multi-locational households. Traditional-reciprocal persists as a minority pattern aligning with East Asian filial norms, often facilitated by close proximity and mutual exchanges, including downward support to adult children. Policy relevance: Findings underscore the need to consider non-co-resident families in aging policy. Recommended measures include: reinforcing filial obligations (e.g., defining visitation/emotional support expectations), expanding home- and community-based services and integrated health–social care models to complement family care, and family-oriented social welfare that eases caregiving constraints (e.g., childcare, labor protections, parental leave, financial instruments like reverse mortgages). Empowering families can enhance functional and normative solidarity, especially for proximity-loose and proximity-detached groups. Given that structural proximity is often constrained by labor mobility, policies should prioritize service accessibility and digital/remote support alongside local community care. Enhancing adults’ well-being and addressing gender, marital, urbanization, and education-related disparities may strengthen intergenerational support.

Using CGSS2017 and a person-centered LPA approach from adult children’s perspective, the study identifies five non-co-residential intergenerational relationship profiles in China—distant-emotional, proximity-detached, proximity-loose (largest), distant-support, and traditional-reciprocal—and demonstrates that socio-demographic and personal characteristics significantly shape profile membership. A key contribution is explicitly integrating structural proximity into all profiles, highlighting that geographic distance and non-co-residence do not preclude strong norms, contact, and support. The results call for differentiated policy responses that address the heterogeneity of families, strengthen home- and community-based care, legally clarify filial obligations (including emotional support and visitation), and support families’ capacities through social welfare. Future research should incorporate consensual solidarity, include measures of older parents’ resources and health, and leverage longitudinal data to track transitions across profiles and the impacts of macro social policies.

- Measurement excluded consensual solidarity due to data constraints and its conceptual independence; lack of indicators on older parents’ income, healthcare expenditures, and social security. - Cross-sectional design precludes causal inference and tracking transitions; CGSS inconsistency over time limits longitudinal analysis. - Focus on adult children’s reports may omit dyadic agreement or conflict; future work should integrate both generations and macro social security factors, and test new categories including consensual solidarity using cross-sectional and panel data.