Introduction
The importance of filial support and care are well-documented in North America and other Western nations. In 2007, Canada population data indicated that among those over 45 years of age who provided care for an older person with long-term health needs, 60 per cent were providing this care to a parent or parent-in-law (Cranswick and Dosman Reference Cranswick and Dosman2008). While it is also clear that supports between parents and children are bidirectional across the lifecourse, and that ageing parents maintain patterns of mutual assistance (Becker et al. Reference Becker, Beyene, Newsome and Mayen2003; Breheny and Stephens Reference Breheny and Stephens2009), the present study focuses on the meanings attributed by adult children to the support they provide their parents.
Fuelled in part by policy concerns with predicting future informal support patterns, considerable academic attention has been directed to identifying motivations for filial support behaviours and caregiving decisions. Delayed reciprocity or ‘paying back’ parents has been suggested as key force in this regard, providing a moral imperative for filial support (e.g. Blieszner and Hamon Reference Blieszner, Hamon, Dwyer and Coward1992; Clarke Reference Clarke2001; Sheehan and Donorfio Reference Sheehan and Donorfio1999). Regardless of whether feelings of indebtedness predict care behaviour, however, there has been little in-depth exploration of the meaning and interpretation of delayed reciprocity at the individual level. Indeed, remarkably few studies are directed to the interpretive processes involved in personal constructions of filial support within talk, with some exceptions (e.g. Gubrium Reference Gubrium1988; Pyke Reference Pyke2000).
This article presents an analysis of qualitative accounts of filial responsibility and support, drawing on data from individual, face-to-face interviews with 28 adult children living in one Western Canadian city. The purpose of this analysis is to examine how adult children draw on and interpret ‘delayed reciprocity’ in talking about the support they provide in their filial relationships.
Review of literature
Mutual support exchanges are a key part of family relationships (Cantor and Brennan Reference Cantor and Brennan2000; Finch and Mason Reference Finch and Mason1993; George Reference George, Pillemer and Wolf1986; Hong and Liu Reference Hong, Liu, Liu and Kendig2000), maintaining cohesion and generational continuity, and defining actions and obligations (Becker et al. Reference Becker, Beyene, Newsome and Mayen2003; Lewinter Reference Lewinter2003). Reciprocity, or helping another person in return for help received (Molm, Schaefer and Collett Reference Molm, Schaefer and Collett2007), is a central concept in social exchange and equity theories of relationships, in which the helper's motive is to secure an implicit social contract for return. Social exchange models are often contrasted against other models of helping behaviour in which a ‘return’ is not expected (e.g. altruism or kin-based role duties). Some empirical research suggests exchanges between adult children and their ageing parents tend to be reciprocal, in the contemporaneous or direct sense (Grundy Reference Grundy2005; Klaus Reference Klaus2009; Klein-Ikkink, van Tilburg and Knipscheer Reference Klein-Ikkink, van Tilburg and Knipscheer1999; Verbrugge and Chan Reference Verbrugge and Chan2008). However, there is concern that some older persons may be less able to directly reciprocate (Akiyama, Antonucci and Campbell Reference Akiyama, Antonucci, Campbell and Sokolovsky1997).
Social exchange theories tend to focus on direct, immediate or short-term forms of reciprocity. Generalised reciprocity, in contrast, describes exchanges in which exact, specific or in-kind repayment is not expected (e.g. Call et al. Reference Call, Finch, Huck and Kane1999; Komter and Schans Reference Komter and Schans2008); this may be especially characteristic of family relationships (Call et al. Reference Call, Finch, Huck and Kane1999; Dwyer, Lee and Jankowski Reference Dwyer, Lee and Jankowski1994; George Reference George, Pillemer and Wolf1986; Komter and Schans Reference Komter and Schans2008) which also tolerate occasional departures from or waived reciprocity (George Reference George, Pillemer and Wolf1986; Neufeld and Harrison Reference Neufeld and Harrison1995). For some (Call et al. Reference Call, Finch, Huck and Kane1999; Dwyer, Lee and Jankowski Reference Dwyer, Lee and Jankowski1994), generalised reciprocity extends to the idea that the repayment also does not need to be immediate, but can be delayed. Others distinguish this as delayed reciprocity: an imperative to repay or return past parental ‘investment’ and sacrifices. Delayed reciprocity has been identified as motivating the provision of support to ageing parents, in qualitative research (Jansson et al. Reference Jansson, Almberg, Grafstrom and Winblad1998; Neufeld and Harrison Reference Neufeld and Harrison1995; Schwarz et al. Reference Schwarz, Trommsdorff, Zheng and Shi2010; Wuest Reference Wuest1998; Wong and Chau Reference Wong and Chau2006). It resembles a socially encouraged moral norm or imperative (Gouldner Reference Gouldner1960); from a social exchange perspective, adult children return care in order to rectify perceived imbalances.
Delayed reciprocity has had most attention in Antonucci's notion of a ‘support bank’ (1985), which draws from exchange theory to suggest that providers of help are aware of building helping credits they can later use when they are in need (Akiyama, Antonucci and Campbell Reference Akiyama, Antonucci, Campbell and Sokolovsky1997; Klaus Reference Klaus2009). Some empirical research indicates that to some extent, delayed reciprocity occurs – for instance, that help received by adult children earlier in their lives predicts filial support provision (Henretta et al. Reference Henretta, Hill, Soldo and Wolf1997; Parrott and Bengston Reference Parrott and Bengston1999; Silverstein et al. Reference Silverstein, Conroy, Wang, Giarrusso and Bengston2002), and that normative support for delayed reciprocity can motivate helping behaviours (Klein-Ikkink, van Tilburg and Knipscheer Reference Klein-Ikkink, van Tilburg and Knipscheer1999; Koh and MacDonald Reference Koh and MacDonald2006).
Additional forms of reciprocity have also been proposed. Preparatory reciprocity involves providing support or care for parents in order to model or demonstrate this to one's own children (such that these children might in turn support oneself in later years: Hsu and Shyu Reference Hsu and Shyu2003; Stark Reference Stark1995). Serial reciprocity may occur indirectly to a third party, even if the ‘return’ is never received by the original giver (Moody Reference Moody2008). Hypothetical or in principle reciprocity posits the care recipient ‘would’ help the giver if it was needed (McGrew Reference McGrew1998; Wuest Reference Wuest1998). Hsu and Shyu illustrate karma as reciprocity: ‘to do good deeds to others or to face a hard life is to pay one's own debts from a past life or to invest in wellness in the next’ (2003: 1084). Finally, the concept of gratitude is closely related to reciprocity, but conceptualised as more voluntary and intentional, and focused more on symbolic appreciation for past help than repayment (Brakman Reference Brakman, McCullough and Wilson1995).
As the dominant sociological approach to reciprocity, social exchange theory has been critiqued for an often positivistic, utilitarian and economic focus on structural indicators of equivalent exchanges, rather than the meanings of exchanges and normative or affective aspects of reciprocal behaviours (Hansen Reference Hansen2004; Moody Reference Moody2008; Uehara Reference Uehara1995). Some suggest moving beyond exchange and equity perspectives to focus on reciprocity as a normative belief (Gouldner Reference Gouldner1960; Hansen Reference Hansen2004; Uehara Reference Uehara1995). Moody (Reference Moody2008) extends this further, conceptualising reciprocity as a ‘schema’ or ‘strategy of action’ to emphasise cognitive and cultural (as well as moral) aspects, symbolic meanings and social construction. Reciprocity, Moody (Reference Moody2008) maintains, is a culturally available resource (albeit resembling a normative imperative), that can be used by individuals as a cognitive strategy to guide exchanges or to interpret and justify actions. Moody's conceptualisation supports an interpretive methodological approach (with roots in social phenomenology and ethnomethodology), which highlights how individuals make sense of, account for and construct the meaning of their experiences (and motivations) ‘post hoc’, drawing on context-specific frameworks of meaning (Atkinson, Coffey and Delamont Reference Atkinson, Coffey and Delamont2003; Holstein and Gubrium Reference Holstein, Gubrium, Denzin and Kendig1994). Such interpretation occurs through cultural lenses (Holroyd Reference Holroyd2003).
For instance, delayed reciprocity can be a cognitive or interpretive strategy – ill or disabled older people, less able to provide direct, immediate return for help from adult children, may emphasise ‘long-term reciprocity and define their support exchange by this norm so that they can receive support from others without feeling dependent or indebted’ (Akiyama, Antonucci and Campbell Reference Akiyama, Antonucci, Campbell and Sokolovsky1997: 2). Likewise Breheny and Stephens (Reference Breheny and Stephens2009) illustrate how older persons invoked concepts of direct reciprocity and mutual benefit to maintain a sense of their own independence as well as connectedness. Those who provide support and care to older people may also seek to avoid feeling imbalanced in their exchange (e.g. under-benefiting), and may draw on concepts of reciprocity to this end. Taiwanese care-givers in one study (Hsu and Shyu Reference Hsu and Shyu2003) referred to cultural-symbolic benefits of caring for parents, such as enhancing their karma; the researchers suggest that focusing on symbolic benefits helps these care-givers cope. Likewise, both Neufeld and Harrison (Reference Neufeld and Harrison1995) and Wuest (Reference Wuest1998) document a kind of ‘constructed reciprocity’ among care-givers of people with dementia, as a cognitive strategy to maintain a sense of relational balance. Those care-givers interpreted even small or non-verbal behaviours as direct reciprocity, or focused on past contributions from care recipients.
Despite calls for greater attention to normative, affective and cognitive dimensions of reciprocity, relatively few studies explicitly adopt an interpretive approach to the study of delayed reciprocity in filial relationships. To redress this imbalance, I examine the qualitative accounts of 28 adult children who provided support to their ageing parents, to analyse whether, how and in what ways the concept of delayed reciprocity is used by these adult children in relation to perceptions and interpretations of this support.
Methods
Data for this analysis were from a qualitative study of filial responsibility conducted in 2005–06. Other findings from that study, and more detailed descriptions of methods, have been published elsewhere (Funk Reference Funk2010a, Reference Funk2010b). Twenty-eight men and women living in or near Victoria, Canada, were recruited and each participated in two individual, face-to-face, loosely guided interviews, and were asked to speak about their sense of responsibility for one or both ageing parent(s). Participants were required to be providing at least three hours a month of support to one or both older (over 65 years) parents living in or near Victoria (i.e. they were not required to be ‘care-giving’ per se). Volunteers were recruited through word-of-mouth, email communication and poster distributions, through personal networks and public locations. The recruitment poster asked for those interested in talking about their ‘sense of responsibility’ for parents. This study sample is, as in most qualitative research, non-random, and therefore not representative of the broader population in a statistical sense.
Each participant was interviewed individually on two occasions (Time 1, December 2005 to June 2006; Time 2, July 2006 to October 2006). As well as probes about family history and filial relationships, core questions focused on participants' filial responsibility. However, I was also interested in the concept of delayed reciprocity, and wished to explore whether the concept had resonance for participants. Thus, if participants did not mention delayed reciprocity or ‘paying back’ within their interview without prompting, towards the end of the interview I asked how they felt about the concept. In other cases, the concept emerged unprompted. In both situations, I sought further clarification and exploration of the meaning and personal relevance of the term.
Data coded as ‘reciprocity’ within NVivo 8.0 computer software, from both Time 1 and Time 2, were the focus of the present analysis. This included both unprompted references and prompted discussion about delayed or long-term reciprocity, ‘paying back’ and ‘owing’ parents for care, and instances when participants spoke about providing support because their parents had supported them (i.e. even if they did not use the word ‘reciprocity’ explicitly). In responding to questions about delayed reciprocity, participants described other forms of reciprocity; as such, these were also considered in the analysis, though delayed reciprocity remained the dominant interest of this study.
I grounded the analysis in an understanding of the context of the interviews as a whole, guided by descriptive summaries created for each interview. After reading the data and recording analytic notes and reflections, I grouped participant comments into categories representing discursive positions in relation to delayed reciprocity. I did not classify individual participants, as they often made multiple statements which would fit within differing categories. In certain cases the categorisation of particular participants' degree of support for delayed reciprocity would be overly arbitrary or subjective, as apparently contradictory statements were made throughout an interview.
I then examined the data in further detail, with the analytic goal of understanding how participants used and interpreted delayed reciprocity in relation to the support they provide to ageing parents. I used the analytic lens of ‘interpretive inquiry’ (Gubrium and Holstein Reference Gubrium and Holstein1997, Reference Gubrium, Holstein, Denzin and Lincoln2000), considering participant talk as responses to the concept within the interview interaction. From this perspective, participant accounts provide insights into how they interpret the broader social and symbolic meaning of ‘delayed reciprocity’, but also how, in reacting to that concept, they seek to define and interpret the support they provide to parents.
Sample description
Study participants consisted of 16 women and 12 men, with an average age of 51 years, and ranging from 40 to 64 (with the exception of one much younger, a 30-year-old, who was included as a test of emerging findings). Five participants were divorced and 23 were married. The majority (N=22) were employed full-time, three part-time, and three were retired or ‘semi-retired’. Notably, 11 were employed within ‘helping’ professions within health and/or social services; five operated their own business, six worked for government, and six were in other occupations. While specific data on income was not collected, all participants owned their own home, and observations suggested most were middle to upper-middle class. The vast majority of the sample was of British descent, and all but one participant were Caucasian (one participant emigrated from Mexico in early adulthood).
For ten participants, both of their parents were still living in or near Victoria; 16 had only a mother, and one only a father still living. In an additional case, a participant describes her ‘filial responsibility’ for an aunt described as ‘like a mother’. The average parental age was 84 years. Though reported hours per month providing support ranged between six and 80 hours, most participants were at the lower end of the spectrum, with nine participants providing 6–10 hours of support a month, eight participants providing 11–18 hours, six providing 19–26 hours, and five providing more than 26 hours of support a month (34–80 hours per month).
Findings
Given the existing literature on the subject, one might assume that the idea of delayed reciprocity is a common cultural construct of filial responsibility (even if the term itself may not be used). It was thus unexpected that delayed reciprocity was not a dominant emergent theme in participant accounts of filial responsibility in the present study, including accounts of motivations for helping parents. In total, 11 out of 28 participants raised the concept in an unprompted way, and of these, two were explaining why providing support was positive, and one employed the concept to positively describe her relationship with her father. Only eight participants referred to delayed reciprocity as explaining, even in part, their sense of filial responsibility. For these participants, it was by no means a dominant thread of the interview. There was also considerable variation within interviews, with some participants appearing to take contradictory positions regarding the concept. For instance, one participant wavered between supporting delayed reciprocity at a generalised or abstract level, yet rejecting it at the personal level as a factor operating in his relationship with his parents. Another participant stated ‘I believe we give back to those that created a nice place for me to grow up in’, but later maintained ‘I have no sense of reciprocity or paying back to my parents’. Another participant expressed that he owes his mother a lot and ‘I do have a sense of obligation from all that she's given me’; yet also suggested ‘it's not so much paying her back, it's not an obligatory thing’. Such contradictions may reflect differing interpretive purposes at various points during an interview.
Where it was mentioned, delayed reciprocity was described sometimes as a motivating force, but at other times as a framework of meaning and a source of personal benefit. The interpretive functions of delayed reciprocity in this respect are explored below.
I am responsible because I feel indebted to my parents
At times, participants invoked the concept of delayed reciprocity in describing (and justifying) their sense of responsibility (e.g. in response to questions about filial responsibility). In these accounts, the indebtedness associated with delayed reciprocity was positioned as an appropriate motivating force in current and/or future support for parents, both in the abstract and as a personally felt motivation. Illustrative excerpts include: ‘he looked after me, so therefore it's my responsibility to make sure that his needs are best met’; ‘it will be your turn to look after them’; ‘I would never say, “I do not want you”. Because again, they did so much for me’; and ‘there is payback. So the payback is when you get old and feeble, of course I am going to look after you’.
By drawing on delayed reciprocity as an interpretive framework of appropriate family behaviour, participants seek to confirm valued identities as good, responsible adult children. Within this framework, one participant equates an awareness of debt to parents with having children of his own:
part of it is guilt … your mother did a lot of things for you, and you do have an obligation to repay that … you look back and you see, particularly when you have your own kids, and you understand that aspect of the responsibility more.
Other participants likewise spoke about how their parents supported them as children. One described himself as having been a difficult child, and stated: ‘they raised me, they put up with a lot of my crap … they were good parents and so, I should be there for them’. Another participant, raised by a single mother, first invoked the concept of delayed reciprocity to demonstrate filial responsibility: ‘I feel responsibility to her in as much as she is my mom and she got me to where I am today’. He then rejected the concept:
I don't feel that I could even possibly pay her back for getting me through all of the grief that I put her through, and my teen years were brutal – lots of drugs – and she was always there for me. But I don't look at it as a payback at all.
In this latter comment, this participant may be attempting to limit potential feelings of guilt that may be associated with his sense of filial responsibility.
Help provided by parents to children during their young adulthood (i.e. outside the normally expected timeframe of established parental role duties) was particularly salient in descriptions of delayed reciprocity. This includes help during financial difficulty, divorce, health crises, or needs for child care or co-residence. One single mother spoke about the support her parents had provided to her and her daughters after a difficult divorce. Reflecting on this, she spoke of needing to support her mother, adding: ‘as annoying as my mom is, I love her to bits for her, particularly what she did to help me out with the girls. So it's a commitment’. One participant who works in care for older people volunteered her professional observation that family care-givers who ‘will do anything’ for parents have often had support from the parent in their adult years. She adds:
Like, it's almost ‘a given’ that your parents are responsible for raising you. But if they go above and beyond, and maintain that parenting role throughout your early adult years, as you're having your own family, that really seals it.
When I feel I am returning a debt, I feel better about helping
The above examples illustrate the interpretive function of delayed reciprocity as an explanation for behaviour and justification for a filially responsible identity. In other comments, the concept was positioned as framework of meaning and source of personal benefit in filial relationships. One participant, for instance, spoke about feeling satisfied that he is able to ‘give back’. Another referred to how a sense of paying back makes her feel happy to help:
it is like when people have been really good to you, and finally you can have them over and entertain them or take them somewhere, and feel really good.
Another participant suggested that in the provision of support:
I sometimes get frustrated. The flip side of that is that I know that my mom … has always been there for me whenever I needed it. The least I can do is, do that for her.
In focusing on delayed reciprocity in this way, participants may be attempting to interpret the provision of support in a mutual or balanced way that maintains a sense of their own personal benefit.
This is NOT about ‘paying back’ my parents
Overall, however, and as mentioned above, delayed reciprocity was not a dominant emergent theme in participant accounts, and qualifications or rejections of the concept were more common. For instance, five comments, while not completely rejecting the idea of paying back parents for care, reject it as a conscious and/or primary motivator for the support they provide their parent(s). One daughter, asked if she felt she was paying back to her mother, responded: ‘yeah I think there probably is’, but then, after reflection, changes her position: ‘but is that why I do it … hm … I wouldn't do it if that was all that was there?’ Another daughter responded to the same question: ‘I don't know if I feel a sense of reciprocity, no, I don't know, maybe it is’. She adds:
but I don't know – that feels not quite right. That's not really my motivation for doing it. Do I feel it now and again? Maybe that goes through my head but that's not my motivator.
As a final illustration, one daughter expressed ‘on some level, [reciprocity] could be a factor’, yet clarifies that she is not ‘conscious’ of it, adding: ‘I'm not thinking “oh gee, mom did this for me and now I have to do it for her” ’. Though the interpretive functions of these positions are not immediately evident, participants may be uncomfortable with some symbolic or implied meaning associated with the concept of reciprocation. Examining other qualifications and rejections of the concept can provide additional insights. Indeed, the majority of responses to questions about delayed reciprocity represented qualified or conditional acknowledgement (e.g. appearing to support the concept and then saying, ‘but …’). Analysis of these responses below illustrates how participants interpret the symbolic meaning of talk about delayed reciprocity and how, in reacting to that concept, they seek to define and interpret the support they provide to parents.
My relationship with my parents is more mutually beneficial and interdependent
In responding to the concept of delayed reciprocity, some participants prioritised alternative forms of reciprocity as more accurate characterisations of why they help parents and how they interpret their filial responsibility. They describe their current filial relationships as more mutual and interdependent than delayed reciprocity might imply. As an interpretive strategy, this approach can assist in maintaining a sense of balance in filial relationships; for those possibly ‘under-benefiting’ in their current relationships with parents it can represent an attempt to identify sources of personal benefit. First, responding to the concept of delayed reciprocity, many participants emphasised personal benefits, characterising their relationships as involving contemporaneous, direct exchange. One daughter, talking about her motivation for helping, described how pleasing her parents boosts her ego. As such, ‘I'm getting my strokes. Good all around’. Another daughter likewise noted: ‘because it feels good for him then it feels good for me’. More tangible benefits were also described. For instance, one son, asked about delayed reciprocity, responded,
She would be a recipient of that sense of debt that I owe. But even without that, it's … more than that. The other thing that I should add is that, like right now my mom is giving to us and looking after the kids, and she feeds us once a week which … helps takes the pressure off of us a little bit.
Another son initially strongly supported delayed reciprocity:
They looked after you and it will be your turn to look after them. Yeah, definitely.
However, asked if he felt responsible for his mother, he sounded unsure, emphasising:
it's not the same, because mom is so much a part of our life that I don't ever feel like there is anything I have to do for her, right? I mean she is doing for us so much as well! And forever – she always has.
For this participant, reciprocity was more akin to an acknowledgement of mutual support (involving both direct and delayed reciprocity over the lifecourse), rather than prescribing his own responsibility to repay. Likewise, one daughter, speaking about responsibility, qualifies it by emphasising interdependency: ‘others are there for me too’. She adds:
when people are supportive of you, then you're supportive of them. And sometimes it's hard to say which comes first.
Similarly, some participants referred to ‘in principle’ reciprocity to maintain a sense of mutuality or interdependence (e.g. in a way that the concept of delayed reciprocity does not allow). One daughter responded to the concept of delayed reciprocity thusly: ‘a little bit different – I need to do it for them because they would do it for me’. Likewise, a son spoke of his motivation: ‘cause if it was me lying on that table he'd be right here’. These quotes and others like them suggest the participants perceive their parent is the kind of person who would provide similar help in similar circumstances (albeit likely demonstrated by patterns of help provided in the past), and is therefore deserving of current support.
Finally, other participants preferred the concept of ‘preparatory reciprocity’ over delayed reciprocity, perhaps for its greater emphasis on (potential) personal benefit. Several participants (often tentatively, or with humour) referred to hopes their own children would reciprocate support for them in their old age, though with some discomfort about the idea of ‘expecting’ this return. The youngest participant, a son, expressed: ‘if I had kids I would expect them to look after me, as adults. Otherwise, why would you have them (laughing) – just kidding’. Another daughter, who used the concept of delayed reciprocity to explain her sense of filial responsibility, first stated: ‘I don't have any sense that my son would have to pay me back anything’. However, she adds that if she needed help and they lived close, ‘it would be nice’ if they would help.
Indeed, while preparatory reciprocity may be cited as a motivation for filial support, the idea that this would be expected from one's children was eschewed. In the next section reactions to the ‘expectedness’ implied in delayed reciprocity are considered in further depth.
The support I provide my parent should not be expected
One son (in a difficult filial relationship) was asked about delayed reciprocity, and responds:
That's what [my mother] has thrown recently … and I don't feel it … but other people say it – not to me – they do say, ‘you owe your parents’ … a party I was at, I got into a conversation with somebody … and I said to them ‘you're not expecting your kids to take care of you when you're old, are you?’ And he said, ‘yes, of course I am’. I was just shocked! I mean I'm not a parent, but I was still shocked and I thought, why would you expect your kids to take care of you? … I don't feel any obligation [to care for my mother] … It's a selfish act to have children. To expect them to return all these things – I don't think it's realistic!
This participant prioritises parental role responsibilities (related to the choice to have children) over the social exchange model of ‘investing’ in children for future support. In similar fashion, the concept of delayed reciprocity was qualified or rejected in some comments, because expectedness implies obligation on the part of adult children that conflicts with ideas about family cohesion and expected parental roles, or for some, with personal independence.
The ‘natural’ and unquestioned role behaviours of family members were prioritised in the following example from one participant, who states:
You can rely on friends or neighbours for a while, but if the connection isn't there, after a while they're gonna get burned, they're gonna expect to be paid, they're gonna expect something in return. Where with family, it's just something you do, it's just part of being family.
Motivations characterised as normative, ‘natural’ or automatic within families may represent attempts to construct a sense of family solidarity: of union or cohesion arising from awareness of common responsibilities (similar to, but more general than, the concept proposed by Bengtson and Roberts Reference Bengtson and Roberts1991). Another son initially suggested that his sense of responsibility for his parents is motivated by delayed reciprocity, yet later reverses his position: ‘No, no it's nothing, it's just that they need my help and so therefore, they are going to get it, because they are my family’. A daughter who had suggested she felt satisfied by the idea of delayed reciprocation, added: ‘it's not like I'm keeping a scorecard about it. Because it's just what I believe families do’. Others similarly responded to the implied expectedness in delayed reciprocity, prioritising a contrasting moral basis for helping, as in:
you are here because of the effort and toil of that aged person … so you should help. And not as a sense of obligation but as a sense of that is the just the way it should be.
Other participants, when asked about delayed reciprocity, also appear to equate it with expectedness and obligation, yet respond by emphasising their personal autonomy. For instance, one participant spoke of his relationship with his mother:
I feel an obligation to her in as much as, without her I couldn't have achieved the things that I have done. But, is there some homage that I need to pay her, or some responsibility to extend her life, or to improve it in different ways? It goes back to what she instilled in me, that you are responsible for yourself! So I can't shake that my responsibility is to me and my immediate family. If I choose, because I should, go and try and enrich her life, then I will do that. Because I can, but not because I have to.
Likewise, one son rejected the idea of owing anybody anything, particularly when it implies the other person has high expectations ‘that would probably in my world see them get nothing’. Two other participants prioritised their own independence: ‘it's not that, oh, I'm so grateful. They made me an independent responsible person so that all that could go’ and ‘It goes back to what she instilled in me, that you are responsible for yourself!’ Another son suggested that repaying help received from parents had no personal relevance, because that ‘was never part of the deal with them’, describing a family which avoids, even fears, dependence on one another.
Lastly, the idea of an expected return of support was rejected by participants who referred to difficult family relationships or histories. Asked about delayed reciprocity, one daughter replied:
I don't have that sense because that wasn't the relationship I had with her, we weren't really … as I became an adult we didn't become close friends like some mothers and daughters, have a friendship. And we just never really had that. So no, I don't think it's about if she took care of me and she did, and so now … no, I don't think so. I don't think there is.
Another son suggested that in fact ‘there are too many things that they did that would make me say, “I'm doing ‘dick all’!” ’
Generally, then, participants suggested that reciprocation should not be expected of them. Those who prioritised more idealised or ‘automatic’ motivations may have been attempting to promote a sense of themselves as a good son or daughter who is helping parents for the right reasons – not from obligation, but as a ‘natural’ response within good family relationships. Ironically, others with less favourable family histories and relationships suggested that returning assistance was also not expected. However, these participants did not necessarily negate the concept of delayed reciprocity in the generalised abstract, only with respect to their personal experiences. In contrast to those who characterised family support as a natural and unquestioned behaviour, other participants strove to prioritise their sense of personal choice and independence.
I love my parent and want to do this
Another common response to questions about delayed reciprocity was to emphasise love and voluntary motivations for helping parents. The idea that one's own filial relationships followed exchange principles was rejected. The language of reciprocity, exchange and ‘paying back’ was interpreted, negatively, as self-interested and emotion-less, akin to ‘keeping a scorecard’, ‘a ledger’ or ‘credit or debit’ or ‘balancing the books’. The concept was thus countered by emphasising the affection and emotional dimension within relationships, and a desire to help.
The symbolic meaning of delayed reciprocity may therefore imply not only that assistance is viewed as an obligation, but also that one does not want to help, or indeed, does not love their parent. Prioritising affection over debt repayment also indirectly protects the idea that our parents helped us because they loved us, not because they expected a return. Affection further aligns with normative feeling rules, as articulated by one participant, who suggested that helping one's parents should not be viewed as a duty by adult children, adding:
then you're not doing it for the right reasons. I mean, I think everybody should (laugh), but I don't think you should do it just because you feel it should be done. I think it should be something you want to do.
One son spoke of owing his mother a lot for all she did for him as a child, then added, ‘but quite aside from that is the fact that I enjoy her company, I enjoy being with her, and I really like to be there and help whenever I can’. A daughter likewise expressed:
it is not like I feel, ‘oh shit. I should be nice to her because she was so nice to me’. I truly feel like I want to do this for her.
Another daughter, asked about delayed reciprocity, replied: ‘I don't feel like I'm paying her back, but I mean I'm doing this because she's my mother and I love her’; she later suggests that delayed reciprocity implies feelings of duty or responsibility that might be present in unloving or difficult relationships.
Though eschewing an equivalent return of ‘caring for’, some participants nonetheless embraced a more abstract reciprocation of the ‘caring about’ (i.e. affection and concern) symbolised by ‘caring for’ (i.e. care tasks or activities: see Baines, Evans and Neysmith Reference Baines, Evans, Neysmith, Baines and Evans1998; Nakano Glenn Reference Nakano Glenn2000) in the past. In this way, delayed reciprocity was constructed as an idealised representation of ‘returning the love’ or ‘loving back’. One participant noted how ‘there is a love that most parents have for children; so therefore there is a point in which it is returned’. As a further example, a daughter attributed her sense of responsibility to ‘a reflection of how they cared for me, how they supported me when I was younger’, but characterised this as ‘a mutual love and respect’ rather than ‘paying back’. This participant expressed:
it's just a way of living. Whenever you love somebody you don't think, ok, he took care of me when I had the flu last winter, so now I gotta take care of him because he's sick. It's not contrived, it's just natural.
Another daughter emphasised that her sense of responsibility was about more than ‘paying back’:
It is about loving back (tears) … Paying back for me is too transactional … Um, reciprocity or the loving back. Paying back for me sounds like something more arbitrary or transactional.
This participant characterised the book Love You Forever (Munsch 1995) as an illustrative metaphor. The book depicts a form of delayed reciprocity imbued with a strong emotional-relational quality: a mother is portrayed caring for her son throughout his lifecourse; the love implied in her care is, at the end of the book, returned by her son's care for her when she is ‘old and sick’ (he rocks her in her chair just as she had rocked him as a child).
Discussion and conclusions
The aim of this study was to collect rich, descriptive qualitative data from a relatively small group of adult children, to explore in-depth the complexities of how they interpret and apply ‘delayed reciprocity’ as an interpretive framework, in talking about supporting their ageing parent(s), their motivations to provide this support, and their sense of responsibility.
Participants referred to ‘returning the care’ or ‘paying back’ parents far less often than expected, tending to qualify or reject delayed reciprocity as social contract or exchange, and as a motivator of behaviour. This contrasts against qualitative literature emphasising adult children's desire to reciprocate past care (Jansson et al. Reference Jansson, Almberg, Grafstrom and Winblad1998; Neufeld and Harrison Reference Neufeld and Harrison1995; Wong and Chau Reference Wong and Chau2006; Wuest Reference Wuest1998); and may in part reflect overall low levels of support provision and parental need in the sample (roughly half provided 18 hours or less of support per month; parents tended to be relatively healthy). Yet while it is possible that participants did not feel a strong need at this point in time to reciprocate past support, they all expressed a sense of filial responsibility (Funk Reference Funk2008). Further, one could argue that since these children have had less opportunity (i.e. time over the lifecourse) to reciprocate, they might feel greater indebtedness, and report that this strongly motivates the support they do provide.
The concept of delayed reciprocity appears to contain some implicit associations which often render it unsuitable for adult children to use in speaking about their filial responsibility. Indeed, some of the participants' positions on delayed reciprocity resonate with scholars of ethics (Brakman Reference Brakman, McCullough and Wilson1995; Keller Reference Keller2006; Selig, Tomlinson and Hickey Reference Selig, Tomlinson and Hickey1991; Stuifbergen and Van Delden Reference Stuifbergen and Van Delden2011), who similarly challenge the concept as a viable moral imperative for filial care. Indeed, the concept might be appropriate for the scientific description of actual patterns of behaviour within filial dyads, but may be less useful for characterising the rationale used by individuals to explain that behaviour.
Some participants, however, drew on the concept of delayed reciprocity to promote their identity as a filially responsible adult child. They emphasised help provided to them by parents during their young adult years, as well as during childhood. Those receiving help during young adult years may have a greater perception of having over-benefited across their lifecourse; in addition, help received as an adult is not typically within the normal parental role, in the cultural group studied; this may generate a greater tendency to be defined as requiring reciprocation.
A few participants also invoked the concept of delayed reciprocity to help maintain a sense of personal benefit in their filial relationships. Some research, albeit much of which is more focused on immediate, direct exchanges, suggest that reciprocated exchanges may enhance wellbeing and satisfaction among both those who provide and receive such help (Carruth et al. Reference Carruth, Tate, Moffett and Hill1997; Dwyer, Lee and Jankowski Reference Dwyer, Lee and Jankowski1994; Hsu and Shyu Reference Hsu and Shyu2003; Lu Reference Lu1997; Schwarz et al. Reference Schwarz, Trommsdorff, Albert and Mayer2005; Stoller Reference Stoller1985), supporting equity theory (George Reference George, Pillemer and Wolf1986). In part because of such benefits, filial care-givers in one study (Neufeld and Harrison Reference Neufeld and Harrison1995) referred to past contributions from cognitively impaired parents to actively construct an overall sense of reciprocity in the relationship.
As an interpretive framework of filial responsibility, however, delayed reciprocity has substantial limitations overall, as demonstrated in participant accounts. Participants are attempting to manage and balance several potentially competing aspects of their identities: responsibility, ‘goodness’, and both inter- and independence. Their qualifications and rejections of delayed reciprocity can provide insight into social and cultural understandings of this concept with respect to parent support. Specifically, the concept can symbolise parental dependency and/or a unidirectional flow of support (e.g. lack of personal benefit); expectedness or obligation; and a lack of solidarity and/or affection. For these reasons, it was at times qualified or subsumed under alternate frameworks, including other forms of reciprocity, solidarity, independence and affection.
Talking about delayed reciprocity can imply that current exchanges of support are imbalanced, or even that the lifecourse balance of exchange is imbalanced (as in ‘owing’). Though many participants' parents were indeed relatively independent, participants may also have been implicitly protecting their own and their parents’ (Funk Reference Funk2010b) autonomy by emphasising mutual benefits and direct reciprocity, to maintain a sense of current and ongoing balance.
Delayed reciprocity might also imply that parents who provide care for children do so with an expectation of return that entails an obligation on the part of the adult child. In response, many participants invoked the idea of kin-based duties rooted in family solidarity (Brakman Reference Brakman, McCullough and Wilson1995; George Reference George, Pillemer and Wolf1986; Hansen Reference Hansen2004; Selig, Tomlinson and Hickey Reference Selig, Tomlinson and Hickey1991). In other words, they referred to normal family role behaviours that do not entail obligation by the receiving party to return the support. By drawing on family solidarity or kin-based duties, participants may further be establishing their independence and choice (indeed, some explicitly favoured independence over expectedness). A rejection of the social contract model may in part reflect a rejection of the idea that parents should expect care, or have some power over adult children in their later life.
Finally, delayed reciprocity may imply that adult children are only motivated by an obligatory debt repayment, rather than love and affection. As such, it did not fit with participants' understandings and/or constructions of their filial relationships. Participants reacted by prioritising emotional and affective elements as opposed to a ‘cold and calculated’ or contractual view of delayed reciprocity (as in a social exchange model). In contrast, they articulated a more abstract, idealised framework of the reciprocation of affection (‘loving back’). Indeed, ‘wanting to’ provide support out of affection may have acquired the characteristics of a ‘feeling rule’ (Hochschild Reference Hochschild1983) in filial relationships, and many participants believed both they and others should ‘want to’ help their parents (Funk Reference Funk2008). By prioritising affection as a motivation for support, adult children can continue to interpret their parent's own care for them as a similar manifestation, reinforcing publically and privately that they were loved by their parents. Another (as yet unconfirmed) possibility is that the idea of affection, endowed with a greater degree of voluntarism than that of debt repayment, may also help maintain one's sense of independence.
In sum, delayed reciprocity appears largely inadequate as an interpretive framework for parent support and filial responsibility. The importance of family solidarity and affection are emphasised in participant responses, which confirms George (Reference George, Pillemer and Wolf1986), who states that adult children prefer meanings based on solidarity and/or altruism, to delayed reciprocity. These findings also appear to challenge the usefulness of a social exchange conceptualisation of delayed reciprocity at the level of personal meaning. This does not mean that reciprocal exchanges over time are absent in filial relationships; only that the idea of delayed reciprocity tends to be avoided or qualified in personal constructions of parent support. Both affection and family solidarity (and role behaviours) were favoured as more socially appropriate motivators of support; in both of these models, participants sought to avoid portraying this support as expected obligation.
It has been suggested that in the context of ‘individualised’ family relationships (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim Reference Beck and Beck-Gernsheim2001), traditional interpretations of care based on solidarity and kin-based role obligations may be less viable, and that support may more often be viewed as grounded in a combination of affection and a kind of ‘non-obligatory’ social exchange (Fine Reference Fine2005; Smith Reference Smith, Tietjens Meyers, Kipnis and Murphy1993). The present study appears to support this only in part: to the extent that delayed reciprocity was associated with obligation, it was rejected or qualified; affection was emphasised. However, ‘natural’ kin-based role behaviours were also embraced as an appropriate motivation and a model of social exchange tended to be rejected as overly contractual. Future research could explore how ageing parents themselves respond to the idea that their children ‘owe’ them support, as well as examine responses to delayed reciprocity in different cultural and ethnic groups of adult children, as well as groups of varying socio-economic status. Integration of the findings from such work with those of the present study can assist in understanding of the interpretation of delayed reciprocity in filial relationships. The present analysis suggests a need to move beyond ideas about delayed reciprocity as motivating forces for support, to further explore how individuals interpret and experience family solidarity, mutual affection and interdependence between generations.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the research study participants, as well as my PhD supervisory committee and in particular, Dr Neena Chappell. The research reported here was funded by the Social Sciences Humanities and Research Council of Canada. I am currently supported by a Post-Doctoral award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
