IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v14y2024i2p21582440241253406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Older Parents With One Child Live? The Well-Being of Chinese Elders Affected by the One-Child Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Xu
  • Tianfan Hu
  • Jiahe Wang

Abstract

China’s One-Child per couple policy (OCP) has created a generation of one-child families, and these parents are now getting old. How do they live? This study examined the well-being of this cohort with four indicators: subjective (life satisfaction), mental (depression), physical (health), and psychological well-being (positive psychological functioning). Data were collected from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), and parents aged 60 and above were included. We examined the well-being of one-child older adults compared with those having multiple children across age groups and investigated the effects of children support and rural-urban difference. Compared with those with multiple children, one-child older adults were not at a disadvantage. They were significantly better in mental and physical well-being, with no difference in subjective or psychological well-being. One-child parents had a more stable pattern of subjective and mental well-being across age groups (60–64, 65–69, 70+). Among the three types of support, emotional support significantly predicted psychological well-being. Furthermore, urban older adults, of whom the majority were one-child parents, valued much more emotional support than their peers in rural areas. The findings suggest that the generation of Chinese older adults affected by the OCP live fairly well, and the parental status may shift older adults’ focus on filial piety expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Xu & Tianfan Hu & Jiahe Wang, 2024. "How Do Older Parents With One Child Live? The Well-Being of Chinese Elders Affected by the One-Child Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(2), pages 21582440241, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241253406
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440241253406
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241253406
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440241253406?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:14:y:2024:i:2:p:21582440241253406. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.