Intergenerational Solidarity During Emerging Adulthood: Associations with Psychological Distress and Satisfaction with Life in Southern Europe

Figures & data

Table 1 Sample Characteristics

	Total Sample
Sociodemographic variables	n (%)
Country
Spain	321 (48.9)
Portugal	336 (51.1)
Gender
Female	527 (81.8)
Male	117 (18.2)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual	478 (74.2)
LGB (gay, lesbian or bisexual)	140 (21.7)
Residence status
Co-resident with parents	400 (62.1)
Non co-resident with parents	244 (37.9)
Socioeconomic status (SES)
Low	70 (10.9)
Intermediate	495 (77.2)
High	76 (11.9)

Table 2 Independent Sample t-Tests for Intergenerational Solidarity

IS Dimensions	Sociodemographic Variable
	Country	M (SD)	t(df)	p	Cohen’s d
Conflictual	Spain	2.10 (0.71)
	Portugal	2.54 (1.04)	6.22(577.19)	< 0.001	−0.53
Associational	Spain	5.94 (0.34)
	Portugal	5.86 (0.40)	−2.73(627.44)	0.006	0.22
Functional	Spain	5.78 (1.28)
	Portugal	5.27 (1.36)	−4.76(600)	< 0.001	0.16
Normative	Spain	2.57 (0.59)
	Portugal	2.35 (0.49)	−5.10(588.35)	< 0.001	0.42
	Gender	M (SD)	t(df)	p	Cohen’s d
Normative	Female	2.42 (0.53)
	Male	2.60 (0.64)	−2.82(146.56)	0.006	−0.31
	Residence status	M (SD)	t(df)	p	Cohen’s d
Affective	Co-resident with parents	4.23 (1.03)
	Non co-resident with parents	4.56 (0.92)	−4.11(635)	< 0.001	−0.34
Conflictual	Co-resident with parents	2.55 (1.00)
	Non co-resident with parents	2.19 (0.83)	4.62(436.42)	< 0.001	0.39
Associational	Co-resident with parents	5.98 (0.16)
	Non co-resident with parents	5.85 (0.45)	5.02(529.55)	< 0.001	0.39
Functional	Co-resident with parents	5.70 (1.31)
	Non co-resident with parents	5.39 (1.36)	2.75(600)	0.006	0.15
	Sexual orientation	M (SD)	t(df)	p	Cohen’s d
Affective	Heterosexual	4.54 (0.92)
	LGB	4.12 (1.08)	4.28(222.78)	< 0.001	0.42
Conflictual	Heterosexual	2.25 (0.87)
	LGB	2.51 (1.03)	−2.73(216.30)	0.007	−0.26
Functional	Heterosexual	5.66 (1.32)
	LGB	5.05 (1.37)	4.78(586)	< 0.001	0.45
Normative	Heterosexual	2.56 (0.55)
	LGB	2.14 (0.45)	8.47(608)	< 0.001	0.84

Note: IS, Intergenerational solidarity; only significant differences are shown.

Table 3 Inter-Correlations Between Study Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Affective solidarity	–
2. Conflictual solidarity	−0.60**	–
3. Associational solidarity	0.24**	−0.05	–
4. Functional solidarity	0.40**	−0.19**	0.31**	–
5. Normative solidarity	0.31**	−0.23**	0.14**	0.38**	–
6. Satisfaction with life	0.44**	−0.30**	0.10*	0.23**	0.17**	–
7. Psychological distress	−0.32**	0.36**	−0.12*	−0.04	−0.13*	−0.40**	–

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.001.

Table 4 Mediating Effect of Affective Solidarity Between Conflictual, Associational, Functional and Normative Solidarity and Psychological Distress and Satisfaction with Life

		Psychological Distress					Satisfaction with Life
IS Dimensions	Mediator	B	S.E.	I.E.	95%	Sobel Z	B	S.E.	I.E.	95%	Sobel Z
Conflictual	Affective Solidarity	0.14***	0.04	0.11	[0.03, 0.13]	3.21**	−0.04	0.04	−0.22	[0.15, 0.25]	7.49***
Associational		−0.07	0.08	−0.07	[−.25, −0.03]	−2.45*	−0.07	0.09	0.10	[0.16, 0.32]	5.87***
Functional		0.08**	0.02	−0.14	[−.10, −0.06]	−6.64***	0.03	0.03*	0.15	[0.07, 0.13]	6.32***
Normative		−0.05	0.06	−0.10	[−.15, −0.07]	−5.17***	−0.01	0.06	0.13	[0.12, 0.28]	6.13***

Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05; IE, Indirect effect.

Figure 1 MedGraph showing the mediating effect of affective solidarity in the association between conflictual, associational and normative solidarity and psychological distress.

Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01; the indirect effects from the model are included in the figure in parentheses.

Figure 2 MedGraph showing the mediating effect of affective solidarity in the association between conflictual, associational, functional and normative solidarity and satisfaction with life.

Notes: ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05; the indirect effects from the model are included in the figure in parentheses.