Comparison
How researchers explain the shift between grown children and their parents
August 17, 2026 · 6 min read
Somewhere in their twenties a person stops being their parents’ child in the old sense and becomes an adult who happens to be related to them. Research offers several accounts of what is going on there, and they don’t agree. Two of the five below argue that the other three are answering the wrong question.
Worth knowing before the table: the disagreement is live and academic, and none of the positions is fringe. If you came here for the definition of emerging adulthood, the honest answer includes the fact that its status is contested by people who study the same twenty-somethings.
| Position | What the shift is | Where it cuts against the others |
|---|---|---|
| Arnett | A distinct developmental stage, roughly 18 to 29, with its own task: becoming a separate self | The frame most popular writing runs on |
| Hendry & Kloep | Not a stage. Development is a continuous process of resources meeting challenges, and stage theories should be retired rather than extended | Attacks Arnett’s unit of analysis, not his data |
| Arnett & Tanner (rejoinder) | Stages hold, provided nobody claims they’re uniform or universal; the process account is too general to distinguish anything | The concession that makes careful hedging correct |
| Bengtson & Kuypers | Not a developmental event at all but a perception asymmetry, with each generation misreading the distance in opposite directions | Reframes the question as measurement rather than development |
| Fingerman | An ambivalence that doesn’t resolve in either direction, for either party | Denies there’s a settled state to arrive at |
Arnett: a stage with a task
Jeffrey Arnett gave the period its name in a 2000 paper, arguing that the years from about eighteen to twenty-nine had become their own thing, neither the adolescence before them nor the settled adulthood after. His evidence is demographic. Marriage and first births moved later across the industrialized world while schooling ran longer, and the decade that opened between the two filled up with exploration in work and in love rather than with settling.
The task he assigns the period is identity: becoming a separate self with an independent read on the world. That is the account under most of what gets written about grown children and their parents, including the observation that a parent’s limits tend to surface in this decade.
Hendry & Kloep: not a stage, a process
Leo Hendry and Marion Kloep’s critique, argued alongside Arnett’s own contributions in Debating Emerging Adulthood: Stage or Process?, takes aim at the category rather than the data. Their position is that stage theories should be retired instead of added to: development happens as resources meet challenges, continuously, at any age, and dividing a life into named periods imports a uniformity nobody observes.
The bite of it here is that if there’s no stage, there’s no schedule, and a great deal of popular advice quietly depends on there being one. Their reading predicts that the shift between a parent and a grown child happens whenever the resources and demands on both sides change, which for some people is at nineteen and for others at thirty-four or during an illness.
Arnett & Tanner: the concession that matters
Arnett and Jennifer Tanner’s rejoinder grants a real part of the objection and then presses back. The grant: a stage claim is only defensible if it isn’t presented as uniform or universal. The push: a purely process account is too general to distinguish one period of life from another, which is a cost, not a gain in rigor.
This is the most useful position on the list for anyone reading the popular version, because it names the exact condition under which the stage language is legitimate. Used as a description of a common pattern in particular societies, it holds. Used as a developmental law that everyone passes through on schedule, it doesn’t, and Arnett says so himself.
Bengtson & Kuypers: it’s a measurement problem
Vern Bengtson and Joseph Kuypers proposed the developmental stake in 1971, and it moves the question sideways. The two generations are invested in the tie differently, and the investment edits what each one registers about it. Parents come out reporting more closeness and more agreement; children come out reporting more distance and sharper differences. The Longitudinal Study of Generations followed several hundred California families for decades and the split held.
Which suggests the shift may be less an event than a divergence in reporting. Something is changing, but a good part of what looks like change from one chair is the two chairs never having agreed in the first place.
Fingerman: no resolution to arrive at
Karen Fingerman’s work at the University of Texas at Austin puts ambivalence at the center: wanting to help and wanting them not to need it, wanting closeness and wanting a clean launch, held simultaneously and permanently. The Family Exchanges Study she runs follows three generations of the same families in parallel, and the pull turns up in each of them.
The tension with every other row is that the others describe a transition, something with a before and an after. Fingerman’s finding says the after is also unresolved. Whatever happens in the twenties doesn’t complete into a stable arrangement; it becomes a different version of the same two-directional pull.
Scope, stated plainly
Arnett is explicit that emerging adulthood is not universal. It appears in industrialized societies with substantial cultural variation, and its fullest form belongs to young adults with enough support behind them for a long detour. Low socioeconomic status predicts moving directly into adult roles instead: parenting, household-supporting work, responsibility without a moratorium. So the stage is not a description of how humans develop. It’s a description of what a particular arrangement of schooling, work and family timing produces in the societies that have it.
This is exactly the point Hendry and Kloep press, and Arnett’s own answer to the class question concedes the limits rather than denying them. Any use of the term that skips this is overstating what the research says.
What the five leave you with
A weaker claim than any single one of them makes, and a more usable one.
The perception shift between a grown child and a parent happens. What’s contested is whether it’s a stage, a continuous process reaching a particular threshold, an artifact of two people measuring the same relationship differently, or an unresolvable pull that merely changes shape. Those aren’t reconcilable into one model, which is a reason to be careful with the timeline and not with the phenomenon. Nobody in this argument disputes that the relationship gets renegotiated. They dispute what kind of thing the renegotiation is.
Related: Why parents and grown children remember closeness differently takes the Bengtson row on its own, and The Year You Became a Person to Them is the essay these five sit under. For the practical versions: How to have an adult relationship with your grown child and How to tell your parent the relationship has changed.
From the essay: Read the full piece →
Want more like this? Subscribe to the newsletter.