# Motivated to care: latent classes of caregiver motivation as moderators among stress, resources, and well-being

## TL;DR

This study identifies different motivation types in informal caregivers and shows how these affect their stress and well-being in response to caregiving demands and resources.

## Contribution

The paper introduces distinct motivational profiles of caregivers and demonstrates their moderating role in stress and resource relationships.

## Key findings

- Duty-Motivated caregivers experience reduced burnout with more hours but increased strain under intensive care tasks.
- Affectively-Motivated caregivers benefit from resilience but are vulnerable to distress from time and task demands.
- Resilience is broadly protective, while social support shows uneven and sometimes paradoxical effects on well-being.

## Abstract

Informal caregiving motivations are central to how informal caregivers interpret stressors, access resources, and maintain wellbeing. However, motivation is rarely integrated into models of caregiver stress. This study applies the Informal Caregiving Integrative Model to identify distinct motivation profiles and test their role in moderating the impact of caregiving responsibilities and resources on caregiver distress and burnout.

Using data from 1,026 U.S. informal caregivers, latent class analysis identified five motivational profiles: Duty-, Affectively-, Obligation-, Culturally-, and Situationally-Motivated. Path models tested how these classes moderated the associations among caregiving tasks, duration, psychological resources (resilience, social support), and wellbeing outcomes (acute emotional distress, chronic burnout). Models were run in Stata using standardized observed variables and interaction terms.

Motivation profiles significantly moderated associations among caregiving responsibilities, resources, and wellbeing. Duty-Motivated informal caregivers experienced reduced burnout with more hours but increased strain under intensive direct care tasks. Affectively-Motivated informal caregivers showed vulnerability to distress from time and task demands but benefitted from resilience. Obligation-Motivated informal caregivers consistently reported high distress and burnout. Culturally-Motivated informal caregivers experienced mixed effects where cultural alignment buffered burnout under some conditions but not distress. Situationally-Motivated informal caregivers, while generally less anchored in enduring motives, provided the baseline against which other profiles’ stress–resource responses diverged. Resilience was broadly protective, while social support showed uneven and sometimes paradoxical associations.

Findings support informal caregiving motivation as a key contextual factor in informal caregivers’ stress response. Tailored interventions addressing motivational profiles may better support informal caregiver wellbeing than one-size-fits-all approaches.