dummy for the relationship with parents is again insignificant. Meanwhile, the estimated coefficient on the dummy for respondents (or their spouses) who lived with a decedent is positive and significant, meaning that those who took care of their parent(s) tend to receive more in secondary inheritances than their siblings. Since in secondary inheritances both parents have died and hence are not involved in any negotiations, the variable cannot be considered to be a proxy for the strategic motive. Instead, the positive coefficient therefore rather shows that heirs, based on traditional family values, may agree on the uneven allocation in order to offset the costs disproportionately borne by the sibling who took care of their parent(s). Finally, we find that the coefficient on the dummy for children that provided financial assistance to their parent(s) is insignificant. This result, which seems slightly inconsistent with the previous finding, probably reflects the fact that (contrary to the case of co-residence) the provision of financial assistance to parents is not necessarily observable to other siblings.

To sum up, while both in primary and secondary inheritances bequests appear to be divided in accordance with a variety of parental bequest motives proposed in the literature, the estimated coefficients on the variables proxying motives, especially those for dynastic motives as well as the desire to treat children equally, are larger and statistically more significant in primary inheritance. However, it is not surprising that parental motives are reflected more clearly in the division of bequests when the surviving spouse has the opportunity to express his/her intentions.

### 5.3 Further evidence

While we found that parental bequest motives, such as dynastic and strategic motives, can be more clearly identified in primary than in secondary inheritances, an unequal division could nevertheless also be observed in secondary inheritances. We inferred that the unequal division in secondary inheritances primarily reflected heirs' traditional family values rather than parental motives, based on the assumption that the only way parents could directly influence the division of secondary inheritances was by preparing a will and based on the fact that the share of decedents that had prepared a will was negligibly small. Although ignoring the role played by wills seems like a reasonable first approximation, there is a risk that our findings so far may be contaminated by the role played by wills. Therefore, to address such concern, in this subsection we examine the effects of the presence of a will.

Table 6 reports the share of inheritances in which a will by the decedent was present. Column A shows that a will was left only in 7 percent of total inheritance events in our sample. Comparing columns B and C, the share is smaller in primary inheritances than in secondary inheritances. Further, Table 7 shows that even after controlling for decedents' characteristics (i.e., age of the decedent, his/her educational attainment, and total value of assets bequeathed (in log)), the difference between primary and secondary inheritances in the share of cases in which a will ___.