The Increasing Diversity and Complexity of Family Structures for Adolescents PDF

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 28(3), 591–608 The Increasing Diversity and Complexity of Family Structures for Adolescents Lisa D. Pearce and George M. Hayward Laurie Chassin University...

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH The Increasing Diversity and Complexity Adolescents Lisa D. Pearce and George M. Hayward University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The structure of adolescents’ families, and fluid over the past several decades. cohabitation, same-sex parenting, multipartnered diversity and complexity in adolescents’ research. We also discuss how understandings to measure characteristics of families. capturing key dimensions of family structure which adolescents are raised can improve Although a universal feature of adolescence is gaining autonomy from one’s family, parents, con- tinue to play a vital role in adolescents’ lives. The ways in which adolescents are “parented,” inclu- ding the provision of material and psychosocial resources, the quality of parent–child interactions and relationships, and levels of parental monitor- ing and scaffolding of youth have been consistently shown to matter for adolescents’ academic out- comes, subjective well-being, sexual behavior, sub- stance use, delinquency, and other outcomes (DiClemente et al., 2001; Simons & Conger, 2007; Steinberg, 2001). Thus, social scientists, policy makers, and practitioners continue to investigate and attempt to promote successful models for par- enting adolescents. For better or worse, many current investigations of the features and types of parenting that seem most beneficial to adolescents are based on theories of parenting and adolescence developed decades ago when family structures and their distribution in the population looked very different than they do today. Two cornerstones of contemporary the- ory, warmth and control, are concepts developed primarily between the 1930s and 1960s (Baldwin, 1955; Baumrind, 1967; Becker, 1964; Sears, Mac- coby, & Levin, 1957; Symonds, 1939)—a period in Requests for reprints should be sent to ment of Sociology, University of North Carolina HM 155, CB 3210, Chapel Hill, NC, 27707. E-mail: [email protected] DOI: 10.1111/jora.12391 Parental Structure The nuclear family (a mother and father—usually married—and their biological child/ren) has long been assumed to be the standard North American family (Smith, 1993) and continues to generally be the standard form to which all others are compared (Powell et al., 2010). As seen in Figure 1, as recently as 1960 about 88% of children (ages 0–17) lived with two parents (biological/adoptive, step, or cohabiting parents), 8% lived with their mothers only, 1% lived with their fathers only, and 3% lived with other relatives or nonrelatives. As of 2016, the percentage of children living with two parents is 69%—a 22% decrease in 56 years. The shift was mostly due to single-mother and single-father fami- lies: now, 23% of children live with their mother only and 4% live with their fathers only. These numbers represent a 192% increase in mother-only families and a 259% increase in father-only families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017e). Although father-only families have increased in number faster than mother-only families, mother-only families are still nearly six times more common. The increase in single-parent households over time is primarily the result of two trends. First, divorce has been on the rise in the United States since the end of the Civil War, with a brief plateau- ing during the early 1980s (Kennedy & Ruggles, 2014). Second, there has been a rise in the percent- age of all births occurring to unmarried women, from 4% in 1940 to 41% in 2013 (Curtin, Ventura, & Martinez, 2014). However, just over half (55%) of the births to single mothers, as of 2016, are to cohabiting parents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017d), and this has been increasing over time (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008). Thus, increasingly, one biological parent is not residing in the household, and if there are two parents, they may be cohabiting partners rather than marital ones. Because of racial and eth- nic variation in rates of nonmarital births, cohabita- tion, and divorce (Barber, Yarger, & Gatny, 2015; Curtin et al., 2014; Ruggles, 1997; Smith, Morgan, & Koropeckyj-Cox, 1996; Tucker & Mitchell-Ker- nan, 1995), the increase in mother-only households and children living with other relatives has been particularly dramatic for Black and Hispanic youth, as illustrated in Figure 2. The way data were collected for many years, one can identify whether there are two adults liv- ing in a household and whether at least one of the adults is biologically or adoptively related to chil- dren in the household. However, further specifica- tion of the marital or even romantic status of the FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 593 1980 1990 2000 2010 Mother Only Father Only Other Relatives Non-Relatives under 18 years old, 1960–2016. for 1961–1967; for graphical purposes, a linear trend in each category is used Blacks Hispanics 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% 2016 1960 2016 1960 2016 under 18 years old by race/ethnicity, 1960–2016. for 1961–1967; for graphical purposes, a linear trend in each category is used Data for Hispanics begin in 1980 since they were not available before then for the subcate- relationships. For example, we create Table 1 below by adapting U.S. Census Bureau data based on the Current Population Survey in 2016 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017b). This table builds upon Figure 1 and allows us to hone in on three groups of not) inside and outside an adolescent’s primary residence. living Same-sex parents. There have also been changes over time in the percentage of children liv- ing with two parents of the same sex. Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider (2013) find that about 16% of same-sex cohabiting or married couples in the Uni- ted States have biological, adoptive, or stepchildren under age 18 living with them as of 2012 (11% of male couples and 22% of female couples). This is higher than the 1990 rate of 13%, but is lower than estimates between 2000 and 2008, which fluctuated between 17% and 19% (Gates, 2012). With current estimates of same-sex couples from the American Community Survey at about 860,000 for 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c), if 15–20% of them have one child, then between 129,000 and 172,000 youth are currently living with co-resident same-sex parents. One noteworthy trend among same-sex couples is the proportional increases in adoptive children compared to biological children, which may be due to LGBT individuals coming out earlier in life and thus becoming less likely to have children while in relationships with opposite sex partners (Gates, 2012). The global increase in assisted reproductive techniques (ART; Dyer et al., 2016), in tandem with medical advances and fertility clinics welcoming same-sex couples, is also increasing the ability for same-sex individuals (whether coupled or not) to become parents (Greenfeld & Seli, 2016; Grover, Shmorgun, Moskovtsev, Baratz, & Librach, 2013). With the number of same-sex couples growing each year between 2008 and 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017c), the proportion of adolescents living with same-sex parents has grown. Theory and research on parenting often consider mothers’ and fathers’ roles in providing warmth and control, and sometimes claim unique and essential roles of both, but evidence suggests the gender composition of parents has minimal influ- ence on children’s psychological and social out- comes (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). However, parents’ gender is correlated with how parents and children get along, parents’ emphasis on gender conformity, and parenting skills; so, theory and research on parenting should continue to examine the gender composition of parents as a factor shaping parent- ing and its outcomes (Bos, van Balen, & van den Boom, 2007; Golombok, Tasker, & Murray, 1997). Although social acceptance of same-sex couples marrying and having children is growing, there is still potential for parents and children in these fam- ilies to experience stigma and discrimination TABLE 1 Living Arrangements of Children and Adolescents in the United States in 2016 (Numbers in Thousands) One Parent No Parent Mother Only Father Only Never Never Other Other Marrieda Widowed Divorced Separated Married Marrieda Widowed Divorced Separated Married Grandparent Relative Nonrelative Foster 878 606 5,131 2,389 8,219 160 174 1,164 366 1,142 1,556 723 336 222 4 3 25 12 41 1 1 6 2 6 55 25 12 8 1 1 7 3 11 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 27% 4% 151 102 1,015 436 1,260 28 30 212 64 174 294 111 31 17 4 3 29 13 36 1 1 6 2 5 65 25 7 4 1 1 8 4 10 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 28% 4% 151 129 1,099 458 1,075 32 43 251 67 166 260 121 44 27 4 4 32 13 31 1 1 7 2 5 58 27 10 6 1 1 9 4 9 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 28% 4% 180 239 1,432 437 919 37 65 401 47 133 300 214 116 27 5 6 37 11 24 1 2 10 1 3 46 33 18 4 1 2 11 3 7 0 1 3 0 1 2 2 1 0 30%b,c 5%b,c were made following the source documentation instructions. from 9- to 11-year-olds. 12- to 14-year-olds. FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 595 and what types of siblings live with adolescents on average. Using data from 2009, Kreider and Ellis (2011) find that about 58 million children live with siblings (78%). Of these children, the majority (82%) live with only full siblings, 14% live with a half-sibling, 2% live with a stepsibling, and 2% live with an adopted sibling. About 22% of all youth have no siblings, 38% have one sibling, 24% have two siblings, 11% have three siblings, and 5% have four or more siblings. Siblings function as both sources of intimacy and conflict for adolescents (Lempers & Clark-Lem- pers, 1992), which is largely a continuation of their sibling relationships from childhood (Dunn, Slom- kowski, & Beardsall, 1994). Intimacy remains stable among same-sex sibling dyads throughout adoles- cence, but increases for mixed-sex dyads, while conflict appears to taper off during middle to late adolescence (Kim, McHale, Wayne Osgood, & Crouter, 2006). Theory and research on parenting often focuses on one dyad despite there often being other children in the family. The number of sib- lings has implications for how resources (material and emotional) are shared, which is directly related to parenting (Blake, 1981). This takes on even more complexity in blended families with a combination of sibling types. live with at those Grandparents estimate Table 1, discussed earlier, shows that about 2% of all children live without parents but with a grand- parent. Figure 3 adds to this statistic by showing trends over time in children living with grandpar- ents, in any combination with or without parents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017f). The figure shows a doubling in the percent of children who live with a grandparent between 1980 and 2014, from 3.2% to 6.6%. Notably, about two-thirds of children living with a grandparent are also living with one of their parents (typically the mother). These are called multigenerational households, or households con- taining three or more generations, and have been shown elsewhere to also vary by race—with His- panics and Blacks having the highest rates (8% of households), followed by Asians (6%) and Whites (4%) (Vespa et al., 2013). Theories and research on grandparents as parents should factor in how the middle generation (biological parents) fit into the family and parenting, as well as how life course stages and developmental compatibility between family members affect grandparents’ parenting styles (Burton, Dilworth-Anderson, & Merriwether- deVries, 1995; Kemp, 2007). FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 597 19-year old girls (Martin et al., 2017). Adolescent parents and their children face a number of obsta- cles and are at an increased risk for a host of nega- tive outcomes, yet intervention programs have the potential to mitigate these (see Pinzon & Jones (18–24), for a comprehensive review on both out- comes of adolescent parenting and interventions). Parents may need to adjust their parenting when their adolescent becomes a parent, providing new kinds of support and more autonomy in some cases. do not older age HOUSEHOLD TRANSITIONS EXPERIENCED BY ADOLESCENTS What we have presented to this point are snap- shots of what the households of children or adoles- cents look like across the population in certain years. Another way of understanding variance in the family contexts of youth is to consider how stable these contexts are over time. Several studies have conceptualized family instability as the num- ber of transitions households experience (Cava- nagh, 2008; Fomby, Mollborn, & Sennott, 2010), and increasingly studies are comparing particular types of transitions or the timing of those transi- tions and their associations with child well-being (Lee & McLanahan, 2015). When households lose or gain parents or siblings, it is likely to affect par- enting resources and styles (Pryor, 2004). Parental Transitions females, Brown (2006) uses data from the National Longitu- dinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add 1990 2000 2010 2014 Mother only present Father only present No parent(s) present as percentage of all children under 18. DiFonzo for a review), but the most recent trend (from the mid-1980s to the present) has been a substantial decline in sole custody awards to mothers coupled with a dramatic increase in shared custody awards (Cancian, Meyer, Brown, & Cook, 2014). Estimates of custody awards from 2008, based on a very large sample of court records in Wisconsin, suggest that about 42% of awards are now for sole mother custody, 45% are for shared custody, 9% are for sole father custody, and the rest are for split custody (Cancian et al., 2014). Other Residential Transitions The period between late adolescence and early adulthood, often called “emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2004), is marked by numerous transitions and identity exploration. For example, about 69% of high school graduates begin college immediately following their high school completion (McFarland et al., 2017). This is often accompanied by a resi- dential move, as about half of college students live apart from their parents, which is split about evenly between those with and without roommates (Sallie Mae, 2017). Thus, late adolescence is a per- iod of home-leaving for many but not necessarily independent living for most. For adolescents who do not go on to college, many of them begin some sort of paid work, establish their own household, or start families (DeLuca, Clampet-Lundquist, & Edin, 2016; L. L. Mitchell & Syed, 2015), often with difficulties in the labor market due to having no more than a high school degree (Rosenbaum, 2001). Especially among disadvantaged youth, the typical explorations of emerging adulthood may not be possible (C^ ote, 2014); these youth often face an expedited path to adulthood that involves forgoing postsecondary education and becoming indepen- dent as quickly as possible (DeLuca et al., 2016). Interestingly, the percentage of older adolescents and young adults who return to their parents’ home after leaving, who are sometimes referred to as “boomerang kids,” has been increasing over time in the United States (Goldscheider & Gold- scheider, 1999). In fact, recent estimates show that living with parents is the most common living situ- ation for 18- to 34-year-olds, at 32% (Fry, 2016). The reaction of parents to this phenomenon varies, but there is an expectation among parents in the United States that their live-in adult children are working toward independence (Newman, 2012). In general, the increasing fluidity and change in the households and family structures of adoles- cents signals a growing need for theories and FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 599 the same for 9–11-year-olds, 12–14-year-olds, and 15–17-year-olds. The economic situation of nonresi- dent mothers tends to be worse, on average, than that of nonresident fathers, as they earn less money and are less likely to be working (Sousa & Soren- sen, 2006). However, nonresident mothers tend to spend more time with their children than nonresi- dent fathers (Gunnoe, 1993). Because of the histori- cal norm that mothers are more likely to get custody, women who lose or have less custody than fathers probably face stigma that will affect their parenting and create a need for children to also be parented in ways that helps them prepare for potential discrimination. Being a nonresident parent, father or mother, introduces challenges to spending time with one’s children to parent, and may remove one from involvement in important decisions or parenting tasks (Pryor, 2004). Multipartner Fertility Adults have become increasingly likely to have children with more than one partner, often called multipartner fertility (MPF). Recent estimates sug- gest that about 10% of adults have MPF (Monte, 2017). This means many adolescents have siblings (with full, partial, or no biological ties) with whom they may be maintaining relationships, potentially across residences. Once again, because surveys usually only collect information on household members, we know little about how many adoles- cents have siblings of any kind residing in other households, nor the quality, benefits, or conse- quences of those relationships. It is likely that the presence of siblings across other households stretches resources such that adolescents in these situations may get, on average, less time and sup- port from their parents (Meyer & Cancian, 2012; Tach, Mincy, & Edin, 2010). There may also be ten- sion between different parent figures or parents and children that interferes with or complicates the parenting of adolescents (Pryor, 2004). 8% have low Extended Family Adolescents are often close to and exchange sup- port with extended family members, including grandparents, aunts and uncles, or cousins (Ster- rett, Jones, McKee, & Kincaid, 2011). Increasing gains in longevity translate to a higher likelihood that adolescents know their grandparents longer than in previous generations (Kemp, 2007). The clo- ser grandparents live to their grandchildren, the more emotionally close they are, but grandparents household are biological, adoptive, or step-parents to the child or children in the household (Manning, Brown, & Stykes, 2014; O’Hara, Shattuck, & Goerge, 2017). Furthermore, data often lack the detail necessary to determine whether co-resident children are full, half, or unrelated siblings (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012). For many years, household surveys such as U.S. Census forms (up until 1980) required the “house- hold head” to be the household respondent. This was typically a man. In 1980, the Census changed procedure, allowing any “householder” to be the respondent, and this would include men or women who jointly own or rent the home. The proportion of reporting householders who are women has increased over time (Ruggles & Brower, 2003). On the other hand, in many more recently established survey studies, such as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Children and Young Adults, or the National Study of Youth and Religion, mothers are the primary reporting parent and source of infor- mation on other members of the household. Household- or child-focused studies are often designed to have mothers (whenever possible) as reporters because of long-standing assumptions about their chief importance in and knowledge of children’s development and family processes (Schaeffer, Seltzer, & Dykema, 1998). It has also proved easier and less costly, historically, to locate and recruit women or mothers for survey research (Braver & Bay, 1992; Schaeffer et al., 1998). Despite the benefits of relying on mothers for family infor- mation, only having reports from one parent limits the information we have about adolescents and their families. Regardless of how residential family members and their relationships to each other are docu- mented, household-based surveys are also limited by the extent to which they can shed light on family members who reside outside the focal household (Manning et al., 2014). This includes nonresidential parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, or even adults who are not blood relatives but play a central role in parenting adolescents. Some studies, like the National Study of Families and Households, involve interviews with multiple parents, includ- ing follow-ups with parents who leave the house- hold. Very few nationally representative studies of youth or families collect data from nonresiden- tial parents from the start. One exception is the Fragile Families Study (Reichman, Teitler, FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 601 the support networks (family or wider) of multi- ple family members and the extent to which they overlap or leave certain family members isolated (Bernardi, 2011). The conceptualization of adolescents’ families as social networks suggests new forms of data collec- tion as well (Bernardi, 2011; Widmer, 2010). In sur- vey studies designed to understand the role of family and family members in the lives of adoles- cents, rather than a standard household roster, ado- lescents might be asked to complete a sociogram or network diagram that systematically elicits reports of the important family members in an adolescent’s life (Widmer, Aeby, & Sapin, 2013). “Important” could be defined according to key theories or research questions. For example, studies might focus on listing and describing family ties based on levels of closeness, social support, financial sup- port, or time spent together. Furthermore, adoles- cents could report perceptions of how close each of these family members is to every other family member, so that standard network measures, such as density or centrality, could be applied to under- standing family characteristics. Other family mem- bers could also become participants in the study and provide their own assessment of adolescents’ family networks and the ties involved. In longitudinal studies, the repeated mapping of adolescents’ family networks could provide rich data for shifts over time in influential family mem- bers, family relationships, and family living arrangements. This dynamic approach allows for assessing levels of stability or instability in family networks as well as various trajectories in network change. For example, Widmer (2010) demonstrates how change in family configurations in the short and long term is related to psychological well- being. Using a social network approach in measuring the family structures, ties, and interactions of ado- lescents could address several issues raised earlier in the paper. For one, this measurement strategy could do a better job of documenting family rela- tions across households, not limiting researchers to the context of one household. Second, depending on how data about family networks are collected, this approach could do a better job of characteriz- ing types and features of family relationships (Wid- mer, 2010). With a variety of studies indicating that levels of warmth and control provided by parents are more predictive of youth well-being than the family structure(s) in which they have lived (Arnold, Lucier-Greer, Mancini, Ford, & Wickrama, 2017; Demo & Acock, 1996; Lansford, Ceballo, issues, incarceration, or deportation of a family member as factors that define a family and present new issues for parenting adolescents. CONCLUSIONS Understanding forms of family in which adoles- cents come of age and their impact is challenging on a number of fronts. There are many dynamics at play. The definition of family has been changing over time, families experience changes of members across time, and parents and adolescents them- selves are developing through time. Furthermore, there are key measurement challenges, including the extent to which we focus on household mem- bers as family, who we ask to report on family structure and dynamics, and how to best capture changes in these very complex processes over time. Despite these challenges, we do have a sense of the range and prevalence of family forms and how these have changed over time. Adolescents increas- ingly live in single-parent, step-parent, and no-bio- logical-parent homes. Having step-siblings or half- siblings in the home or in other homes is more common. Grandparents are increasingly present in adolescents’ homes and lives. Older adolescents or young adults are more likely to return to their par- ents’ homes for a period of time. Furthermore, the number of changes in living arrangements families experience has increased. Because so much about adolescents’ families has changed since the middle of the 20th century when foundational theories of parenting were developed, it is important we con- sider how newer contexts for parenting might alter or expand theory or research on parenting adoles- cents. The many aspects of family change experienced in the United States over the past few decades share a common set of implications for parenting adolescents. Different forms and increasing change within families involves relationship transitions for both parents and children, can be stigmatizing for parents and children, might increase the number of parent figures needing to coordinate support and guidance for an adolescent, and can be a source of difference or distance between parents and children. Relationship transitions, such as separation or divorce, are associated with more parental stress and harsher parenting in mothers (Beck, Cooper, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010; Cooper, McLanahan, Meadows, Brooks-Gunn, & Johnson, 2009). Amato (2004, p. 32) contends that, while there are many risk factors associated with divorce, FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 603 Parents in these often-judged families can benefit from being aware and educated about the risk of experiencing real and perceived stigma. If parents are presented with data to show the relative nor- mality of their experiences today and the question- able reasoning in assuming a golden age of families in the past (Coontz, 1992), they may gain confidence as parents, allowing them to provide the support and monitoring that seems more essen- tial to adolescents than family structure in and of itself. Likewise, adolescents who face potential stigma because of their family experiences can be taught how to understand and cope with it. Finally, parents and adolescents who have consis- tently been part of a nuclear, biological, heterosex- ual parent family should also recognize that different family forms are not necessarily inferior family forms. They should connect with different kinds of families to learn how their lives are more similar than they know. Because everyone recog- nizes the dangers in assuming that family structure equates to family quality, the risk of stigma for parents and children in new family forms will decline. Complex families with multiple parent figures, including grandparents, other relatives, nonresi- dential parents, and foster parents, have increased potential for conflicts about parenting and greater challenges negotiating a unified and beneficial par- enting approach (Pryor, 2004). As a greater number of parent figures become involved in adolescents’ lives, parenting behaviors become responsive to the desires and circumstances of a range of parent types, new children, and others. These complex family networks will affect access to, and relation- ships with, all of a parent’s children (Meyer & Can- cian, 2012; Tach et al., 2010). Finally, with greater heterogeneity and change over time in the number of parent figures involved in an adolescent’s life comes the potential for greater distance between parents and the adoles- cent along a number of lines. Step-parents, foster or adoptive parents, or even parents who had chil- dren via ART, and their adolescent children, often have issues surrounding the lack of biological con- nection between them and/or negotiating how to establish strong bonds and encourage their connec- tion with their biological parents (if they are still involved) (Pryor, 2004). Grandparents who parent may share biological ties with adolescents, but their age difference may pose challenges to parent- ing. Nonresident mothers or fathers may be or feel less involved in key decisions or socialization nonresidential parent figures in an adolescent’s life. We also recommend modeling interactions between parenting styles and family structure so that we can better evaluate the extent to which the impor- tance of key constructs, like emotional support or behavioral monitoring, varies by family context. More fully recognizing the contemporary range of family structures and the particular issues involved with each greatly improves the odds that we are more accurately theorizing, measuring, and analyzing best practices for parenting adolescents. In turn, the public can also be better informed about the growing normality of nonnuclear, imper- manent family structures, possibly lowering stigma of certain families and raising parents’ and adoles- cents’ confidence in maintaining strong bonds and successfully preparing for the transition to adult- hood. Cooper, 2015). immigrant REFERENCES of origin. Amato, P. R. (2004). Parenting through family transitions. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23(12), 31–44. the balance Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). par- Changes in nonresident father–child contact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations, 58, 41–53. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00533.x Arnett, J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Arnold, A. L., Lucier-Greer, M., Mancini, J. A., Ford, J. L., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2017). How family structures and processes interrelate: The case of adolescent men- tal health and academic success in military families. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 858–879. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0192513X15616849 Baldwin, A. L. (1955). Behavior and development in child- hood. New York, NY: Dryden Press. Barber, J. S., Yarger, J. E., & Gatny, H. H. (2015). Black- White differences in attitudes related to pregnancy among young women. Demography, 52, 751–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-015-0391-4 Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental author- ity. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Pt. 2), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372 Beck, A. N., Cooper, C. E., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Partnership transitions and maternal parent- ing. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00695.x Becker, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoff- man (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 1, pp. 169–208). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 605 and the Family, 71, 558–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2009.00619.x C^ ote, J. E. (2014). The dangerous myth of emerging adulthood: An evidence-based critique of a flawed How does the gender of developmental theory. Applied Developmental Science, 18 (4), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2014.95 4451 Curtin, S. C., Ventura, S. J., & Martinez, G. M. (2014). Recent declines in nonmarital childbearing in the United States. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nc hs/data/databriefs/db162.htm DeGarmo, D. S., & Forgatch, M. S. (1999). Contexts as predictors of changing maternal practices in diverse family structures: A social interactional perspective on risk and resilience. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective (pp. 227–252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawr- ence Erlbaum. DeLuca, S., Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Edin, K. (2016). Coming of age in the other America. New York, NY: Rus- sell Sage Foundation. Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457–488. DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M., Crosby, R., Sionean, C., Cobb, B. K., Harrington, K.,... Oh, M. K. (2001). Parental monitoring: Association with adolescents’ risk behaviors. Pediatrics, 107, 1363–1368. https://doi.org/ 10.1542/peds.107.6.1363 DiFonzo, J. H. (2014). From the rule of one to shared par- Relation of par- enting: Custody presumptions in law and policy. Fam- ily Court Review, 52(2), 213–239. https://doi.org/10. 1111/fcre.12086 Dunn, J., Slomkowski, C., & Beardsall, L. (1994). Sibling relationships from the preschool period through mid- dle childhood and early adolescence. Developmental Issues, 29, 944–980. Psychology, 30, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.30.3.315 V. (2010). Patterns Dyer, S., Chambers, G. M., de Mouzon, J., Nygren, K. G., Zegers-Hochschild, F., Mansour, R.,... Adamson, G. D. (2016). International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: Assisted reproductive technology 2008, 2009 and 2010. Human Reproduction, 31, 1588–1609. https://doi.org/10. 1093/humrep/dew082 Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental the- ory. Child Development, 69, 1–12. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x Elliott, D. B., & Simmons, T. (2011). Marital events of Americans: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/content/da m/Census/library/publications/2011/acs/acs-13.pdf Fernandes-Alcantara, A. L. (2013). Runaway and homeless youth: Demographics and programs. Washington, DC: Con- gressional Research Service. Retrieved from http:// structure transi- www.nchcw.org/uploads/7/5/3/3/7533556/crs_2013_ rhya_history_and_lit_review.pdf Shifts in intended and Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (1985). Issues of valid- ity and population coverage in student surveys of drug use. In B. A. Rouse, N. J. Kozel, & L. G. Richards (Eds.), Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges to validity (pp. 31–54). Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health and Human Services. Jones, D. J., Loiselle, R., & Highlander, A. (2018). Parent– adolescent socialization of social class in low-income era, living with par- White families: Theory, research, and future directions. for 18- to 34-year- Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 622–636. Jones, D. J., Zalot, A. A., Foster, S. E., Sterrett, E., & Chester, C. (2007). A review of childrearing in African American single mother families: The relevance of a coparenting framework. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826- 006-9115-0 Kemp, C. L. (2007). Grandparent–grandchild ties: Reflec- tions on continuity and change across three genera- tions. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 855–881. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07299599 Kennedy, S., & Bumpass, L. (2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663–1692. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2008.19.47 Kennedy, S., & Ruggles, S. (2014). Breaking up is hard to count: The rise of divorce in the United States, 1980– 2010. Demography, 51, 587–598. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s13524-013-0270-9 Kim, J.-Y., McHale, S. M., Wayne Osgood, D., & Crouter, A. C. (2006). Longitudinal course and family correlates of sibling relationships from childhood through ado- lescence. Child Development, 77, 1746–1761. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00971.x Kreider, R. M., & Ellis, R. (2011). Living arrangements of children: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/library/pub lications/2011/demo/p70-126.html Kreider, R. M., & Lofquist, D. A. (2014). Adopted children and stepchildren: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/ prod/2014pubs/p20-572.pdf Lansford, J. E., Ceballo, R., Abbey, A., & Stewart, A. J. (2001). Does family structure matter? A comparison of adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfa- ther, and stepmother households. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 840–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2001.00840.x Lansford, J., Rothenberg, W. A., Jensen, T., Lippold, M., Bacchini, E., Bornstein, M.,... Al-Hassan, S. H. (2018). Bidirectional relations between parenting and behavior problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 571–590. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and fam- ily life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Laughlin, L. (2014). A child’s day: Living arrangements, nativity, and family transitions: 2011 (Selected indicators of child well-being). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. FAMILY STRUCTURE, PARENTING 607 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/ demo/p70br-146.html Murphey, D., & Cooper, P. M. (2015). Parents behind bars: What happens to their children? Bethesda, MD: Child Trends. Retrieved February 28, 2018 from http:// www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_23_4K_6.pdf Murry, V. M., & Lippold, M. A. (2018). Parenting practices in diverse family structures: Examination of adolescents’ development and adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 650–664. National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2016). The state of homelessness in America. Washington, DC: National Alli- S. (2016). Understand- ance to End Homelessness. Retrieved from http://end homelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016- Health, 59, 577– soh.pdf Newman, K. S. (2012). The accordion family: Boomerang J. B. (2014). Family kids, anxious parents, and the private toll of global competi- tion. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Social Science, 654, O’Hara, A., Shattuck, R. M., & Goerge, R. M. (2017). Linking federal surveys with administrative data to improve research on families. Annals of the American Births: Final data Academy of Political and Social Science, 669, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216678391 Phillips, T. M. (2012). The influence of family structure vs. family climate on adolescent well-being. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 29(2), 103–110. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10560-012-0254-4 Pinzon, J. L., Jones, V. F., Committee on Adolescence, & Committee on Early Childhood. (2012). Care of adolescent parents and their children. Pediatrics, 130, e1743–e1756. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012- 2879 Powell, B., Bolzendahl, C., Geist, C., & Steelman, L. C. (2010). Counted out: Same-sex relations and Americans’ definitions of family. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foun- dation. Pryor, J. (2004). Parenting in reconstituted and surrogate families. In M. Hoghughi & N. Long (Eds.), Handbook “I’m not supporting of parenting: Theory and research for practice (pp. 110– 129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781848608160 Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., & McLana- han, S. S. (2001). Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00141-4 Rosenbaum, J. E. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foun- dation. Ruggles, S. (1997). The rise of divorce and separation in the United States, 1880–1990. Demography, 34, 455–466. https://doi.org/10.2307/3038300 Does college matter for Ruggles, S., & Brower, S. (2003). Measurement of house- hold and family composition in the United States, 1850–2000. Population and Development Review, 29, 73– 101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2003.00073.x Sallie Mae. (2017). How America pays for college. Newark, research brief. DE: Sallie Mae. Retrieved from https://www.sallie mae.com/research/how-america-pays-for-college/ Psychology, 48(3–4), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10464-011-9429-y Symonds, P. M. (1939). The psychology of parent–child rela- tionships. New York, NY: Appleton-Century. H. (1957). Patterns Tach, L., Mincy, R., & Edin, K. (2010). Parenting as a “package deal”: Relationships, fertility, and nonresident father involvement among unmarried parents. Demogra- phy, 47, 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0096 Tucker, M. B., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (Eds.). (1995). The decline in marriage among African Americans: Causes, con- sequences, and policy implications. New York, NY: Rus- sell Sage Foundation. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017a). America’s families and living arrangements: 2016 [Table H2]. Retrieved from https:// www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/families/cps- 2016.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2017b). America’s families and liv- ing arrangements: 2016 [Tables C2 and C3]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/de mo/families/cps-2016.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2017c). Characteristics of same-sex couple households: 2005 to present. Retrieved from https:// www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/same- sex-couples/ssc-house-characteristics.html

The Increasing Diversity and Complexity of Family Structures for Adolescents PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript