-
Title
-
Diverse Family Forms and Children's Well‐Being
-
Author
-
Powell, Brian
-
Tabor, Jaclyn A.
-
Miller, Lisa R.
-
Research Area
-
Development
-
Topic
-
Developmental Contexts
-
Abstract
-
The relationship between family structure and children's well‐being has been the subject of an extensive body of family scholarship that continues to grow. Amidst the worldwide diversification of families, scholars have grappled with how to make sense of the emergence and proliferation of “alternative” family forms—those differing from the “traditional families,” or what has been referred to as the Standard North American Family. This essay explores the literature on several of these alternative family forms, focusing on including single‐parent, stepparent, and cohabiting families, older‐parent families, adoptive families, same‐sex families, and multiracial families. The authors next identify six key areas for social scientists to consider when assessing the implications of diversifying family structures for children.
-
Related Essays
-
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
-
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
-
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
-
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
-
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology), Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky
-
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen Hawkes and James Coxworth
-
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes Huinink
-
Cooperative Breeding and Human Evolution (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
-
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner et al.
-
The Role of School‐Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
-
A Bio‐Social‐Cultural Approach to Early Cognitive Development: Entering the Community of Minds (Psychology), Katherine Nelson
-
Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development (Psychology), Samuel E. Ehrenreich and Marion K. Underwood
-
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and Jeanne Brooks‐Gunn
-
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H. Gauthier
-
Intersectionality and the Development of Self and Identity (Psychology), Margarita Azmitia and Virginia Thomas
-
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
-
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske and Cydney H. Dupree
-
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One's Thoughts (Psychology), Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
-
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa B. Drell
-
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
-
The Future of Marriage (Sociology), Elizabeth Aura McClintock
-
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu
-
The Gendered Transition to Parenthood: Lasting Inequalities in the Home and in the Labor Market (Sociology), Marie Evertsson and Katarina Boye
-
Emerging Trends: Family Formation and Gender (Sociology), Anna Matysiak and Natalie Nitsche
-
Schooling, Learning, and the Life Course (Education), Aaron M. Pallas
-
Family Complexity and Kinship (Sociology), Elizabeth Thomson
-
Early Childhood Education and Care Services and Child Development: Economic Perspectives for Universal Approaches (Economics), Christa K. Spiess
-
Identifier
-
etrds0449
-
extracted text
-
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M.
Page 1
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s
Well-Being
BRIAN POWELL, JACLYN A. TABOR, and LISA R. MILLER
Abstract
The relationship between family structure and children’s well-being has been the
subject of an extensive body of family scholarship that continues to grow. Amidst
the worldwide diversification of families, scholars have grappled with how to make
sense of the emergence and proliferation of “alternative” family forms—those differing from the “traditional families,” or what has been referred to as the Standard
North American Family. This essay explores the literature on several of these alternative family forms, focusing on including single-parent, stepparent, and cohabiting
families, older-parent families, adoptive families, same-sex families, and multiracial
families. The authors next identify six key areas for social scientists to consider when
assessing the implications of diversifying family structures for children.
k
k
INTRODUCTION
Were you to enter “family” into an online search engine, the resulting images
would likely be of young, heterosexual, monoracial couples, and their children. This depiction of family is so ubiquitous that it is the predominant
image even if one specifies the country (although occasionally a grandparent is present). This prototypical image is what sociologist Dorothy Smith
termed the Standard North American Family, or SNAF (Smith, 1993).
Despite the persistence of this “traditional” image of family in much of
the world, the SNAF has reduced in number during the past few decades as
a range of other family forms have increased: single-parent families, stepparent families, cohabiting families, families with older parents, same-sex
families with children, multiracial families, and adoptive families. These
emerging family structures—those that do not meet one or more criteria for
the SNAF—have been referred to as alternative, atypical, nontraditional,
postmodern, or transgressive family structures (Fine, 1992). Today, SNAFs
represent less than half (40%) of American households (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 2017), and even a smaller proportion of households outside the
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert A. Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
2
k
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M.
Page 2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
United States. Despite institutional reluctance to embrace these changing
family forms, evidence suggests that a return to the SNAF is unlikely.
A key component of the SNAF is the presence of children. Worldwide,
household size has decreased, and with it, a smaller share of households
includes children. In much of the Western world, households with children
are at a historic low. Although we acknowledge that families need not
require the inclusion of children, this essay focuses on children’s well-being
and family structure means that we exclude the burgeoning literature on
families without children.
Children’s living arrangements have become increasingly diverse and complex. In the United States, most children live with two married parents, but
single-parenting and stepparenting have more than doubled over the last
50 years (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2017). Demographic information on
older-parent families, same-sex families, interracial families, and adoptive
families are somewhat harder to discern, as they have until recently been
excluded from official counts. Yet, other sources suggest a rising prevalence
of these family forms as well.
Because family structure is linked to child well-being, a substantial body of
research is dedicated to comparing child outcomes in various family forms.
Some scholars have approached research on alternative families from the
premise that SNAFs produce children with greater well-being and higher
academic outcomes than their peers in alternative family structures, and
some empirical evidence ostensibly supports this characterization: broad
comparisons between children residing in SNAF homes and those diverging
characterize the latter as having slightly lower levels of well-being (Brown,
2010). But these comparisons mask the diversity of alternative families,
both in terms of the nature of parents’ relationships to their children and
the demographic composition of the family form. In fact, some studies
suggest even more favorable child outcomes from alternative family forms
than from SNAFs. Understanding the mechanisms driving these outcomes
requires viewing family characteristics in social context—an approach that
is missing from much of the existing research on family forms and children’s
well-being.
In this brief essay, we explore recent literature on some alternative family
forms. Then, we identify six key issues that future family researchers should
consider when examining the relationship between family structure and children’s well-being.
ALTERNATIVE FAMILY FORMS
Despite the expansion of the diverse family forms mentioned earlier, most
research on families with children still privileges and studies SNAFs. All too
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s Well-Being
6:14 P.M.
Page 3
3
frequently, alternative family structures are excluded from analyses, categorized with other families according to marital status, or inserted as control
variables rather than as variables of interest. Through these analyses, it often
is difficult to determine what is unique about family forms differing from the
SNAF and how they might matter for children.
A relatively smaller but important body of scholarship explicitly examines
alternative families with children. Articles on divorced and single-parent
families dominate, followed by stepparents and cohabiting families. Some
less-explored families include older-parent families, adoptive families,
multiracial families, and same-sex parents. That said, literature on these
families recently has grown, and there is little reason to believe that the
increase will not continue. Before moving forward, we must note that
the family forms explored in this essay are not an exhaustive list of the
family forms, but rather several we see as promising future areas of
scholarship.
SINGLE-PARENT, STEPPARENT, AND COHABITING FAMILIES
k
One of the most notable changes in family structure in the past few decades is
the rapid increase in the number of single-parent, stepparent, and cohabiting
(unmarried) families in the United States. Multiple factors contributed to the
growth of these family forms in contemporary times: among them, changing social, cultural, and economic trends; increased divorce rates; changing
employment opportunities for men and women; and increased rates of nonmarital childbearing. With these changes, more children may be transitioning
across multiple living arrangements during the course of their childhood
(Raley & Wildsmith, 2004).
The effects of single-parent and cohabiting parent family life on children
often fall into two categories: (i) those attributed to the lower socioeconomic
status (SES) of single or cohabiting parents and (ii) for children who come
from divorced households, the short-term consequences of divorce that moderate over time. Studies often report that children in these family forms tend
to fare less well than those in SNAFs across several domains of child outcomes (e.g., cognitive, behavioral, physical, and mental health) (Fomby &
Cherlin, 2007).
These findings have lead some scholars to conclude that SNAF are intrinsically the most effective family form, and have been cited as evidence of
the “breakdown” of the family (Popenoe, 1999). Other scholars counter that
single-parent, stepparent, and cohabiting families have existed in all societies
across time and should be viewed as alternative family forms rather than as
incomplete ones (Coontz, 2006).
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
4
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M.
Page 4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
OLDER “PARENT” FAMILIES
k
Older “parent” families encompass multiple distinct family structures,
including three-generational households, children being raised primarily
by grandparents (i.e., skipped-generation households), and families with
parents of advanced age. Climbing steadily alongside other alternative
family forms, multigenerational families accelerated in the crack cocaine
epidemic of the late 1980s and again during the economic downturn of the
late 2000s (Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005). Three-generational families most
commonly form in response to economic pressures, health difficulties, and
reduced welfare support for families, while skipped-generation families are
frequently a result of parents’ financial, physiological, or physical inability
to care for children (Scommegna, 2012). Such families are more likely to
have lower SES and are more prevalent among racial/ethnic minorities.
The number of children with mothers that would be classified as “older”
has been trending upward for all races/ethnicities. Factors contributing to
the rise in older parents include the rise of effective contraception, increases
in women’s education and labor market participation, and a weakening of
cultural expectations of marriage and early childbearing. In turn, older parents (both mothers and fathers) are most likely to be better educated, married,
and more financially stable than younger parents (Taylor et al., 2010).
The research on children’s outcomes in multigenerational families is limited, but what does exist suggests emotional and behavioral problems for
those living with custodial grandparents (Smith & Palmieri, 2007). Important to note is that challenging family environments often lead to custodial
grandparent care, so it may be less about family structure than about the
circumstances leading to that structure. Still, others suggest positive effects
of grandparent care for the cognitive development of infants and toddlers
(Sun & Li, 2014). The benefits of older parents are clearer, in terms of the provision of economic, social, and cultural resources to children (Powell, Steelman, & Carini, 2006). Older parents confer advantages to children that set
them apart from their younger parent peers.
ADOPTIVE FAMILIES
Children come into adoptive families through one of several routes: stepparent adoptions, adoptions through the child welfare (or foster) system, adoptions through private domestic agencies, and adoptions from other countries.
In the United States, international adoptions peaked in 2004 but have steadily
declined since due to newly imposed legal restrictions. The adopted children
are increasingly racial and ethnic minorities and brought into adoptive families of a different race, culture, or ethnicity.
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s Well-Being
6:14 P.M.
Page 5
5
Adoptive parents may be genetically related to children (e.g., grandfather,
aunt) or outside the biological family, and this distinction poses a challenge
to scholars attempting to draw generalizations about the effects of adoptive family structures on children. Individuals who adopt extended kin are
disproportionately of lower SES and from racial minorities and are bringing children into homes with similar characteristics as their birth parents.
In contrast, those adopting outside of family ties more likely are of higher
SES and white and are older than the average American parent (Hamilton,
Cheng, & Powell, 2007). Most privileged are international adopters, due to
the expensive, bureaucratic, and time-consuming process of adopting overseas. Yet children entering these families have the unique challenge of adjusting to often extreme cultural differences and are likely to be a different race or
ethnicity than their adoptive parents (Samuels, 2009). Categorized together,
adoptive families appear to produce children with lower levels of education
and higher incidence of behavior problems. However, a closer look of the specific types of adoptive parents confirms a distinct advantage of being raised
by nonrelative adoptive families emerges (Hamilton et al., 2007).
SAME-SEX PARENTS
k
The expansion of same-sex legal rights and increasing public acceptance of
same-sex couples have implications for the growth of same-sex parent families in much of the Western world. In recent years, adoption and advances
in reproductive technologies (i.e., artificial insemination and surrogacy) have
increased the options for same-sex couples to become parents. Yet while the
proportion of same-sex adoptive parents has rapidly grown, this increase
has been overshadowed by the decrease of same-sex families with children
overall. This decrease likely can be attributed to (i) more gay and lesbian individuals coming out earlier in life and (ii) the few gay and lesbian individuals
being in heterosexual relationships and having children from these heterosexual relationships before coming out later. Concurrently, the legalization
of same-sex marriage also has changed the landscape for these families, who
previously could only raise children in a cohabiting relationship. In addition, public approval toward same-sex families has rapidly grown (Powell,
Bolzendahl, Geist, & Steelman, 2010). All in all, the landscape for same-sex
families has changed dramatically and overall in a positive direction.
In the United States, same-sex couples are more likely to be interracial,
racial, and ethnic minorities, younger, and with lower levels of education
and higher levels of poverty than their different-sex counterparts. Looking
only at adoptive same-sex parents presents a different story, as these couples
are twice as likely to be white, more educated, and older than the average
parent (Gates, 2015).
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
6
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M.
Page 6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
With few exceptions (Regnerus, 2012; but see Cheng & Powell, 2015 and
Rosenfeld, 2015), most literature on same-sex parent families finds little evidence that such structures produce negative effects on children. Findings of
no difference exist across a number of child outcomes (e.g., academic performance, cognitive development, social and mental health). In fact, some
research on same-sex (and two-mother, in particular) households suggests
more favorable outcomes than in SNAFs, although additional research is
needed to confirm this (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). One likely mechanism for
these favorable outcomes include the intentionality (and expense) of creating
families through adoption or reproductive technologies that, in turn, build
investment in children. Another is the idea that same-sex parents compensate for real or perceived social and legal obstacles by investing more heavily
in their children’s well-being.
MULTIRACIAL FAMILIES
k
Changing laws and growing public acceptance of interracial relationships/partnering have translated into the rapid growth of multiracial
children. In the United States, 4% of all children identify as multiracial; of
these, black/white (36%) and Asian/white (24%) parents are most common
(Parker, Morin, Horowitz, Lopez, & Rohal, 2015).
Although some theoretical work has posited negative consequences of
living in interracial households, empirical research does not support the
assumption that multiracial children fare worse than their monoracial peers.
In fact, some biracial family combinations offer greater parental resources
than their monoracial peers, although whether those resources render actual
advantages is less known. As in adoptive and same-sex families, higher rates
of parental investment in interracial families may reflect a compensatory
mechanism guarding against social stigma and marginalization (Cheng &
Powell, 2007).
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Although scholarship on alternative families is growing, a great deal of work
lies ahead. Several promising areas are suggested as follows.
DECENTERING THE STANDARD NORTH AMERICAN FAMILY (SNAF)
One of the most encouraging developments on the literature on families
with children has been attention to alternative family forms. However,
the research on children too often assesses alternative family forms by
comparing them with the SNAF. This comparison may provide useful
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s Well-Being
6:14 P.M.
Page 7
7
information but is incomplete in that it does not compare across the different
forms. This comparison also may, although not intentionally, reinforce the
idea that the SNAF is the standard against which other family forms should
be evaluated. Scholarship that compares alternative family forms not only
with SNAF but with each other is promising since it offers an opportunity
to critically assess assumptions about the reputed inferiority of alternative
family forms. There are many commonalities and differences among a broad
array of alternative families. Better understanding these commonalities and
differences can contribute to a richer appreciation of how and the extent to
which extant family forms matter.
BROADENING THE DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE FAMILY TYPES
k
A second concern is the disproportionate focus on some alternative family
forms over others. Single-parent, stepparent, and cohabiting families have
received most of the attention in alternative family literature, whereas the
literature on older-parent, adoptive, same-sex, and multiracial households is
considerably scarcer. Despite the rapid growth of interracial marriage (Wang,
2012), for example, a recent review identified only six articles focusing on
multiracial families (Powell, Hamilton, Manago, & Cheng, 2016). Similarly,
despite a well-documented rising age at first birth, scholarship on older parents has remained stagnant. Increasing attention to these other forms better
enables us to compare across the array of alternative family types.
This imbalance of research on alternative family forms is attributable in part
to the availability or unavailability of accessible data on these populations.
National government data have been inconsistent at best in its identification of some family structures, and in turn, researchers have had to draw
from various sources and/or use sophisticated, but often imperfect, inferential techniques to create their samples. This can create inconsistencies in
estimation; for example, estimates on the number of children in same-sex
households vary widely—from 220,000, according the American Community Survey, to approximately 6 million, according to the Williams Institute
(Gates, 2015). A growing body of qualitative studies contributes to the social
scientific understandings of alternative family forms but is less useful in identifying generalizable patterns to compare to other family types. Access to
quality, representative family data are crucial to identifying and disentangling factors that shape children’s outcomes.
The difference in research coverage to various alternative family forms
is consequential because there is strong evidence to suggest an advantage
to children living in some of these alternative family forms. As noted
earlier, many older parents, adoptive parents, same-sex parents, and interracial parents confer higher investments in their children than their SNAF
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
8
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M.
Page 8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
counterparts. These findings offer compelling counterevidence to claims
that divergence from SNAFs carries costs for children.
BASING FAMILY THEORY ON A RICHER ARRAY OF FAMILY FORMS
k
Powell et al. (2016) describe four general frameworks that have shaped
the discourse on the relationship between family structures and children’s
well-being: (i) family structure, (ii) evolutionary, (iii) characteristics, and
(iv) context. Family structure theories argue that SNAF families create the
most favorable outcomes for children and that those diverging are flawed.
Justified by empirical findings showing lower transmission of parental
resources and worse outcomes for children in single- and stepparent family
households than SNAF ones, family structure theorists have extended their
conclusions to all alternative family forms—a generalization that is not
supported by the literature on those particular family forms.
Evolutionary frameworks similarly conclude that traditional family structures produce the most advantaged children. Evolutionary scholars discuss
parental investment in terms of reproductive survival and often point to
studies that indicate that stepparents invest lower in nonbiological kin.
Evolutionary scholar often extends this logic to other family structures
where biological ties are absent.
In contrast, characteristics frameworks focus not on family structures themselves but on the sociodemographic features creating inequality in children’s
outcomes. For example, focusing on the lower SES of single-parent families
shaping children’s trajectories challenges notions that it is single parenthood
per se that produces negative outcomes for children.
Finally, context theorists view family characteristics through the lens of the
social, legal, political, economic, and cultural climate surrounding them.
Returning to the example of single-parent families, international comparisons of children in single-parent families conclude that national family
policies can offset potential negative outcomes of single parenthood (Pong,
Dronkers, & Hampden-Thompson, 2003).
Recent empirical research on alternative family forms favors characteristics and contexts approaches, which emphasize the indirect effects of
family forms on children’s outcomes. Research documenting the higher
parental investments of older, adoptive, interracial, and same-sex parents
run counter to family structure and evolutionary assumptions that SNAF
families provide the optimal environment for children. When associated
with higher parental SES or resources, alternative families can offer children
benefits equal to or great than benefits provided by their SNAF counterparts.
When associated with lower SES or resources, they can reduce benefits.
Emphasizing both characteristics and the broader legal, cultural, and social
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s Well-Being
6:14 P.M.
Page 9
9
contexts in which families live may give us a more complete picture of
whether, how, and to what extent family structure matters.
EXPLORING HETEROGENEITY WITHIN FAMILY TYPES
k
A further direction is to explore heterogeneity within family types. As the earlier review demonstrates, bifurcations within family structures complicate
attempts to draw conclusions about certain family structures. For example,
generalizing about “older” parent families is challenging because families
headed by parents of advanced age tend to be economically privileged and
provide educational benefits that typically less advantaged grandfamilies
cannot. Same-sex adoptive families similarly impart different educational
benefits to their children than those provided by other same-sex families.
Beyond the diverging patterns within family structure categories, families
may be any combination of the types discussed in the review mentioned
earlier (among them, adoptive, multiracial, cohabiting, older, and same-sex)
and may be advantaged in some ways but not in others. International adoptive parents, for example, may be more economically privileged than other
adoptive parents but are more likely to face challenges arising from raising
a child of a different race or ethnicity. Research on grandfamilies suggests
that children benefit from the stability of grandparents, but that it may come
at the cost of poorer physical and mental health for grandparents themselves
(Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005). Greater attention to family characteristics, intersectionality, and the contexts in which families are embedded is needed for
a clearer picture of the relationship between family structure and children’s
outcomes.
EXTENDING ANALYSES OVER TIME
Social scientists often have advocated for longitudinal research that can
evaluate the long-term effects of family structure and parental investment
on children. Little is known, for example, about whether the high levels
of educational investment from older, adoptive, same-sex, and interracial
parents translate into benefits for children in postsecondary education
and as adults. Do challenges from alternative structures reflect periods of
adjustment, as some literature on divorce and remarriage suggests, or are
there long-term effects associated with structures themselves? Furthermore,
given the changing cultural and legal climates regarding family structures,
a longitudinal lens might assist us in distinguishing cohort effects from
structural effects. For example, does the widening public acceptance of
same-sex families (Powell et al., 2010) affect the potentially compensatory
investments of same-sex parents? Will attempts to increase or scale back
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
10
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M. Page 10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
legal protections to same-sex couples and families affect the outcomes of
children in these families?
CONSIDERATION OF NON-WESTERN EXPERIENCES
Finally, research on alternative family forms should extend beyond its persistent focus on European and North American families. Many of the trends
in family structure have been near-universal—for example, the rising age
of marriage and childbearing, divorce, and declining fertility (U.N., 2018).
On the other hand, country- or region-specific socioeconomic, cultural, and
political factors shape family structure and composition in ways that are less
generalizable. These differences lend themselves to characteristics and contexts frameworks that attempt to identify the ways in which economic and
social trends and policies affects and are affected by changes within families.
CONCLUSION
k
The question of how family structure affects children’s well-being continues to engage family scholars. With the increasing diversification of family
forms, this question has become more complicated, but also more exciting,
to answer. As families evolve, so too must the theoretical and analytical tools
we use to study them. Special attention must be paid to the many changing
contexts in which families are embedded, as well as other indirect factors that
are mechanisms driving inequalities in children’s outcomes. Of course, these
goals may be optimally reached with nationally representative data that pay
attention to the alternative family structures described here.
In this article, we suggested six directions that can extend our knowledge of
family structure and children’s well-being. Deprivileging the traditional, or
SNAF family, is crucial for exploring commonalities and differences in alternative family structures that might affect children. Building the literature on
underrepresented family types also can facilitate the identification of factors
shaping children’s outcomes. Such approaches, in turn, move away from theories treating the SNAF as the optimal environment for children, and more
toward those attuned to the indirect effects of family structure. Attention to
the intersectional, contextual, and fluid aspects of families, combined with
a longitudinal lens, can give a more complete picture of where families are
currently and possibly where they are headed.
Discussions of children’s well-being often are tied to politics, and the
research family scholars do on alternate family forms has consequences
for real families. Policy often is based on information, or the lack thereof,
and the theoretical frameworks and data family scholars use have the
potential for either reducing or reproducing existing family inequalities.
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s Well-Being
6:14 P.M. Page 11
11
Research that pays careful attention to the forces shaping family difference
can demonstrate that nontraditional families can facilitate beneficial
environments for children.
REFERENCES
k
Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 3–22.
Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1059–1077.
Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2007). Under and beyond constraints: Resource allocation to
young children from biracial families. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1044–1094.
Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2015). Measurement, methods, and divergent patterns:
Reassessing the effects of same-sex parents. Social Science Research, 52, 615–626.
Coontz, S. (2006). Marriage: A history: How love conquered marriage. New York,
NY: Viking.
Fine, G. A. (1992). Families in the United States: Their current status and future
prospects. Family Relations, 41, 430–435.
Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American
Sociological Review, 72, 181–204.
Gates, G. (2015). Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same-sex couples.
Future of Children, 25(2), 67–87. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/
futureofchildren/publications/docs/MarriageandFamily.pdf.
Hamilton, L., Cheng, S., & Powell, B. (2007). Adoptive parents, adaptive parents:
Evaluating the importance of biological ties for parental investment. American
Sociological Review, 72, 95–116.
Hayslip, B. Jr., & Kaminski, P. L. (2005). Grandparents raising their grandchildren: A
review of the literature and suggestions for practice. Gerontologist, 45(2), 262–269.
Parker, K., Morin, R., Horowitz, J. M., Lopez, M. H., & Rohal, M. (2015). Multiracial
in America: Proud, diverse, and growing in Numbers (Report). Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center.
Pong, S. L., Dronkers, J., & Hampden-Thompson, G. (2003). Family policies and
children’s school achievement in single- versus two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 681–699.
Popenoe, D. (1999). Can the nuclear family be revived? Society, 36, 28–30.
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.
Powell, B., Hamilton, L., Manago, B., & Cheng, S. (2016). Implications of changing
family forms for children. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 301–322.
Powell, B., Steelman, L. C., & Carini, R. M. (2006). Advancing age, advantaged youth:
Parental age and the transmission of resources to children. Social Forces, 84(3),
1359–1390.
Raley, R. K., & Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(1), 210–219.
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
12
k
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M. Page 12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Regnerus, M. (2012). How different are the adult children of parents who have
same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study. Social
Science Research, 41(4), 752–770.
Rosenfeld, M. (2015). Revisiting the data from the New Family Structure Study: Taking Family instability in Account. Sociological Science, 2, 478–501.
Samuels, G. (2009). “Being raised by white people”: Navigating racial differences
among adopted multiracial adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 80–94.
Scommegna, P. (2012, March 26). More U.S. children raised by grandparents. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.prb.org/us-childrengrandparents/
Smith, D. (1993). The Standard North American Family: SNAF as an ideological code.
Journal of Family Issues, 14(1), 50–65.
Smith, G. C., & Palmieri, P. A. (2007). Risk of psychological difficulties among children raised by custodial grandparents. Psychiatric Services, 58(10), 1303–1310.
Sun, Y., & Li, Y. (2014). Alternative households, structural changes, and cognitive
development of infants and toddlers. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1440–1472.
Taylor, P., Passel, J., & Fry, R., et al. (2010, March 18). The return of the
multi-generational family household. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/18/the-return-of-the-multigenerational-family-household/.
U.N. (2018). Family publications: General introduction to major trends. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtintro.pdf
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2017). America’s Families and Living Arrangements:
2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wang, W. (2012). The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender
(Report). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Brian Powell is the James H. Rudy Professor of Sociology at Indiana University. His research focuses on family, education, gender, and sexuality. He is the
lead author of the book, COUNTED OUT: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’
Definitions of Family (Russell Sage, 2010), which documented the transformation in how Americans define family and, in turn, their views regarding
same-sex families.
Jaclyn Tabor is a Ph.D. Candidate in Sociology at Indiana University. Her
research explores questions relating to family transitions, gender, and stress,
coping, and social support. Her dissertation focuses on how children of transgender people experience their parent’s gender transition.
Lisa R. Miller is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Eckerd College. She
specializes in the study of gender, sexualities, families, and the life course.
Her current research examines intimate relationships and sexualities across
the life course. She has previously published research on the nature and consequences of prejudice and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender individuals.
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
V2 - 10/22/2018
Diverse Family Forms and Children’s Well-Being
6:14 P.M. Page 13
13
RELATED ESSAYS
k
Childhood (Anthropology), Karen L. Kramer
The Impact of Bilingualism on Cognition (Psychology), Ellen Bialystok
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Family Formation in Times of Labor Market Insecurities (Sociology), Johannes
Huinink
Cooperative Breeding and Human Evolution (Anthropology), Karen L.
Kramer
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
The Role of School-Related Peers and Social Networks in Human Development (Political Science), Chandra Muller
A Bio-Social-Cultural Approach to Early Cognitive Development: Entering
the Community of Minds (Psychology), Katherine Nelson
Bullying, Aggression, and Human Development (Psychology), Samuel E.
Ehrenreich and Marion K. Underwood
Neighborhoods and Cognitive Development (Psychology), Jondou Chen and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn
Social Class and Parental Investment in Children (Sociology), Anne H.
Gauthier
Intersectionality and the Development of Self and Identity (Psychology),
Margarita Azmitia and Virginia Thomas
Stereotype Threat (Psychology), Toni Schmader and William M. Hall
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
The Future of Marriage (Sociology), Elizabeth Aura McClintock
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu
The Gendered Transition to Parenthood: Lasting Inequalities in the Home
and in the Labor Market (Sociology), Marie Evertsson and Katarina Boye
Emerging Trends: Family Formation and Gender (Sociology), Anna Matysiak
and Natalie Nitsche
k
k
k
PSYHB etrds0449.tex
14
V2 - 10/22/2018
6:14 P.M. Page 14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Schooling, Learning, and the Life Course (Education), Aaron M. Pallas
Family Complexity and Kinship (Sociology), Elizabeth Thomson
Early Childhood Education and Care Services and Child Development:
Economic Perspectives for Universal Approaches (Economics), Christa K.
Spiess
k
k
k