Family Complexity and Kinship
Media
Part of Family Complexity and Kinship
- Title
-
Family Complexity and Kinship
- extracted text
-
Family Complexity and Kinship∗
ELIZABETH THOMSON
Abstract
Increases in parental cohabitation, separation or divorce, and re-partnering or remarriage have generated an increase in the complexity of family and kinship ties. As
a result, many scholars claim that family and kinship have become voluntary, with
rights and obligations to be negotiated in the same way as those between friends and
neighbors. This essay briefly reviews the demographic trends that have produced
complex families and kin, and their projections into the future. It argues that kinship
structures arising from stable nuclear family and kin networks provide a template
for the organization of more complex family ties. Although a considerable degree
of voluntariness can be found in ties among complex families and kin, rights and
obligations remain structured in terms of blood and marriage, and are also strongly
influenced by periods of coresidence. Guidelines do exist for relationships in complex
families and kinship networks, and they can be used to further institutional arrangements that fit the circumstances of increasingly diverse types of families and kin.
During the twentieth century, and particularly since mid-century, intimate
partnerships have undergone dramatic changes. Marriage is no longer
required for couples to live together and have children. Couples have
freedom to end their relationship, even when they have become parents.
These trends are further along in some societies than others, but they are
emerging in virtually all affluent “western” societies (Andersson, Thomson,
& Duntava, forthcoming).
Because separation and divorce usually occur during the childrearing years, the trend is toward an increasing pool of single parents who
return to the partnership market. High proportions form stepfamilies,
and many have additional children with the new partner (Andersson
et al., forthcoming; Thomson, Lappegård, Carlson, Evans, & Gray, 2014).
These events may occur in marriage(s) or non-marital cohabitation. The
∗ Financial support from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) via the Linnaeus Center for
Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe (SPaDE), grant number 349-2007-8701 and project grant
421-2014-1668. Direct all correspondence to Elizabeth Thomson, Department of Sociology, Stockholm
University, 106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN, elizabeth.thomson@sociology.su.se
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
complexities introduced by such change pose considerable challenges for
families and extended kin.
When couples marry, have only shared children, and remain together,
biological relatedness, the legal tie between spouses, and coresidence form
a strong bond with clear rights and obligations among family and kin
members. When parents are not married, legal ties between partners are
often unclear. When parents separate, re-partner, and/or have children with
new partners, a chain of nuclear families and households is created where
biological, legal, and residential ties do not coincide and may be unique for
almost every individual in the chain (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994). Traditional guidelines (norms) for family and kin behavior do not seem to apply;
relationships must be negotiated in the context of ambiguity, producing
stress, misunderstanding, and conflict (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994).
In this essay, I argue that guidelines are in fact available and are usually
applied to relationships in complex families. They can be seen as logical
extensions of the structure of rights and obligations in stable nuclear family
kin networks, where the dimension of coresidence takes on an independent
role. Before outlining that argument and presenting the evidence, however,
I provide an overview of the increase in complex families and kinship.
THE DEMOGRAPHY OF COMPLEX FAMILIES AND KIN
By the 1990s, births in cohabitation had surpassed those in marriage for a few
countries (Andersson & Philipov, 2002); in most other countries, the percentages increased quite considerably between the 1990s and 2000s (Andersson
et al., forthcoming). Parental separation or divorce had also increased. In the
early 2000s, about half of children in the United States and Russia were predicted to experience parental separation (including those born to lone mothers); in many other countries, estimates were between 30% and 40%. Children
born to cohabiting parents have a much higher likelihood of parental separation than children born to married couples. The difference is, however,
decreasing as cohabiting births become more common and cohabitation is
viewed as more like marriage (Andersson et al., forthcoming).
Children experiencing parental separation have a relatively high chance of
acquiring a stepfather within 6 years of the separation and before they reach
age 15— between 30% and 60% (Andersson et al., forthcoming). While the
pace of stepfamily formation seems relatively stable, the percentage of stepfamilies formed by marriage has declined in favor of cohabiting stepfamilies
(Andersson & Philipov, 2002; Andersson et al., forthcoming). Substantial proportions of stepfamily couples have a child together, providing a half-sibling
for children born with previous partners (Thomson et al., 2014). Most estimates of family complexity rely on reports of birth and partnership histories,
Family Complexity and Kinship
3
but only from one parent’s point of view. From the child’s point of view, family complexity is therefore underestimated.
A more complete picture is offered by Swedish administrative registers
that link every person to each of their parents, allowing the identification
of siblings born to the same or different mothers, to the same or different fathers. The percentage of Swedish residents who have at least one
half-sibling increased rather steadily from 15% for those born in 1930s and
1940s to 30% for those born in the 1980s, and then plateaued (Thomson,
2014). Similar increases are likely to be observed in countries with high rates
of parental separation.
Demographers have used rates of partnership, separation, and births to
estimate the number and types of kin available now and in the future. In the
United States, biological kin are declining, primarily due to smaller families,
while step-kin are on the increase (Wachter, 1997). Murphy (2011) predicts a
decline for the UK in the total number of biological siblings and an increase
in former partners, step-relationships, and half-siblings. He argues that
these trends will intensify as parental separation and re-partnering increase,
though plateaus already reached in Sweden suggest some long-term stability
in the mix of kin.
CONSTRUCTING FAMILY AND KINSHIP
The increasing complexity of families and kin networks is part of a larger
trend toward individualization where rights and obligations depend not on
family or kin membership but are inherent in the individual (Björnberg &
Ekbrand, 2008). Nevertheless, families and kin remain important sources
of material, social, and psychological support and are more than a loosely
connected group of individuals. The core of family and kinship in individualistic societies remains the tie between parents and children, well regulated
in law, in most cases supported by the sharing of genes, and strengthened by
long periods of living in the same household. The consanguineal or “blood”
tie between parents and children extends in weaker forms to siblings,
grandparents and grandchildren, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews,
and cousins. Legal rights and obligations of extended kin are few, however;
only rarely do they share households for any considerable length of time.
The second primary kinship tie is affinal or marital. Marriage links two intimate partners who are usually not related by blood. Their relationship is also
regulated by law and they share a residence. By marriage, each spouse is
linked to the other’s blood kin (in-laws). Again, legal rights and obligations
between in-laws are few, and lengthy co-residence is rare.
When couples have children together, the spouses’ kin become linked by
a combination of blood and marital ties. Parsons (1943) used blood and
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
marital ties as the basis for a model of American kinship, but the model is
applicable to most if not all individualistic societies. He used the metaphor
of an onion. Parents and children comprise the conjugal family at the
onion’s core. Outer layers represent extended blood or marital kin at varying
genealogical distance. Distance is determined by the number of ties—blood
or marriage—that link one kin member to another.
Using this calculus, the parent–child and partner relationships are closest,
linked by a direct blood or marital tie. Full siblings are linked by blood—but
indirectly, from child to parent and parent to sibling, a distance of two.
During childhood, they share a common residence that brings them closer
together, but in adulthood they do not. Grandparents and grandchildren
form the lineal layer of the onion and are also at distance two (grandchild
to parent, parent to grandparent). This is the same distance as the first
layer of marital kin, parents and children-in-law. Aunts and uncles, nieces
and nephews are at genealogical distance three, while first cousins are at
distance four. Parsons (1943) argued that rights and obligations between kin
and family members were ordered by kin distance.
A second system for structuring family and kinship is based on evolutionary theory and genetic relatedness (Pollet, 2007). Biological parents,
full siblings, and children all have the same degree of relatedness because
each shares half their genes with the other family member. Grandparents,
grandchildren, aunts/uncles, and nieces/nephews share one-quarter of their
genes with the corresponding family member; more distant biological kin
are each related to the other at a degree of one-eighth or less. Neither spouses
nor cohabiting partners are at all related from a genetic point of view.
According to evolutionary theory, genetic relatedness provides the motive
for family and kin support—the survival of one’s genetic material in the population. Senior members of the kin network will invest more in junior members with whom they share more genes. Even though they have no genes
in common, partners (and their kin) may also have an incentive to invest
in each other as a means of investing in children, grandchildren, siblings,
nieces, and nephews. Junior members may also invest in senior members
because they may provide care for junior members’ children, siblings, nieces,
and nephews.
The structure of relationships arising from stable nuclear families and their
kin has been observed on a variety of dimensions and generally supports
the onion metaphor. Although spouses are the most likely choice for a
confidant, parents are more likely to be chosen than siblings and siblings
more likely than more distant kin (Hoyt & Babchuk, 1983). In contact and
exchange with kin, parents and children come first, and siblings second
(White, 2001). Similar differences are found between blood kin and in-laws
(Coleman, Ganong, & Cable, 1997; Goetting, 1990). The closer the genetic
Family Complexity and Kinship
5
ties between kin, the more likely they are to rely on each other for emergency
help (Maxwell, Burton-Chellewa, & Dunbarc, 2015) and the further they are
willing to travel to visit each other (Pollet, Roberts, & Rim, 2013).
The structure of family and kin relationships has also been studied from
a normative point of view, that is, what do people in general believe about
rights and obligations to different sorts of kin? A few studies conducted in the
United States are all consistent with Parsons’ onion; obligations are stronger,
the shorter the genealogical distance by blood (Nock, Kingston, & Holian,
2008; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Similarly, rights and obligations of in-laws are
weaker than those between adult children and their parents (Coleman et al.,
1997), at about the same level as adult siblings (Rossi & Rossi, 1990).
FAMILY AND KINSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF COHABITATION,
DIVORCE, AND COMPLEXITY
Cohabitation presents the first challenge to the rights and obligations that
comprise a structure of family and kinship. Like married partners, cohabiters
are not genetically related but live in the same household. In fact, it is coresidence that defines a cohabiting couple. Until a couple has children, however,
the legal ties between the partners are minimal, no more than those of roommates.
When cohabiting couples have children, their two kinship networks are
connected by blood. From an evolutionary point of view, births to cohabiting
and married couples produce exactly the same set of genetic connections.
From a genealogical point of view, however, the legal tie between the two
parents may be undefined or only loosely defined (Perelli-Harris & Sánchez
Gassen, 2012). Further, if cohabitation is viewed as less permanent than
marriage, evolutionary motives for investment may be lower and rights and
obligations weaker between the “in-laws”.
Consistent with theoretical expectations, cohabiting step-parents are less
likely to be identified as part of the family or household than married
step-parents (Brown & Manning, 2009; Stewart, 2005). Obligations to live
with an elderly single mother are weaker for a cohabiting than for a married
adult child (Seltzer, Lau, & Bianchi, 2012). In the UK and the Netherlands,
cohabiters have lower levels of exchange with partner’s parents (Henz,
2009; Hogerbrugge & Dykstra, 2009), but no differences were found in the
United States and Norway (Chesley & Poppie, 2009; Daatland, 2007; Wiik &
Bernhardt, 2017).
The relative instability of cohabiting unions suggests that their place in
kinship structure may be a preview of the way in which divorce alters kin
rights and obligations. Divorce severs the marital tie but does not alter blood
ties or change the genetic relationship of kin members to one another. From
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
an evolutionary point of view, therefore, divorce should also not alter any
motives for investments in blood kin, but should weaken motives for investments in the ex-partners of blood kin. From a genealogical point of view,
divorce may place former in-laws in the outer circle of friends and neighbors,
with rights and obligations based on personal relationships developed during the period when the parties were kin. When the divorcing couple has children, however, parents-in-law remain grandparents to the couple’s children,
and the same goes for the child’s aunts, uncles, and cousins. Kin relationships
may become less like an onion and more like a chain of onion rings, where
children from previous unions are the links (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994).
Re-partnering also has no implications for kin investment from an evolutionary point of view, but it produces a set of ties to the new partner’s
blood or marital kin. When the new partners already have children, a new
type of marital kin appears, those labeled “step”. If stepfamily couples
have children together, genetics again comes into play with respect to
half-siblings and their partially overlapping, partially separate sets of
blood kin.
The complexity of such relationships has led to the claim that family and
kin relationships are increasingly discretionary and variable (Cherlin &
Furstenberg, 1994), and that kinship has become an achieved status based
on principles of emotions, contact, and exchange that apply to all types
of relationships (Maclean, Drake, & Mckillop, 2016). All is not chaos, of
course. Parent–child relationships are constructed “almost automatically”
(Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994, p. 367). The question is whether anything else
in kinship can be taken for granted or be used as guidelines for relationships
in complex families and kin networks.
Table 1 suggests a possible starting point, building on Parsons (1943)
genealogical onion. The first three rows simply reproduce the onion layers.
Because a step-relationship is indirect, though a marital (or cohabitation) tie, we increase the distance between the corresponding biological
kin by one. For example, step-parents are at distance two from their
step-children (step-parent to parent, parent to child). Note that this puts
the step-relationships at the same distance as an in-law relationship, as
suggested by Cherlin and Furstenberg (1994).
According to the logic of genealogy, an ex-spouse or partner is connected
only through blood ties to a child and the child’s blood ties to the other parent
(1 + 1 = 2). Otherwise, she/he disappears from the kin structure altogether.
The ex’s parents and siblings are also connected to the child’s other parent
only through the child, adding one to the previous count that had been direct
through the marital tie of their child or sibling.
The shaded boxes represent the blood ties of kinship, quite few in relation to
the in-law and step-ties. From an evolutionary point of view, neither current
Family Complexity and Kinship
7
Table 1
Genealogical Distance in Complex Families and Kin Networks
Core (1)
Distance 2
Distance 3
Distance 4
Spouses/partners
Parent–child
Full/half sibling
Grandparent/child
Parent/child-in-law
Step-parent/child
Ex-spouse/partnera
Sibling-in-law
Aunt/uncle
Niece/nephew
Step-sibling
Step-grandparent/child
Step-parent-/child-in-law
Ex-parent-/child-in-lawa
Cousin
Aunt/uncle-in-law
Niece/nephew-in-law
Step-sibling-in-law
Step-aunt/uncle
Step-niece/nephew
Ex-sibling-in-lawa
a Placement
in kin structure only if ex’s had a child together.
nor ex-spouses/partners, in-laws, or any step-kin have an interest in investment, unless there is a motive through the children of a current marriage
or partnership. One other difference from genealogy is that although fulland half-siblings are at distance two (still connected by a common parent),
full siblings have twice as many genes in common as half-siblings and are
therefore predicted to invest more in the relationship.
As predicted by genealogy and genetics, relationships between former
in-laws are weaker than those with current in-laws and are closely tied
to the existence of a blood tie through grandchildren, nieces/nephews,
and so on (Goetting, 1990). Coleman et al. (1997) note that obligations of
maternal grandmothers are explained in terms of help to the mother, while
obligations of paternal grandmothers are explained in terms of help to the
grandchildren. This may explain why obligations of paternal grandmothers
are not viewed as lesser after divorce.
Step-relationships have generated a great deal of research, but mostly in
simple comparisons to the corresponding blood relationship. For example,
step-parents or step-children are frequently excluded from an individual’s
perception of her/his family, while such exclusions are rare in biological
two-parent families (Stewart, 2005; Castrén & Widmer, 2015). Relationships
and exchange with step-kin are almost always reported to be weaker than
in the corresponding blood relationship (Arr’anz Becker, Salzburger, Lois,
& Nauck, 2013; Bressan, Colarelli, & Cavalieri, 2009; White & Reidmann,
1992). Normative obligations toward hypothetical step-kin are also weaker
than those to blood kin (Ganong, Coleman, McDaniel, & Killian, 1998; Hans,
Ganong, & Coleman, 2009). Rossi and Rossi (1990) found that obligations
to hypothetical step-parents were about the same as those to siblings,
consistent with genealogical distances in Table 1.
Relationships with half-siblings are more consistent with the evolutionary theory of kinship than with genealogy. Contact frequency, emotional
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
closeness, and willingness to help are greater for full- than for half-siblings
(Bressan et al., 2009; Pollet, 2007; Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2014; White &
Reidmann, 1992).
Overall, complex family and kin relationships do not seem to be completely
unstructured in terms of rights and obligations. Expectations and behavior
are reasonably consistent with a set of rules based on genealogical distance. In
the case of the most complex family form, however, where families include
half-siblings, two opposing forces are at work. First, half-siblings generate
definitions of family that are more inclusive (Castrén & Widmer, 2015). At the
same time, they represent divisions of rights and obligations toward separate
networks of blood kin.
HOUSEHOLDS—CORESIDENCE AS A KINSHIP TIE
In kin-based societies, couples and children often live with their extended
kin, and coresidence is the outcome of a particular kinship system. In individualistic societies, however, coresidence might more appropriately be viewed
as a third type of kinship tie that can alter the structure of rights and obligations otherwise defined by blood and marriage. This is especially notable for
cohabitation where the family is defined entirely by coresidence before children are born. Coresidence becomes a distinct family tie also after divorce.
Divorced and separated parents do not live in the same household. Their
children may live with one parent and not the other or with both. Some
step-children and step-parents live together, others do not. Some half-siblings
live together, others do not. Although extended kin by blood or marriage
typically do not live in any of these households, their engagement with different types of grandchildren, grandparents, in-laws, aunts, uncles, and cousins
is likely to be structured by who lives with whom.
In step-relationships, coresidence appears to generate rights and
obligations. Coresident step-parents are usually expected to contribute
to the financial support of their step-children (Ganong, Coleman, & Mistina,
1995; Maclean et al., 2016), while non-resident step-parents may not. The
longer step-parents, step-children, and step-siblings have lived together, the
more similar are step-kin to blood kin in relationships or contact (Arr’anz
Becker et al., 2013; Kalmijn, 2013; Marsiglio, 1992; Schmeeckle, Giarrusso,
Feng, & Bengtson, 2006; White & Reidmann, 1992).
Coresidence is also a factor in the rights and obligations toward maternal
versus paternal kin. Even in stable nuclear families with common children,
most mothers are the primary parent, and women take a larger role in
maintaining kin relationships. Thus, the gender-equal structure theorized
by Parsons (1943) has generally in practice tilted somewhat toward maternal
kin. When children live much more often with their mother than their
Family Complexity and Kinship
9
father after separation or divorce, the maternal tilt becomes even stronger,
explaining the greater engagement with former daughters-in-law than
with former sons-in-law (Goetting, 1990). Maternal half-siblings have more
contact than paternal half-siblings (Pollet, 2007), and the longer half-siblings
lived together, the more likely they were to be willing to help even in
extreme situations (Bressan et al., 2009).
THE FUTURE OF COMPLEX FAMILIES AND KINSHIP
There is no doubt that the prevalence of complex families and kin networks
will increase in most affluent societies (Murphy, 2011; Wachter, 1997). Where
complexity has become quite common, its prevalence may be reaching a
plateau. Even at the level achieved in Sweden, however, those with completely nuclear kin networks—no separation, divorce, or re-partnering—will
be a very small part of the population.
Complex family and kin networks might continue to be quite uncommon
in some individualistic societies. From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, the
prevalence of parental separation increased in both Spain and Italy. But it
would have to more than double in order to reach levels already experienced
in the Nordic countries and more than triple to reach levels in the United
States. (Andersson et al., forthcoming). Cohabitation is also likely to remain a
more common feature of family and kinship in northern compared to southern European countries.
The countries where family complexity has increased least and is likely to
remain at lower levels are characterized as strong family, weak state (Reher,
1998). Because the state provides so little, individuals rely much more on families and kin for support. The overall higher level of family/kin rights and
obligations may still, however, be organized in an onion-like kin structure
with stronger ties at closer genetic or genealogical distance. And the organization of step-kin and relationships with former partners presented in Table 1
could still apply.
In weak family, strong state societies, citizens hold a strong moral belief
in the state’s responsibility to meet individual needs (Björnberg & Ekbrand,
2008). Rights and obligations of family and kin arise not from their structural position but depend more on transactions. For example, parents may
elicit support in old age by transmitting “moral capital” to their children
(Silverstein, Conroy, & Gans, 2012). Rights and obligations may be based on
general rules of distributive justice, where justice motives may arise from
emotional closeness (Maclean et al., 2016). The transactional approach to kinship provides no clearer guidelines to simple than to complex families and
kin networks. Where negative emotions and perceptions of injustice arise
from separation and divorce, transactional views of kinship likely hinder
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the maintenance of ties between children and their non-coresident parents
as well as that parent’s kin.
The evidence we have so far is to some extent consistent with a transactional understanding of family and kinship, but it also suggests some
structure as a basis for expectations and negotiations with family and kin
members. Most research has focused on the structure of parent–child and
step-parent/step-child relationships, rightly so in view of their centrality
in the larger kinship system. Research on the outer layers of Parsons’
onion remains sketchy; ignoring the outer layers essentially equates them
with friends and neighbors where blood and marital ties do not exist and
coresidence is rare.
The third dimension of kinship coresidence also deserves further theoretical and empirical attention. When blood and marital ties correspond
completely with coresidence, it is a redundant feature of family and kinship
structure. When they do not, it has clear implications for actual relationships
and for the general expectations held by others for relationships in complex
family and kin networks. Particularly important is to identify the history
of coresidence with different family and kin members as a source of future
transactional dimensions of the relationship.
The predominance of research on actual living kin is also somewhat
limiting; what people do may not be the same as what they think they
ought to do. The type of research pioneered by Rossi and Rossi (1990)
in which vignettes systematically vary the hypothetical kin position, and
the further development by Ganong et al. (1995) to sequentially provide
additional information about the respective kin, could fruitfully be applied
to the wider set of kin defined by cohabitation, separation and divorce,
remarriage and re-partnering, and stepfamily births. We also need this type
of information for a wider range of societies, particularly for weak states
where the structural bases for family and kinship may be even stronger than
the transactional bases.
By identifying the structure of relationships in complex families and kin
networks—based on blood, marriage, and coresidence—it is possible to
provide the guidelines that many family and kin members seek. Such information could also be useful in furthering the development of laws and other
institutional arrangements to better fit the circumstances of increasingly
diverse types of families and kin.
REFERENCES
Andersson, G. A., & Philipov, D. (2002). Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries: A project of descriptions of
demographic behavior. Demographic Research, 7, 67–144.
Family Complexity and Kinship
11
Andersson, G. A., Thomson, E., & Duntava, A. (forthcoming). Life-table representations of family dynamics in the 21st century. Demographic Research.
Arr’anz Becker, O., Salzburger, V., Lois, N., & Nauck, B. (2013). What narrows the
stepgap? Closeness between parents and adult (step)children in Germany. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 75, 1130–1148.
Björnberg, U., & Ekbrand, H. (2008). Financial and practical kin support in Sweden:
Normative guidelines and practice. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 73–95.
Bressan, P., Colarelli, S. M., & Cavalieri, M. B. (2009). Biologically costly altruism
depends on emotional closeness among step but not half or full sibling. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 118–132.
Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the measurement of family structure: The significance of cohabitation. Demography, 46, 85–101.
Castrén, A.-M., & Widmer, E. D. (2015). Insiders and outsiders in stepfamilies:
Adults’ and children’s views on family boundaries. Current Sociology, 63, 35–56.
Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A
reconsideration. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381.
Chesley, N., & Poppie, K. (2009). Assisting parents and in-laws: Gender, type of assistance, and couples’ employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 247–262.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Cable, S. M. (1997). Beliefs about women’s intergenerational family obligations to provide support before and after divorce and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49, 165–176.
Daatland, S. O. (2007). Marital history and intergenerational solidarity: The impact
of divorce and unmarried cohabitation. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 809–825.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Mistina, D. (1995). Normative beliefs about parents’
and stepparents’ financial obligations to children following divorce and remarriage. Family Relations, 44, 306–316.
Ganong, L., Coleman, M., McDaniel, A. K., & Killian, T. (1998). Attitudes regarding
obligations to assist an older parent or stepparent following later-life remarriage.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 595–610.
Goetting, A. (1990). Patterns of support among in-laws in the United States: A review
of research. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 67–90.
Hans, J., Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2009). Financial responsibilities toward older
stepparents following divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 30, 55–66.
Henz, U. (2009). Couples’ provision of informal care for parents and parents-in-law:
Far from sharing equally? Ageing and Society, 29, 369–395.
Hogerbrugge, M. J. A., & Dykstra, P. A. (2009). The family ties of unmarried cohabiting and married persons in the Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,
135–145.
Hoyt, D. R., & Babchuk, N. (1983). Adult kinship networks: The selective formation
of intimate ties with kin. Social Forces, 62, 84–101.
Kalmijn, M. (2013). Adult children’s relationships with married parents, divorced
parents, and stepparents: Biology, marriage, or residence? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 75, 1181–1193.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Maclean, M. J., Drake, D., & Mckillop, D. (2016). Perceptions of stepfathers’ obligations to financially support stepchildren. Journal of Family Economic Issues, 37,
285–296.
Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home – parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214.
Maxwell, N., Burton-Chellewa, B., & Dunbarc, R. I. M. (2015). Hamilton’s rule predicts anticipated social support in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 26, 130–137.
Murphy, M. (2011). Effects of the demographic transition on family and kinship networks in Britain. Population and Development Review, 37 (Supplement), 55–80.
Nock, S. L., Kingston, P. W., & Holian, L. M. (2008). The distribution of obligations.
In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, S. M. Bianchi & J. A. Seltzer (Eds.), Intergenerational
caregiving (pp. 279–316). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of the contemporary United States. American
Anthropologist, 45, 22–38.
Perelli-Harris, B., & Sánchez Gassen, N. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and
marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and
Development Review, 38, 435–467.
Pollet, T. V. (2007). Genetic relatedness and sibling relationship characteristics in a
modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 176–185.
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Rim, D. (2013). Going that extra mile: Individuals
travel further to maintain face-to-face contact with highly related kin than with
less related kin. PLoS One, 8, e53929.
Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population
and Development Review, 24, 203–234.
Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the
life course. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Schmeeckle, M., Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., & Bengtson, V. L. (2006). What makes someone family? Adult children’s perceptions of current and former stepparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 595–610.
Seltzer, J. A., Lau, C. Q., & Bianchi, S. M. (2012). Doubling up when times are tough:
A study of obligations to share a home in response to economic hardship. Social
Science Research, 41, 1307–1319.
Silverstein, M., Conroy, S. J., & Gans, D. (2012). Beyond solidarity, reciprocity and
altruism: Moral capital as a unifying concept in intergenerational support for older
people. Ageing & Society, 32, 1246–1262.
Stewart, S. D. (2005). Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 26,
1002–1029.
Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2014). Genetic relatedness predicts contact frequencies with siblings, nieces and nephews: Results from the generational transmission in Finland Surveys. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 5–11.
Thomson, E. (2014). Family complexity in Europe. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 654, 245–258.
Thomson, E., Lappegård, T., Carlson, M., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2014). Childbearing
across partnerships in Australia, the United States, Norway and Sweden. Demography, 51, 485–508.
Family Complexity and Kinship
13
Wachter, K. W. (1997). Kinship resources for the elderly. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 352, 1811–1817.
White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 63, 555–568.
White, L., & Reidmann, A. (1992). When the Brady Bunch grows up: Step/half- and
fullsibling relationships in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 197–208.
Wiik, K. A., & Bernhardt, E. (2017). Cohabiting and married individuals’ relations
with their partner’s parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 1111–1124.
FURTHER READING
Carlson, M. A., & Meyer, D. R. (2014). Family complexity: Setting the context. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 6–11.
Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1999). Changing families, changing responsibilities:
Family obligations following divorce and remarriage. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, C. L. (1990). Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990s. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 623–639.
Seltzer, J. A., & Bianchi, S. (2013). Demographic change and parent–child relationships in adulthood. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 275–290.
Widmer, E., Romney, A. K., & Boyd, J. (1999). Cognitive aspects of step-terms in
American kinship. American Anthropologist, 101, 374–378.
ELIZABETH THOMSON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth Thomson is Professor of Demography Emerita, Stockholm University, and Professor of Sociology Emerita, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. She directs the Linnaeus Center for Social Policy
and Family Dynamics (www.su.se/spade) and is a member of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences. She previously served as Director of the
Center for Demography and Ecology at UW-Madison and of the Stockholm
University Demography Unit. Prof. Thomson has conducted research
on couple childbearing decisions, family structure and child well-being,
sterilization, stepfamily childbearing, and adolescent sexuality. Her current
research focuses on union instability and fertility, cohabitation and family
complexity, and the consequences of joint physical custody for parents and
children. Most of her recent research uses large-scale cross-national surveys
or Nordic population registers.
RELATED ESSAYS
Gender Inequalities in the Home Sociology, Sonja Drobni˘c and Leah
Ruppanner
Patterns of Attachments across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Theodore E. A. Waters
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
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
The Future of Marriage (Sociology), Elizabeth Aura McClintock
Social Change and Entry to Adulthood (Sociology), Jeylan T. Mortimer
Social Relationships and Health in Older Adulthood (Psychology), Theodore
F. Robles and Josephine A. Menkin
Gender and the Transition to Adulthood: A Diverse Pathways View
(Sociology), Ingrid Schoon
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu
-
Family Complexity and Kinship∗
ELIZABETH THOMSON
Abstract
Increases in parental cohabitation, separation or divorce, and re-partnering or remarriage have generated an increase in the complexity of family and kinship ties. As
a result, many scholars claim that family and kinship have become voluntary, with
rights and obligations to be negotiated in the same way as those between friends and
neighbors. This essay briefly reviews the demographic trends that have produced
complex families and kin, and their projections into the future. It argues that kinship
structures arising from stable nuclear family and kin networks provide a template
for the organization of more complex family ties. Although a considerable degree
of voluntariness can be found in ties among complex families and kin, rights and
obligations remain structured in terms of blood and marriage, and are also strongly
influenced by periods of coresidence. Guidelines do exist for relationships in complex
families and kinship networks, and they can be used to further institutional arrangements that fit the circumstances of increasingly diverse types of families and kin.
During the twentieth century, and particularly since mid-century, intimate
partnerships have undergone dramatic changes. Marriage is no longer
required for couples to live together and have children. Couples have
freedom to end their relationship, even when they have become parents.
These trends are further along in some societies than others, but they are
emerging in virtually all affluent “western” societies (Andersson, Thomson,
& Duntava, forthcoming).
Because separation and divorce usually occur during the childrearing years, the trend is toward an increasing pool of single parents who
return to the partnership market. High proportions form stepfamilies,
and many have additional children with the new partner (Andersson
et al., forthcoming; Thomson, Lappegård, Carlson, Evans, & Gray, 2014).
These events may occur in marriage(s) or non-marital cohabitation. The
∗ Financial support from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) via the Linnaeus Center for
Social Policy and Family Dynamics in Europe (SPaDE), grant number 349-2007-8701 and project grant
421-2014-1668. Direct all correspondence to Elizabeth Thomson, Department of Sociology, Stockholm
University, 106 91 Stockholm SWEDEN, elizabeth.thomson@sociology.su.se
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
complexities introduced by such change pose considerable challenges for
families and extended kin.
When couples marry, have only shared children, and remain together,
biological relatedness, the legal tie between spouses, and coresidence form
a strong bond with clear rights and obligations among family and kin
members. When parents are not married, legal ties between partners are
often unclear. When parents separate, re-partner, and/or have children with
new partners, a chain of nuclear families and households is created where
biological, legal, and residential ties do not coincide and may be unique for
almost every individual in the chain (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994). Traditional guidelines (norms) for family and kin behavior do not seem to apply;
relationships must be negotiated in the context of ambiguity, producing
stress, misunderstanding, and conflict (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994).
In this essay, I argue that guidelines are in fact available and are usually
applied to relationships in complex families. They can be seen as logical
extensions of the structure of rights and obligations in stable nuclear family
kin networks, where the dimension of coresidence takes on an independent
role. Before outlining that argument and presenting the evidence, however,
I provide an overview of the increase in complex families and kinship.
THE DEMOGRAPHY OF COMPLEX FAMILIES AND KIN
By the 1990s, births in cohabitation had surpassed those in marriage for a few
countries (Andersson & Philipov, 2002); in most other countries, the percentages increased quite considerably between the 1990s and 2000s (Andersson
et al., forthcoming). Parental separation or divorce had also increased. In the
early 2000s, about half of children in the United States and Russia were predicted to experience parental separation (including those born to lone mothers); in many other countries, estimates were between 30% and 40%. Children
born to cohabiting parents have a much higher likelihood of parental separation than children born to married couples. The difference is, however,
decreasing as cohabiting births become more common and cohabitation is
viewed as more like marriage (Andersson et al., forthcoming).
Children experiencing parental separation have a relatively high chance of
acquiring a stepfather within 6 years of the separation and before they reach
age 15— between 30% and 60% (Andersson et al., forthcoming). While the
pace of stepfamily formation seems relatively stable, the percentage of stepfamilies formed by marriage has declined in favor of cohabiting stepfamilies
(Andersson & Philipov, 2002; Andersson et al., forthcoming). Substantial proportions of stepfamily couples have a child together, providing a half-sibling
for children born with previous partners (Thomson et al., 2014). Most estimates of family complexity rely on reports of birth and partnership histories,
Family Complexity and Kinship
3
but only from one parent’s point of view. From the child’s point of view, family complexity is therefore underestimated.
A more complete picture is offered by Swedish administrative registers
that link every person to each of their parents, allowing the identification
of siblings born to the same or different mothers, to the same or different fathers. The percentage of Swedish residents who have at least one
half-sibling increased rather steadily from 15% for those born in 1930s and
1940s to 30% for those born in the 1980s, and then plateaued (Thomson,
2014). Similar increases are likely to be observed in countries with high rates
of parental separation.
Demographers have used rates of partnership, separation, and births to
estimate the number and types of kin available now and in the future. In the
United States, biological kin are declining, primarily due to smaller families,
while step-kin are on the increase (Wachter, 1997). Murphy (2011) predicts a
decline for the UK in the total number of biological siblings and an increase
in former partners, step-relationships, and half-siblings. He argues that
these trends will intensify as parental separation and re-partnering increase,
though plateaus already reached in Sweden suggest some long-term stability
in the mix of kin.
CONSTRUCTING FAMILY AND KINSHIP
The increasing complexity of families and kin networks is part of a larger
trend toward individualization where rights and obligations depend not on
family or kin membership but are inherent in the individual (Björnberg &
Ekbrand, 2008). Nevertheless, families and kin remain important sources
of material, social, and psychological support and are more than a loosely
connected group of individuals. The core of family and kinship in individualistic societies remains the tie between parents and children, well regulated
in law, in most cases supported by the sharing of genes, and strengthened by
long periods of living in the same household. The consanguineal or “blood”
tie between parents and children extends in weaker forms to siblings,
grandparents and grandchildren, aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews,
and cousins. Legal rights and obligations of extended kin are few, however;
only rarely do they share households for any considerable length of time.
The second primary kinship tie is affinal or marital. Marriage links two intimate partners who are usually not related by blood. Their relationship is also
regulated by law and they share a residence. By marriage, each spouse is
linked to the other’s blood kin (in-laws). Again, legal rights and obligations
between in-laws are few, and lengthy co-residence is rare.
When couples have children together, the spouses’ kin become linked by
a combination of blood and marital ties. Parsons (1943) used blood and
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
marital ties as the basis for a model of American kinship, but the model is
applicable to most if not all individualistic societies. He used the metaphor
of an onion. Parents and children comprise the conjugal family at the
onion’s core. Outer layers represent extended blood or marital kin at varying
genealogical distance. Distance is determined by the number of ties—blood
or marriage—that link one kin member to another.
Using this calculus, the parent–child and partner relationships are closest,
linked by a direct blood or marital tie. Full siblings are linked by blood—but
indirectly, from child to parent and parent to sibling, a distance of two.
During childhood, they share a common residence that brings them closer
together, but in adulthood they do not. Grandparents and grandchildren
form the lineal layer of the onion and are also at distance two (grandchild
to parent, parent to grandparent). This is the same distance as the first
layer of marital kin, parents and children-in-law. Aunts and uncles, nieces
and nephews are at genealogical distance three, while first cousins are at
distance four. Parsons (1943) argued that rights and obligations between kin
and family members were ordered by kin distance.
A second system for structuring family and kinship is based on evolutionary theory and genetic relatedness (Pollet, 2007). Biological parents,
full siblings, and children all have the same degree of relatedness because
each shares half their genes with the other family member. Grandparents,
grandchildren, aunts/uncles, and nieces/nephews share one-quarter of their
genes with the corresponding family member; more distant biological kin
are each related to the other at a degree of one-eighth or less. Neither spouses
nor cohabiting partners are at all related from a genetic point of view.
According to evolutionary theory, genetic relatedness provides the motive
for family and kin support—the survival of one’s genetic material in the population. Senior members of the kin network will invest more in junior members with whom they share more genes. Even though they have no genes
in common, partners (and their kin) may also have an incentive to invest
in each other as a means of investing in children, grandchildren, siblings,
nieces, and nephews. Junior members may also invest in senior members
because they may provide care for junior members’ children, siblings, nieces,
and nephews.
The structure of relationships arising from stable nuclear families and their
kin has been observed on a variety of dimensions and generally supports
the onion metaphor. Although spouses are the most likely choice for a
confidant, parents are more likely to be chosen than siblings and siblings
more likely than more distant kin (Hoyt & Babchuk, 1983). In contact and
exchange with kin, parents and children come first, and siblings second
(White, 2001). Similar differences are found between blood kin and in-laws
(Coleman, Ganong, & Cable, 1997; Goetting, 1990). The closer the genetic
Family Complexity and Kinship
5
ties between kin, the more likely they are to rely on each other for emergency
help (Maxwell, Burton-Chellewa, & Dunbarc, 2015) and the further they are
willing to travel to visit each other (Pollet, Roberts, & Rim, 2013).
The structure of family and kin relationships has also been studied from
a normative point of view, that is, what do people in general believe about
rights and obligations to different sorts of kin? A few studies conducted in the
United States are all consistent with Parsons’ onion; obligations are stronger,
the shorter the genealogical distance by blood (Nock, Kingston, & Holian,
2008; Rossi & Rossi, 1990). Similarly, rights and obligations of in-laws are
weaker than those between adult children and their parents (Coleman et al.,
1997), at about the same level as adult siblings (Rossi & Rossi, 1990).
FAMILY AND KINSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF COHABITATION,
DIVORCE, AND COMPLEXITY
Cohabitation presents the first challenge to the rights and obligations that
comprise a structure of family and kinship. Like married partners, cohabiters
are not genetically related but live in the same household. In fact, it is coresidence that defines a cohabiting couple. Until a couple has children, however,
the legal ties between the partners are minimal, no more than those of roommates.
When cohabiting couples have children, their two kinship networks are
connected by blood. From an evolutionary point of view, births to cohabiting
and married couples produce exactly the same set of genetic connections.
From a genealogical point of view, however, the legal tie between the two
parents may be undefined or only loosely defined (Perelli-Harris & Sánchez
Gassen, 2012). Further, if cohabitation is viewed as less permanent than
marriage, evolutionary motives for investment may be lower and rights and
obligations weaker between the “in-laws”.
Consistent with theoretical expectations, cohabiting step-parents are less
likely to be identified as part of the family or household than married
step-parents (Brown & Manning, 2009; Stewart, 2005). Obligations to live
with an elderly single mother are weaker for a cohabiting than for a married
adult child (Seltzer, Lau, & Bianchi, 2012). In the UK and the Netherlands,
cohabiters have lower levels of exchange with partner’s parents (Henz,
2009; Hogerbrugge & Dykstra, 2009), but no differences were found in the
United States and Norway (Chesley & Poppie, 2009; Daatland, 2007; Wiik &
Bernhardt, 2017).
The relative instability of cohabiting unions suggests that their place in
kinship structure may be a preview of the way in which divorce alters kin
rights and obligations. Divorce severs the marital tie but does not alter blood
ties or change the genetic relationship of kin members to one another. From
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
an evolutionary point of view, therefore, divorce should also not alter any
motives for investments in blood kin, but should weaken motives for investments in the ex-partners of blood kin. From a genealogical point of view,
divorce may place former in-laws in the outer circle of friends and neighbors,
with rights and obligations based on personal relationships developed during the period when the parties were kin. When the divorcing couple has children, however, parents-in-law remain grandparents to the couple’s children,
and the same goes for the child’s aunts, uncles, and cousins. Kin relationships
may become less like an onion and more like a chain of onion rings, where
children from previous unions are the links (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994).
Re-partnering also has no implications for kin investment from an evolutionary point of view, but it produces a set of ties to the new partner’s
blood or marital kin. When the new partners already have children, a new
type of marital kin appears, those labeled “step”. If stepfamily couples
have children together, genetics again comes into play with respect to
half-siblings and their partially overlapping, partially separate sets of
blood kin.
The complexity of such relationships has led to the claim that family and
kin relationships are increasingly discretionary and variable (Cherlin &
Furstenberg, 1994), and that kinship has become an achieved status based
on principles of emotions, contact, and exchange that apply to all types
of relationships (Maclean, Drake, & Mckillop, 2016). All is not chaos, of
course. Parent–child relationships are constructed “almost automatically”
(Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994, p. 367). The question is whether anything else
in kinship can be taken for granted or be used as guidelines for relationships
in complex families and kin networks.
Table 1 suggests a possible starting point, building on Parsons (1943)
genealogical onion. The first three rows simply reproduce the onion layers.
Because a step-relationship is indirect, though a marital (or cohabitation) tie, we increase the distance between the corresponding biological
kin by one. For example, step-parents are at distance two from their
step-children (step-parent to parent, parent to child). Note that this puts
the step-relationships at the same distance as an in-law relationship, as
suggested by Cherlin and Furstenberg (1994).
According to the logic of genealogy, an ex-spouse or partner is connected
only through blood ties to a child and the child’s blood ties to the other parent
(1 + 1 = 2). Otherwise, she/he disappears from the kin structure altogether.
The ex’s parents and siblings are also connected to the child’s other parent
only through the child, adding one to the previous count that had been direct
through the marital tie of their child or sibling.
The shaded boxes represent the blood ties of kinship, quite few in relation to
the in-law and step-ties. From an evolutionary point of view, neither current
Family Complexity and Kinship
7
Table 1
Genealogical Distance in Complex Families and Kin Networks
Core (1)
Distance 2
Distance 3
Distance 4
Spouses/partners
Parent–child
Full/half sibling
Grandparent/child
Parent/child-in-law
Step-parent/child
Ex-spouse/partnera
Sibling-in-law
Aunt/uncle
Niece/nephew
Step-sibling
Step-grandparent/child
Step-parent-/child-in-law
Ex-parent-/child-in-lawa
Cousin
Aunt/uncle-in-law
Niece/nephew-in-law
Step-sibling-in-law
Step-aunt/uncle
Step-niece/nephew
Ex-sibling-in-lawa
a Placement
in kin structure only if ex’s had a child together.
nor ex-spouses/partners, in-laws, or any step-kin have an interest in investment, unless there is a motive through the children of a current marriage
or partnership. One other difference from genealogy is that although fulland half-siblings are at distance two (still connected by a common parent),
full siblings have twice as many genes in common as half-siblings and are
therefore predicted to invest more in the relationship.
As predicted by genealogy and genetics, relationships between former
in-laws are weaker than those with current in-laws and are closely tied
to the existence of a blood tie through grandchildren, nieces/nephews,
and so on (Goetting, 1990). Coleman et al. (1997) note that obligations of
maternal grandmothers are explained in terms of help to the mother, while
obligations of paternal grandmothers are explained in terms of help to the
grandchildren. This may explain why obligations of paternal grandmothers
are not viewed as lesser after divorce.
Step-relationships have generated a great deal of research, but mostly in
simple comparisons to the corresponding blood relationship. For example,
step-parents or step-children are frequently excluded from an individual’s
perception of her/his family, while such exclusions are rare in biological
two-parent families (Stewart, 2005; Castrén & Widmer, 2015). Relationships
and exchange with step-kin are almost always reported to be weaker than
in the corresponding blood relationship (Arr’anz Becker, Salzburger, Lois,
& Nauck, 2013; Bressan, Colarelli, & Cavalieri, 2009; White & Reidmann,
1992). Normative obligations toward hypothetical step-kin are also weaker
than those to blood kin (Ganong, Coleman, McDaniel, & Killian, 1998; Hans,
Ganong, & Coleman, 2009). Rossi and Rossi (1990) found that obligations
to hypothetical step-parents were about the same as those to siblings,
consistent with genealogical distances in Table 1.
Relationships with half-siblings are more consistent with the evolutionary theory of kinship than with genealogy. Contact frequency, emotional
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
closeness, and willingness to help are greater for full- than for half-siblings
(Bressan et al., 2009; Pollet, 2007; Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2014; White &
Reidmann, 1992).
Overall, complex family and kin relationships do not seem to be completely
unstructured in terms of rights and obligations. Expectations and behavior
are reasonably consistent with a set of rules based on genealogical distance. In
the case of the most complex family form, however, where families include
half-siblings, two opposing forces are at work. First, half-siblings generate
definitions of family that are more inclusive (Castrén & Widmer, 2015). At the
same time, they represent divisions of rights and obligations toward separate
networks of blood kin.
HOUSEHOLDS—CORESIDENCE AS A KINSHIP TIE
In kin-based societies, couples and children often live with their extended
kin, and coresidence is the outcome of a particular kinship system. In individualistic societies, however, coresidence might more appropriately be viewed
as a third type of kinship tie that can alter the structure of rights and obligations otherwise defined by blood and marriage. This is especially notable for
cohabitation where the family is defined entirely by coresidence before children are born. Coresidence becomes a distinct family tie also after divorce.
Divorced and separated parents do not live in the same household. Their
children may live with one parent and not the other or with both. Some
step-children and step-parents live together, others do not. Some half-siblings
live together, others do not. Although extended kin by blood or marriage
typically do not live in any of these households, their engagement with different types of grandchildren, grandparents, in-laws, aunts, uncles, and cousins
is likely to be structured by who lives with whom.
In step-relationships, coresidence appears to generate rights and
obligations. Coresident step-parents are usually expected to contribute
to the financial support of their step-children (Ganong, Coleman, & Mistina,
1995; Maclean et al., 2016), while non-resident step-parents may not. The
longer step-parents, step-children, and step-siblings have lived together, the
more similar are step-kin to blood kin in relationships or contact (Arr’anz
Becker et al., 2013; Kalmijn, 2013; Marsiglio, 1992; Schmeeckle, Giarrusso,
Feng, & Bengtson, 2006; White & Reidmann, 1992).
Coresidence is also a factor in the rights and obligations toward maternal
versus paternal kin. Even in stable nuclear families with common children,
most mothers are the primary parent, and women take a larger role in
maintaining kin relationships. Thus, the gender-equal structure theorized
by Parsons (1943) has generally in practice tilted somewhat toward maternal
kin. When children live much more often with their mother than their
Family Complexity and Kinship
9
father after separation or divorce, the maternal tilt becomes even stronger,
explaining the greater engagement with former daughters-in-law than
with former sons-in-law (Goetting, 1990). Maternal half-siblings have more
contact than paternal half-siblings (Pollet, 2007), and the longer half-siblings
lived together, the more likely they were to be willing to help even in
extreme situations (Bressan et al., 2009).
THE FUTURE OF COMPLEX FAMILIES AND KINSHIP
There is no doubt that the prevalence of complex families and kin networks
will increase in most affluent societies (Murphy, 2011; Wachter, 1997). Where
complexity has become quite common, its prevalence may be reaching a
plateau. Even at the level achieved in Sweden, however, those with completely nuclear kin networks—no separation, divorce, or re-partnering—will
be a very small part of the population.
Complex family and kin networks might continue to be quite uncommon
in some individualistic societies. From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, the
prevalence of parental separation increased in both Spain and Italy. But it
would have to more than double in order to reach levels already experienced
in the Nordic countries and more than triple to reach levels in the United
States. (Andersson et al., forthcoming). Cohabitation is also likely to remain a
more common feature of family and kinship in northern compared to southern European countries.
The countries where family complexity has increased least and is likely to
remain at lower levels are characterized as strong family, weak state (Reher,
1998). Because the state provides so little, individuals rely much more on families and kin for support. The overall higher level of family/kin rights and
obligations may still, however, be organized in an onion-like kin structure
with stronger ties at closer genetic or genealogical distance. And the organization of step-kin and relationships with former partners presented in Table 1
could still apply.
In weak family, strong state societies, citizens hold a strong moral belief
in the state’s responsibility to meet individual needs (Björnberg & Ekbrand,
2008). Rights and obligations of family and kin arise not from their structural position but depend more on transactions. For example, parents may
elicit support in old age by transmitting “moral capital” to their children
(Silverstein, Conroy, & Gans, 2012). Rights and obligations may be based on
general rules of distributive justice, where justice motives may arise from
emotional closeness (Maclean et al., 2016). The transactional approach to kinship provides no clearer guidelines to simple than to complex families and
kin networks. Where negative emotions and perceptions of injustice arise
from separation and divorce, transactional views of kinship likely hinder
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
the maintenance of ties between children and their non-coresident parents
as well as that parent’s kin.
The evidence we have so far is to some extent consistent with a transactional understanding of family and kinship, but it also suggests some
structure as a basis for expectations and negotiations with family and kin
members. Most research has focused on the structure of parent–child and
step-parent/step-child relationships, rightly so in view of their centrality
in the larger kinship system. Research on the outer layers of Parsons’
onion remains sketchy; ignoring the outer layers essentially equates them
with friends and neighbors where blood and marital ties do not exist and
coresidence is rare.
The third dimension of kinship coresidence also deserves further theoretical and empirical attention. When blood and marital ties correspond
completely with coresidence, it is a redundant feature of family and kinship
structure. When they do not, it has clear implications for actual relationships
and for the general expectations held by others for relationships in complex
family and kin networks. Particularly important is to identify the history
of coresidence with different family and kin members as a source of future
transactional dimensions of the relationship.
The predominance of research on actual living kin is also somewhat
limiting; what people do may not be the same as what they think they
ought to do. The type of research pioneered by Rossi and Rossi (1990)
in which vignettes systematically vary the hypothetical kin position, and
the further development by Ganong et al. (1995) to sequentially provide
additional information about the respective kin, could fruitfully be applied
to the wider set of kin defined by cohabitation, separation and divorce,
remarriage and re-partnering, and stepfamily births. We also need this type
of information for a wider range of societies, particularly for weak states
where the structural bases for family and kinship may be even stronger than
the transactional bases.
By identifying the structure of relationships in complex families and kin
networks—based on blood, marriage, and coresidence—it is possible to
provide the guidelines that many family and kin members seek. Such information could also be useful in furthering the development of laws and other
institutional arrangements to better fit the circumstances of increasingly
diverse types of families and kin.
REFERENCES
Andersson, G. A., & Philipov, D. (2002). Life-table representations of family dynamics in Sweden, Hungary, and 14 other FFS countries: A project of descriptions of
demographic behavior. Demographic Research, 7, 67–144.
Family Complexity and Kinship
11
Andersson, G. A., Thomson, E., & Duntava, A. (forthcoming). Life-table representations of family dynamics in the 21st century. Demographic Research.
Arr’anz Becker, O., Salzburger, V., Lois, N., & Nauck, B. (2013). What narrows the
stepgap? Closeness between parents and adult (step)children in Germany. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 75, 1130–1148.
Björnberg, U., & Ekbrand, H. (2008). Financial and practical kin support in Sweden:
Normative guidelines and practice. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39, 73–95.
Bressan, P., Colarelli, S. M., & Cavalieri, M. B. (2009). Biologically costly altruism
depends on emotional closeness among step but not half or full sibling. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 118–132.
Brown, S. L., & Manning, W. D. (2009). Family boundary ambiguity and the measurement of family structure: The significance of cohabitation. Demography, 46, 85–101.
Castrén, A.-M., & Widmer, E. D. (2015). Insiders and outsiders in stepfamilies:
Adults’ and children’s views on family boundaries. Current Sociology, 63, 35–56.
Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A
reconsideration. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359–381.
Chesley, N., & Poppie, K. (2009). Assisting parents and in-laws: Gender, type of assistance, and couples’ employment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 247–262.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Cable, S. M. (1997). Beliefs about women’s intergenerational family obligations to provide support before and after divorce and remarriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49, 165–176.
Daatland, S. O. (2007). Marital history and intergenerational solidarity: The impact
of divorce and unmarried cohabitation. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 809–825.
Ganong, L. H., Coleman, M., & Mistina, D. (1995). Normative beliefs about parents’
and stepparents’ financial obligations to children following divorce and remarriage. Family Relations, 44, 306–316.
Ganong, L., Coleman, M., McDaniel, A. K., & Killian, T. (1998). Attitudes regarding
obligations to assist an older parent or stepparent following later-life remarriage.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 595–610.
Goetting, A. (1990). Patterns of support among in-laws in the United States: A review
of research. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 67–90.
Hans, J., Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2009). Financial responsibilities toward older
stepparents following divorce and remarriage. Journal of Family and Economic
Issues, 30, 55–66.
Henz, U. (2009). Couples’ provision of informal care for parents and parents-in-law:
Far from sharing equally? Ageing and Society, 29, 369–395.
Hogerbrugge, M. J. A., & Dykstra, P. A. (2009). The family ties of unmarried cohabiting and married persons in the Netherlands. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,
135–145.
Hoyt, D. R., & Babchuk, N. (1983). Adult kinship networks: The selective formation
of intimate ties with kin. Social Forces, 62, 84–101.
Kalmijn, M. (2013). Adult children’s relationships with married parents, divorced
parents, and stepparents: Biology, marriage, or residence? Journal of Marriage and
Family, 75, 1181–1193.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Maclean, M. J., Drake, D., & Mckillop, D. (2016). Perceptions of stepfathers’ obligations to financially support stepchildren. Journal of Family Economic Issues, 37,
285–296.
Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children living at home – parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214.
Maxwell, N., Burton-Chellewa, B., & Dunbarc, R. I. M. (2015). Hamilton’s rule predicts anticipated social support in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 26, 130–137.
Murphy, M. (2011). Effects of the demographic transition on family and kinship networks in Britain. Population and Development Review, 37 (Supplement), 55–80.
Nock, S. L., Kingston, P. W., & Holian, L. M. (2008). The distribution of obligations.
In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, S. M. Bianchi & J. A. Seltzer (Eds.), Intergenerational
caregiving (pp. 279–316). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of the contemporary United States. American
Anthropologist, 45, 22–38.
Perelli-Harris, B., & Sánchez Gassen, N. (2012). How similar are cohabitation and
marriage? Legal approaches to cohabitation across Western Europe. Population and
Development Review, 38, 435–467.
Pollet, T. V. (2007). Genetic relatedness and sibling relationship characteristics in a
modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 176–185.
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Rim, D. (2013). Going that extra mile: Individuals
travel further to maintain face-to-face contact with highly related kin than with
less related kin. PLoS One, 8, e53929.
Reher, D. S. (1998). Family ties in Western Europe: Persistent contrasts. Population
and Development Review, 24, 203–234.
Rossi, A. S., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Of human bonding: Parent–child relations across the
life course. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Schmeeckle, M., Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., & Bengtson, V. L. (2006). What makes someone family? Adult children’s perceptions of current and former stepparents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 595–610.
Seltzer, J. A., Lau, C. Q., & Bianchi, S. M. (2012). Doubling up when times are tough:
A study of obligations to share a home in response to economic hardship. Social
Science Research, 41, 1307–1319.
Silverstein, M., Conroy, S. J., & Gans, D. (2012). Beyond solidarity, reciprocity and
altruism: Moral capital as a unifying concept in intergenerational support for older
people. Ageing & Society, 32, 1246–1262.
Stewart, S. D. (2005). Boundary ambiguity in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Issues, 26,
1002–1029.
Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2014). Genetic relatedness predicts contact frequencies with siblings, nieces and nephews: Results from the generational transmission in Finland Surveys. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 5–11.
Thomson, E. (2014). Family complexity in Europe. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 654, 245–258.
Thomson, E., Lappegård, T., Carlson, M., Evans, A., & Gray, E. (2014). Childbearing
across partnerships in Australia, the United States, Norway and Sweden. Demography, 51, 485–508.
Family Complexity and Kinship
13
Wachter, K. W. (1997). Kinship resources for the elderly. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 352, 1811–1817.
White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: A panel analysis. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 63, 555–568.
White, L., & Reidmann, A. (1992). When the Brady Bunch grows up: Step/half- and
fullsibling relationships in adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 197–208.
Wiik, K. A., & Bernhardt, E. (2017). Cohabiting and married individuals’ relations
with their partner’s parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 1111–1124.
FURTHER READING
Carlson, M. A., & Meyer, D. R. (2014). Family complexity: Setting the context. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 6–11.
Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1999). Changing families, changing responsibilities:
Family obligations following divorce and remarriage. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, C. L. (1990). Perspectives on American kinship in the later 1990s. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62, 623–639.
Seltzer, J. A., & Bianchi, S. (2013). Demographic change and parent–child relationships in adulthood. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 275–290.
Widmer, E., Romney, A. K., & Boyd, J. (1999). Cognitive aspects of step-terms in
American kinship. American Anthropologist, 101, 374–378.
ELIZABETH THOMSON SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Elizabeth Thomson is Professor of Demography Emerita, Stockholm University, and Professor of Sociology Emerita, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. She directs the Linnaeus Center for Social Policy
and Family Dynamics (www.su.se/spade) and is a member of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences. She previously served as Director of the
Center for Demography and Ecology at UW-Madison and of the Stockholm
University Demography Unit. Prof. Thomson has conducted research
on couple childbearing decisions, family structure and child well-being,
sterilization, stepfamily childbearing, and adolescent sexuality. Her current
research focuses on union instability and fertility, cohabitation and family
complexity, and the consequences of joint physical custody for parents and
children. Most of her recent research uses large-scale cross-national surveys
or Nordic population registers.
RELATED ESSAYS
Gender Inequalities in the Home Sociology, Sonja Drobnic̆ and Leah
Ruppanner
Patterns of Attachments across the Lifespan (Psychology), Robyn Fivush and
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Theodore E. A. Waters
Changing Family Patterns (Sociology), Kathleen Gerson and Stacy Torres
Family Relationships and Development (Psychology), Joan E. Grusec
Divorce (Sociology), Juho Härkönen
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
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
The Future of Marriage (Sociology), Elizabeth Aura McClintock
Social Change and Entry to Adulthood (Sociology), Jeylan T. Mortimer
Social Relationships and Health in Older Adulthood (Psychology), Theodore
F. Robles and Josephine A. Menkin
Gender and the Transition to Adulthood: A Diverse Pathways View
(Sociology), Ingrid Schoon
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu