family types essay

11 Types of Family in Sociology (Family Structure Examples)

A family is a group of people related to one another by kinship. More precisely, kinship is a set of socially recognized ties between persons that exist because of their connection by birth or marriage (Firth et al., 1970/2006, p. 3).

Sociologists generally identify the following types of families:

• Nuclear or conjugal (a wife, a husband, and their children),
• matrifocal (a mother and her children),
• patrifocal (a father and his children), and
• extended families (parents, grandparents, children, aunts, uncles, and so on).

In addition to these, there are also:

• patriarchal (male-led),
• matriarchal (female-led),
• blended (mixed parent),
• egalitarian (equal),
• compound (three or more spouses and their children),
• joint families.

This article will focus on the eight most common types of families. These are the nuclear, extended, blended compound, patriarchal, matriarchal, egalitarian , and single-parent families.

Family Structures in Sociology

Historically, most human societies are built around family structures, which are believed to be the building blocks of a society.

One of the most important studies of the sociology of the family, Family: Socialization, and Interaction Process (Bales & Parsons, 1955/2014), claims that a sociological approach to families should construe them not simply as natural entities but as social systems.

In sociology and anthropology , it is common to classify family organizations into different categories.

8 Types of Family in Sociology

1. nuclear family.

A conjugal or nuclear family is one of the most common in society. It comprises a married heterosexual couple and their young children living by themselves.

Some sociologists, such as George P. Murdock, consider this type of structure a universal one (Murdock, 1949). He attributes this to the efficiency of the nuclear family. According to Murdock, such families are very good at regulating sexual relationships, reproducing, and socializing children.

The advantages of a nuclear family structure might be mobility and economic independence. Some have even claimed that nuclear families are becoming more and more egalitarian.

This thesis is often rejected by feminist authors who claim that the main disadvantage of such a structure is its oppressive nature (Barthel, 1994, p. 174).

A famous example of a nuclear family would be the pastor’s family from Michael Haneke’s 2009 movie The White Ribbon . The family consists of a father, a mother, and their children.

2. Extended Family

Extended families consist of parents, children, and other relatives such as grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, and so on.

This was the most widespread family structure in preindustrial societies and continues to be as common in contemporary ones (Murdock & White, 1969). Particular forms of an extended family include stem and joint families.

A greater sense of security and belonging might be the main advantage of an extended family. Extended family members tend to gather for family events and provide support for each other. The main disadvantage of such a structure is that membership entails greater responsibilities toward a larger number of people.

A famous example of an extended family would be the fictional Compson family from William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury . The family consists of grandparents, parents, children, and their children.

3. Reconstituted (Blended) Family

A reconstructed or blended family, also known as a stepfamily, is a family where at least one parent has children that are not biologically related to the other parent.

Both parents can also have children from previous relationships. These types of families, therefore, can be further divided into two types:

• Simple reconstituted families and
• Complex reconstituted families.

Families in which only one parent has a prior child or children belong to the former category, while those in which both parents have prior children belong to the latter category.

Such families involve some serious challenges. Parents who constantly fight their ex-spouse tend to put mental and emotional stress on their children, while parents who do not tend to make their current spouse insecure and anxious (DeAngelis, 2005).

A famous example of a blended or reconstructed family would be the family from Wes Anderson’s 2001 movie The Royal Tenenbaums .

4. Compound Family

A compound family is a type of structure that consists of three or more spouses and their children. It is, of course, characteristic of polygamous societies, but it can also arise in monogamous ones through a second marriage.

In the latter case, a compound family is a form of a reconstituted or a blended family and can be either simple or complex.

A famous example of a compound family is the one from the 2009 movie A Serious Man by the Cohen brothers. The family consists of a husband, a wife, their children, and the wife’s soon-to-be new husband.

5. Patriarchal Family

A patriarchal family is one in which the father or a male has absolute authority over the family.

Patriarchal societies and families have historically been very common, but contemporary anthropologists and sociologists believe that it is not the cultural universal as it was once thought to be (Britannica, 2022).

Shulamith Firestone, for example, believed that the family contained within itself all the antagonisms that later develop on a wider scale in society, which is why she believed that patriarchal family structures should be uprooted (Firestone, 1970).

A famous example of a patriarchal family in a contemporary setting is the family from Terrence Malick’s 2011 movie The Tree of Life .

6. Matriarchal Family

A matriarchal family is one in which the mother or a female has absolute authority over the family.

These kinds of structures are rarer than patriarchal ones, but they have existed across history and continue to exist today. Others classify some egalitarian families as matriarchal (Lepowsky, 1993).

A famous example of a matriarchal family is the family from Federico García Lorca’s 1936 play The House of Bernarda Alba . The family consists of a matriarchal widow and her five children.

7. Egalitarian Family

Although it is debatable whether or not strictly egalitarian families exist, they are defined as those families in which fathers and mothers share authority equally.

They are more typical of post-industrial Western societies, but relatively egalitarian families exist outside of those countries as well. This type of family structure is becoming more and more common across the globe.

An example of a relatively egalitarian family might be the family from the 2021 TV series Scenes from a Marriage .

8. Single Parent Family

Single-parent or one-parent families differ from nuclear families in that they consist only of one parent and their child or children.

Rising divorce rates contribute to the growth of this type of family structure, but single-parent families have been quite common throughout most of human history (Murdock & White, 1969).

A famous example of a single-parent family is the one from the 2001 movie I Am Sam. In the movie, a man has to raise his daughter alone.

The Role of Families in Society

The role that family structures play in society can hardly be overstated. Émile Durkheim, one of the most important theorists concerning the sociology of the family and sociology in general, thought that family structures served several vital functions in societies (Durkheim, 1888/2002).

Functionalists stress how the family as a social institution sustains societies (Turner, 2006, pp. 189-195). These functions include the socialization of children, regulation of sexual activity, provision of social identities, provision of support, and intergenerational reproduction of cultural values .

A family is one of the most fundamental structures in society. Some form of the family has existed in virtually every society we know about (Starbuck, 2010).

Nevertheless, not all families are alike. Many different types of families have existed and continue to exist today. All types of families can more or less successfully fulfill their functions. In this article, we began with a general definition and then discussed the eight most common types of family structures.

Bales, R. F., & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and Interaction Process . Routledge. (Original work published 1955)

Barthel, D. L. (1994). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology . Oxford University Press.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2022, September 7). patriarchy. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriarchy

DeAngelis, T. (2005, December 1). Stepfamily success depends on ingredients. Monitor on Psychology , 36 (11). https://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/stepfamily

Durkheim, É. (2002). Introduction à la sociologie de la famille: Fonctions sociales et institutions . J.-M. Tremblay. (Original work published 1888)

Firestone, S. (1970). The Dialectic of Sex . Quill.

Firth, H., Forge, A., & Hubert, J. (2006). Families and their Relatives . Routledge. (Original work published 1970)

Lepowsky, M. A. (1993). Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society . Columbia University Press.

Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure . Macmillan Company.

Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8 , 329–369.

Starbuck, G. H. (2010). Families in context (2nd ed.). Paradigm.

Turner, B. S. (2006). The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology . Cambridge University Press.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 7 Key Features of 21st Century Learning
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Sociocultural Theory of Learning in the Classroom
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ The 4 Principles of Pragmatism in Education
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 17 Deep Processing Examples

3 thoughts on “11 Types of Family in Sociology (Family Structure Examples)”

Hey Chris! Don’t forget adoption in your family definition. Sociologists define family as people related by biology, marriage, or adoption.

Agreed. Thanks for the contribution Laura.

This information was helpful to me, and not only that, it is well analized and detailed in a way that anyone can easily understand the content of the work.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Six Family Types And Their Unique Dynamics

Different family types are not only common but also much more accepted than they were in the past. It's not uncommon to be raised by a single mother or be part of a mixed family. Each family type (there are six main ones that people agree on) has a unique family dynamic. 

Learning about your family type and thinking about how it affects your family dynamic can help bring you clarity about your family challenges or give you insight into the process of going through a big shift in your family structure. Looking at family type and dynamics can also give you a better idea of the strengths and weaknesses that your family is likely working with. 

Some people may also choose to begin  parenting classes  or  online therapy  to deepen their understanding of family dynamics.

Six different family types and their unique family dynamics

Though the exact definition of a family depends largely on individual interpretations and cultural norms, there are some sources that define at least six unique family types that follow their own set of dynamics and structures.

1. Nuclear family

Nuclear families, also known as  elementary  or traditional families, consist of two parents (usually married or common law) and their children. Nuclear families typically have one or more children; they may be biological or adopted, but the main idea is that the parents are raising their kids together in the family home.

Nuclear families can be strong and successful, with both parents being great examples for their kids. These kids often have many advantages over other families with less, which can help them get ahead in life. However, like any family, nuclear families have their struggles to face. For example, if parents shut out grandparents and other extended family, chances are their support system will not be strong and getting through hard times can be challenging.

Strengths of nuclear families

• Financially stable, both parents usually work now
• Children raised in a stable parenting situation
• Consistency
• Emphasis on health and education
• Focus on communication

Weaknesses of nuclear families

• Exclusion of extended family can lead to isolation and stress
• Can struggle with conflict resolution
• Nuclear families can become too child-focused, resulting in self-centered children and families neglecting other important things

2. Single parent

Single-parent families consist of one parent with one or more kids. In these cases, the parent either never married, widowed, or divorced. A paper by Ellwood, D.T., and Jencks, C. (2004) talks about how single-parent families have been on the rise since the 1960s when divorce rates started going up (and so did births happening out of wedlock). They suggest that these changes could be due to many different factors, from leaving behind outdated gender roles to feeling comfortable being independent and achieving the goal of raising a child, regardless of the presence of a spouse or not.

Someone who is  single parenting and raising kids alone is not that uncommon anymore, and like any other family type, single-parent homes have their pros and cons. Being a single parent raising kids can be hard. It can also be hard being a kid when your parents are split up or if you grew up only knowing one parent. In this situation, families need to make the best of what they have and rely on each other for love and support. 

Strengths of single-parent families

• Family can become very close
• Learn to household duties
• Children and parents can become very resilient

Weaknesses of single-parent families

• Families may have difficulty getting by on one income
• It can be difficult for single parents to work full-time and still afford quality childcare

3. Extended family

While most people in the U.S. would identify nuclear families as being the "traditional" family type, in different cultures, extended families are much more common and have been around for hundreds of years. Extended families are families with two or more adults who are related through blood or marriage, usually along with children. This often includes aunts, uncles, cousins, or other relatives living under the same roof.

Typically, extended families live together for social support and to achieve common goals. For example, parents may live with their children and their children's grandparents. This gives the family the ability to provide care for their elderly, and in turn, the grandparents may be able to help with childcare while the parents are at work.

In North America, extended families living together isn't that common, but it does happen occasionally. What's nice about extended families is how close they can be and how they give each other a lot of support. That doesn't mean that so much family living together is always easy, though. There can be differences in opinion in extended families, and some people might live this way because they are obligated, not because they want to.

Strengths of extended families

• Things like respect and care for the elderly are important
• More family around to help with chores, child care, in case of emergencies, etc.
• Social support

Weaknesses of extended families

• Financial issues can occur if parents are supporting several other adults and children without any extra income
• Lack of secludedness depending on the living environment

4. Childless family

Childless families are families with two partners who cannot have or don't want kids. In the world of family types and dynamics, these families are often forgotten or left out (even though you can still have a family without children). In the past, growing up, getting married, and having children was the norm, but in today's world, more people are choosing to postpone having children or deciding not to have any.

These unique families include working couples who may have pets or enjoy taking on other people's kids (like nieces and nephews) for the day occasionally rather than having their own. They could also be adventurous couples who don't feel like kids would be a good fit for their lifestyle. These relationships can be between wife and husband, husband and husband, wife and wife, or partner and partner.

The decision of whether to have kids is a difficult and highly personal one. Having kids isn't for everyone, and some families do great without them. Still, it's important to remember that some childless families are not childless because they want to be. Be kind before you assume about someone's family unit, as a number of people may be in a childless family due to infertility, or have sensitivity regarding the topic of children in general.

Strengths of childless families

• Typically have more disposable income
• No dependents to take care of
• Have more freedom to travel, go on adventures, pursue different careers or education
• Couples get to spend more time together

Weaknesses of childless families

Couples can feel isolated or left out when all their friends/family start having kids

If you like kids, you can feel like something is missing

Infertility can force a family to be childless, which can be hard for couples

5. Stepfamily

A stepfamily is when two separate families merge into one. This can go several different ways, like two divorced parents with one or more children blending families, or one divorced parent with kids marrying someone who has never been married and has no kids.

Like single-parent families, step-families have become more common over the years. Like all these different family types, stepfamilies also have a unique set of strengths and weaknesses that they need to deal with.

Going from a nuclear or single-parent family to a stepfamily can be a tough transition. It can be hard letting new people into your family dynamic, especially welcoming in a whole other family. Over time though, some children will come to accept their stepparents and step-siblings as part of the family and form strong bonds. This often also requires co-parenting of adoptive kids and can increase the number of people each partner has to look after or care for in the family unit. 

Co-parenting is somewhat different from  parallel parenting . Even if both procedures allow both parents to be in charge of custody and parental obligations, co-parenting entails cooperation, plenty of communication, and a collaborative approach to parenting, compared to parallel parenting wherein there's limited direct contact with each other. Step-grand-parents might also be involved in this dynamic, as there are many variations and a wide spread of how far a stepfamily can go.

Strengths of stepfamilies

• Children get the benefit of having two parents around
• Children and their new siblings or step-parents can form strong bonds
• The benefit of having two incomes compared to single-parent families

Weaknesses of stepfamilies

• Adjustment can be difficult for parents and children
• Parents can run into problems trying to discipline each other's kids
• May lack discipline or be inconsistent

6. Grandparent family

The final family type is the grandparent family. A grandparent family is when one or more grandparent is raising their grandchild or grandchildren. While uncommon, according to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy , grandparent-headed families are on the rise. They that, "Census study indicate that in the United States approximately 2.4 million grandparents are raising 4.5 million children."

This situation happens when the parents aren't around to take care of their kids or are incapable of properly taking care of their kids. For example, the parents might be incarcerated, too young to provide, may have a substance use disorder, or possibly due to the parent’s death. Thankfully, in these situations, the grandparents step up and act as parents to their grandchildren. This family unit can happen regardless of being wealthy, poor, or middle-class. 

If you are struggling with substance use, contact the SAMHSA National Helpline at (800) 662-4357 to receive support and resources. Support is available 24/7.

It can be hard for grandparents to raise their grandchildren. In most cases, they probably thought they were done raising kids and might not have the health and energy to do so. Still, when needed, many grandparents step up and do what's needed. 

Strengths of grandparent families

• Grandparents and grandchildren form a close bond
• Keeps children from ending up in foster homes or other situations

Weaknesses of grandparent families

• Grandparents may not work or have full-time jobs, may struggle with income
• Depending on their health, it may be difficult for them to keep up with young children or discipline them as they get older

Online therapy can be an especially good option for families for whom travel is difficult or who would rather meet in the comfort of their home to discuss their concerns and work together to improve their family dynamics. Research suggests that online therapy is just as effective as its in-person counterpart for a range of concerns and treatments, meaning that you don’t have to compromise on the quality of your care for its convenience.

Whether you are in a same-sex family, have  interracial relationship history , a binuclear family, a multigenerational family unit, or have parents who are polyamorous, have a large family, or have a small one, each family is unique in its own way.

What are the ten family structures?

There are various types of family structures. Examples of ten family structures include nuclear, single-parent, extended, childless, stepfamily, grandparent, same-sex, polyamorous, binuclear, and multigenerational families. Each structure has different dynamics and characteristics that are generally determined by the relationships or roles within the family. 

What is the most common family type?

The most common family type is the nuclear family, which consists of two parents (married or common law) and their children. This family structure is traditionally seen as the standard and is still the default family type in many societies. However, cultural and societal changes are leading to other types of families that are becoming more common.

What is the rarest family structure?

The rarest family structure could be considered the polyamorous family, in which adults have consensual romantic relationships with multiple partners. This structure is less common due to legal, cultural, and social norms that typically promote monogamous relationships. Its rarity may also come from how complex and challenging it can be to have multiple romantic partnerships at the same time.

What is the ideal family type?

There is no universally ideal family type, as each family structure has strengths and challenges. The ideal family type can also differ on a cultural, societal, and personal level. However, one of the key aspects of a functional family is a loving, supportive environment where family members feel valued and connected.

Are bigger families more dysfunctional?

Bigger families are not inherently more dysfunctional. Problems can occur in families of any size and can arise due to unhealthy communication and a lack of support. For this reason, healthy family dynamics depend more on the quality of relationships and effective communication than on the size of the family.

What is a chaotic family?

A chaotic family might be characterized by a lack of structure, inconsistent routines, and unpredictable behavior. In a chaotic environment, family members may experience more stress and confusion. Chaos in the family may also lead to emotional and psychological problems.

Are poorer families happier?

A family’s financial status is not the sole predictor of their happiness. While poorer families may experience financial challenges, they may also have strong bonds and high levels of emotional support, which may bring some level of happiness. However, limited family income may directly affect emotional well-being . 

What is the happiest family structure?

The happiest family structure varies based on preferences, relationship dynamics, and culture. In general, family members that feel loved, respected, and supported report higher levels of happiness. This can occur in any family structure, as long as there are positive relationships and effective communication .

How many siblings make kids happiest?

There is no set number of siblings that guarantees happiness for kids. Happiness in sibling relationships depends more on the quality of the relationships rather than the quantity of siblings. For example, a child with one supportive sibling may be happier than a child with several siblings but poor relationships.

What is the best age gap between siblings?

The best sibling age gap can differ based on family circumstances and personal preferences. Some reports suggest that a two-to-four-year gap may be beneficial, allowing parents to devote individual attention to each child while maintaining a relatively close age for siblings to bond. However, every family is different, and the ideal age gap depends on various factors, including individual preferences and family dynamics.

• Birth Order Theory: Insights Into Your Personality Medically reviewed by Karen Foster , LPC
• How Domestic Violence Impacts Society Medically reviewed by Melissa Guarnaccia , LCSW
• Relationships and Relations

Essay about Family: What It Is and How to Nail It

Humans naturally seek belonging within families, finding comfort in knowing someone always cares. Yet, families can also stir up insecurities and mental health struggles.

Family dynamics continue to intrigue researchers across different fields. Every year, new studies explore how these relationships shape our minds and emotions.

In this article, our dissertation service will guide you through writing a family essay. You can also dive into our list of topics for inspiration and explore some standout examples to spark your creativity.

What is Family Essay

A family essay takes a close look at the bonds and experiences within families. It's a common academic assignment, especially in subjects like sociology, psychology, and literature.

So, what's involved exactly? Simply put, it's an exploration of what family signifies to you. You might reflect on cherished family memories or contemplate the portrayal of families in various media.

What sets a family essay apart is its personal touch. It allows you to express your own thoughts and experiences. Moreover, it's versatile – you can analyze family dynamics, reminisce about family customs, or explore other facets of familial life.

If you're feeling uncertain about how to write an essay about family, don't worry; you can explore different perspectives and select topics that resonate with various aspects of family life.

Tips For Writing An Essay On Family Topics

A family essay typically follows a free-form style, unless specified otherwise, and adheres to the classic 5-paragraph structure. As you jot down your thoughts, aim to infuse your essay with inspiration and the essence of creative writing, unless your family essay topics lean towards complexity or science.

Here are some easy-to-follow tips from our essay service experts:

• Focus on a Specific Aspect: Instead of a broad overview, delve into a specific angle that piques your interest, such as exploring how birth order influences sibling dynamics or examining the evolving role of grandparents in modern families.
• Share Personal Anecdotes: Start your family essay introduction with a personal touch by sharing stories from your own experiences. Whether it's about a favorite tradition, a special trip, or a tough time, these stories make your writing more interesting.
• Use Real-life Examples: Illustrate your points with concrete examples or anecdotes. Draw from sources like movies, books, historical events, or personal interviews to bring your ideas to life.
• Explore Cultural Diversity: Consider the diverse array of family structures across different cultures. Compare traditional values, extended family systems, or the unique hurdles faced by multicultural families.
• Take a Stance: Engage with contentious topics such as homeschooling, reproductive technologies, or governmental policies impacting families. Ensure your arguments are supported by solid evidence.
• Delve into Psychology: Explore the psychological underpinnings of family dynamics, touching on concepts like attachment theory, childhood trauma, or patterns of dysfunction within families.
• Emphasize Positivity: Share uplifting stories of families overcoming adversity or discuss strategies for nurturing strong, supportive family bonds.
• Offer Practical Solutions: Wrap up your essay by proposing actionable solutions to common family challenges, such as fostering better communication, achieving work-life balance, or advocating for family-friendly policies.

Family Essay Topics

When it comes to writing, essay topics about family are often considered easier because we're intimately familiar with our own families. The more you understand about your family dynamics, traditions, and experiences, the clearer your ideas become.

If you're feeling uninspired or unsure of where to start, don't worry! Below, we have compiled a list of good family essay topics to help get your creative juices flowing. Whether you're assigned this type of essay or simply want to explore the topic, these suggestions from our history essay writer are tailored to spark your imagination and prompt meaningful reflection on different aspects of family life.

So, take a moment to peruse the list. Choose the essay topics about family that resonate most with you. Then, dive in and start exploring your family's stories, traditions, and connections through your writing.

• Supporting Family Through Tough Times
• Staying Connected with Relatives
• Empathy and Compassion in Family Life
• Strengthening Bonds Through Family Gatherings
• Quality Time with Family: How Vital Is It?
• Navigating Family Relationships Across Generations
• Learning Kindness and Generosity in a Large Family
• Communication in Healthy Family Dynamics
• Forgiveness in Family Conflict Resolution
• Building Trust Among Extended Family
• Defining Family in Today's World
• Understanding Nuclear Family: Various Views and Cultural Differences
• Understanding Family Dynamics: Relationships Within the Family Unit
• What Defines a Family Member?
• Modernizing the Nuclear Family Concept
• Exploring Shared Beliefs Among Family Members
• Evolution of the Concept of Family Love Over Time
• Examining Family Expectations
• Modern Standards and the Idea of an Ideal Family
• Life Experiences and Perceptions of Family Life
• Genetics and Extended Family Connections
• Utilizing Family Trees for Ancestral Links
• The Role of Younger Siblings in Family Dynamics
• Tracing Family History Through Oral Tradition and Genealogy
• Tracing Family Values Through Your Family Tree
• Exploring Your Elder Sister's Legacy in the Family Tree
• Connecting Daily Habits to Family History
• Documenting and Preserving Your Family's Legacy
• Navigating Online Records and DNA Testing for Family History
• Tradition as a Tool for Family Resilience
• Involving Family in Daily Life to Maintain Traditions
• Creating New Traditions for a Small Family
• The Role of Traditions in Family Happiness
• Family Recipes and Bonding at House Parties
• Quality Time: The Secret Tradition for Family Happiness
• The Joy of Cousins Visiting for Christmas
• Including Family in Birthday Celebrations
• Balancing Traditions and Unconditional Love
• Building Family Bonds Through Traditions

Looking for Speedy Assistance With Your College Essays?

Reach out to our skilled writers, and they'll provide you with a top-notch paper that's sure to earn an A+ grade in record time!

Family Essay Example

For a better grasp of the essay on family, our team of skilled writers has crafted a great example. It looks into the subject matter, allowing you to explore and understand the intricacies involved in creating compelling family essays. So, check out our meticulously crafted sample to discover how to craft essays that are not only well-written but also thought-provoking and impactful.

Final Outlook

In wrapping up, let's remember: a family essay gives students a chance to showcase their academic skills and creativity by sharing personal stories. However, it's important to stick to academic standards when writing about these topics. We hope our list of topics sparked your creativity and got you on your way to a reflective journey. And if you hit a rough patch, you can just ask us to ' do my essay for me ' for top-notch results!

Having Trouble with Your Essay on the Family?

Our expert writers are committed to providing you with the best service possible in no time!

FAQs on Writing an Essay about Family

Family essays seem like something school children could be assigned at elementary schools, but family is no less important than climate change for our society today, and therefore it is one of the most central research themes.

Below you will find a list of frequently asked questions on family-related topics. Before you conduct research, scroll through them and find out how to write an essay about your family.

How to Write an Essay About Your Family History?

How to write an essay about a family member, how to write an essay about family and roots, how to write an essay about the importance of family.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Family, culture, and communication.

• V. Santiago Arias V. Santiago Arias College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University
•  and  Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.504
• Published online: 22 August 2017

Through the years, the concept of family has been studied by family therapists, psychology scholars, and sociologists with a diverse theoretical framework, such as family communication patterns (FCP) theory, dyadic power theory, conflict, and family systems theory. Among these theories, there are two main commonalities throughout its findings: the interparental relationship is the core interaction in the familial system because the quality of their communication or coparenting significantly affects the enactment of the caregiver role while managing conflicts, which are not the exception in the familial setting. Coparenting is understood in its broader sense to avoid an extensive discussion of all type of families in our society. Second, while including the main goal of parenting, which is the socialization of values, this process intrinsically suggests cultural assimilation as the main cultural approach rather than intergroup theory, because intercultural marriages need to decide which values are considered the best to be socialized. In order to do so, examples from the Thai culture and Hispanic and Latino cultures served to show cultural assimilation as an important mediator of coparenting communication patterns, which subsequently affect other subsystems that influence individuals’ identity and self-esteem development in the long run. Finally, future directions suggest that the need for incorporating a nonhegemonic one-way definition of cultural assimilation allows immigration status to be brought into the discussion of family communication issues in the context of one of the most diverse countries in the world.

• parental communication
• dyadic power
• family communication systems
• cultural assimilation

Introduction

Family is the fundamental structure of every society because, among other functions, this social institution provides individuals, from birth until adulthood, membership and sense of belonging, economic support, nurturance, education, and socialization (Canary & Canary, 2013 ). As a consequence, the strut of its social role consists of operating as a system in a manner that would benefit all members of a family while achieving what is considered best, where decisions tend to be coherent, at least according to the norms and roles assumed by family members within the system (Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2004 ). Notwithstanding, the concept of family can be interpreted differently by individual perceptions to an array of cultural backgrounds, and cultures vary in their values, behaviors, and ideas.

The difficulty of conceptualizing this social institution suggests that family is a culture-bound phenomenon (Bales & Parsons, 2014 ). In essence, culture represents how people view themselves as part of a unique social collective and the ensuing communication interactions (Olaniran & Roach, 1994 ); subsequently, culture provides norms for behavior having a tremendous impact on those family members’ roles and power dynamics mirrored in its communication interactions (Johnson, Radesky, & Zuckerman, 2013 ). Thus, culture serves as one of the main macroframeworks for individuals to interpret and enact those prescriptions, such as inheritance; descent rules (e.g., bilateral, as in the United States, or patrilineal); marriage customs, such as ideal monogamy and divorce; and beliefs about sexuality, gender, and patterns of household formation, such as structure of authority and power (Weisner, 2014 ). For these reasons, “every family is both a unique microcosm and a product of a larger cultural context” (Johnson et al., 2013 , p. 632), and the analysis of family communication must include culture in order to elucidate effective communication strategies to solve familial conflicts.

In addition, to analyze familial communication patterns, it is important to address the most influential interaction with regard to power dynamics that determine the overall quality of family functioning. In this sense, within the range of family theories, parenting function is the core relationship in terms of power dynamics. Parenting refers to all efforts and decisions made by parents individually to guide their children’s behavior. This is a pivotal function, but the quality of communication among people who perform parenting is fundamental because their internal communication patterns will either support or undermine each caregiver’s parenting attempts, individually having a substantial influence on all members’ psychological and physical well-being (Schrodt & Shimkowski, 2013 ). Subsequently, parenting goes along with communication because to execute all parenting efforts, there must be a mutual agreement among at least two individuals to conjointly take care of the child’s fostering (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004 ). Consequently, coparenting serves as a crucial predictor of the overall family atmosphere and interactions, and it deserves special attention while analyzing family communication issues.

Through the years, family has been studied by family therapists, psychology scholars, and sociologists, but interaction behaviors define the interpersonal relationship, roles, and power within the family as a system (Rogers, 2006 ). Consequently, family scholarship relies on a wide range of theories developed within the communication field and in areas of the social sciences (Galvin, Braithwaite, & Bylund, 2015 ) because analysis of communication patterns in the familial context offers more ecological validity that individuals’ self-report measures. As many types of interactions may happen within a family, there are many relevant venues (i.e., theories) for scholarly analysis on this subject, which will be discussed later in this article in the “ Family: Theoretical Perspectives ” section. To avoid the risk of cultural relativeness while defining family, this article characterizes family as “a long-term group of two or more people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties and who enact those ties through ongoing interactions providing instrumental and/or emotional support” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 5).

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the most relevant theories in family communication to identify frustrations and limitations with internal communication. Second, as a case in point, the United States welcomes more than 50 million noncitizens as temporary visitors and admits approximately 1 million immigrants to live as lawful residents yearly (Fullerton, 2014 ), this demographic pattern means that nearly one-third of the population (102 million) comes from different cultural backgrounds, and therefore, the present review will incorporate culture as an important mediator for coparenting, so that future research can be performed to find specific techniques and training practices that are more suitable for cross-cultural contexts.

Family: Theoretical Perspectives

Even though the concept of family can be interpreted individually and differently in different cultures, there are also some commonalities, along with communication processes, specific roles within families, and acceptable habits of interactions with specific family members disregarding cultural differences. This section will provide a brief overview of the conceptualization of family through the family communication patterns (FCP) theory, dyadic power theory, conflict, and family systems theory, with a special focus on the interparental relationship.

Family Communication Patterns Theory

One of the most relevant approaches to address the myriad of communication issues within families is the family communication patterns (FCP) theory. Originally developed by McLeod and Chaffee ( 1973 ), this theory aims to understand families’ tendencies to create stable and predictable communication patterns in terms of both relational cognition and interpersonal behavior (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2005 ). Specifically, this theory focuses on the unique and amalgamated associations derived from interparental communication and its impact on parenting quality to determine FCPs and the remaining interactions (Young & Schrodt, 2016 ).

To illustrate FCP’s focus on parental communication, Schrodt, Witt, and Shimkowski ( 2014 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 74 studies (N = 14,255) to examine the associations between the demand/withdraw family communication patterns of interaction, and the subsequent individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. The cumulative evidence suggests that wife demand/husband withdraw and husband demand/wife withdraw show similar moderate correlations with communicative and psychological well-being outcomes, and even higher when both patterns are taken together (at the relational level). This is important because one of the main tenets of FCP is that familial relationships are drawn on the pursuit of coorientation among members. Coorientation refers to the cognitive process of two or more individuals focusing on and assessing the same object in the same material and social context, which leads to a number of cognitions as the number of people involved, which results in different levels of agreement, accuracy, and congruence (for a review, see Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005 ); for example, in dyads that are aware of their shared focus, two different cognitions of the same issue will result.

Hereafter, the way in which these cognitions are socialized through power dynamics determined socially and culturally by roles constitutes specific interdependent communication patterns among family members. For example, Koerner and Fitzpatrick ( 2006 ) provide a taxonomy of family types on the basis of coorientation and its impact on communication pattern in terms of the degree of conformity in those conversational tendencies. To wit, consensual families mostly agree for the sake of the hierarchy within a given family and to explore new points of view; pluralistic families allow members to participate equally in conversations and there is no pressure to control or make children’s decisions; protective families maintain the hierarchy by making decisions for the sake of achieving common family goals; and laissez-faire families, which are low in conversation and conformity orientation, allow family members to not get deeply involved in the family.

The analysis of family communication patterns is quintessential for family communication scholarly work because it influences forming an individual’s self concept in the long run. As a case in point, Young and Schrodt ( 2016 ) surveyed 181 young adults from intact families, where conditional and interaction effects between communication patterns and conformity orientation were observed as the main predictors of future romantic partners. Moreover, this study concluded that FCPs and interparental confirmation are substantial indicators of self-to-partner confirmation, after controlling for reciprocity of confirmation within the romantic relationship. As a consequence, FCP influences children’s and young adults’ perceptions of romantic behavior (e.g., Fowler, Pearson, & Beck, 2010 ); the quality of communication behavior, such as the degree of acceptation of verbal aggression in romantic dyads (e.g., Aloia & Solomon, 2013 ); gender roles; and conflict styles (e.g., Taylor & Segrin, 2010 ), and parental modeling (e.g., Young & Schrodt, 2016 ).

This suggests three important observations. First, family is a very complex interpersonal context, in which communication processes, specific roles within families, and acceptable habits of interactions with specific family members interact as subsystems (see Galvin et al., 2004 ; Schrodt & Shimkowski, 2013 ). Second, among those subsystems, the core interaction is the individuals who hold parenting roles (i.e., intact and post divorced families); the couple (disregarding particular sexual orientations), and, parenting roles have a reciprocal relationship over time (Le, McDaniel, Leavitt, & Feinberg, 2016 ). Communication between parenting partners is crucial for the development of their entire family; for example, Schrodt and Shimkowski ( 2013 ) conducted a survey with 493 young adult children from intact (N = 364) and divorced families (N = 129) about perceptions of interparental conflict that involves triangulation (the impression of being in the “middle” and feeling forced to display loyalty to one of the parents). Results suggest that supportive coparental communication positively predicts relational satisfaction with mothers and fathers, as well as mental health; on the other hand, antagonist and hostile coparental communication predicted negative marital satisfaction.

Consequently, “partners’ communication with one another will have a positive effect on their overall view of their marriage, . . . and directly result[ing in] their views of marital satisfaction” (Knapp & Daly, 2002 , p. 643). Le et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate the reciprocal relationship between marital interaction and coparenting from the perspective of both parents in terms of support or undermining across the transition to parenthood from a dyadic perspective; 164 cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child were analyzed from pregnancy until 36 months after birth. Both parents’ interdependence was examined in terms of three variables: gender difference analysis, stability over time in marriage and coparenting, and reciprocal associations between relationship quality and coparenting support or undermining. The findings suggest a long-term reciprocal association between relationship quality and coparenting support or undermining in heterosexual families; the quality of marriage relationship during prenatal stage is highly influential in coparenting after birth for both men and women; but, coparenting is connected to romantic relationship quality only for women.

Moreover, the positive association between coparenting and the parents’ relationship relates to the spillover hypothesis, which posits that the positive or negative factors in the parental subsystem are significantly associated with higher or lower marital satisfaction in the spousal subsystem, respectively. Ergo, overall parenting performance is substantially affected by the quality of marital communication patterns.

Dyadic Power

In addition, after analyzing the impact of marital interaction quality in families on marital satisfaction and future parental modeling, it is worth noting that marital satisfaction and coparenting are importantly mediated by power dynamics within the couple (Halstead, De Santis, & Williams, 2016 ), and even mediates marital commitment (e.g., Lennon, Stewart, & Ledermann, 2013 ). If the quality of interpersonal relationship between those individuals who hold parenting roles determines coparenting quality as well, then the reason for this association lies on the fact that virtually all intimate relationships are substantially characterized by power dynamics; when partners perceive more rewards than costs in the relationship, they will be more satisfied and significantly more committed to the relationship (Lennon et al., 2013 ). As a result, the inclusion of power dynamics in the analysis of family issues becomes quintessential.

For the theory of dyadic power, power in its basic sense includes dominance, control, and influence over others, as well as a means to meet survival needs. When power is integrated into dyadic intimate relationships, it generates asymmetries in terms of interdependence between partners due to the quality of alternatives provided by individual characteristics such as socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics such as gender roles. This virtually gives more power to men than women. Power refers to “the feeling derived from the ability to dominate, or control, the behavior, affect, and cognitions of another person[;] in consequence, this concept within the interparental relationship is enacted when one partner who controls resources and limiting the behavioral options of the other partner” (Lennon et al., 2013 , p. 97). Ergo, this theory examines power in terms of interdependence between members of the relationship: the partner who is more dependent on the other has less power in the relationship, which, of course, directly impact parenting decisions.

As a case in point, Worley and Samp ( 2016 ) examined the balance of decision-making power in the relationship, complaint avoidance, and complaint-related appraisals in 175 heterosexual couples. Findings suggest that decision-making power has a curvilinear association, in which individuals engaged in the least complaint avoidance when they were relatively equal to their partners in terms of power. In other words, perceptions of one another’s power potentially encourage communication efficacy in the interparental couple.

The analysis of power in intimate relationships, and, to be specific, between parents is crucial because it not only relates to marital satisfaction and commitment, but it also it affects parents’ dyadic coping for children. In fact, Zemp, Bodenmann, Backes, Sutter-Stickel, and Revenson ( 2016 ) investigated parents’ dyadic coping as a predictor of children’s internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and prosocial behavior in three independent studies. When there is a positive relationship among all three factors, the results indicated that the strongest correlation was the first one. Again, the quality of the marital and parental relationships has the strongest influence on children’s coping skills and future well-being.

From the overview of the two previous theories on family, it is worth addressing two important aspects. First, parenting requires an intensive great deal of hands-on physical care, attention to safety (Mooney-Doyle, Deatrick, & Horowitz, 2014 ), and interpretation of cues, and this is why parenting, from conception to when children enter adulthood, is a tremendous social, cultural, and legally prescribed role directed toward caregiving and endlessly attending to individuals’ social, physical, psychological, emotional, and cognitive development (Johnson et al., 2013 ). And while parents are making decisions about what they consider is best for all family members, power dynamics play a crucial role in marital satisfaction, commitment, parental modeling, and overall interparental communication efficacy in the case of postdivorce families. Therefore, the likelihood of conflict is latent within familial interactions while making decisions; indeed, situations in which family members agree on norms as a consensus is rare (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990 ).

In addition to the interparental and marital power dynamics that delineates family communication patterns, the familial interaction is distinctive from other types of social relationships in the unequaled role of emotions and communication of affection while family members interact and make decisions for the sake of all members. For example, Ritchie and Fitzpatrick ( 1990 ) provided evidence that fathers tended to perceive that all other family members agree with his decisions or ideas. Even when mothers confronted and disagreed with the fathers about the fathers’ decisions or ideas, the men were more likely to believe that their children agreed with him. When the children were interviewed without their parents, however, the majority of children agreed with the mothers rather than the fathers (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990 ). Subsequently, conflict is highly present in families; however, in general, the presence of conflict is not problematic per se. Rather, it is the ability to manage and recover from it and that could be problematic (Floyd, 2014 ).

One of the reasons for the role of emotions in interpersonal conflicts is explained by the Emotion-in-Relationships Model (ERM). This model states that feelings of bliss, satisfaction, and relaxation often go unnoticed due to the nature of the emotions, whereas “hot” emotions, such as anger and contempt, come to the forefront when directed at a member of an interpersonal relationship (Fletcher & Clark, 2002 ). This type of psychophysical response usually happens perhaps due to the different biophysical reactive response of the body compared to its reaction to positive ones (Floyd, 2014 ). There are two dimensions that define conflict. Conflict leads to the elicitation of emotions, but sometimes the opposite occurs: emotions lead to conflict. The misunderstanding or misinterpretation of emotions among members of a family can be a source of conflict, as well as a number of other issues, including personality differences, past history, substance abuse, mental or physical health problems, monetary issues, children, intimate partner violence, domestic rape, or maybe just general frustration due to recent events (Sabourin, Infante, & Rudd, 1990 ). In order to have a common understanding of this concept for the familial context in particular, conflict refers to as “any incompatibility that can be expressed by people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 6). Thus, the concept of conflict goes hand in hand with coparenting.

There is a myriad of everyday family activities in which parents need to decide the best way to do them: sometimes they are minor, such as eating, watching TV, or sleeping schedules; others are more complicated, such as schooling. Certainly, while socializing and making these decisions, parents may agree or not, and these everyday situations may lead to conflict. Whether or not parents live together, it has been shown that “the extent to which children experience their parents as partners or opponents in parenting is related to children’s adjustment and well-being” (Gable & Sharp, 2016 , p. 1), because the ontology of parenting is materialized through socialization of values about every aspect and duty among all family members, especially children, to perpetuate a given society.

As the findings provided in this article show, the study of family communication issues is pivotal because the way in which those issues are solved within families will be copied by children as their values. Values are abstract ideas that delineate behavior toward the evaluation of people and events and vary in terms of importance across individuals, but also among cultures. In other words, their future parenting (i.e., parenting modeling) of children will replicate those same strategies for conflict solving for good or bad, depending on whether parents were supportive between each other. Thus, socialization defines the size and scope of coparenting.

The familial socialization of values encompasses the distinction between parents’ personal execution of those social appraisals and the values that parents want their children to adopt, and both are different things; nonetheless, familial socialization does not take place in only one direction, from parents to children. Benish-Weisman, Levy, and Knafo ( 2013 ) investigated the differentiation process—or, in other words, the distinction between parents’ own personal values and their socialization values and the contribution of children’s values to their parents’ socialization values. In this study, in which 603 Israeli adolescents and their parents participated, the findings suggest that parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values, and adolescents’ values have a specific contribution to their parents’ socialization values. As a result, socialization is not a unidirectional process affected by parents alone, it is an outcome of the reciprocal interaction between parents and their adolescent children, and the given importance of a given value is mediated by parents and their culture individually (Johnson et al., 2013 ). However, taking power dynamics into account does not mean that adolescents share the same level of decision-making power in the family; thus, socialization take place in both directions, but mostly from parents to children. Finally, it is worth noticing that the socialization of values in coparenting falls under the cultural umbrella. The next section pays a special attention to the role of culture in family communication.

The Role of Culture in Parenting Socialization of Values

There are many individual perceived realities and behaviors in the familial setting that may lead to conflict among members, but all of them achieve a common interpretation through culture; indeed, “all family conflict processes by broad cultural factors” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 46). Subsequently, the goal of this section is to provide an overview of the perceived realities and behaviors that exist in family relationships with different cultural backgrounds. How should one approach the array of cultural values influencing parental communication patterns?

An interesting way of immersing on the role of culture in family communication patterns and its further socialization of values is explored by Schwartz ( 1992 ). The author developed a value system composed of 10 values operationalized as motivational goals for modern society: (a) self-direction (independence of thought and action); (b) stimulation (excitement, challenge, and novelty); (c) hedonism (pleasure or sensuous gratification); (d) achievement (personal success according to social standards); (e) power (social status, dominance over people and resources); (f) conformity (restraint of actions that may harm others or violate social expectations); (g) tradition (respect and commitment to cultural or religious customs and ideas); (h) benevolence (preserving and enhancing the welfare of people to whom one is close); (i) universalism (understanding, tolerance, and concern for the welfare of all people and nature); and (j) security (safety and stability of society, relationships, and self).

Later, Schwartz and Rubel ( 2005 ) applied this value structure, finding it to be commonly shared among over 65 countries. Nevertheless, these values are enacted in different ways by societies and genders about the extent to which men attribute more relevance to values of power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and self-direction, and the opposite was found for benevolence and universalism and less consistently for security. Also, it was found that all sex differences were culturally moderated, suggesting that cultural background needs to be considered in the analysis of coparental communication when socializing those values.

Even though Schwartz’s work was more focused on individuals and societies, it is a powerful model for the analysis of the role of culture on family communication and parenting scholarships. Indeed, Schwartz et al. ( 2013 ) conducted a longitudinal study with a sample of 266 Hispanic adolescents (14 years old) and their parents that looked at measures of acculturation, family functioning, and adolescent conduct problems, substance use, and sexual behavior at five time points. Results suggest that higher levels of acculturation in adolescents were linked to poorer family functioning; however, overall assimilation negatively predicted adolescent cigarette smoking, sexual activity, and unprotected sex. The authors emphasize the role of culture, and acculturation patterns in particular, in understanding the mediating role of family functioning and culture.

Ergo, it is crucial to address the ways in which culture affects family functioning. On top of this idea, Johnson et al. ( 2013 ) observed that Western cultures such as in the United States and European countries are oriented toward autonomy, favoring individual achievement, self-reliance, and self-assertiveness. Thus, coparenting in more autonomous countries will socialize to children the idea that achievement in life is an outcome of independence, resulting in coparenting communication behaviors that favor verbal praise and feedback over physical contact. As opposed to autonomy-oriented cultures, other societies, such as Asian, African, and Latin American countries, emphasize interdependence over autonomy; thus, parenting in these cultures promotes collective achievement, sharing, and collaboration as the core values.

These cultural orientations can be observed in parents’ definitions of school readiness and educational success; for Western parents, examples include skills such as counting, recognizing letters, or independently completing tasks such as coloring pictures, whereas for more interdependent cultures, the development of obedience, respect for authority, and appropriate social skills are the skills that parents are expecting their children to develop to evaluate school readiness. As a matter of fact, Callaghan et al. ( 2011 ) conducted a series of eight studies to evaluate the impact of culture on the social-cognitive skills of one- to three-year-old children in three diverse cultural settings such as Canada, Peru, and India. The results showed that children’s acquisition of specific cognitive skills is moderated by specific learning experiences in a specific context: while Canadian children were understanding the performance of both pretense and pictorial symbols skillfully between 2.5 and 3.0 years of age, on average, Peruvian and Indian children mastered those skills more than a year later. Notwithstanding, this finding does not suggest any kind of cultural superiority; language barriers and limitations derived from translation itself may influence meanings, affecting the results (Sotomayor-Peterson, De Baca, Figueredo, & Smith-Castro, 2013 ). Therefore, in line with the findings of Schutz ( 1970 ), Geertz ( 1973 ), Grusec ( 2002 ), Sotomayor-Peterson et al. ( 2013 ), and Johnson et al. ( 2013 ), cultural values provide important leverage for understanding family functioning in terms of parental decision-making and conflict, which also has a substantial impact on children’s cognitive development.

Subsequently, cultural sensitivity to the analysis of the familial system in this country needs to be specially included because cultural differences are part of the array of familial conflicts that may arise, and children experience real consequences from the quality of these interactions. Therefore, parenting, which is already arduous in itself, and overall family functioning significantly become troublesome when parents with different cultural backgrounds aim to socialize values and perform parenting tasks. The following section provides an account of these cross-cultural families.

Intercultural Families: Adding Cultural Differences to Interparental Communication

For a country such as the United States, with 102 million people from many different cultural backgrounds, the presence of cross-cultural families is on the rise, as is the likelihood of intermarriage between immigrants and natives. With this cultural diversity, the two most prominent groups are Hispanics and Asians, particular cases of which will be discussed next. Besides the fact that parenting itself is a very complex and difficult task, certainly the biggest conflict consists of making decisions about the best way to raise children in terms of their values with regard to which ethnic identity better enacts the values that parents believe their children should embrace. As a result, interracial couples might confront many conflicts and challenges due to cultural differences affecting marital satisfaction and coparenting.

Assimilation , the degree to which a person from a different cultural background has adapted to the culture of the hostage society, is an important phenomenon in intermarriage. Assimilationists observe that children from families in which one of the parents is from the majority group and the other one from the minority do not automatically follow the parent from the majority group (Cohen, 1988 ). Indeed, they follow their mothers more, whichever group she belongs to, because of mothers are more prevalent among people with higher socioeconomic status (Gordon, 1964 ; Portes, 1984 ; Schwartz et al., 2013 ).

In an interracial marriage, the structural and interpersonal barriers inhibiting the interaction between two parents will be reduced significantly if parents develop a noncompeting way to communicate and solve conflicts, which means that both of them might give up part of their culture or ethnic identity to reach consensus. Otherwise, the ethnic identity of children who come from interracial marriages will become more and more obscure (Saenz, Hwang, Aguirre, & Anderson, 1995 ). Surely, parents’ noncompeting cultural communication patterns are fundamental for children’s development of ethnic identity. Biracial children develop feelings of being outsiders, and then parenting becomes crucial to developing their strong self-esteem (Ward, 2006 ). Indeed, Gordon ( 1964 ) found that children from cross-racial or cross-ethnic marriages are at risk of developing psychological problems. In another example, Jognson and Nagoshi ( 1986 ) studied children who come from mixed marriages in Hawaii and found that the problems of cultural identification, conflicting demands in the family, and of being marginal in either culture still exist (Mann & Waldron, 1977 ). It is hard for those mixed-racial children to completely develop the ethnic identity of either the majority group or the minority group.

The question of how children could maintain their minority ethnic identity is essential to the development of ethnic identity as a whole. For children from interracial marriage, the challenge to maintain their minority ethnic identity will be greater than for the majority ethnic identity (Waters, 1990 ; Schwartz et al., 2013 ) because the minority-group spouse is more likely to have greater ethnic consciousness than the majority-group spouse (Ellman, 1987 ). Usually, the majority group is more influential than the minority group on a child’s ethnic identity, but if the minority parent’s ethnicity does not significantly decline, the child’s ethnic identity could still reflect some characteristics of the minority parent. If parents want their children to maintain the minority group’s identity, letting the children learn the language of the minority group might be a good way to achieve this. By learning the language, children form a better understanding of that culture and perhaps are more likely to accept the ethnic identity that the language represents (Xin & Sandel, 2015 ).

In addition to language socialization as a way to contribute to children’s identity in biracial families, Jane and Bochner ( 2009 ) indicated that family rituals and stories could be important in performing and transforming identity. Families create and re-create their identities through various kinds of narrative, in which family stories and rituals are significant. Festivals and rituals are different from culture to culture, and each culture has its own. Therefore, exposing children to the language, rituals, and festivals of another culture also could be helpful to form their ethnic identity, in order to counter problems of self-esteem derived from the feeling of being an outsider.

To conclude this section, the parenting dilemma in intercultural marriages consists of deciding which culture they want their children to be exposed to and what kind of heritage they want to pass to children. The following section will provide two examples of intercultural marriages in the context of American society without implying that there are no other insightful cultures that deserve analysis, but the focus on Asian-American and Hispanics families reflects the available literature (Canary & Canary, 2013 ) and its demographic representativeness in this particular context. In addition, in order to acknowledge that minorities within this larger cultural background deserve more attention due to overemphasis on larger cultures in scholarship, such as Chinese or Japanese cultures, the Thai family will provide insights into understanding the role of culture in parenting and its impact on the remaining familial interaction, putting all theories already discussed in context. Moreover, the Hispanic family will also be taken in account because of its internal pan-ethnicity variety.

An Example of Intercultural Parenting: The Thai Family

The Thai family, also known as Krob Krua, may consist of parents, children, paternal and maternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, in-laws, and any others who share the same home. Thai marriages usually are traditional, in which the male is the authority figure and breadwinner and the wife is in charge of domestic items and the homemaker. It has been noted that Thai mothers tend to be the major caregivers and caretakers in the family rather than fathers (Tulananda, Young, & Roopnarine, 1994 ). On the other hand, it has been shown that Thai mothers also tend to spoil their children with such things as food and comfort; Tulananda et al. ( 1994 ) studied the differences between American and Thai fathers’ involvement with their preschool children and found that American fathers reported being significantly more involved with their children than Thai fathers. Specifically, the fathers differed in the amount of socialization and childcare; Thai fathers reported that they obtained more external support from other family members than American fathers; also, Thai fathers were more likely to obtain support for assisting with daughters than sons.

Furthermore, with regard to the family context, Tulananda and Roopnarine ( 2001 ) noted that over the years, some attention has been focused on the cultural differences among parent-child behaviors and interactions; hereafter, the authors believed that it is important to look at cultural parent-child interactions because that can help others understand children’s capacity to socialize and deal with life’s challenges. As a matter of fact, the authors also noted that Thai families tend to raise their children in accordance with Buddhist beliefs. It is customary for young Thai married couples to live with either the wife’s parents (uxorilocal) or the husband’s parents (virilocal) before living on their own (Tulananda & Roopnarine, 2001 ). The process of developing ethnicity could be complicated. Many factors might influence the process, such as which parent is from the minority culture and the cultural community, as explained in the previous section of this article.

This suggests that there is a difference in the way that Thai and American fathers communicate with their daughters. As a case in point, Punyanunt-Carter ( 2016 ) examined the relationship maintenance behaviors within father-daughter relationships in Thailand and the United States. Participants included 134 American father-daughter dyads and 154 Thai father-daughter dyads. The findings suggest that when quality of communication was included in this relationship, both types of families benefit from this family communication pattern, resulting in better conflict management and advice relationship maintenance behaviors. However, differences were found: American fathers are more likely than American daughters to employ relationship maintenance behaviors; in addition, American fathers are more likely than Thai fathers to use relationship maintenance strategies.

As a consequence, knowing the process of ethnic identity development could provide parents with different ways to form children’s ethnic identity. More specifically, McCann, Ota, Giles, and Caraker ( 2003 ), and Canary and Canary ( 2013 ) noted that Southeast Asian cultures have been overlooked in communication studies research; these countries differ in their religious, political, and philosophical thoughts, with a variety of collectivistic views and religious ideals (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism, Islam), whereas the United States is mainly Christian and consists of individualistic values.

The Case of Hispanic/Latino Families in the United States

There is a need for including Hispanic/Latino families in the United States because of the demographic representativeness and trends of the ethnicity: in 2016 , Hispanics represent nearly 17% of the total U.S. population, becoming the largest minority group. There are more than 53 million Hispanics and Latinos in the United States; in addition, over 93% of young Hispanics and Latinos under the age of 18 hold U.S. citizenship, and more than 73,000 of these people turn 18 every month (Barreto & Segura, 2014 ). Furthermore, the current Hispanic and Latino population is spread evenly between foreign-born and U.S.-born individuals, but the foreign-born population is now growing faster than the number of Hispanic children born in the country (Arias & Hellmueller, 2016 ). This demographic trend is projected to reach one-third of the U.S. total population by 2060 ; therefore, with the growth of other minority populations in the country, the phenomenon of multiracial marriage and biracial children is increasing as well.

Therefore, family communication scholarship has an increasing necessity to include cultural particularities in the analysis of the familial system; in addition to the cultural aspects already explained in this article, this section addresses the influence of familism in Hispanic and Latino familial interactions, as well as how immigration status moderates the internal interactions, reflected in levels of acculturation, that affect these families negatively.

With the higher marriage and birth rates among Hispanics and Latinos living in the United States compared to non-Latino Whites and African American populations, the Hispanic familial system is perhaps the most stereotyped as being familistic (Glick & Van Hook, 2008 ). This family trait consists of the fact that Hispanics place a very high value on marriage and childbearing, on the basis of a profound commitment to give support to members of the extended family as well. This can be evinced in the prevalence of extended-kind shared households in Hispanic and Latino families, and Hispanic children are more likely to live in extended-family households than non-Latino Whites or blacks (Glick & Van Hook, 2008 ). Living in extended-family households, most likely with grandparents, may have positive influences on Hispanic and Latino children, such as greater attention and interaction with loving through consistent caregiving; grandparents may help by engaging with children in academic-oriented activities, which then affects positively cognitive educational outcomes.

However, familism is not the panacea for all familial issues for several reasons. First, living in an extended-family household requires living arrangements that consider adults’ needs more than children’s. Second, the configuration of Hispanic and Latino households is moderated by any immigration issues with all members of the extended family, and this may cause problems for children (Menjívar, 2000 ). The immigration status of each individual member may produce a constant state of flux, whereas circumstances change to adjust to economic opportunities, which in turn are limited by immigration laws, and it gets even worse when one of the parents isn’t even present in the children’s home, but rather live in their home country (Van Hook & Glick, 2006 ). Although Hispanic and Latino children are more likely to live with married parents and extended relatives, familism is highly affected by the immigration status of each member.

On the other hand, there has been research to address the paramount role of communication disregarding the mediating factor of cultural diversity. For example, Sotomayor-Peterson et al. ( 2013 ) performed a cross-cultural comparison of the association between coparenting or shared parental effort and family climate among families from Mexico, the United States, and Costa Rica. The overall findings suggest what was explained earlier in this article: more shared parenting predicts better marital interaction and family climate overall.

In addition, parenting quality has been found to have a positive relationship with children’s developmental outcomes. In fact, Sotomayor-Peterson, Figueredo, Christensen, and Taylor ( 2012 ) conducted a study with 61 low-income Mexican American couples, with at least one child between three and four years of age, recruited from a home-based Head Start program. The main goal of this study was to observe the extent that shared parenting incorporates cultural values and income predicts family climate. The findings suggest that the role of cultural values such as familism, in which family solidarity and avoidance of confrontation are paramount, delineate shared parenting by Mexican American couples.

Cultural adaptation also has a substantial impact on marital satisfaction and children’s cognitive stimulation. Indeed, Sotomayor-Peterson, Wilhelm, and Card ( 2011 ) investigated the relationship between marital relationship quality and subsequent cognitive stimulation practices toward their infants in terms of the actor and partner effects of White and Hispanic parents. The results indicate an interesting relationship between the level of acculturation and marital relationship quality and a positive cognitive stimulation of infants; specifically, marital happiness is associated with increased cognitive stimulation by White and high-acculturated Hispanic fathers. Nevertheless, a major limitation of Hispanic acculturation literature has been seen, reflecting a reliance on cross-sectional studies where acculturation was scholarly operationalized more as an individual difference variable than as a longitudinal adaptation over time (Schwartz et al., 2013 ).

Culture and Family Communication: the “so what?” Question

This article has presented an entangled overview of family communication patterns, dyadic power, family systems, and conflict theories to establish that coparenting quality plays a paramount role. The main commonality among those theories pays special attention to interparental interaction quality, regardless of the type of family (i.e., intact, postdivorce, same-sex, etc.) and cultural background. After reviewing these theories, it was observed that the interparental relationship is the core interaction in the familial context because it affects children from their earlier cognitive development to subsequent parental modeling in terms of gender roles. Thus, in keeping with Canary and Canary ( 2013 ), no matter what approach may be taken to the analysis of family communication issues, the hypothesis that a positive emotional climate within the family is fostered only when couples practice a sufficient level of shared parenting and quality of communication is supported.

Nevertheless, this argument does not suggest that the role of culture in the familial interactions should be undersold. While including the main goal of parenting, which is the socialization of values, in the second section of this article, the text also provides specific values of different countries that are enacted and socialized differently across cultural contexts to address the role of acculturation in the familial atmosphere, the quality of interactions, and individual outcomes. As a case in point, Johnson et al. ( 2013 ) provided an interesting way of seeing how cultures differ in their ways of enacting parenting, clarifying that the role of culture in parenting is not a superficial or relativistic element.

In addition, by acknowledging the perhaps excessive attention to larger Asian cultural backgrounds (such as Chinese or Japanese cultures) by other scholars (i.e., Canary & Canary, 2013 ), an insightful analysis of the Thai American family within the father-daughter relationship was provided to exemplify, through the work of Punyanunt-Carter ( 2016 ), how specific family communication patterns, such as maintenance relationship communication behaviors, affect the quality of familial relationships. Moreover, a second, special focus was put on Hispanic families because of the demographic trends of the United States, and it was found that familism constitutes a distinctive aspect of these families.

In other words, the third section of this article provided these two examples of intercultural families to observe specific ways that culture mediates the familial system. Because one of the main goals of the present article was to demonstrate the mediating role of culture as an important consideration for family communication issues in the United States, the assimilationist approach was taken into account; thus, the two intercultural family examples discussed here correspond to an assimilationist nature rather than using an intergroup approach.

This decision was made without intending to diminish the value of other cultures or ethnic groups in the country, but an extensive revision of all types of intercultural families is beyond the scope of this article. Second, the assimilationist approach forces one to consider cultures that are in the process of adapting to a new hosting culture, and the Thai and Hispanic families in the United States comply with this theoretical requisite. For example, Whites recognize African Americans as being as American as Whites (i.e., Dovidio, Gluszek, John, Ditlmann, & Lagunes, 2010 ), whereas they associate Hispanics and Latinos with illegal immigration in the United States (Stewart et al., 2011 ), which has been enhanced by the U.S. media repeatedly since 1994 (Valentino et al., 2013 ), and it is still happening (Dixon, 2015 ). In this scenario, “ask yourself what would happen to your own personality if you heard it said over and over again that you were lazy, a simple child of nature, expected to steal, and had inferior blood? . . . One’s reputation, whether false or true, cannot be hammered, hammered, hammered, into one’s head without doing something to one’s character” (Allport, 1979 , p. 142, cited in Arias & Hellmueller, 2016 ).

As a consequence, on this cultural canvas, it should not be surprising that Lichter, Carmalt, and Qian ( 2011 ) found that second-generation Hispanics are increasingly likely to marry foreign-born Hispanics and less likely to marry third-generation or later coethnics or Whites. In addition, this study suggests that third-generation Hispanics and later were more likely than in the past to marry non-Hispanic Whites; thus, the authors concluded that there has been a new retreat from intermarriage among the largest immigrant groups in the United States—Hispanics and Asians—in the last 20 years.

If we subscribe to the idea that cultural assimilation goes in only one direction—from the hegemonic culture to the minority culture—then the results of Lichter, Carmalt, and Qian ( 2011 ) should not be of scholarly concern; however, if we believe that cultural assimilation happens in both directions and intercultural families can benefit both the host and immigrant cultures (for a review, see Schwartz et al., 2013 ), then this is important to address in a country that just elected a president, Donald Trump, who featured statements racially lambasting and segregating minorities, denigrating women, and criticizing immigration as some of the main tenets of his campaign. Therefore, we hope that it is clear why special attention was given to the Thai and Hispanic families in this article, considering the impact of culture on the familial system, marital satisfaction, parental communication, and children’s well-being. Even though individuals with Hispanic ancentry were in the United States even before it became a nation, Hispanic and Latino families are still trying to convince Americans of their right to be accepted in American culture and society.

With regard to the “So what?” question, assimilation is important to consider while analyzing the role of culture in family communication patterns, power dynamics, conflict, or the functioning of the overall family system in the context of the United States. This is because this country is among the most popular in the world in terms of immigration requests, and its demographics show that one out of three citizens comes from an ethnic background other than the hegemonic White culture. In sum, cultural awareness has become pivotal in the analysis of family communication issues in the United States. Furthermore, the present overview of family, communication, and culture ends up supporting the idea of positive associations being derived from the pivotal role of marriage relationship quality, such that coparenting and communication practices vary substantially within intercultural marriages moderated by gender roles.

Culture is a pivotal moderator of these associations, but this analysis needs to be tethered to societal structural level, in which cultural differences, family members’ immigration status, media content, and level of acculturation must be included in family research. This is because in intercultural marriages, in addition to the tremendous parenting role, they have to deal with cultural assimilation and discrimination, and this becomes important if we care about children’s cognitive development and the overall well-being of those who are not considered White. As this article shows, the quality of familial interactions has direct consequences on children’s developmental outcomes (for a review, see Callaghan et al., 2011 ).

Therefore, the structure and functioning of family has an important impact on public health at both physiological and psychological levels (Gage, Everett, & Bullock, 2006 ). At the physiological level, the familial interaction instigates expression and reception of strong feelings affecting tremendously on individuals’ physical health because it activates neuroendocrine responses that aid stress regulation, acting as a stress buffer and accelerating physiological recovery from elevated stress (Floyd & Afifi, 2012 ; Floyd, 2014 ). Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, and Kiecolt-Glaser ( 2006 ) found that a combination of supportive communication, humor, and problem-solving behavior in husbands predicts their wives’ cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)—both physiological factors are considered as stress markers (see 2006 ). On the other hand, the psychology of individuals, the quality of family relationships has major repercussions on cognitive development, as reflected in educational attainment (Sohr-Preston et al., 2013 ), and highly mediated by cultural assimilation (Schwartz et al., 2013 ), which affects individuals through parenting modeling and socialization of values (Mooney-Doyle, Deatrick, & Horowitz, 2014 ).

Further Reading

• Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice . Basic books.
• Arias, S. , & Hellmueller, L. (2016). Hispanics-and-Latinos and the US Media: New Issues for Future Research. Communication Research Trends , 35 (2), 4.
• Barreto, M. , & Segura, G. (2014). Latino America: How AmericaÕs Most Dynamic Population is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation . Public Affairs.
• Benish‐Weisman, M. , Levy, S. , & Knafo, A. (2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: the role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 614–620.
• Child, J. T. , & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication , 13 (1), 46–59.
• Canary, H. , & Canary, D. J. (2013). Family conflict (Key themes in family communication). Polity.
• Dixon, C. (2015). Rural development in the third world . Routledge.
• Dovidio, J. F. , Gluszek, A. , John, M. S. , Ditlmann, R. , & Lagunes, P. (2010). Understanding bias toward Latinos: Discrimination, dimensions of difference, and experience of exclusion. Journal of Social Issues , 66 (1), 59–78.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. , & Koerner, A. F. (2005). Family communication schemata: Effects on children’s resiliency. The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod , 115–139.
• Fullerton, A. S. (2014). Work, Family Policies and Transitions to Adulthood in Europe. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews , 43 (4), 543–545.
• Galvin, K. M. , Bylund, C. L. , & Brommel, B. J. (2004). Family communication: Cohesion and change . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Lichter, D. T. , Carmalt, J. H. , & Qian, Z. (2011, June). Immigration and intermarriage among Hispanics: Crossing racial and generational boundaries. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 241–264). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Koerner, A. F. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family conflict communication. The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice , 159–183.
• McLeod, J. M. , & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American behavioral scientist , 16 (4), 469–499.
• Sabourin, T. C. , Infante, D. A. , & Rudd, J. (1993). Verbal Aggression in Marriages A Comparison of Violent, Distressed but Nonviolent, and Nondistressed Couples. Human Communication Research , 20 (2), 245–267.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology , 25 , 1–65.
• Schrodt, P. , Witt, P. L. , & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs , 81 (1), 28–58.
• Stewart, C. O. , Pitts, M. J. , & Osborne, H. (2011). Mediated intergroup conflict: The discursive construction of “illegal immigrants” in a regional US newspaper. Journal of language and social psychology , 30 (1), 8–27.
• Taylor, M. , & Segrin, C. (2010). Perceptions of Parental Gender Roles and Conflict Styles and Their Association With Young Adults' Relational and Psychological Well-Being. Communication Research Reports , 27 (3), 230–242.
• Tracy, K. , Ilie, C. , & Sandel, T. (Eds.). (2015). International encyclopedia of language and social interaction . Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Tulananda, O. , Young, D. M. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Thai and American fathers’ involvement with preschool‐age children. Early Child Development and Care , 97 (1), 123–133.
• Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other . New York: Basic Books.
• Twenge, J. M. (2014). Generation Me—revised and updated: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before . New York: Simon and Schuster.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2014). Yearbook of immigration statistics: 2013 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.
• Valentino, N. A. , Brader, T. , & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among US Whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology , 34 (2), 149–166.
• Worley, T. R. , & Samp, J. (2016). Complaint avoidance and complaint-related appraisals in close relationships: A dyadic power theory perspective. Communication Research , 43 (3), 391–413.
• Xie, Y. , & Goyette, K. (1997). The racial identification of biracial children with one Asian parent: Evidence from the 1990 census. Social Forces , 76 (2), 547–570.
• Weigel, D. J. , & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). All marriages are not maintained equally: Marital type, marital quality, and the use of the maintenance behaviors. Personal Relationships , 6 , 291–303.
• Weigel, D. J. , & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). How couples maintain marriages: A closer look at self and spouse influences upon the use of maintenance behaviors in marriages. Family Relations , 48 , 263–269.
• Aloia, L. S. , & Solomon, D. H. (2013). Perceptions of verbal aggression in romantic relationships: The role of family history and motivational systems. Western Journal of Communication , 77 (4), 411–423.
• Arias, V. S. , & Hellmueller, L. C. (2016). Hispanics-and-Latinos and the U.S. media: New issues for future research. Communication Research Trends , 35 (2), 2–21.
• Bales, R. F. , & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and interaction process . Oxford: Routledge.
• Beach, S. R. , Barton, A. W. , Lei, M. K. , Brody, G. H. , Kogan, S. M. , Hurt, T. R. , . . ., Stanley, S. M. (2014). The effect of communication change on long‐term reductions in child exposure to conflict: Impact of the Promoting Strong African American Families (ProSAAF) program. Family Process , 53 (4), 580–595.
• Benish-Weisman, M. , Levy, S. , & Knafo, A. (2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: The role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 614–620.
• Braithwaite, D. O. , & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives . New York: SAGE.
• Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. , Fink, D. S. , & Buerkel, R. A. (1995). Communication in father-child dyad. In T. S. Socha , & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 63–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Caldera, Y. M. , Fitzpatrick, J. , & Wampler, K. S. (2002). Coparenting in intact Mexican American families: Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions , 107–131.
• Callaghan, T. , Moll, H. , Rakoczy, H. , Warneken, F. , Liszkowski, U. , Behne, T. , & Tomasello, M. (2011). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 1–20). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
• Canam, C. (1993). Common adaptive tasks facing parents of children with chronic conditions. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 18 , 46–53.
• Canary, H. , & Canary, D. (2013). Family conflict: Managing the unexpected . John Wiley & Sons.
• Canary, D. J. , & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs , 59 , 243–267.
• Canary, D. J. , & Zelley, E. D. (2000). Current research programs on relational maintenance behaviors. Communication Yearbook , 23 , 305–340.
• Chew, K. S. Y. , Eggebeen, D. , & Uhlenberg, P. R. (1989). American children in multiracial households. Sociological Perspectives , 32 (1), 65–85.
• Cohen, S. M. (1983). American modernity and Jewish identity . New York: Tavistock Publications.
• Cohen, S. M. (1988). American assimilation or Jewish revival? Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Dainton, M. , Stafford, L. , & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports , 7 , 88–97.
• Darus, H. J. (1994). Adult daughters’ willingness to communicate as a function of fathers’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness . Unpublished master’s thesis, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.
• Devenish, L. Y. (1999). Conflict within adult daughter-father relationships (PhD diss.), Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1999. Digital Dissertation Abstracts International , AAT 9944434.
• Dindia, K. , & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 4 , 143–158.
• Duffy, L. (1978). The interracial individuals: Self-concept, parental interaction, and ethnic identity. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
• Ellman, Y. (1987). Intermarriage in the United States: A comparative study of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups. Jewish Social Studies , 49 , 1–26.
• Feenery, J. A. , & Noller, P. (2013). Perspectives on studying family communication: Multiple methods and multiple sources.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. , & Badzinski, D. M. (1984). All in the family: Interpersonal communication in kin relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 687–736). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Fletcher, J. O. , & Clark, M. S. (2002). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Company.
• Floyd, K. (2014). Humans are people, too: Nurturing an appreciation for nature in communication research. Review of Communication Research , 2 , 1–29.
• Floyd, K. , & Afifi, T. D. (2012). Biological and physiological perspectives on interpersonal communication (pp.87–127). In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication . New York: SAGE.
• Floyd, K. , & Morman, M. T. (2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men’s affection with their own sons: Test of modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs , 67 , 347–361.
• Fowler, M. , Pearson, J. C. , & Beck, S. J. (2010). The influences of family communication patterns on adult children’s perceptions of romantic behaviors. Journal of Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota , 23 , 1–11.
• Friedrich, W. N. (1979). Predictors of the coping behavior of mothers of handicapped children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 47 , 1140–1141.
• Fus, X. , & Heaton, T. B. (2000). Status exchange in intermarriage among Hawaiians, Japanese, Filipinos, and Caucasians in Hawaii: 1983–1994. Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 31 (1), 45–61.
• Gable, S. , & Sharp, E. (2016). Parenting: Success requires a team effort . MOSapce.com. Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/51644/gh6129-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .
• Gage, J. D. , Everett, K. D. , & Bullock, L. (2006). Integrative review of parenting in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 38 (1), 56–62.
• Galvin, K. M. , Braithwaite, D. O. , & Bylund, C. L. (2015). Family communication: Cohesion and change . New York: Routledge.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays . Vol. 5019. New York: Basic Books.
• Glick, J. E. , & Van Hook, J. (2008). Through children’s eyes: Families and households of Latino children in the United States. (pp. 72–86). In H. Rodríguez , R. Sáenz , & C. Menjívar (Eds.), Latinas/os in the United States: Changing the Face of América . Boston: Springer US.
• Goldwasser, S. W. (1993). Relationships, mothers and daughters, fathers and daughters: A key to development to competence . Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361618).
• Gordon, A. I. (1964). Intermarriage . Boston: Beacon Press.
• Gordon, M. M. 1978. Human nature, class, and ethnicity . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gottman, J. M. , & Carrere, S. (1994). Why can’t men and women get along? Developmental roots and marital inequalities. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 203–254). New York: Academic Press.
• Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values. Handbook of Parenting , 5 , 143–167.
• Gudykunst, W. (1987). Cross-cultural comparisons. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847–889). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Halstead, V. , De Santis, J. , & Williams, J. (2016). Relationship power in the context of heterosexual intimate relationships: A conceptual development. Advances in Nursing Science , 39 (2), E31–E43.
• Hammer, C. S. , Tomblin, J. B. , Zhang, X. , & Weiss, A. L. (2001). Relationship between parenting behaviours and specific language impairment in children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders , 36 (2), 185–205.
• Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in context . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Harniss, M. K. , Epstein, M. H , Bursuck, W. D. , Nelson, J. , & Jayanthi, M. (2001). Resolving homework-related communication problems: Recommendations of parents of children with and without disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 17 , 205–225.
• Jane, J. , & Bochner, A. P. (2009). Imaging families through stories and rituals. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 513–538). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jognson, R. C. , & Nagoshi, C. T. (1986). The adjustment of offspring of within-group and interracial/intercultural marriages: A comparison of personality factor scores. Journal of Marriage and Family , 48 (2), 279–284.
• Johnson, D. J. (1992). Developmental pathways: Toward an ecological theoretical formulation of race identity in black-white biracial children. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 37–49). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Johnson, L. , Radesky, J. , & Zuckerman, B. (2013). Cross-cultural parenting: Reflections on autonomy and interdependence. Pediatrics , 131 (4), 631–633.
• Kinloch, P. , & Metge, J. (2014). Talking past each other: problems of cross cultural communication . Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.
• Kitano, H. , Yeung, W. T. , Chai, L. , & Hatanaka, H. (1984). Asian-American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 46 , 179–190.
• Kivisto, P. (2001). Illuminating social life: Classical and contemporary theory revisited . 2d. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Knapp, M. L. , & Daly, J. A. (Eds). (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Knuston, T. J. , Komolsevin, R. , Chatiketu, P. , & Smith, V. R. (2002). A comparison of Thai and U.S. American willingness to communicate. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research , 31 , 3–12.
• Koerner, A. F. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2012). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (pp. 129–144). New York: Routledge.
• Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns . Bangkok, Thailand: National Institute of Developmental Administration.
• Kwok, S. Y. , Cheng, L. , Chow, B. W. , & Ling, C. C. (2015). The spillover effect of parenting on marital satisfaction among Chinese mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 24 (3), 772–783.
• Lamb, M. E. (1987). Introduction: The emergent American father. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Le, Y. , McDaniel, B. T. , Leavitt, C. E. , & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic perspective Journal of Family Psychology , 30 (8), 918.
• Lennon, C. A. , Stewart, A. L. , & Ledermann, T. (2013). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 (1), 95–114.
• Leonard, L. S. (1982). The wounded woman: Healing the father-daughter relationship . Athens, OH: Shallow Press.
• Leonardi, P. M. (2003). Problematizing “new media”: Culturally based perceptions of cellphones, computers, and the Internet among United States Latinos. Critical Studies in Media Communication , 20 (2), 160–179.
• Lichter, D. T. , Qian, Z. , & Tumin, D. (2015). Whom do immigrants marry? Emerging patterns of intermarriage and integration in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 662 (1), 57–78.
• Lindlof, T. R. , & Taylor, B. C. (1995). Qualitative communication research method . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Lindlof, T. R. , & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods . 3d ed. New York: SAGE.
• Mann, E. , & Waldron, J. A. (1977). Intercultural marriage and childbearing. In W. S. Tseng , J. F. McDermott, Jr. , & T. W. Maretzki (Eds.), Adjustment in interracial marriage (pp. 88–92). Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii.
• Martin, M. M. , & Anderson, C. M. (1995). The father–young adult child relationship: Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly , 43 , 119–130.
• McCann, R. M. , Ota, H. , Giles, H. , & Caraker, R. (2003). Accommodation and nonaccommodation across the lifespan: Perspectives from Thailand, Japan, and the United States of America. Communication Reports , 16 , 69–92.
• Menjívar, C. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadoran immigrant networks in America . Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Miller, R. L. (1992). The human ecology of multiracial identity. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 24–36). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Mooney-Doyle, K. , Deatrick, J. A. , & Horowitz, J. A. (2014). Tasks and communication as an avenue to enhance parenting of children birth–5 years: An integrative review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing , 30 (1), 184–207.
• Morman, M. T. , & Floyd, K. (1999). Affectionate communication between fathers and young adult sons: Individual- and relational-level correlates. Communication Studies , 50 , 294–309.
• Nelsen, H. M. (1990). The religious identification of children of interfaith marriages. Review of Religious Research , 122–134.
• Ngai, M. M. (2014). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Noller, P. , & Callan, V. (1991). The adolescent in the family . New York: Routledge.
• Olaniran, B. A. , & Roach, K. D. (1994). Communication apprehension in Nigerian culture. Communication Quarterly , 42 , 379–389.
• Ortman, J. M. , Velkoff, V. A. , & Hogan, H. (2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States . Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1–28.
• Pearce, W. B. (2005). Communication management model. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 35–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Portes, A. (1984). The rise of ethnicity: Determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami. American Sociological Review , 49 , 383–397.
• Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2008). Father-daughter relationships: Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports , 25 (1), 23–33.
• Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2016). An examination of communication motives and relationship maintenance behaviors in Thai and US father-daughter relationships. Asian Communication Research , 13 (1), 157–179.
• Ritchie, D. L. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research , 17 (4), 523–544.
• Robles, T. F. , Shaffer, V. A. , Malarkey, W. B. , & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). Positive behaviors during marital conflict: Influences on stress hormones. Journal of social and Personal Relationships , 23 (2), 305–325.
• Rogers, L. E. (2006). Relational communication theory: an interactional family theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Roongrengsuke, S. , & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management in Thailand. In K. Leung , & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific (pp. 167–222). Singapore: John Wiley.
• Rosenthal, D. A. (1987). Ethnic identity development in adolescents. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 156–179). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Rubin, R. B. , Fernandez-Collado, C. , & Hernandez-Sampieri, R. (1992). A cross-cultural examination of interpersonal communication motives in Mexico and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 16 , 145–157.
• Rubin, R. B. , Perse, E. M. , & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research , 14 , 602–628.
• Sabourin, T. C. , Infante, D. A. , & Rudd, J. (1990). Verbal aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Health Communication Research , 20 (2), 245–267.
• Saenz, R. , Hwang, S , Aguirre, B. E. , & Anderson, R. N. (1995). Persistence and change in Asian identity among children of intermarried couples. Sociological Perspectives , 38 (2), 175–194.
• Scherer, K. R. (Eds.). (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication , 40 (1–2), 227–256.
• Schrodt, P. , & Shimkowski, J. R. (2013). Feeling caught as a mediator of co-parental communication and young adult children’s mental health and relational satisfaction with parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 (8), 977–999.
• Schutz, A. (1970). Alfred Schutz on phenomenology and social relations . Vol. 360. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Schutz, W. (1966). The interpersonal underworld . Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
• Schwartz, S. H. , & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 (6), 1010–1028.
• Schwartz, S. J. , Des Rosiers, S. , Huang, S. , Zamboanga, B. L. , Unger, J. B. , Knight, G. P. , . . ., Szapocznik, J. (2013). Developmental trajectories of acculturation in Hispanic adolescents: Associations with family functioning and adolescent risk behavior. Child development , 84 (4), 1355–1372.
• Shea, B. C. , & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent, and gender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies. Communication Monographs , 53 , 352–364.
• Shulman, S. , & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1997). Fathers and adolescents: Developmental and clinical perspectives . New York: Routledge.
• Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers? Developmental Review , 7 , 183–209.
• Simon, E. P. , & Baxter, L. A. (1993). Attachment-style differences in relationship maintenance strategies. Western Journal of Communication , 57 , 416–420.
• Sloper, P. (2001). Models of service support for parents of disabled children: What do we know? What do we need to know? Child: Care, Health, & Development , 25 (2), 85–99.
• Snyder, N. S. , Lopez, C. M. , & Padilla, A. M. (1982). Ethnic identity and cultural awareness among the offspring of Mexican interethnic marriages. Journal of Early Adolescence , 2 (3), 277–282.
• Socha, T. J. , & Stamp, G. H. (1995). Introduction. In T. J. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.). Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. ix–xvi). Mawwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Sohr-Preston, S. L. , Scaramella, L. V. , Martin, M. J. , Neppl, T. L. , Ontai, L. , & Conger, R. (2013). Parental SES, communication and children’s vocabulary development: A 3-generation test of the family investment model . Child Development , 84 (3), 1046–1062.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , De Baca, T. C. , Figueredo, A. J. , & Smith-Castro, V. (2013). Shared parenting, parental effort, and life history strategy: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 44 (4), 620–639.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , Figueredo, A. J. , Christensen, D. H. , & Taylor, A. R. (2012). Couples’ cultural values, shared parenting, and family emotional climate within Mexican American families. Family Process , 51 (2), 218–233.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , Wilhelm, M. S. , & Card, N. A. (2011). Marital relationship quality and couples’ cognitive stimulation practices toward their infants: Actor and partner effects of White and Hispanic parents. Early Child Development and Care , 181 (1), 103–122.
• Spickard, P. R. (1989). Mixed blood: Intermarriage and ethnic identity in twentieth-century America . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Sprague, R. J. (1999). The relationship of gender and topic intimacy to decisions to seek advice from parents. Communication Research Reports , 16 , 276–285.
• Stafford, L. , & Canary, D. L. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 8 , 217–242.
• Stafford, L. , & Dainton, M. (1995). Parent-child communication within the family system. In T. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Stafford, L. , Dainton, M. , & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristic. Communication Monographs , 67 , 306–323.
• Stamp, G. H. , & Shue, C. K. (2013). Twenty years of family research published in communication journals: A review of the perspectives, theories, concepts, and contexts. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 11–28). New York: Routledge.
• Stephan, C. W. , & Stephan, W. G. (1989). After intermarriage: Ethnic identity among mixed-heritage Japanese-Americans and Hispanics. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 51 , 507–519.
• Stevens, L. , Watson, K. , & Dodd, K. (2000). Supporting parents of children with communication difficulties: A model. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, Session , 2 (6), 70–74.
• Sullivan, P. (1998). “What are you?” Multiracial families in America. Our Children , 23 (5), 34–35.
• Tapanya, S. (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in Thailand. Parenting , 11 , 190–198.
• Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis . School of Population Health, University of Auckland.
• Trute, B. , (1990). Child and parent predictors of family adjustment in households containing young developmentally disabled children. Family Relations , 39 (3), 292–297.
• Tulananda, O. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (2001). Mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with preschoolers in the home in northern Thailand: relationships to teachers’ assessments of children’s social skills. Journal of Family Psychology , 15 (4), 676.
• Tulananda, O. , Young, D. M. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Thai and American fathers’ involvment with preschool-age children. Early Child Development and Care , 97 , 123–133.
• Van Egeren, L. A. , & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development , 11 (3), 165–178.
• Van Hook, J. , & Glick, J. E. (2006). Mexican migration to the United States and extended family living arrangements. In Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America , Los Angeles, CA.
• Ward, C. (2006). Acculturation, identity, and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 30 , 243–259.
• Waters, M. C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Weisner, T. S. (2014). Culture, context, and child well-being. In Handbook of child well-being (pp. 87–103). Boston: Springer.
• Xin, G. , & Sandel, T. L. (2015). The acculturation and identity of new immigrant youth in Macao. China Media Research , 11 (1), 112–125.
• Young, J. , & Schrodt, P. (2016). Family communication patterns, parental modeling, and confirmation in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly , 64 (4), 454–475.
• Zemp, M. , Bodenmann, G. , Backes, S. , Sutter-Stickel, D. , & Revenson, T. A. (2016). The importance of parents’ dyadic coping for children. Family Relations , 65 (2), 275–286.

Related Articles

• Military Families and Communication
• Family Communication
• Interpersonal Communication Across the Life Span
• Parent-Child Interaction
• Acculturation and Intergroup Communication
• Family Relationships and Interactions: An Intergroup Approach
• Critical Approaches to Motherhood
• News, Children, and Young People

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 31 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life

Essay Samples on Family

This area of study will be relevant to students majoring in Education, Psychology, Healthcare, and Sociology. Those learners who must compose essays on family may deal with anything from legislation and divorce issues to domestic abuse and family relations all over the world. In case you are not able to provide an excellent paper on family, consider exploring your grading rubric again and think about something that inspires you. Think about family values and provide your readers with interesting facts or statistical information that is worth researching. When all else fails, take a look at our free family essay examples. These cover a wide range of subjects that will be suitable for educators, legal specialists, sociologists, and psychologists, among others. We even have case studies and family examples from famous literary works. Combine several examples as you compose your own to provide an even greater scope of a subject. Remember to provide citations for every idea that is not yours as a way to avoid plagiarism issues. When you explore our free family essay samples, see how to structure your writing by using the final part as a place to set a moral lesson or create a call to action.

How Does Family Influence Your Identity

Family is a powerful force that weaves the threads of our identity. The relationships, values, and experiences within our family unit play a significant role in shaping who we become. This essay delves into how family influences our identity, from the formation of core beliefs...

• Personal Identity

Cause and Effect of Broken Family: Exploring the Impact on Individuals and Society

A broken family, characterized by divorce, separation, or strained relationships among family members, can have profound effects on individuals and society as a whole. This essay delves into the cause and effect of broken families, and examines the far-reaching consequences on emotional well-being, academic performance,...

What Does Family Mean to You: A Lifelong Treasure

Family is more than just a group of people who share a bloodline or a last name. It is a profound and intricate web of connections, emotions, and shared experiences that shape us into who we are. When asked, "What does family mean to you?"...

• Family Values

My Family: Exploring the Roots of Love and Unity

Family is the cornerstone of our lives, the haven where we find solace, support, and unconditional love. As I reflect upon the significance of my family, I am reminded of the deep bonds that tie us together and the invaluable lessons I've learned from each...

• Family Relationships

How I Celebrate Christmas: One Holiday, Two Celebrations

Christmas is a cherished time for my family, where we celebrate the season in two distinct ways. In this essay I want to share how I celebrate Christmas and discuss the intricacies of each tradition, as they hold a special place in our hearts. Celebrating...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

A Reflection on What Family Means to Me

Most of us have the same description of the family, we describe it as a group of people with a relationship by blood or they are biologically connected to each other. The ideal family always starts with father and mother then followed by one or...

• Marriage and Family

Ethnographic Study Of One’s Family Origin

One may ask the question, exactly what is a family? A family is like a house, build on a strong foundation. The foundation is like the ancestors and grandparents, built to hold everything together. If the foundation breaks, then so does the family. The teachings...

• Ethnography

The Novel "Everyday Use" By Alice Walker: A Literary Analysis

In the story “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker introduces two sisters with opposite personalities and unique views on heritage. The purpose of this essay is to conduct a literary analysis of the story “Everyday Use” by Alice Walker.  Maggie and Dee -  different personalities, contrast...

• Alice Walker
• Everyday Use

My Experience Of Savoring Traditional Guatemalan Breakfast During The Family Visit

The last Sunday morning before I came to MSU my family and I decided to get together for breakfast. Since it was one of the last days that I was going to be in Guatemala we decided to make the traditional Guatemalan breakfast, the “Desayuno...

• Cultural Identity

Semiotic Analysis Of The American Family Image In Family Guy

The idea of family shifts as currently construed significantly differs from the notions held for the typical 50s family. For anybody who has watched the popular TV show Family Guy, representation of ideal family behaviors are but a façade. The expectations for a perfect family...

Mixing Reality with Dreams in Inception

Apart from Cobb’s own family, Saito plays a critical part in suggesting that in the ending, Cobb has returned to reality. This can be shown through the repetition and the correlation of few scenes. To start off, the lines “...to become an old man, filled...

Best topics on Family

1. How Does Family Influence Your Identity

2. Cause and Effect of Broken Family: Exploring the Impact on Individuals and Society

3. What Does Family Mean to You: A Lifelong Treasure

4. My Family: Exploring the Roots of Love and Unity

5. How I Celebrate Christmas: One Holiday, Two Celebrations

6. A Reflection on What Family Means to Me

7. Ethnographic Study Of One’s Family Origin

8. The Novel “Everyday Use” By Alice Walker: A Literary Analysis

9. My Experience Of Savoring Traditional Guatemalan Breakfast During The Family Visit

10. Semiotic Analysis Of The American Family Image In Family Guy

11. Mixing Reality with Dreams in Inception

• Perseverance
• Personal Experience
• Personality
• Affordable Housing

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Parenting in America
• 1. The American family today

Table of Contents

• 2. Satisfaction, time and support
• 3. Parenting approaches and concerns
• 4. Child care and education: quality, availability and parental involvement
• 5. Children’s extracurricular activities
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

For updated data, read our 2023 essay “The Modern American Family.”

Family life is changing. Two-parent households are on the decline in the United States as divorce, remarriage and cohabitation are on the rise. And families are smaller now, both due to the growth of single-parent households and the drop in fertility. Not only are Americans having fewer children, but the circumstances surrounding parenthood have changed. While in the early 1960s babies typically arrived within a marriage , today fully four-in-ten births occur to women who are single or living with a non-marital partner. At the same time that family structures have transformed, so has the role of mothers in the workplace – and in the home. As more moms have entered the labor force, more have become breadwinners – in many cases, primary breadwinners – in their families.

As a result of these changes, there is no longer one dominant family form in the U.S. Parents today are raising their children against a backdrop of increasingly diverse and, for many, constantly evolving family forms. By contrast, in 1960, the height of the post-World War II baby boom, there was one dominant family form. At that time 73% of all children were living in a family with two married parents in their first marriage. By 1980, 61% of children were living in this type of family, and today less than half (46%) are. The declining share of children living in what is often deemed a “traditional” family has been largely supplanted by the rising shares of children living with single or cohabiting parents.

Not only has the diversity in family living arrangements increased since the early 1960s, but so has the fluidity of the family. Non-marital cohabitation and divorce, along with the prevalence of remarriage and (non-marital) recoupling in the U.S., make for family structures that in many cases continue to evolve throughout a child’s life. While in the past a child born to a married couple – as most children were – was very likely to grow up in a home with those two parents, this is much less common today, as a child’s living arrangement changes with each adjustment in the relationship status of their parents. For example, one study found that over a three-year period, about three-in-ten (31%) children younger than 6 had experienced a major change in their family or household structure, in the form of parental divorce, separation, marriage, cohabitation or death.

The growing complexity and diversity of families

The share of children living in a two-parent household is at the lowest point in more than half a century: 69% are in this type of family arrangement today, compared with 73% in 2000 and 87% in 1960. And even children living with two parents are more likely to be experiencing a variety of family arrangements due to increases in divorce, remarriage and cohabitation. 3 Today, fully 62% of children live with two married parents – an all-time low. Some 15% are living with parents in a remarriage and 7% are living with parents who are cohabiting. 4 Conversely, the share of children living with one parent stands at 26%, up from 22% in 2000 and just 9% in 1960.

These changes have been driven in part by the fact that Americans today are exiting marriage at higher rates than in the past. Now, about two-thirds (67%) of people younger than 50 who had ever married are still in their first marriage. In comparison, that share was 83% in 1960. 5  And while among men about 76% of first marriages that began in the late 1980s were still intact 10 years later, fully 88% of marriages that began in the late 1950s lasted as long, according to analyses of Census Bureau data. 6

The rise of single-parent families, and changes in two-parent families

Despite the decline over the past half century in children residing with two parents, a majority of kids are still growing up in this type of living arrangement. 7 However, less than half—46%—are living with two parents who are both in their first marriage. This share is down from 61% in 1980 8 and 73% in 1960.

An additional 15% of children are living with two parents, at least one of whom has been married before. This share has remained relatively stable for decades.

In the remainder of two-parent families, the parents are cohabiting but are not married. Today 7% of children are living with cohabiting parents; however a far larger share will experience this kind of living arrangement at some point during their childhood. For instance, estimates suggest that about 39% of children will have had a mother in a cohabiting relationship by the time they turn 12; and by the time they turn 16, almost half (46%) will have experience with their mother cohabiting. In some cases, this will happen because a never-married mother enters into a cohabiting relationship; in other cases, a mother may enter into a cohabiting relationship after a marital breakup.

The decline in children living in two-parent families has been offset by an almost threefold increase in those living with just one parent—typically the mother. 9  Fully one-fourth (26%) of children younger than age 18 are now living with a single parent, up from just 9% in 1960 and 22% in 2000. The share of children living without either parent stands at 5%; most of these children are being raised by grandparents . 10

The majority of white, Hispanic and Asian children are living in two-parent households, while less than half of black children are living in this type of arrangement. Furthermore, at least half of Asian and white children are living with two parents both in their first marriage. The shares of Hispanic and black children living with two parents in their first marriage are much lower.

Asian children are the most likely to be living with both parents—fully 84% are, including 71% who are living with parents who are both in their first marriage. Some 13% of Asian kids are living in a single-parent household, while 11% are living with remarried parents, and just 3% are living with parents who are cohabiting.

Roughly eight-in-ten (78%) white children are living with two parents, including about half (52%) with parents who are both in their first marriage and 19% with two parents in a remarriage; 6% have parents who are cohabiting. About one-in-five (19%) white children are living with a single parent.

Among Hispanic children, two-thirds live with two parents. All told, 43% live with two parents in their first marriage, while 12% are living with parents in a remarriage, and 11% are living with parents who are cohabiting. Some 29% of Hispanic children live with a single parent.

The living arrangements of black children stand in stark contrast to the other major racial and ethnic groups. The majority – 54% – are living with a single parent. Just 38% are living with two parents, including 22% who are living with two parents who are both in their first marriage. Some 9% are living with remarried parents, and 7% are residing with parents who are cohabiting.

Children with at least one college-educated parent are far more likely to be living in a two-parent household, and to be living with two parents in a first marriage, than are kids whose parents are less educated. 11 Fully 88% of children who have at least one parent with a bachelor’s degree or more are living in a two-parent household, including 67% who are living with two parents in their first marriage.

In comparison, some 68% of children who have a parent with some college experience are living in a two-parent household, and just 40% are living with parents who are both in a first marriage. About six-in-ten (59%) children who have a parent with a high school diploma are in a two-parent household, including 33% who are living with parents in their first marriage. Meanwhile, just over half (54%) of children whose parents lack a high school diploma are living in a two-parent household, including 33% whose parents are in their first marriage.

Blended families

According to the most recent data, 16% of children are living in what the Census Bureau terms “blended families” – a household with a stepparent, stepsibling or half-sibling. This share has remained stable since the early 1990s, when reliable data first became available. At that time 15% of kids lived in blended family households. All told, about 8% are living with a stepparent, and 12% are living with stepsiblings or half-siblings. 12

Many, but not all, remarriages involve blended families. 13  According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, six-in-ten (63%) women in remarriages are in blended families, and about half of these remarriages involve stepchildren who live with the remarried couple.

Hispanic, black and white children are equally likely to live in a blended family. About 17% of Hispanic and black kids are living with a stepparent, stepsibling or a half-sibling, as are 15% of white kids. Among Asian children, however, 7% – a far smaller share – are living in blended families. This low share is consistent with the finding that Asian children are more likely than others to be living with two married parents, both of whom are in their first marriage.

The shrinking American family

Fertility in the U.S. has been on the decline since the end of the post-World War II baby boom, resulting in smaller families. In the mid-1970s, a 40% plurality of mothers who had reached the end of their childbearing years had given birth to four or more children. 14  Now, a similar share (41%) of mothers at the end of their childbearing years has had two children, and just 14% have had four or more children. 15

At the same time, the share of mothers ages 40 to 44 who have had only one child has doubled, from 11% in 1976 to 22% today. The share of mothers with three children has remained virtually unchanged at about a quarter.

Women’s increasing educational attainment and labor force participation, and improvements in contraception, not to mention the retreat from marriage, have all likely played a role in shrinking family size .

Family size varies markedly across races and ethnicities. Asian moms have the lowest fertility, and Hispanic mothers have the highest. About 27% of Asian mothers and one-third of white mothers near the end of their childbearing years have had three or more children. Among black mothers at the end of their childbearing years, four-in-ten have had three or more children, as have fully half (50%) of Hispanic mothers.

Similarly, a gap in fertility exists among women with different levels of educational attainment, despite recent increases in the fertility of highly educated women. For example, just 27% of mothers ages 40 to 44 with a post-graduate degree such as a master’s, professional or doctorate degree have borne three or more children, as have 32% of those with a bachelor’s degree. Among mothers in the same age group with a high school diploma or some college, 38% have had three or more kids, while among moms who lack a high school diploma, the majority – 55% – have had three or more children.

The rise of births to unmarried women and multi-partner fertility

Not only are women having fewer children today, but they are having them under different circumstances than in the past. While at one time virtually all births occurred within marriage, these two life events are now far less intertwined. And while people were much more likely to “mate for life” in the past, today a sizable share have children with more than one partner – sometimes within marriage, and sometimes outside of it.

Births to unmarried women

In 1960, just 5% of all births occurred outside of marriage. By 1970, this share had doubled to 11%, and by 2000 fully one-third of births occurred to unmarried women. Non-marital births continued to rise until the mid-2000s, when the share of births to unmarried women stabilized at around 40%. 16

Not all babies born outside of a marriage are necessarily living with just one parent, however. The majority of these births now occur to women who are living with a romantic partner, according to analyses of the National Survey of Family Growth. In fact, over the past 20 years, virtually all of the growth in births outside of marriage has been driven by increases in births to cohabiting women. 17

Researchers have found that, while marriages are less stable than they once were, they remain more stable than cohabiting unions. Past analysis indicates that about one-in-five children born within a marriage will experience the breakup of that marriage by age 9. In comparison, fully half of children born within a cohabiting union will experience the breakup of their parents by the same age. At the same time, children born into cohabiting unions are more likely than those born to single moms to someday live with two married parents. Estimates suggest that 66% will have done so by the time they are 12, compared with 45% of those who were born to unmarried non-cohabiting moms.

The share of births occurring outside of marriage varies markedly across racial and ethnic groups. Among black women, 71% of births are now non-marital, as are about half (53%) of births to Hispanic women. In contrast, 29% of births to white women occur outside of a marriage.

Racial differences in educational attainment explain some, but not all, of the differences in non-marital birth rates.

New mothers who are college-educated are far more likely than less educated moms to be married. In 2014 just 11% of women with a college degree or more who had a baby in the prior year were unmarried. In comparison, this share was about four times as high (43%) for new mothers with some college but no college degree. About half (54%) of those with only a high school diploma were unmarried when they gave birth, as were about six-in-ten (59%) new mothers who lacked a high school diploma.

Multi-partner fertility

Related to non-marital births is what researchers call “ multi-partner fertility .” This measure reflects the share of people who have had biological children with more than one partner, either within or outside of marriage. The increase in divorces, separations, remarriages and serial cohabitations has likely contributed to an increase in multi-partner fertility. Estimates vary, given data limitations, but analysis of longitudinal data indicates that almost 20% of women near the end of their childbearing years have had children by more than one partner, as have about three-in-ten (28%) of those with two or more children. Research indicates that multi-partner fertility is particularly common among blacks, Hispanics, and the less educated.

Parents today: older and better educated

While parents today are far less likely to be married than they were in the past, they are more likely to be older and to have more education.

In 1970, the average new mother was 21 years old. Since that time, that age has risen to 26 years . The rise in maternal age has been driven largely by declines in teen births. Today, 7% of all births occur to women under the age of 20; as recently as 1990 , the share was almost twice as high (13%).

While age at first birth has increased across all major race and ethnic groups, substantial variation persists across these groups. The average first-time mom among whites is now 27 years old. The average age at first birth among blacks and Hispanics is quite a bit younger – 24 years – driven in part by the prevalence of teen pregnancy in these groups. Just 5% of births to whites take place prior to age 20, while this share reaches 11% for non-Hispanic blacks and 10% for Hispanics. On the other end of the spectrum, fully 45% of births to whites are to women ages 30 or older, versus just 31% among blacks and 36% among Hispanics.

Mothers today are also far better educated than they were in the past. While in 1960 just 18% of mothers with infants at home had any college experience, today that share stands at 67%. This trend is driven in large part by dramatic increases in educational attainment for all women. While about half (49%) of women ages 15 to 44 in 1960 lacked a high school diploma, today the largest share of women (61%) has at least some college experience, and just 19% lack a high school diploma.

Mothers moving into the workforce

In addition to the changes in family structure that have occurred over the past several decades, family life has been greatly affected by the movement of more and more mothers into the workforce. This increase in labor force participation is a continuation of a century-long trend ; rates of labor force participation among married women, particularly married white women, have been on the rise since at least the turn of the 20th century. While the labor force participation rates of mothers have more or less leveled off since about 2000, they remain far higher than they were four decades ago.

In 1975, the first year for which data on the labor force participation of mothers are available, less than half of mothers (47%) with children younger than 18 were in the labor force, and about a third of those with children younger than 3 years old were working outside of the home. Those numbers changed rapidly, and, by 2000, 73% of moms were in the labor force. Labor force participation today stands at 70% among all mothers of children younger than 18, and 64% of moms with preschool-aged children. About three-fourths of all employed moms are working full time.

Among mothers with children younger than 18, blacks are the most likely to be in the labor force –about three-fourths are. In comparison, this share is 70% among white mothers. Some 64% of Asian mothers and 62% of Hispanic mother are in the workforce. The relatively high proportions of immigrants in these groups likely contribute to their lower labor force involvement – foreign-born moms are much less likely to be working than their U.S.-born counterparts.

The more education a mother has, the more likely she is to be in the labor force. While about half (49%) of moms who lack a high school diploma are working, this share jumps to 65% for those with a high school diploma. Fully 75% of mothers with some college are working, as are 79% of those with a college degree or more.

Along with their movement into the labor force, women, even more than men, have been attaining higher and higher levels of education. In fact, among married couples today, it is more common for the wife to have more education than the husband, a reversal of previous patterns. These changes, along with the increasing share of single-parent families, mean that more than ever, mothers are playing the role of breadwinner —often the primary breadwinner—within their families.

Today, 40% of families with children under 18 at home include mothers who earn the majority of the family income. 18 This share is up from 11% in 1960 and 34% in 2000. The bulk of these breadwinner moms—8.3 million—are either unmarried or are married and living apart from their spouse. 19 The remaining 4.9 million, who are married and living with their spouse, earn more than their husbands. While families with married breadwinner moms tend to have higher median incomes than married-parent families where the father earns more ($88,000 vs. $84,500), families headed by unmarried mothers have incomes far lower than unmarried father families. In 2014, the median annual income for unmarried mother families was just $24,000.

Breadwinner moms are particularly common in black families, spurred by very high rates of single motherhood. About three-fourths (74%) of black moms are breadwinner moms. Most are unmarried or living apart from their spouse (61%), and the remainder (13%) earn more than their spouse. Among Hispanic moms, 44% are the primary breadwinner; 31% are unmarried, while 12% are married and making more than their husbands. For white mothers, 38% are the primary breadwinners—20% are unmarried moms, and 18% are married and have income higher than that of their spouses. Asian families are less likely to have a woman as the main breadwinner in their families, presumably due to their extremely low rates of single motherhood. Just 11% of Asian moms are unmarried. The share who earn more than their husbands—20%— is somewhat higher than for the other racial and ethnic groups.

The flip side of the movement of mothers into the labor force has been a dramatic decline in the share of mothers who are now stay-at-home moms . Some 29% of all mothers living with children younger than 18 are at home with their children. This marks a modest increase since 1999, when 23% of moms were home with their children, but a long-term decline of about 20 percentage points since the late 1960s when about half of moms were at home.

While the image of “stay-at-home mom” may conjure images of “Leave It to Beaver” or the highly affluent “ opt-out mom ”, the reality of stay-at-home motherhood today is quite different for a large share of families. In roughly three-in-ten of stay-at-home-mom families, either the father is not working or the mother is single or cohabiting. As such, stay-at-home mothers are generally less well off than working mothers in terms of education and income. Some 49% of stay-at-home mothers have at most a high-school diploma compared with 30% among working mothers. And the median household income for families with a stay-at-home mom and a full-time working dad was $55,000 in 2014, roughly half the median income for families in which both parents work full-time ($102,400). 20

• “Parent” here is used to mean an adult parental figure. Except as noted, throughout this chapter a parent may be the biological or adoptive parent, or the spouse or partner of a biological or adoptive parent (i.e., a stepparent). The marital status of the parents alone doesn’t reveal definitively what their relationship is to their children. For instance, if a child is living with two parents, both of whom are in their first marriage: it may be the case that both of those parents are the biological parents of that child; or it may be the case that the mother is the biological parent of that child and that she later entered into her first marriage to the child’s (now) stepfather; or it may be the case that the father is the biological parent of that child and that he entered into his first marriage to the child’s (now) stepmother. ↩
• Any marriage in which at least one of the partners has been married previously is defined as a remarriage. ↩
• While the divorce rate has risen since 1960, the trend in divorce since 1980 is less clear. Stevenson and Wolfers maintain that divorce rates have declined since that time, while Kennedy and Ruggles find that the divorce rate has continued its rise. ↩
• Among women, 73% of marriages that began in the late 1980s lasted for at least 10 years, compared with 87% of those that began in the late 1950s. ↩
• For the purposes of this report, same-sex couples are grouped with other-sex couples. While same-sex parenting and marriage has become more prevalent, estimates suggest that less than 1% of couple households with children are headed by same-sex couples; and that, in total, fewer than 130,000 same-sex couples are currently raising children younger than 18. See here for more on the challenges of counting same-sex couples in the U.S. ↩
• Data on the share of parents in their first marriage are not available for 1990 or 2000. ↩
• In 2014, 83% of children living with only one parent were living with their mother, according to the American Community Survey. ↩
• The dramatic changes in kids’ living arrangements in the recent past are in sharp contrast to historical trends , which reveal remarkable stability. From 1880 to around 1970, the share of children living with two parents consistently hovered around 85%, while the share living with a single mother remained in the single digits. Even smaller shares were living with no parent, or with a father only. ↩
• Parental education is based on the highest educational attainment of coresident parents. So if a child lives with both parents, and the father has a bachelor’s degree, and the mother has a high school diploma, that child is classified as having a parent with a bachelor’s degree. A child living with a single parent is classified based on that parent’s education. The 5% of children who are not living with their parents are excluded from this analysis. ↩
• These data are based on self-reports. It may be the case that some families that began as stepfamilies may no longer identify as such, if the stepparent went on to adopt the children. And, of course, many families may be “blended” but may not include parents who are formally married; those families are likely not captured in this measure. ↩
• While blended families all involve remarriage, not all remarriages produce blended families. Remarriages involving spouses who have no children from prior relationships would not create blended families. ↩
• Women at the end of their childbearing years are often defined as those ages 40-44. While it is still possible to have children beyond this point, about 99.8% of babies are born to women younger than 45, and 97% are born to women younger than 40. Women who reached the end of their childbearing years in the mid-1970s came of age during the height of the post-World War II baby boom, a period typified by unusually high fertility. ↩
• While they are not included in this analysis due to data limitations, many women who do not bear children are indeed mothers—either adoptive mothers or stepmothers. ↩
• Preliminary 2014 data indicate that the share of non-marital births declined slightly for the first time in almost 20 years, due largely to changes in age composition among childbearing-aged women. ↩
• Given the limitations of data regarding the fertility of men , the focus here is on fertility of women. ↩
• Only families where the mother or father is the household head are included in the analysis of breadwinner moms. ↩
• For the remainder of this chapter, “unmarried mothers” refers to those who are not married, or who are married but living apart from their spouse. ↩
• The vast majority of stay-at-home parents are indeed mothers, but a growing share of fathers are joining the ranks, as well. In 2012, 16% of stay-at-home parents were dads, up from 10% in 1989. Like stay-at-home mothers, stay-at-home dads tend to be less well off than their working counterparts; they are far more likely to lack a high school diploma (22% vs. 10%), and far more likely to be living in poverty (47% vs. 8%). ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Family & Relationships
• Household Structure & Family Roles
• Race & Ethnicity

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in Europe

Americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, teens and video games today, americans are less likely than others around the world to feel close to people in their country or community, who do americans feel comfortable talking to about their mental health, most popular, report materials.

• Survey of American Parents

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics Term Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Extended Families

An extended family is normally seen as two or more generations/ branches of one family (i.e. cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.) either staying within a single home or living within the same area within proximity to each other (Extended family, 2012). While existing within western societies the concept of an extended family is more proliferate in Middle Eastern and Asian cultures where family ties are a more prominent aspect of their respective cultures and societies (Extended family, 2012).

This takes the form of multiple branches of a single-family staying in one home (seen within India), the tradition of parental care when parents are old and feeble (seen in the case of Japan, China, and the Philippines) as well as more prominent and lasting relationships between family as opposed to the more cordial and temporary relationships (often lasting just a few years) seen within western societies.

Personal Example

My father has always had a close relationship with his siblings, so during particular holidays (ex: school break, Christmas, New Year, etc.), we’d either take a short trip to visit the family of his brother and sister, or they’d come and visit us. It became a small tradition within our family that we’d visit each other during particular times of the year, and it was through this that I got to know my cousins and other relatives.

On the other hand, I have had friends that have stated that my experience with my own family is rather unique in that they rarely know other members of the family outside of funerals since they all like to keep to themselves. This particular experience has taught me how rare it is for extended families to continue thriving the way they do with societal and cultural trends moving towards families that are often composed of a single mother or father with the large family scenes often seen in classic movies at times disappearing altogether.

Conjugal Union

A conjugal union is often seen as a nuclear family (mother, father, children) wherein the family relationship is more often than not concentrated inwards and is based on strong emotional bonds (Hamplova & Le Bourdais, 2010). In such a case, importance is placed more on the relationships within the nuclear family than they are on extended families (though they are still considered important but just in an emotional sense). The most important factors in such a union are those between spouses and children with a certain degree of importance being stressed on the bond between the two partners involved in the relationship.

The best example I can think of in the case of a conjugal union is that of my mother and father. They have been married for quite some time and based on my time with them there’s is a relationship that has bonds deeper than the eyes could see. It shows itself in the loving ways they look at each other, in the tones of their voice after they apologize after each fight, in the way in which despite being together for so long they continue to hold hands with each other.

This for me is the true essence of a conjugal marriage wherein a deep and abiding relationship is developed between two people that promise to be with each other no matter what. I have been in a variety of relationships throughout life yet to this day I have yet to find the deep love and affection that my parents have developed for each other.

Consanguine Family System

By definition, a consanguine family system is composed of a family of close relatives living within direct proximity to each other and has close familial ties. This is vastly different from the concept of a conjugal family where the relationship is more “inward,” so to speak where in the ties of a conjugal family to an extended family are more voluntary than being an absolute necessity (Thamm, 1975).

In the case of a consanguine family, the relationship with the family is more absolute in that expenses, food, and other aspects related to living within the same “roof” are shared. It is due to this that the concept of “kinship” is more enforced in the case of a consanguine family with interfamily ties playing an important role in daily interactions which comes about as a necessity since this acts as a means of preventing the inevitable conflicts that arise from several people living under one roof from getting out of hand.

While my family at the present lives apart from my other relatives I do remember a time when I was younger when my father, aunts, and uncles all used to live in the same compound that was owned by my grandparents. I have to admit that it was quite nice to live close to my cousins since this enabled me to play with them daily. We all used to eat together, do a lot of activities together and were like a big happy family. On the other hand, as time passed there were a few arguments and fights now and then that led to all of us getting our own separate homes, but every now and we do still meet up for holidays and similar events.

Proximity Effect

Studies such as those by ( ) explain that the proximity effect is the tendency for two or more individuals to form a friendship or certain romantic relationships due to continuous and exposure to each other which forms a subsequent bond between the individuals involved. The basis of this particular process is founded on the assumption that the more a person is around or interacts with another person the more likely it is that the two of them will develop a subsequent liking to each other due to an inherent behavioral instinct to form a bond and social relationships with those around us. As such the proximity effect could be considered the effect of man’s necessity to form social bonds especially with those that they encounter daily.

When I first entered college, I didn’t know anyone within the classes I attended I didn’t know anyone within the school at all. Over time, though I began to interact with the people around me in class, especially those who were seated close to me, and over a certain length of time without me truly noticing it we all became friends. For me, this is a proximity effect in action since for me it was because I encountered these individuals daily that drew them to me in the first place.

Based on casual conversations with some of my friends that I found from the initial classes that we took together in the past, it was the same for them wherein it was due to our constant and daily interactions that they were drawn to me as well. Going even further back into my past I came to realize that this pattern has repeated itself over and over again each time I progressed from grade to grade during grade school and high school and as such lends a significant degree of factual evidence towards the credibility of the proximity effect.

Post-modern family

The post-modern family of the modern-day era is often described as a diverse and complex unit of society that is quite unlike the nuclear family of the past (Smith, 1998). Families can now be composed of single parents, gay parents, or even transgendered. Not only that, with the increasing rates of divorce and remarriage a post-modern family at the present can expect to be composed of stepfathers, stepfathers, stepsons, and stepdaughters (Smith, 1998). As such the families of the present can be considered an amalgam of different types and financial situations, making the traditional nuclear family of the past a rarity in today’s modern-day era.

Personal example

While my own family can be described as a traditional nuclear family, I have seen various instances of a post-modern family among some of the people I’ve been friends with for many years. For example, one of my oldest friends, Brian, actually has parents that are both gay while Analee, another friend, has a stepfather. When looking back on the relationships they had with their parents though I saw no particular difference in the way they were treated, they were for all intents and purposes with a loving family and as such shows that despite the differences between the two family types both show the same degree of love and affection that should be present in a true family.

Double Bind Communication

A situation involving double-bind communication often rears its head wherein an individual is presented with two conflicting statements that they have to follow.

I remember one time when my mother told me to be more outgoing when I was in high school yet my father told me to come home right after school. If I was to follow one, I had to disobey the other yet both were in a position of authority over me, which resulted in a situation where it was impossible to follow both.

Negative affect reciprocity

Negative affect reciprocity occurs when a particular action that harms a particular person is reciprocated by an equally negative action on another person or on the person where the initial negative action originated from. This particular concept is similar to the old saying “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” wherein a harmful or negative action by one person towards another is reciprocated by an equally harmful and negative reaction as well.

Personal Experience

Though it may not be my proudest moment, I do recall a few years ago when someone played a particularly awful trick on me by giving me the wrong exam schedule resulting in me missing a few of my tests and almost failing out of a class. I got even by letting the air out of his tires with a sharp nail. From this experience, I can see the temptation most people would feel in wanting to get even when a person has pulled off a particular negative action towards them. Sometimes the feeling of wanting to get even is so ingrained that you don’t think of the moral consequences.

Erikson’s ego-crisis of initiative vs. guilt

In Erikson’s ego crisis of initiative versus guilt, children are just starting to become more active and move around and do a variety of activities (tie, count, and speak, etc.) (Ages 4 -5). In this particular situation, children develop risk-taking behaviors wherein they learn initiative and prepare to achieve some form of goal, whether it’s as simple as tying their shoes on their own or getting a good grade in the class. In this particular stage, it is also notable that they may feel guilty over doing tasks that they shouldn’t feel guilty about.

Personal experience

While I don’t quite remember the details I do remember quite a long time ago that I felt a great deal of personal accomplishment in being able to tie my shoelaces for myself yet what was odd was that despite knowing how to do so I felt strangely guilty that I didn’t let my mother do it for me.

Altruistic Parenthood

Altruistic parenthood can be defined as a societal belief where parents are expected to provide for all the needs and necessities of their children. This comes in the form of providing food, clothing, education, and a variety of other necessities to a point that a child is already self-sufficient enough to live on their own and start their own family. It must be noted though that this particular approach to parenthood has been argued by studies as such as those by Rabin & Greene (1968) as promoting dependence and as a result limits the ability of children to mature early enough (Rabin & Greene, 1968).

Examples of this come in the form of children that never truly grow up such as individuals that continue to live with their parents, refuse to get jobs, and have otherwise committed themselves to a lifestyle of dependence on their parents. It is based on this that it is often argued that altruistic parenthood is only applicable to a certain extent and that it is necessary to teach a child to be independent to prevent overly dependent behaviors to manifest themselves.

Throughout my life I have been cared for by my parents, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that all of my needs (food, clothing, education, etc.) were provided for to the best of their abilities. I never really questioned why they did so since for me it was as normal as the rising and setting of the sun. From a more educated perspective, I have to realize that the reason behind their care and attentiveness was due to a degree of altruism in that they had the inherent responsibility to take care of me. Whether love plays a factor in this particular process, I can’t tell but based on my childhood where all my needs were met I can say that altruistic parenthood is commonplace in human society.

Reference List

Extended family. (2012). Lapham’s Quarterly , 5 (1), 128-173.

Hamplova, D., & Le Bourdais, C. (2010). Visible minorities and ‘White’-‘non-White’ conjugal unions in Canadian large cities. Ethnic & Racial Studies , 33 (9), 1537-1560.

Rabin, A. I., & Greene, R. J. (1968). Assessing motivation for parenthood. Journal Of Psychology: Interdisciplinary And Applied , 69 (1), 39-46.

Smith, G. L. (1998). The Present State and Future of Symbolic-Experiential Family Therapy: A Post-Modern Analysis. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal , 20 (2), 147-161.

Thamm, R. t. (1975). Beyond marriage and the nuclear family . Canfield Press.

• Future Correctional Issues in Relation to Prisoners
• Child Abuse: Altruistic Behavior
• Parenthood’s Impact on Individuals’ Lives
• Family Issues in the United States of the XXI Century
• Family as a Social Institution
• "Public and Private Families" by Andrew J. Cherlin
• Family Welfare and Divorce Policies
• Family Systems and Relationship Development
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, January 21). Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-types-relationships-and-dynamics/

"Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics." IvyPanda , 21 Jan. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/family-types-relationships-and-dynamics/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics'. 21 January.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics." January 21, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-types-relationships-and-dynamics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics." January 21, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-types-relationships-and-dynamics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Family Types, Relationships and Dynamics." January 21, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/family-types-relationships-and-dynamics/.

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

• Study Notes

Families: Forms of Family Diversity

Last updated 15 Sept 2022

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Some sociologists argue that there is no “normal” family, but instead a broad diversity of family and household forms in the UK today.

There are a number of reasons for this increased diversity, including:

• Secularisation (as religion has become less central to UK society, so people are more likely to consider alternatives to marriage and also there is a reduced stigma to divorce.)
• Legal changes (the legal changes mentioned in the previous section has made divorce easier, therefore leading to more family types)

Late modernist Anthony Giddens (1992) argues that greater gender equality has led to significant changes in the nature of family life. Relationships are now categorised by freedom – people are free to enter into relationships on their own terms rather than bound by tradition or family expectations.

A consequence of this is that people seek a pure relationship : if a relationship is not meeting their expectations then they are also at liberty to end it and seek one that is more fulfilling. Furthermore, relationships have become increasingly about the self : people’s self-identity is explored through relationships.

All of this combines to suggest that people are less likely to get married young and stay together for their whole lives and instead are likely to experience serial monogamy . That is, be part of several partnerships throughout their life course, rather than just one. While in previous eras it was not unusual for people to marry their “childhood sweetheart” it is now very unusual for people in a relationship at 18 to remain in the same relationship for life. While this represents greater choice and freedom , it is also characterised by instability .

Sociologists recognise a large number of diverse family forms in contemporary society.

Examples of diverse family forms

Traditional nuclear family.

This is the traditional family as described functionalists like Talcott Parsons and the New Right: a married couple with their own children (2 or 3 of them) where the husband goes out to work and the wife looks after most of the domestic duties, with clear segregated roles .

Symmetrical family

This family form was described by Wilmott & Young who argued that in the later 20 th century, families were becoming more symmetrical, with more joint roles. Women were increasingly going out to work and men were doing more of the housework.

Nuclear family with house husband or “new man”

Another family form that exists, especially in a postmodern society, is one where the female adult in the family is the “breadwinner” and the husband does most of the domestic work.

Extended family

Extended family refers to those family members who are outside the “nucleus”: aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents, etc. Extended family households can be either:

• Vertical . Multiple generations living together (e.g. grandparents and great grandparents. The vertical description relates to how it would appear on a family tree.
• Horizontal . A household made up of aunts, uncles and cousins: the family extended horizontally across the same generation rather than vertically.

These household forms were uncommon in the 20 th century, but had arguably been a feature of pre-industrial and early industrial households. However, life expectancy would suggest that at the time it would have been more likely to be horizontal extended families, whereas today – with an ageing population – the likelihood of vertical extended families has increased.

Beanpole family

Again, looking at how a family looks on a family tree can present us with a beanpole family: a vertical extended family with no (or few) “branches”. This is a multi-generational extended family, or vertical extended family, but is characterised by each generation having few siblings. Again, as the fertility rate has reduced, this becomes a more common family form. In earlier generations, grandparents and great grandparents might be expected to have several siblings, as large families was the norm.

Matrifocal lone parent family

The most common lone-parent family is the matrifocal one: that is one where the lone parent is the mother of the child/children. There are several reasons for this, such as women giving birth (and therefore being the present parent if they are not in a relationship) and courts tending to prefer mothers in child custody cases, following divorces.

New Right sociologists, such as Charles Murray criticise lone parent families suggesting that the lack of a male role model can cause deviant behaviour and socialise children with deviant values, leading to the creation of an underclass .

Patrifocal lone parent family

A less common variation on the lone-parent family is the patrifocal one: a family headed by a single father.

Reconstituted family

A reconstituted family is where two nuclear families that have split up merge (or blend) to form a new family (i.e. with step-parents and step-brothers or sisters). Because of both increased divorce and the decrease in marriage, there are many more reconstituted or blended families in the UK today than there were 100 years ago.

Same sex couples

Of course, there are really a number of different same-sex family structures, not just one. Same-sex couple implies a couple living without children ( coupling describes this household structure for both heterosexual and homosexual couples) but there are also same-sex families where there are children (either naturally the children of one or other parent or adopted).

Living apart together

A living apart together family is where a couple choose not to cohabitate (or are not currently cohabitating). This accounts for approximately 10% of UK adults.

Grandparenting

This is a term for when children are brought up by their grandparents rather than their parents. There are a number of reasons why this situation might arise. It refers to a more formal, permanent or semi-permanent arrangement than just grandparents assisting with childcare.

This term refers to people living on their own. Again this is quite a common household type in contemporary Britain.

Flatmates/housemates

Some households are multiple occupancy. This might be in the form of flatmates or housemates such as university students, or it might be people who do not know each other prior to taking up residence (e.g. some migrant workers).

Empty nest family

This term refers to a household where there is a couple who had children but they have now left the family home. Because people are living longer, there are more empty nest households and they remain that way for longer.

Boomerang family

However, a growing trend has been for boomerang families where children who have left the family home have come back again! For example, this might occur with people graduating from university and then returning to the family home. The cost and scarcity of housing has made this more common.

Polygamy in the strict sense is illegal in the UK: you cannot be married to more than one person under UK law. However, there are people who live with more than one partner (not married) and also some people have other spouses in other countries (not recognised by UK law). In some cultures polygamy is seen as a better option than infidelity and is therefore encouraged.

• Reconstituted Family
• Extended Family
• Symmetrical Family
• Nuclear Family

You might also like

Battling discrimination as a single parent.

27th March 2017

Ageism in the Workplace

5th October 2017

State of the Nation: Social Mobility

1st December 2017

Domestic Violence

30th April 2018

Left-Behind Children

21st June 2018

Modern Masculinity

7th June 2019

Families & Households: Feminism and Family

Topic Videos

Gender Roles & Relationships | Decision Making

Our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Improving writing skills since 2002

(855) 4-ESSAYS

Type a new keyword(s) and press Enter to search

Types of families.

• Word Count: 557
• Approx Pages: 2
• View my Saved Essays
• Downloads: 38
• Grade level: High School
• Problems? Flag this paper!

            A family can be defined in numerous ways. The Oxford University Press defines a family as "a group consisting of two parents and their children living together as a unit". This definition is extremely limited, as it only covers a portion of the families today. In actuality, there are five basic types of families. Each of them vary in appearance, but the purpose of each one is ultimately to provide a caring, loving and constructive environment to all of its members.              The most recognized of these families is the nuclear family, a family in which the mother, father and children all reside together. This is seen as the traditional family, and is considered by many to be ideal. Traditionally, in this setting, the father plays the role of breadwinner, while the mother handles the domestic work. But with time comes change. In modern life it is not at all unusual to encounter a household where the father stays at home caring for the children and the mother is the main source of income. In either situation, the role of the parents is to ensure that their children have a stable atmosphere in which to live.              Another type of family is the extended family. An extended family contains relatives from beyond the nuclear family who dwell in the same household (http://www.hartland64.freeserve.co.uk). Extended families include members like grandmothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. These additional members may help reduce the financial stress on a family, as they may bring in additional income. They also may reduce the hassle on the parents when it comes to finding child care. .              Lone or Single Parent families are another type of family. This one is self explanatory - It is a family in which there is only one parent present to take care of the child or children. This may be the case because of children born out of wedlock, parents who were widowed, or families who were simply abandoned by one parent. Lone Parent families are usually harder to manage, as one parent must play the role of two, but in many cases they are successful in doing so.

• Page 1 of 2

Essays Related to Types of Families

1. diabetes and types.

Risk factors for type 1 diabetes are a family history of the disease, the white race and being at an age less than 20. ... Scientists are not really sure what causes type 2 diabetes but they do know that it runs in families. . ... This paragraph tells how patients and their families are affected by type 2 diabetes. ... It is important for family and friends to help the patient feel as comfortable as they can and not to feel left out. ... The first one is genetics, which runs in families (Parkers 159). ...

• Word Count: 1636
• Approx Pages: 7
• Grade Level: High School

2. Sociology of the Common British Family

Functionalists Willmott and Young (1975) would argue that there isn't one universal family type throughout British history, instead they found there were trends of family norms within different periods of it. ... The most common family type was the nuclear one and families relaxed their ties with extended kin. ... Therefore, Willmott and Young concluded that there is not a universal family type in British history but family norms are largely shaped on economic factors and social movements. ... Similarly, post-modernist Stacey argues that the family structure is so broad in today's s...

• Word Count: 753
• Approx Pages: 3
• Grade Level: Undergraduate

3. Family and Contemporary Culture

The show is comprised of three interrelated families, the Pritchett family, the Dunphy family and the Pritchett-Tucker family. ... The Dunphy family is the current traditional family representation in America; the family does not convey a sense of modernity to the audience. The family setting represents the normal American family that has been the traditional family in America. ... This type of power figure is seen as the traditional family unit, but it has changed over the years. ... All these families promote the dominant ideology of the current American family structure. ...

• Word Count: 895
• Approx Pages: 4

4. family change

The media has portrayed it version of what the idea family is. ... T.V. shows such as the Cosby Show, The Simpson, Married with Children which are but a few that dictate or indicate the type of family which North Americans prefer. ... The Simpson family could be considered as the average American family. ... Since most viewers regard the Simpson show has being the ideal family in North America, some people have begun to question if the family will eventually return from the modern day family to the traditional family. ... Most families wanted a small family usually 2-3 children (most sitcoms h...

• Word Count: 1176
• Approx Pages: 5

5. Family and Gender

Family and Gender What is the definition of a family? ... Both family structure and family values have been changing and as a result of these changes, the American family is a much-altered institution. ... However, if family life today seems unsettled, so, too, was family life in the past. ... Family values are a part of our family of origin and are the rules that we go by and family values are different for every family. What family values are depends on what each family teaches their children to believe in. ...

• Word Count: 2566
• Approx Pages: 10

6. Traditional and Modern Families

Before we start talking about what modern family is, lets discuss some points about a traditional family. A traditional family mostly involves the entire family. ... A modern family based on parents that both work long hours to provide for the family. ... In her family, all the family members lived in one house. ... In one type we spend more time together with the family in the other hand where we are more individual in a modern style. ...

• Word Count: 769

Family Is What You Make It There are different types of family in society. Two of which are a nuclear family and an extended family. ... Some people refer to a nuclear family as a conjugal family. ... Of the two types of families defined, I think that in Summer of My German Soldier Patty has more of an extended family. ... I feel as though the family in the story does not keep with the definition of the type of family that is supposed to be in the book. ...

• Word Count: 566

8. Diabetes

What is Type 2 diabetes? ... The Cause of Type 2 diabetes: Type 2 diabetes is caused by the body's resistance to insulin. ... Drug Type Effect Impact on Family and Friends If a family member gets diagnosed it can impact the entire family. 1. ... It changes the schedule of the family it means regular meal times and cooking with a diabetic menu for the whole family. ... Routine blood sugar testing limits family vacationing 5. ...

• Word Count: 1433
• Approx Pages: 6

9. Diabetic

Diabetes There are three types of diabetes. Type I is called Diabetes Mellitus. ... People with type I have to take insulin. ... The second type of diabetes is called Diabetes Insipidus or type II. ... Type II runs in families, being overweight brings it on. ...

• Word Count: 730

Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Communication / Family Relationships

Family Relationships Essay Examples

The nuclear family in sociology: perspectives and challenges.

To start with, this is nuclear family essay in which the topic will be considered by an author. The past few decades have seen significant changes in behavioural patterns and lifestyles that have led to new structures and features of households and families. The changes...

Strengthening Family Relationships: Strategies and Insights

Family relationships are the bonds created among a group of people who share the same DNA. These set of people are related by blood, marriage or adoption. Family relationships can be divided into nuclear family relationship and extended family relationship. In the essay about family...

The Meaning of a Happy Family: Perspectives and Realities

Family? What is family? What do you expect to that family? It can be answered in many words, but in this happy family essay I wil describe what family is in a simple words. Happy family have many forms. Happy Family, of course that is...

My Family - is My Strength and My Weakness

I love posting picture of my family.  My family is my life, and everything else comes second as far as what’s important to me. That is why I chose to write my strength and my weakness is my family essay. Because I wholeheartedly love my...

Treasured Memories: My Family Through a Photograph

I was just hanging out on my sisters couch watching my family act crazy and having fun it kinda looked like I was watching wild animals have fun but I love my family and I would just glance at those presents wanting to open them...

Portrait of My Family: a Brief Narrative Description

Most people in the world are lucky to have families. A family that can share all the joys and sorrows with you, guide you through your growing years, and accompany you in the most difficult situations. I am also very lucky to have such a...

Family: a Descriptive Exploration of Parental Roles

My name is Ammy. I am studying psychology. I am from Bangladesh. With my parents we are permanent resident of USA since I was 3 years old. In my family, I have my father, my mother and a sister. I am the younger child of...

My Father is My Best Friend

A best friend is someone who understands, supports, and stands by you through thick and thin. In my life, that role is beautifully fulfilled by my father. This essay explores the special bond I share with my father, highlighting the qualities that make him not...

Family Structures: Blended, Nuclear, and Extended Compared

There are many different types of families and there are range of family structures that exist in our society today. Here is “Blended, nuclear and extended family”essay in which three types of modern families will be considered and a comparison between them will be made. ...

Causes of Sibling Rivalry: Understanding Family Dynamics

Sibling relationships are among the most enduring and complex bonds in our lives. While siblings can provide emotional support and companionship, they can also experience rivalry and conflicts. Sibling rivalry is a common phenomenon that has been observed in families across cultures and generations. In...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Cultural Identity
• Animal Cruelty
• Masculinity
• Public Speaking
• Effects of Social Media
• Cultural Competence
• Divorce Rate
• Observation Essays
• Discourse Community Essays
• Gossip Essays
• Propaganda Essays
• Fake News Essays
• Conflict Resolution Essays
• Hate Speech Essays
• Communication Skills Essays
• Dating Essays
• Media Ethics Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->