8.2 Families and Children

No one doubts that genes affect personality as well as ability, that peers are vital, and that schools and cultures influence what, and how much, children learn, as well as how they feel about themselves. Some researchers have even suggested that genes, peers, and communities have so much influence that parenting has little impact—unless it is grossly abusive (Harris, 1998, 2002; McLeod et al., 2007). But parents are instrumental in creating the environment that allows their children to thrive, and as such play an important role in their children’s lives.

As an example, Midgett and his colleagues (2002) examined the relationship between parent–child interactions, achievement, and self-esteem among Grade 4 and Grade 7 Canadian students. Although there seems to be a relationship between self-esteem and achievement, this relationship disappears once family factors are considered, indicating the importance of parenting.

Shared and Non-shared Environments

Environmental influence on any two children comes either from factors that are shared (both children experience the same environment) or factors that are not shared. For example, all the children raised in one home might be said to share the same parents, and children who grow up in separate nations might have non-shared cultural influences.

Family Unity Even though these siblings are being raised together, they do not share the same environment. Age, genes, resilience, and gender have an impact on how children deal with adverse and stressful events.
MASTERFILE/RADIUS IMAGES

Many studies have found that children are less affected by shared environment than by non-shared environment. A formula for the influences on a child is G + Shared E + Non-shared E, which is read as genes plus home environment plus non-home environment. Research that applied this formula to twins, full and half siblings, and stepchildren found that most personality traits and intellectual characteristics are the product of genes plus non-shared environments, with little left over for the shared influences, such as those for siblings growing up together.

Even psychopathology (Burt, 2009) and sexual orientation (Långström et al., 2010) arise primarily from genes and non-shared environment. Parenting does not make a child heterosexual or homosexual: Identical twins usually have the same sexual orientation, but if they do not, it seems to be because of non-shared factors.

300

Since shared environment has little impact, does this mean that parents are merely caretakers, providing basic care (food, shelter) with little influence on children’s personality, intellect, and so on, no matter what rules, routines, or responses they provide? No! Recent findings reassert parental influence. The formula and calculation of shared and non-shared influences was correct, but the definition of Shared E was based on a false assumption: Siblings raised together do not share the same environment.

For example, if relocation, divorce, unemployment, or a new job occurs in a family, the impact on each child depends on that child’s age, genes, resilience, and gender. Thus, moving to another town might disturb a 9-year-old girl more than her baby brother because she must leave friends behind; divorce often harms boys more than girls because it weakens connections with their father; and poverty may hurt children of one age more than another.

The variations just mentioned do not apply equally to all siblings: Differential sensitivity means that one child is more affected, for better or worse, than the other (Pluess & Belsky, 2010). Even if siblings are raised together, the mix of parental personality, genes, age, and gender may lead one child to become antisocial, another to have a personality disorder, and a third to be resilient (Beauchaine et al., 2009).

ESPECIALLY FOR Scientists How would you determine whether parents treat all their children the same way?

In addition to variations within the home, parents choose for their children many outside, non-shared influences, such as school and neighbourhood. Those choices sometimes affect each child differently (Simpkins et al., 2006). For instance, perhaps the oldest child attended the nearby public school and then family income shifted so that a younger sibling attended a private school 10 kilometres away. School would be a non-shared influence on these two children, with the parents playing a pivotal role in the choice of school.

Even identical twins, with the same genes, age, and sex, may not share their home or school environment (Caspi et al., 2004). For example, one mother spoke of her monozygotic daughters:

Susan can be very sweet. She loves babies…she can be insecure…she flutters and dances around… There’s not much between her ears… She’s exceptionally vain, more so than Ann. Ann loves any game involving a ball, very sporty, climbs trees, very much a tomboy. One is a serious tomboy and one’s a serious girlie girl. Even when they were babies I always dressed one in blue stuff and one in pink stuff.

[quoted in Caspi et al., 2004]

Even though the mother from the beginning dressed her daughters differently, how the girls reacted, their personalities, their personal preferences, and their activities would then encourage or discourage the environment the mother was creating for them.

Family Structure and Family Function

Family structure refers to the legal and genetic connections among people living in the same household. Family function refers to how a family cares for its members. The data affirm that parents are crucial for family function, determining non-shared as well as shared environments. Does it matter what structure the family has? Are some family structures more supportive of parents and children, enabling well-functioning families? What is a dysfunctional, or a well-functioning, family?

Part of the answer is known. No matter what the structure, one family function is crucial: People need family love and encouragement. Beyond that, needs vary by age. As you have seen, infants need responsive caregiving, frequent exposure to language, and social interaction; preschoolers need encouragement and guidance. Later chapters of this text describe the needs of adolescents and adults.

301

During middle childhood, children need five things from their families:

  1. Physical necessities. Although children in middle childhood eat, dress, and go to sleep without help, families furnish food, clothing, and shelter.
  2. Learning. These are prime learning years: Families choose schools, help with homework, and encourage education.
  3. Self-respect. Families give each child a way to shine. Especially if academic success is elusive, opportunities in sports, the arts, and so on are crucial.
  4. Peer relationships. Families foster friendships via play dates, group activities, school choice, and classroom support.
  5. Harmony and stability. Families provide protective, predictable routines within a home that is a safe haven for everyone.

Now consider the tire-changing boy from the opening story of this chapter. To decide whether that young tire-changer should be helping his father would require finding out whether his life situation satisfies the five needs that are thought to be universal during middle childhood. Are his material needs met, is he learning in school, does he have friends, is he proud of himself, is his work keeping his family harmonious and stable? If the answer to these questions is yes, then Tiffany’s understandable shock, or the father’s acceptance of child labour, may reflect their cultures, not the boy’s welfare.

Continuity and ChangeNo family always functions perfectly, but children worldwide fare better in families than in other institutions (such as group residences), and best if families provide the five functions listed above. Item five, harmony and stability, is especially crucial in middle childhood: Children like continuity, not change; peace, not conflict. To some degree, this is unique to middle childhood. Indeed, a decade or so later, emerging adults enjoy new places, seek challenges, and provoke arguments with friends and family. University students sometimes study in other nations or stay up all night debating issues with friends—not something young children do. Adults may not recognize a child’s wish for continuity. Parents often move to a “better” neighbourhood during these years, thinking they are securing a better life for their children. However, children may feel vulnerable as a result of moving, not protected.

The importance of continuity is evident from the findings of a study from Japan (Tanaka & Nakazawa, 2005). The researchers began with the knowledge that children benefit from living with their fathers. Father absence correlates with poverty and divorce, both also harmful. Given that, the researchers wanted to learn how children would be affected if the father’s absence did not correlate with low income and hostile mother–father interaction. Accordingly, they sought to replicate prior father-absence investigations by studying children of happily married couples in which the fathers were gainfully employed and supporting the family, but nonetheless absent.

An opportunity for such research arose in Japan because many Japanese corporations transfer employees from one location to another to help them understand how the company functions. Some families moved with the father, while others did not. As a result, researchers were able to study two similar groups of children, with only one major difference between the groups: whether the father was present or absent every day.

The hypothesis was that children who moved with their fathers would benefit because his daily presence would help them with self-esteem, homework, and therefore school achievement. However, the opposite turned out to be true. Although the mothers who moved with their husbands were happier, the schoolchildren who moved were more depressed and their school achievement suffered. It seems that the benefit of father presence was undermined by the stress of change.

What Must She Leave Behind? In every nation, children are uprooted from familiar places as a result of adult struggles and/or aspirations for a better life. This girl is leaving a settlement in the Gaza Strip, due to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict that has disrupted millions of lives. Worldwide, children suffer most from relocation.
AMIT SHABI/LAIF/REDUX

302

Military FamiliesNorth American children in military families face particular challenges in terms of the fifth point on the list of family functions, stability. Military parents repeatedly depart and return, and families typically relocate every few years (Riggs & Riggs, 2011; Titus, 2007). Generally, adults are happy when a soldier comes home safely, but even a safe return may disrupt the children’s lives. Military children experience emotional problems and a decrease in achievement with each change (Hall, 2008).

For that reason, since 1991, the Canadian Forces (CF) and the Canadian/Military Family Resource Centres (C/MFRCs) have partnered together to try to deliver responsible services and support to CF families. Currently there are 32 C/MFRCs across Canada, five in the United States, and six more overseas. These centres are designed to provide various educational and support services to meet the unique needs of these families, especially in regard to stressful situations that may arise from a parent’s deployment overseas.

Specifically, such support includes information on issues such as the emotional cycle family members are likely to experience when a parent is deployed; preparing for departure; dealing with the absence; preparing for the return; and creating a new family routine after the return (National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, 2013).

The same underlying principles apply to non-military families. Remember that children need stability in their lives. If an out-of-work parent finds a job far away, or if circumstances make it easier to leave a destructive neighbourhood, an inferior school, or a crowded extended family, most family members may rejoice—but not necessarily the 6- to 11-year-olds. This, of course, does not preclude such moves, but disrupted children need special attention and support.

Diversity of StructuresWorldwide, two cohort factors—more single-parent households and fewer children per family—have changed families from what they were a few decades ago. TABLE 8.2 describes various family structures that exist around the world.

Table : TABLE 8.2 Types of Family Structures
Two-Parent Families
  • Nuclear family. Named after the nucleus (the tightly connected core particles of an atom), the nuclear family consists of a man and a woman and their biological offspring under 18 years of age.
  • Step-parent family. When children from a former relationship live with the new couple, it creates a step-parent family. If the step-parent family includes children born to two or more couples (such as children from the spouses’ previous marriages and/or children of the new couple), that is called a blended family.
  • Adoptive family. In this type of family, couples or single people adopt one or more children from their country or from foreign countries.
  • Grandparents alone. Grandparents take on parenting for some children when biological parents are absent (dead, imprisoned, sick, addicted, etc.).
  • Same-sex parents. Some two-parent families are headed by a same-sex couple, whose legal status, in terms of their relationship with one another and their role as parents (married, step-, adoptive) varies.

Single-Parent Families
One-parent families are increasing, but they average fewer children than two-parent families.
  • Single mother or father. Children may live with mothers or fathers who have never been married, or are separated, divorced, or widowed. Most children live with a female single parent.
  • Grandparent alone. Sometimes a single grandparent (usually the grandmother) becomes the sole caregiving adult for a child.

More Than Two Adults
  • Extended family. Some children live with a grandparent or other relatives, as well as with one or both of their parents. This pattern is most common with infants but occurs in middle childhood as well.

In Canada, about 80 percent of children aged 14 and under live in two-parent homes, most often with their biological parents, an arrangement called a nuclear family. Most parents in a nuclear family are married (64 percent). However, in Canada, the percentage of couples living in a common-law arrangement has been increasing steadily in recent years, from 13 percent in 2006 to 16 percent in 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2012e) (see Figure 8.1).

Same Situation, Far Apart: Happy Families The children in both photos are about 4 years old. Mia (left) lives with her parents in Toronto. Here, her father is picking her up from her daycare centre. The youngest child in the Balmedina family (right) lives with his nuclear family in the Philippines. Even though these families live in different countries, they share the same family structure.
STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR VIA GETTY IMAGES
GREG ELMS/GETTY IMAGES

The number of same-sex couples is also increasing in Canada. Since Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, these couples are now included in the census category of “married couples.” Overall, between 2006 and 2011, the number of same-sex married couples in Canada nearly tripled, increasing by a rate of 182 percent (Statistics Canada, 2012). As of 2011, same-sex couples accounted for 0.8 percent of all Canadian couples, and 9.4 percent of those couples had children. Even though same-sex couples are more likely to be male (55 percent) than female (46 percent), about 80 percent of same-sex couples who have children are female (Statistics Canada, 2012).

303

Almost 1 in 5 Canadian children (19 percent) currently live in a single-parent family. By far, most of these children (82 percent) live with a female single parent. Overall, the number of single-parent families increased by 8 percent in the five-year period between 2006 and 2011 (Statistics Canada, 2012).

Two-parent and single-parent structures are often contrasted with the extended family, a family that includes non-parental adults, usually grandparents and often aunts, uncles, and cousins, all under one roof. In 2011, about 3 percent of private households in Canada consisted of extended families, also called multi-generational households (Statistics Canada, 2012). Infants are more likely to live in extended families than older children are. Extended families save on housing costs and child care, which makes them more common among low-income households.

The distinction between one-parent, two-parent, and extended families is not as simple in practice as on paper. Many young parents live near relatives who provide meals, emotional support, money, and child care, functioning as an extended family. Similarly, extended families can be like nuclear families, especially in developing nations: Some families are considered extended because they share a roof, but they create separate living quarters for each set of parents and children (Georgas et al., 2006).

FIGURE 8.1 Common Family Structures in Canada This graph shows the most common family structures for children under 14 years of age in Canada from 2001 to 2011. Note that while the percentage of married couples steadily decreased during this period, the percentage of common-law parents saw a corresponding and significant increase.

304

Connecting Family Structure and Function

Structure influences but does not determine function. Which structures make it more likely that the five family functions (necessities, learning, self-respect, friendship, harmony/stability) will occur?

Benefits of Nuclear FamiliesIn general, nuclear families function best; children in the nuclear structure tend to achieve higher grades in school and have fewer psychological problems. A scholar who summarized dozens of studies concluded, “Children living with two biological married parents experience better educational, social, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes than do other children” (Brown, 2010). Does this mean that parents should all marry and stay married? Developmentalists are not that prescriptive because some of the benefits are correlates, not causes.

Many advantages of nuclear families begin before the wedding because education, earning potential, and emotional maturity all make it more likely that people will marry, have children, and stay married. Thus, brides and grooms bring personal assets to their new family. In other words, there is a correlation between child success and married parents partly because of who marries, not because of the fact of marriage itself.

To some extent, however, marriage in itself does benefit children. The selection effects noted earlier are not the entire story (Amato, 2005; Brown, 2010). Ideally, mutual affection between spouses encourages them to become wealthier and healthier than either would be alone, and that helps their children. Furthermore, the parental alliance, in which the mother and father support each other in their commitment to the child, decreases neglect and abuse and increases the likelihood that children have someone to read to them, check homework, invite friends over, buy new clothes, and save for their future.

In fact, a broad survey of parental contributions to college and university tuition found that the highest contributions came from nuclear families. These results might be expected when two-parent families are compared with single and divorced parents because one-parent families average less income. However, even when the income of remarried and nuclear parents is taken into consideration, remarried parents contribute less, on average, to the college or university tuition of stepchildren (Turley & Desmond, 2011). This suggests that the benefits of nuclear families continue for decades, even after children are grown.

Function of Other Two-Parent FamiliesAlthough nuclear families may be the ideal, they certainly are not the only way to raise healthy and happy children. The advantages of two-parent families are not limited to biological parents, whose genetic connection to their children partially explains their commitment.

Same-sex parents typically function very well for children, often better than the average nuclear family. Studies on how same-sex couples function are reassuring, but because same-sex marriage is relatively recent and not an option in many countries, the ideal studies—longitudinal research on a large sample, with valid comparisons to male/female families of the same age, marital status, and education—have not yet been published. Keep in mind that for decades, some female/female couples have raised children, usually the biological child of one mother who has custody after divorce. In general, their offspring develop well, emotionally and intellectually (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010).

The step-parent structure has advantages and disadvantages. The primary advantage is financial, especially when compared with the average single-parent family. However, some biological fathers who do not have custody and some stepfathers who are not genetically related to their stepchildren are reluctant to provide the formal and informal financial support that children need (Meyer et al., 2011). Furthermore, the other biological parent, as well as the children themselves, may make it difficult for the non-custodial or step-parent to develop a parental relationship with the child. On the other hand, many step-parent families function well. For example, when children are younger than 2 years and a new stepparent forms a supportive relationship with the biological parent, the children usually thrive (Ganong et al., 2011).

305

Income and intimacy aside, another disadvantage of step-families is in meeting the fifth family function listed earlier—providing harmony and stability. Instability is typical: Not only does remarriage usually entail moving to a new home, but also older stepchildren leave home sooner than older biological children, new babies arrive more often, and marriages are more likely to dissolve (Teachman, 2008).

Building a Blended Family Tom and Jakey expect a happy future as husband and wife. They plan to wed in three months, move into their new house (behind them) and lead a happy, blended family with his smiling daughters, Simone (17) and Shayla (12), now swinging her son, Nathaniel (5). However, blended families often experience challenges as step-parents try to establish relationships with stepchildren.
KIMBERLY P. MITCHELL/DETROIT FREE PRESS/MCT/NEWSCOM

Harmony may also be absent, especially if the child’s loyalty to both biological parents is undermined by ongoing disputes between them. A solid parental alliance is more difficult to form when it includes three adults—two of whom disliked each other enough to divorce, and a third who is a newcomer to the child’s life.

Another version of a two-parent family occurs when grandparents are full-time caretakers for children without parents present (called a skipped-generation family, the most common form of foster care). The hope is that grandparents provide excellent care since they are experienced, mature, and devoted to their grandchildren. Those characteristics may be present, but skipped-generation families average lower incomes, more health problems, and less stability than other two-parent families (Arber & Timonen, 2012). In Canada in 2011, about 0.5 percent of children 14 and under were living in a skipped-generation household (Statistics Canada, 2012e).

Adequate health care and schooling for children is particularly difficult in skipped-generation families, partly because many of these children have special needs due to the circumstances that led them to live with the grandparents in the first place. Although skipped-generation families need extra help, they are less likely to receive it (Baker & Mutchler, 2010).

Finally, adoptive families typically function well for children, although they can vary tremendously in their ability to meet the needs of children. Many of the children in such families pose special challenges, particularly at puberty and later. Support from agencies and communities is needed, but not always available.

Single-Parent FamiliesOn average, the single-parent structure functions less well because income and stability are lower. Most single parents fill many roles—including wage earner, daughter or son (single parents often depend on their own parents), and lover (many seek a new partner)—and this makes it hard to provide steady emotional and academic support for their children and to meet their children’s needs.

Family and community support for single parents make a difference. Some support programs help single parents access education, legal assistance, or financial counselling, which can help with their overall well-being. Although income support is crucial, it is also critical that support programs address the problems of loneliness, social isolation, and lack of parenting support. However, single parents who need help the most often seem least likely to receive it (Harknett & Hartnett, 2011).

ESPECIALLY FOR Single Parents You have heard that children raised in one-parent families may have difficulty establishing intimate relationships as adolescents and adults. What can you do about this possibility?

On the other hand, millions of children raised by single parents are well loved and nurtured. It is important to keep in mind that single parents are a diverse group, and most are not depressed or in poor health. Remember that difference is not always deficit; good caregiving is more difficult in the single parent structure, but it is far from impossible.

306

Culture and Family StructureCultural variations in the support provided for various family structures make it hard to conclude that a particular structure is always best. For example, many French parents are unmarried. Some might assume that an unmarried mother is also a single mother. However, French unmarried mothers generally live with their children’s fathers. French cohabiting parents separate less often than do married parents in North America, which suggests more stability in the average French cohabiting family than in the average married structure in North America. An analysis of 27 countries found that for women in particular, social context had a major impact on their happiness (Lee & Ono, 2012), which probably would affect their ability to parent successfully.

French Bliss Healthy twins (Layanne and Rayanne) are born in Paris to thrilled parents. As is common in France, these parents are not married.
OWEN FRANKEN/CORBIS

For children in North America, the cohabiting structure is more challenging than marriage because cohabiting parents separate more often than married parents do (Musick & Bumpass, 2012). This is one example of a general truth: Function is affected by national mores (S. L. Brown, 2004; Gibson-Davis & Gassman-Pines, 2010).

Ethnic norms matter as well. Single parenthood is more accepted among African-Americans (60 percent of African-American 6- to 11-year-olds live with only one parent). Consequently, relatives and friends routinely help single parents, who might be more isolated and dysfunctional if they were of another ethnicity (Cain & Combs-Orme, 2005;Taylor et al., 2008).

Another family structure that has emerged in Canada and some other countries is that of the astronaut family in which family members live in different and often widely separated countries across the globe. A common example of astronaut families consists of Chinese parents (from Hong Kong, Taiwan, or mainland China) and their children (known as satellite or parachute children) who have emigrated from their home country for the sake of economic or educational opportunities abroad. At some point, the father or mother or both return to the home country to pursue their careers (Man, 1994, 2013).

For example, a couple with two children may leave Hong Kong for Vancouver, where the parents work for several years before the father (the “astronaut”) returns to Hong Kong to establish a business there. If the mother and father both return, the children may be left with grandparents in Vancouver, or, if they are old enough, they may be left on their own while they finish university and begin their careers. Typically, parents will travel frequently between their home and adopted countries to maintain family ties.

Astronaut families differ from single-parent or cohabiting-parent families in that the structure of the astronaut family exists primarily in response to economic pressures: The parents are trying to find the best jobs available and to enhance their children’s own career opportunities. However, astronaut families do place certain pressures on children, especially on those in middle childhood. Although the family as a whole may enjoy economic benefits, children may feel emotionally deprived if they are separated from their parents, especially from their mother, for long periods of time.

In discussing various and different family structures, it is important not to conclude that one is better than another. Contrary to the averages, thousands of nuclear families are dysfunctional, thousands of step-parents provide excellent care, thousands of cohabiting couples are great parents, and thousands of single-parent families are wonderful. Structure and culture tend to protect or undercut healthy function, many parents overcome structural challenges, and many families of all types provide school-age children with the support and encouragement they need.

307

Family Challenges

Two factors interfere with family function in every structure, ethnic group, and nation: low income and high conflict. Many families experience both poverty and acrimony because financial stress increases conflict and vice versa (McLanahan, 2009).

PovertySuppose a 6-year-old boy spills his milk, as every 6-year-old sometimes does. In a well-functioning, two-parent family, one parent guides him to mop up the spill while the other parent pours more milk, perhaps encouraging family harmony by saying, “Everyone has an accident sometimes.”

What if the 6-year-old lives with a single parent struggling with overdue rent, unemployment, and an older child who wants money for a school trip? What if the child spilled the last of the milk and there is no money left this month to buy more? Shouting, crying, and accusations are almost inevitable. As in this example, poverty makes anger spill over when the milk does.

Family income correlates with structure. Many low-income adults are reluctant to marry until both spouses have good jobs, so the married structure is less common as income falls. Since conflicts about money are a major reason for divorce, if such parents do marry, then low income makes divorce more likely.

Family function is also affected by income: Obviously money is needed for the first of the five functions listed earlier—physical necessities—and it has an influence on functions 2 through 5 as well. Since most funds for schools in North America come from local property taxes, learning is affected by neighbourhood affluence. Since self-esteem may benefit from costly sports and arts programs, poverty reduces that as well. Friendship is limited if children have many tasks to do at home, and poor families move more often.

The effects of poverty on children are cumulative; most children are resilient if income drops for a year, but an entire childhood in poverty is difficult to overcome. Low SES may be especially damaging during middle childhood (Duncan et al., 2010). Several researchers have developed the family-stress model, which holds that the crucial question about any risk factor (such as low income, divorce, single parenthood, or unemployment) is whether it increases stress. Thus, poverty is less stressful if low income is temporary and the family’s net worth (home ownership, investments, and so on) buffers the strain (Yeung & Conley, 2008). However, ongoing economic hardship increases stress, and adults may become tense and hostile (Conger et al., 2002; Parke et al., 2004). Thus, the reaction to poverty, not the sheer monthly income, is crucial.

Reaction to wealth may also be harmful. Children in high-income families develop more than their share of developmental problems, such as depression, eating disorders, and drug addiction. One reason may be parental pressure, causing children to develop externalizing and internalizing problems (see Chapter 6) (Ansary & Luthar, 2009).

Some intervention programs aim to teach parents to be more encouraging and patient (McLoyd et al., 2006). In low-income families, however, this focus may be misplaced. Poverty itself—with attendant problems such as inadequate schools, poor health, and the threat of homelessness—causes stress (Duncan et al., 2010).

Remember the dynamic-systems perspective described in Chapter 1? That perspective applies to poverty: Multi-generational research finds that poverty is both a cause and a symptom—parents with less education and immature emotional control are more likely to have difficulty finding employment and raising their children, and then low income adds to those difficulties (Schofield et al., 2011).

If that is so, more income might improve family functioning. Some support for this idea comes from research indicating that children in single-mother households do much better if their father pays child support, even if he is not actively involved in the child’s daily life (Huang, 2009). Children also do much better in countries that subsidize single parents (e.g., Austria and Iceland). These countries have smaller achievement gaps between low- and middle-SES children on the TIMSS.

308

These findings are suggestive, but controversial and value-laden. Some developmentalists report that raising income does not, by itself, improve parenting (L. M. Berger et al., 2009). Using government funds to raise incomes of families living in poverty has become particularly controversial in Canada, where rates of childhood poverty remain disturbingly high, as explained in Chapter 3. This is especially true among Aboriginal peoples in this country. A 2013 joint report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Save the Children noted that although in 2009 the overall childhood poverty rate was 17 percent, it was significantly higher for Aboriginal children, at 40 percent. Moreover, when just status First Nations children were considered, it climbed to 50 percent (Macdonald & Wilson, 2013). The poverty rate for Aboriginal children also varied by region, and was highest in the Prairies. In Manitoba, 52 percent of Aboriginal children were living in poverty, and in Saskatchewan the rate was 55 percent (see Figure 8.2).

FIGURE 8.2 From Bad to Worse? The overall poverty rate for Canadian children is bad enough at 17 percent. Canada is ranked 25th out of 30 industrialized countries tracked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. However, for Aboriginal children in Canada, the poverty rate is even worse, at 40 percent. And as this map shows, regional variations mean that in provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the rate exceeds 50 percent. What the map does not show is that the poverty rate specifically for on-reserve First Nations children in those two provinces is an astounding 62 and 64 percent, respectively. How can such rates be acceptable in a wealthy nation like Canada?

As you read in Chapter 7, many experts have called for closing the “education gap” that exists between Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals as one means of alleviating childhood poverty on reserves and in other Aboriginal communities. Figure 8.3 gives just one example, from British Columbia, of how wide this gap can be in middle childhood.

FIGURE 8.3 Why Have Aboriginal Students Fallen Behind? This graph clearly illustrates what experts call “the Aboriginal education gap.” It shows meet-exceed ratios for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in British Columbia primary schools between 2002 and 2007. (Meet-exceed ratios are a commonly used summary statistic for standardized test scores). In each of the three tested areas, Aboriginal students lagged well behind their peers.

A Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) report makes a number of recommendations for eliminating poverty among Aboriginal children, some of which involve increasing government funding for various programs. For example, the report suggests that if the government increased Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s budget by 11 percent, the worst child poverty among status First Nations children could be completely eliminated (Macdonald & Wilson, 2013). This is a worthy goal, the price does not seem prohibitive, and as noted in Chapter 7, some experts believe that doing so could boost the Canadian economy by about $170 billion over the next 15 years (Sharpe & Arsenault, 2010). The question remains whether the political willpower and popular support exist to achieve such a goal.

309

OBSERVATION QUIZ

What do you think are some of the reasons for the Aboriginal education gap?

There are many complex reasons, including poverty, unstable living conditions, feelings of isolation, lack of funds for books and equipment, racism, and mistrust of educational institutions.

ConflictThere is no controversy about conflict. Every researcher agrees that family conflict harms children, especially when adults fight about child-rearing. Such fights are more common in stepfamilies, divorced families, and extended families. Of course, nuclear families are not immune: Children suffer especially if their parents abuse each other or if one parent walks out, leaving the other distraught.

The impact of genes on children’s reactions to conflict was explored in a longitudinal study of family conflict in 1734 married parents, each with a twin who was also a parent and part of the research. The twins’ husbands or wives, and an adolescent from each family, were also studied. Genetics as well as conflict could be analyzed, since 388 of the pairs of twins were monozygotic and 479 were dizygotic. Each adolescent was compared with a cousin, who had half (if the parent was monozygotic) or a quarter (if the parent was dizygotic) of the same genes (Schermerhorn et al., 2011).

Participants consisted of 5202 individuals, one-third of them adult twins, one-third of them spouses of twins, and one-third adolescents with a twin parent. Conflict was assessed with a well-known questionnaire that included items such as, “We fight a lot in our family.”

The researchers found that although genes had some effect, conflict itself was the main influence on the child’s well-being. For example, whether teenagers became delinquent depended less on the genes they inherited than on the conflict in their families. Open conflict was especially detrimental, leading to externalizing problems in the boys and internalizing problems in the girls.

Simple disagreement (assessed by both members of each couple) did not do much harm to the child—unless the dispute erupted into open conflict (such as yelling in front of the children) or divorce (Schermerhorn et al., 2011).

Even though conflict had a greater impact than genes, one measure did show genetic influence—the adolescents’ (not the parents’) estimate of how much conflict the family had. From this, the researchers suggest that some teenagers, for temperamental reasons, are more sensitive to conflict than others.

310

OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES

Divorce for the Sake of the Children

Opposing perspectives on divorce begin with three facts:

  1. About 40 percent of Canadian marriages end in divorce. The divorce and remarriage rate in the United States is even higher: Almost half of all marriages end in divorce.
  2. On average, children fare best, emotionally and academically, with married parents.
  3. Divorce tends to impair children’s academic achievement and psychosocial development for years, even decades.

A simple conclusion from these three facts might be that every couple should marry before they have children, and that no married couple should divorce. That is the perspective taken by many adults. But the opposite side—that divorce often benefits children, especially in high-conflict marriages—has proponents as well.

Opinions are strongly influenced by each person’s past history and cultural values. For example, married parents who stay together are much more negative about divorce than are divorced adults. Adults whose parents divorced tend to have a much more positive take on divorce than adults whose parents stayed together (Moon, 2011).

Some argue that attitudes toward marriage account for the problem of high divorce rates (Cherlin, 2009). North American culture idealizes both marriage and personal freedom. As a result, many young adults assert their independence by marrying “for love.” Then, when they are overwhelmed by child care and financial stress, romance fades, the marriage becomes strained, and they divorce.

Often the happiest time is right after the wedding, before children are born; the least happy time is when the children are infants or young teenagers. Marriage happiness dips during children’s infancy and rises when the children are self-sufficient adults. Financial and caregiving strains are greatest when children are younger than 5 years of age. Many couples meet that challenge by both working shifts, so one parent is always home. That solution has one hazard: Divorce is more common in such families. Divorce rates are also higher in younger marriages and in marriages between people who recently met.

Because marriage remains the ideal, divorced adults often blame their former mate or their own poor decision for the breakup. They may then enter into a second marriage—which may lead to another divorce. If they have children in each relationship, these children in particular are likely to suffer. In addition, encouraging unmarried parents to wed may be shortsighted because such marriages are at high risk of divorce (Brown, 2010). Indeed, at least one longitudinal study of unwed mothers found that those who married were eventually worse off than those who did not (Lichter et al., 2006). Research on unwed parents finds that many consider marriage a much riskier commitment than child-bearing (Gibson-Davis, 2011).

Scholars now describe marriage and divorce as a process, with transitions and conflicts before and after the formal events (Magnuson & Berger, 2009; Potter, 2010). As you remember, resilience is difficult when a child must contend with repeated changes and ongoing hassles. All couples experience some disagreement and conflict, which are not harmful if the conflict is resolved in a healthy way. How parents deal with conflict is critical in the relationship as well as to the well-being of the children. There is a greater likelihood of marital stability if the couple supports each other during personal difficulties (Pasch & Bradbury, 1998). Unfortunately, when there is marital conflict, children are often at risk for adjustment difficulties (Grych & Fincham, 1990).

Children’s emotional reactions and coping behaviours are also impacted by the emotionality of their parents’ conflicts (e.g., positive emotions, anger, sadness, fear) (Cummings et al., 2002). Coping is particularly hard when children are at a developmental transition, such as entering Grade 1 or beginning puberty, and when their parents involve them in the conflict.

Looking internationally, it is noteworthy that divorce is rare in some nations, especially in the Middle East and Africa. In those regions, adults expect marriages to endure, so in-laws help troubled couples stay together. Are children better off because of that? Maybe not. In fact, more child abuse and less child education characterize low-divorce nations. But again, linking these outcomes is a leap, not supported by data.

Given all of this, young adults may avoid marriage to avoid divorce. This strategy is working—the age at first marriage is increasing, which is one reason the divorce rate is falling even faster than the marriage rate (Amato, 2010). Is this a problem or a solution?

On the one hand, marriages need not be satisfying to the parents in order to function well for the children—an argument against divorce. But a pro-divorce argument arises from other research. If a marriage is harmful to family harmony, then divorce may help the children. This is especially true if both divorced parents are warm, attentive, and involved with their children, separating their interpersonal relationship from their parenting roles (Vèlez et al., 2011).

Can any conclusion be drawn by developmental study as to whether divorce is good for the children? As with many other issues, the answer depends on careful analysis, case by case.

311

KEY points

  • Parents influence their children’s development primarily in non-shared ways that differ for each child.
  • During middle childhood, families ideally provide basic necessities and foster learning opportunities, self-respect, friendships, harmony, and stability.
  • Every family structure can support child development, but children from nuclear families, on average, are most likely to develop well.
  • Family poverty and conflict are usually harmful to 6- to 11-year-olds, although genes and culture can provide some protection.
  • When parents are stressed by poverty, divorce, or anything else, they are less likely to nurture children well.