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. Some have gone farther, suggesting 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). This suggestion arose from studies about the impact of the environment on child development.

Many studies have found that children are much less affected by shared environment (influences that arise from being in the same environment, such as two siblings living in one home, raised by their parents) than by nonshared environment (e.g., the experiences in the school or neighborhood that differ between one child and another).

417

Most personality traits and intellectual characteristics can be traced to genes and nonshared environments, with little left over for the shared influence of being raised together. Even psychopathology, happiness, and sexual orientation (Burt, 2009; Långström et al., 2010; Bartels et al., 2013) arise primarily from genes and nonshared environment.

Since many research studies find that shared environment has little impact, could it be that parents are merely caretakers, necessary for providing basics (food, shelter), harmful when abusive, but inconsequential in their daily restrictions, routines, and responses? Could it be that it doesn’t matter much if parents enforce a set bath and bedtime, or if the parents let the child wash and sleep when he wishes? If a child becomes a murderer or a hero, maybe that is genetic and non-shared, so we should not blame or credit the parents!

Recent findings, however, reassert parent power. The analysis of shared and nonshared influences was correct, but the conclusion 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 the child’s age, genes, resilience, and gender. Moving to another town upsets a school-age child more than an infant, divorce harms boys more than girls, poverty may hurt preschoolers the most, and so on.

The variations above do not apply for all siblings: Differential susceptibility means that one child is more affected, for better or worse, than another (Pluess & Belsky, 2010). When siblings are raised together, all experiencing the same dysfunctional family, each children’s genes, age, and gender may lead one child to become antisocial, another to be pathologically anxious, and a third to be resilient, capable, and strong (Beauchaine et al., 2009). Further, parents do not treat each child the same, even when the children look identical, as the following makes clear.

Family structure refers to the legal and genetic connections among related people. Legal connections may be marriage or adoption; genetic connections may be from parent to child, or more broadly as between cousins, or grandparents and grandchildren, or even between great aunts and second cousins.

Family function refers to how the people in a family care for each other: Some families function well, others are dysfunctional.

Function is more important than structure; everyone needs family love and encouragement, which can come from parents, grandparents, siblings, or any other relative. Beyond that, people’s needs differ depending on how old they are: Infants need responsive caregiving, teenagers need guidance, young adults need freedom, the aged need respect.

What do school-age children need? Ideally, their families provide five things:

419

The final item on the list above is especially crucial in middle childhood: Children cherish safety and stability, they do not like change (Turner et al., 2012). Ironically, many parents move from one neighborhood or school to another during these years. Children who move frequently are significantly harmed, academically and psychologically, but resilience is possible (Cutuli et al., 2013).

The problems arising from instability are evident for U.S. children in military families. Enlisted parents tend to have higher incomes, better health care, and more education than do civilians from the same backgrounds. But they have one major disadvantage: They move.

Military children have more emotional problems and lower school achievement than do their peers from civilian families. In reviewing earlier research, a scientist reports “[m]ilitary parents are continually leaving, returning, leaving again… school work suffers, more for boys than for girls, …and that reports of depression and behavioral problems go up when a parent is deployed” (Hall, 2008, p. 52).

About half the military personnel on active duty have children, and many of their children learn to cope with the stresses they experience (Russo & Fallon, 2014). To help them, the U.S. military has instituted special programs to help children whose parents are deployed. Caregivers of such children are encouraged to avoid changes in the child’s life: no new homes, new rules, or new schools (Lester et al., 2011). Similar concerns arise when a deployed parent comes home: He or she is welcomed, of course, but sometimes return signifies changes in the child’s life, and that is difficult.

On a broader level, children who are repeatedly displaced because of storms, fire, war, and the like are particularly likely to suffer in middle childhood. At this age, many children try to protect their parents by not telling them how distressed they are, but the data reveal that moving from place to place impairs a child’s health and school learning (Masten, 2014).

Worldwide today, there are more single-parent households, more divorces and remarriages, and fewer children per family than in the past (see Visualizing Development, p. 423). The specifics vary from decade to decade and nation to nation (see Figure 13.1). Nevertheless, although the proportions differ, the problems are similar worldwide.

Such diversity should be acknowledged but not exaggerated. Almost two-thirds of all U.S. school-age children live with two married parents (see Table 13.2), most often their biological parents. A nuclear family is a family composed only of children and their biological parents (married or not). Other two-parent structures include adoptive, foster, grandparents without parents, stepfamilies, and same-sex couples.

Rates of single-parenthood vary greatly worldwide. U.S. rates are among the highest, with about 31 percent of all U.S. 6- to 11-year olds living in a single-parent family. Rates change depending on the age of the child: More than half of all contemporary U.S. children will live in a single-parent family at least for a year before they reach age 18. However, as far as we can deduce, at any given moment most 6- to 11-year-olds live with two parents.

An extended family includes relatives in addition to parents and children. Usually the additional persons are grandparents, sometimes uncles, aunts, or cousins of the child.

The crucial distinction between types of families is based on who lives together in the same household. Many so-called single-parent families actually have two parents involved in the child’s life. However, the two parents do not live together. Likewise, some children see their grandparents every day, even though they do not live with them. In that case, the family functions like an extended family, but it is not categorized as such.

420

In many nations, the polygamous family (one husband with two or more wives) is an acceptable family structure. Generally in polygamous families, income per child is reduced, and education, especially for the girls, is limited (Omariba & Boyle, 2007). Polygamy is rare—and illegal—in the United States. Even in nations where it is allowed, polygamy is less common than it was 30 years ago. In Ghana, for example, men with several wives and a dozen children are now unusual (Heaton & Darkwah, 2011).

421

422

How a family functions is more important for the children than the structure of their family. That does not make structure irrelevant. The two are related; structure influences—but does not determine—function. The crucial question is whether the structure makes it more or less likely that the five family functions mentioned earlier (physical necessities, learning, self-respect, friendship, and harmony/stability) will be fulfilled.

On average, nuclear families function best; children in the nuclear structure tend to achieve better in school with fewer psychological problems. A scholar who summarized dozens of studies concludes: “Children living with two biological married parents experience better educational, social, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes than do other children” (Brown, 2010, p. 1062). Why? Does this mean that everyone should marry before they have a child, and then stay married? Not necessarily. The case for nuclear families is not as strong as it appears. Some benefits are correlates, not causes.

Education, earning potential, and emotional maturity all make it more likely that people will marry, have children, stay married, and establish a nuclear family. For example, first-time mothers in the United States are usually married when they conceive their first child if they are highly educated (78 percent), but usually not married if they are low in SES (89 percent unmarried at conception) (Gibson-Davis & Rackin, 2014).

Thus, brides and grooms may have personal assets before they marry and become parents. That means that the correlation between child success and married parents occurs partly because of who marries, not because of the wedding. For some unmarried mothers, making a legal, binding commitment would actually render them less able to devote the attention and love that their child needs.

Income also correlates with family structure. Usually, if everyone can afford it, relatives live independently, apart from the married couple. That means that, at least in the United States, an extended family suggests that someone is financially dependent.

423

424

These two factors—mate selection and income—explain some of the correlation between nuclear families and child well-being, but not all of it (Brown, 2010). The fact that the nuclear family is “not as strong as it appears” does not mean that marriage does not matter. For many couples, marriage leads to mutual affection and support, and then both partners become wealthier and healthier than either would alone. Further, when both parents live with their children day and night, a parental alliance is likely to form and benefit the child.

The parental alliance is important in every nation, but its influence is particularly apparent in Russia, where recent economic upheaval has reduced the male average life span from age 64 in 1985 to 59 in 2000. Those most at risk for a premature death are single men, who have higher rates of depression and alcoholism. The husband/father role leads men to take better care of themselves, so they can care for their children (Ashwin & Isupova, 2014). (Developmental Link: The parental alliance was first discussed in Chapter 4.)

Shared parenting also decreases the risk of child maltreatment and makes it more likely that children will have someone to read to them, check their homework, invite their friends over, buy them new clothes, and save for their education. Of course, having two married parents does not guarantee an alliance. One of my students wrote:

My mother externalized her feelings with outbursts of rage, lashing out and breaking things, while my father internalized his feelings by withdrawing, being silent and looking the other way. One could say I was being raised by bipolar parents. Growing up, I would describe my mom as the Tasmanian devil and my father as the ostrich, with his head in the sand…. My mother disciplined with corporal punishment as well as with psychological control, while my father was permissive. What a pair.

[C., 2013]

This student never experienced a well-functioning parental alliance. That may help explain why she is now a single parent, having twice married, given birth, and divorced. More generally, childhood family experiences echo in adulthood. Fathers who live apart from the mothers of their children tend to be most involved when the children are young. Later, their former partners and the children themselves make meaningful relationships difficult, so divorced fathers increasingly distance themselves from their children as time goes on.

One consequence: When children reach “the age of majority” (usually 18) and fathers are no longer legally responsible for their children, many divorced or unmarried fathers stop child support. Unfortunately, most emerging adults need substantial funds if they want to attend college or live independently, so a long-ago divorce still hinders their development (Goldfarb, 2014).

The lack of financial support for older adolescents is not simply because two-parent families are wealthier than one-parent families. Even remarried adults, whose household income is comparable to that of nuclear parents, contribute less, on average, to children from their first marriage (Turley & Desmond, 2011).

Stepfathers tend to spend very little time caring for their stepchildren, even when they live together (Kalil et al., 2014). When they grow up, their children are more likely to live farther from either father than children from nuclear families are (Seltzer et al., 2013). The parental alliance is weaker in such families in childhood, and that becomes a weaker family alliance lifelong.

425

Adoptive and same-sex parents usually function well for children, not only in middle childhood but lifelong. Stepfamilies can also function well, if the biological parent has chosen a new partner who will be a good parent. Especially when children are under age 2 and the stepparent and the biological parent develop a strong, healthy relationship, the children who live with them may thrive (Ganong et al., 2011). Of course, no structure always functions well, but particular circumstances for all three family types can nudge in the right direction.

All three family types (step-, adoptive, and same-sex) risk instability, so children may not have the fifth family function that they need (harmony and stability). Instability is particularly likely in stepfamilies. Compared with other two-parent families, stepfamilies often change residence and community. In addition, family constellations shift: Older stepchildren leave home more often than older biological children, new babies capture parental attention and affection, additional relatives may join the household, and divorce is more common.

Further, harmony is more difficult in stepfamilies (Martin-Uzzi, & Duval-Tsioles, 2013). Often the child’s loyalty to both biological parents is challenged by ongoing disputes between them. A solid parental alliance is elusive when it includes three adults—two of whom had such profound differences that they divorced, plus another adult who is a newcomer to the child.

Children who gain a stepparent may be angry or sad; for both reasons, they often act out (for example, fight with friends, fail in school, refuse to follow household rules). That causes disagreements for their newly married parents, who often have opposite strategies for child-rearing.

Further, disputes between half-siblings in blended families are common. Remember, however, that structure affects function but does not determine it. Many stepparent families are difficult for children, but others function well for everyone (van Eeden-Moorefield & Pasley, 2013).

Finally, the grandparent family is often idealized, but reality is much more complex. If a household has grandparents and parents, often conflicts arise, and sometimes the grandparents are care-receivers more than caregivers. When grandparents provide full-time care with no parents present (called a skipped-generation family, a common form of foster care), the hope is that their experience and maturity will benefit the grandchildren.

But the grandparents usually do not benefit. On average, grandparents in skipped-generation families are poorer, sicker, and less stable than other grandparents. Rates of single parenthood are also higher, as many skipped-generation families are headed by the grandmother alone. To make matters worse, grandchildren who have been removed from their parents often have health or behavioral problems themselves (Hayslip et al., 2014). They are less likely to succeed in school or have supportive, enduring friendships.

Despite all these problems, skipped-generation families receive fewer services for children. Judges, schools, and social workers are sometimes ignorant of the special needs of such families, and where child care is concerned, neighbors and friends are less likely to help a grandmother than a mother (Baker & Mutchler, 2010; Hayslip & Smith, 2013).

On average, the single-adult structure functions less well for children because one adult has less income, time, and stability than two adults who share responsibility. 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), which diminishes their ability to provide steady emotional and academic support for their children.

426

Rates of single parenthood and single grandparenthood are far higher among African Americans than other ethnic groups. This increases the neighborhood acceptance but does not lighten the burden. If a single parent is depressed (and many are), that compounds the problem. The following case is an example.

Family structure encourages or undercuts healthy function, but many parents and communities overcome structural problems to support their children. Contrary to the averages, thousands of nuclear families are destructive, thousands of stepparents provide excellent care, and thousands of single-parent families are wonderful. In some European nations, single parents are given many public resources; in other nations, they are shamed as well as unsupported. Children benefit or suffer accordingly (Abela & Walker, 2014).

427

Culture is always influential. In contrast to data from the United States, a study in the slums of Mumbai, India, found rates of psychological disorders among school-age children higher in nuclear families than in extended families, presumably because grandparents, aunts, and uncles provided more care and stability in that city than two parents alone (Patil et al., 2013). On the other hand, another student found that college students in India who injured themselves (e.g., cutting) were more often from extended families than nuclear ones (Kharsati & Bhola, 2014). One explanation is that these two studies had different populations: College students tend to be from wealthier families, unlike the children in Mumbai.

Overall, single parents are much less common in many nations than in the United States, but in both these studies in India as in research throughout the world, children in single-parent families are more likely to have emotional or academic problems than children living with two parents.

All the generalities just explained are averages, with many exceptions. However, two factors interfere with family function in every structure, ethnic group, and nation: low income and high conflict. Many families experience both, because financial stress increases conflict and vice versa.

Family income correlates with both function and structure. Marriage rates fall in times of recession, and divorce correlates with unemployment. The effects of poverty are cumulative; low socioeconomic status (SES) is especially damaging for children if it begins in infancy and continues through middle childhood (G. Duncan et al., 2010). Low SES correlates with many other problems, and “risk factors pile up in the lives of some children, particularly among the most disadvantaged” (Masten, 2014, p. 95).

Several scholars have developed the family-stress model, which holds that any risk factor (such as low income, divorce, single parenthood, or unemployment) damages a family if, and only if, it increases stress on the parents, who then become less patient and responsive to their children. This is true among families of many structures, ethnic groups, and cultures (Emmen et al., 2013).

If economic hardship is ongoing, if uncertainty about the future is high, if parents have little education—all these factors reduce the parents’ ability to be the mentors and advocates that children need. Instead, adults become tense and hostile toward their partners and children. Thus, as many studies have found, although low SES makes many stresses more likely, and adults certainly should not be blamed if worries about food and housing make them less patient with their children, nonetheless the parents’ reaction to their situation is more important than income alone (Valdez et al., 2013; Evans & Kim, 2013; D. Lee et al., 2013).

Adults whose upbringing included less education and impaired emotional control often find it difficult to find employment and care for their children, and then low income adds to their difficulties (Schofield et al., 2011). Health problems in infancy may lead to “biologically embedded” stresses that impair adult well-being, which affects the next generation (Masten, 2013).

If all this is so, more income means better family functioning, especially if the income is stable, not a windfall. For example, children in single-mother households do much better if their father reliably pays child support, even if he is not actively involved in the child’s daily life (Huang, 2009). Nations that subsidize single parents (e.g., Austria and Iceland) also have smaller achievement gaps between low-and middle-SES children on the TIMSS. This finding is suggestive, but controversial and value-laden. Some developmentalists report that raising income does not, by itself, improve parenting (L. Berger et al., 2009).

428

In fact, reaction to wealth may also cause difficulty. Children in high-income families develop more than their share of developmental problems. Wealthy parents may be stressed by needing to maintain their achievements. In addition, they may pressure their children to excel, or they may become too lax in reacting to early use of alcohol and other drugs. That may create externalizing and internalizing problems in middle childhood that lead to drug use, delinquency, and poor academic performance (Luthar & Barkin, 2012).

There is no disagreement 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, but nuclear families are not immune. In every family, children suffer not only if they are abused, physically or emotionally, but also if they merely witness their parents’ abuse. Fights between siblings can be harmful, too (Turner et al., 2012).

Researchers have hypothesized that children are emotionally troubled in families with feuding parents because of their genes, not because of witnessing the parents fighting. The idea is that the parents’ genes lead to marital problems and that children who inherit those same genes will have similar temperaments. If that is the case, then it doesn’t matter if children are exposed to their parents’ conflicts.

This idea was tested in a longitudinal study of 867 twin pairs (388 monozygotic pairs and 479 dizygotic pairs), all married with an adolescent child. Each adolescent was compared to his or her cousin, the child of one parent’s twin (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). Thus, this study had data on family conflict from 5,202 individuals—one-third of them adult twins, one-third of them spouses of twins, and one-third of them adolescents who were genetically linked to another adolescent.

The researchers found that, although genes had some influence, witnessing conflict had a more powerful effect, causing externalizing problems in boys and internalizing problems in girls. In this study, quiet disagreements did little harm, but open conflict (such as yelling when children could hear) or divorce did (Schermerhorn et al., 2011). That leads to an obvious conclusion: Parents should not fight in front of their children.

429