family function essay

Psychology Discussion

Essay on family: definition, function, social systems and changes | psychology.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Essay on ‘Family’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Family’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Family

Essay # 1. definition of family:.

It is a well-known fact that family is found everywhere and it is concomitant with group life. Society and State derive from a circle of intermarrying families banded together to satisfy their basic needs. Sociologically and historically, the family may be viewed as a group consisting of two or more parents and their children.

Such a view suggests itself because there have been great variations in the number of parties entering into the marriage union. Although the family is universal, no particular form of it is primary or inevitable. Like all other institutions, it is a social product subject to change and modification.

In response to varying conditions, different forms of the family have appeared from time to time. But in the present day world Patriarchal family organised under the system of monogamy is most prevalent institution. In such a kill-group that it is both an association and institution and very essential to the life of society.

Essay # 2. Function of Family:

It is an open secret that family plays an important role in the life of society. There is no other human group that dominates the life of the individuals, more than family. It is in the light of this hard fact that, Maciver says, “Of all the organizations, large or small, which society unfolds, none transcends the family in the intensity of its sociological significance. It influences the whole life of society in innumerable ways, and its changes, reverberate through the whole social structure. It is capable of endless variation and yet reveals a remarkable continuity und persistence through change.”

The family occupies a vital place in the working of social order and it is so because it performs certain characteristically significant functions. Davis has characterized the main social functions of the family in four divisions. These are reproduction, maintenance, placement and socialization of the young. It also performs individual functions but these are the corollary of its social functions.

However, Davis has said, “From a sociological point of view we are mainly concerned with the social functions and consequently we stress the four functions mentioned here as being the core functions with which the family is always and everywhere concerned. There may be great variation from one society to another in the precise manner and degree of fulfilment of the functions, but the four mentioned above seem to be the ones which universally require a family organization.”

Lundberg has also mentioned a number of basic functions of the family. In them he has included the regulation of sexual behaviour and reproduction, care and training of children, co-operation and division of labour and primary group satisfactions. Besides, there are many auxiliary functions as well.

Maciver divides the functions of the family into two categories. They are the essential and non-essential functions of the family. Under the essential he includes three functions- (i) Stable satisfaction of sex need, (ii) Production and rearing of children, and (iii) Provision of a home. Under the non­essential functions he mentions religious, educational, economic, health and recreation, which he says have now been transferred to specialized agencies in society.

In short, the various functions of the family can be mentioned in the following way:

1. Essential Functions of Family:

The essential functions of the family are those functions, which it has to perform exclusively. They can neither be shared with any other group nor can they be delegated to any other association. They are the functions, which in every age and in any form the family must perform and there can be no deviation from them.

Some of them are:

(i) Satisfaction of sex need

(ii) Provision of a home

(iii) Production and rearing of children.

They are in a way the primary functions of the family, for the doing of which some sort of family group has ever to remain in existence.

This fact is aptly testified by Reuben Hill in these words, “Family life is probably more than a social habit. The family may be viewed as a device for solving certain fundamental problem, which must be faced by any group of people who live and work together in a society. As a problem-solving device it has simplified the social life of many of its members. Through it sex partners are sorted out and their sex drives are harnessed and linked with the love sentiments to weld together conjugal units into which children can be born, cared for and reared to adulthood. Within it all the basic elemental needs are met and kept from becoming individual problems, which if left unsolved might demand collective action. It simplifies life to live in a family and that is true for adults as well as for children. Certain basic needs of affection, intimate response, recognition, personality, expression, growth and security are met through the family which are not met satisfactorily elsewhere.”

In view of these facts the important essential functions of the family can be explained in some detail in the following manner:

(i) Satisfaction of Sex Need:

This is the first essential function, which the family performs. Satisfaction of sex instinct brings the desire for life-long partnership among male and female. The satisfaction of sex instinct makes for normal personality. If sex instinct is suppressed, it may produce personality maladjustments and disrupt social relations.

The modern family can satisfy this instinct in greater degree and in a better way than the traditional family. In the old family the sexual act was combined with reproduction and the fear of pregnancy as a result of intercourse prevented the couple to satisfy their sex urge. But in modern family the task of sexual satisfaction has been eased by the invention of contraceptives and other methods of birth-control.

It has now become a primary function of the modern family. According to Reed, “The fundamental function of the family is to regulate and gratify sexual needs. Manu accepts sexual satisfaction besides production as the aim of family. Vatsyayan also regards sexual satisfaction as the primary objective of the family.

(ii) Provision of Home:

The desire for a home is a powerful incentive for men as well as women after marriage. Man after the hard toil of the day returns home where in the midst of his wife and children he sheds off his fatigue.

Though, in modern times there are hotels and clubs which also provide recreation to the man but the joy that a man feels within the congenial circle of women, parents and children stands far above the momentary pleasure, which is provided by club and hotel. In spite of these re-creative agencies the home is still the heaven and sanctuary where its members find comfort and affection.

(iii) Production and Rearing of Children:

The inevitable result of sexual satisfaction is procreation. The task on race perpetuation has always been an important function of the family. It is an institution par excellence for the production and rearing of children. The function of child-rearing is better performed today than in the past because now more skill and knowledge are devoted to the care of the unborn and new-born children.

The infant death rate has shown a market declare. In the achievement of this result specialized agencies like nursing child welfare centres have come to the aid of the family. A close study of the available statistical data reveals that the number of illegitimate children is falling down, the practice of prostitution is vanishing away and the number of marriages is increasing rapidly.

It is a pointer to the fact that the function of procreation of race is only performed through family. In most human societies of the world the child is believed to be the nucleus of the family. Procreation perpetuates the family. It increases the population of the country.

(iv) Protection and Care of the Young:

It is another essential function of the family and it may be said to be a corollary of its sexual and procreative functions. According to Groves the protection and care of children is one necessary function of the family. The human child is the most helpless and weak being. A family is needed in order to maintain its existence and to ensure its coordinated and balanced development.

Its balanced development is achieved with difficulty and that too with the care of the parents and other family members. It is right that in the modern age this function of the family is losing much of its past significance and it is being handed over to the subsidiary agencies. But all the same it still continues to be one of the essential functions of the family and the Indian families are particularly known for this function.

(v) Provision of Psychological Satisfaction and Security :

Another fundamental and universal function of the family is to meet the psychological needs of its members. Ogburn has included affectional functions in the necessary or vital functions of the family. According to Groves it is the functions of the family to provide opportunities for the establishment of intimate relations.

Burgess and Lock have written, “Mutual affection is becoming the essential basis of marriage and family:” The individual receives affection, sympathy, love and psychological security in the family. The relations between man and woman in the family are not exclusively physical. Profound conjugal affection for each other is generated in husband and wife by working together in the family and by sharing each other’s joys and sorrows.

An all-around development of individual is not possible in the absence of family love. The family has an important part to play especially in the development of the child’s personality. Ralph Linton has written that merely the satisfaction of bodily needs is not sufficient for the proper development of the infant.

2. Non-Essential Functions of the Family :

The non-essential functions of the family are those functions which it performed in the traditional society but which it is giving up one by one in the modern times. These functions are being either delegated to the subsidiary agencies or they can be shared with other groups.

They are no longer the exclusive function of the family but still in some societies the family is associated with them in some form or the other. The Indian society is one such example where the family despite so many modifications and being placed under limits has been laying its claims on the so-called non-essential functions along with the essential functions.

Some of the non­essential functions of the family can be enumerated in the following order:

i. An Economic Unit:

A very important non-essential function of the family is that it serves as an economic unit. In the traditional family most of the goods for consumption were made at home. The members of the family were all engaged in the family occupation. The ancient Hindu joint family served as a sort of mutual insurance society. It was a unit of production and the centre of economic activities.

However, in the present time the importance of family as an economic unit has been lessened because most of its economic activities have been taken over by some outside agencies. The members of the modern family do not work together as they did in the old family.

They are engaged in different activities outside the come. Moreover the family has not even remained the unit of production as most the goods for consumption including even the food are purchased ready-made from the market.

But with all these shifts in the family as an economic unit, it has not been reduced to a passive body. This is to say that the old pattern has not been destroyed, it has been merely changed. In the family one or the other profession is still carried on though of a different sort and in a different atmosphere. In the West the family might have lost much of its role as an economic unit but in India it still to a certain extent continues to perform this traditional function.

ii. Centre of Religious Activities:

Another non-essential function, which the family performs is of a religious character. It is a centre for the religious training of the children who learn from their parents various religious virtues. In the old family, different religious practices like idol worship, yagya, religious discourses and sermons by pandits were carried on which made the outlook of the children religious in India. The modern family, however, does not observe religious practices and has become secular in outlook.

iii. Centre of Education:

One more function performed in the family is the education of children. The family is an important education agency. The child learns the first letters under the guidance of parents though today he learns them in a nursery-school. The traditional family was the centre of vocational education because the children from the early childhood were associated with the family task.

The modern family has delegated the task of vocational education to technical institutes and colleges. But despite all this the role of the family as a center of education has not vanished completely and in a somewhat modified form it still continues to perform some of the educational functions.

For instance, it is even now in and through family that the people learn their social habits and moral virtues. It is in no way an in significant function for which the Indian families are conspicuously known and popular.

iv. Guardian of Culture:

The family keeps the culture of society, alive. It moulds its members according to the social culture. The children are educated in the various aspects of culture from their infancy. The family creates such an environment for them that they learn to live and behave in acccordance with their culture.

The elderly members of the family impart training in matters of conduct, thinking religion and ethics etc. to the children. The family is aptly described as the maker and guardian of Culture.

v. Centre of Recreation:

The old family provided recreation to its members. They used to sing and dance together and visit the family relations. In modern times family relationship is individual rather than collective. The present forms of recreation such as bridge tennis carrom and movies, provide for only individual or couple participation.

Moreover, recreation is now had in club or hotel rather than in home. In this way> there has also occurred a shift in the recreational functions of-the family. However, it needs be said that in countries like India having close ties of ancient culture the family is still acting as a centre of recreation at least in the rural areas.

It is clear from the foregoing facts that there has come about a great change in the functions of the family whereas about a hundred years back the family was more of a community, it has become today more of an association. The very importance of the family has been loosened. It is no longer a home for recreation of its members, a school of education for children or a centre for their religious training.

Many family duties, which were performed formerly by the parents have now been transferred to external agencies. The functions of a modern family are very much limited both in their number and extent. Even the task of procreation has suffered a setback. Of course the task of satisfaction of sex need is better performed, by modern family.

In short, the family has lost some of its former functions. It is to be, however, remembered that though there is a loss of functions the family is not going to perish. There are certain functions for this performance of which no human society can do without family. Thus it may be said in the end that despite its structural and functional changes, the family still plays a significant role in social strength and social solidarity.

Essay # 3. Family as a Social System:

It is customary to regard family as a social system. In fact there are many kinds of social systems and these are composed of variety of elements. So far as family is concerned, it fulfils many of the conditions, which go to make it a social system. It is for this reason that family is characterised as being a perfect social system and this notion fully holds good at least in the case of joint family.

Defining social system Talcott Parsons writes, “The social system is composed of the patterned interaction of members. It consists of interaction of a plurality of individual actors, whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and shared symbols and expectations.”

Similarly C.P. Loomis is also of the opinion, “Sociologists frame of reference is inter action, characterised by patterned social relation that display in their uniformities social elements articulated by social processes, the dynamics of which account for the emergence, maintenance and change of social system.”

When these observations are applied on family, it becomes clear that the family is contained in a number of elements, which are found in every social system. These are some of those elements of which most family groups consist and on the basis of which family is entitled to be called a social system.

Every family consists of a number of persons and all of them have a certain status. This status of the members of a family is normally determined on the basis of age and sex. But sometimes learning and occupation also have some effect in this matter. The status of parents is always higher than that of the children.

Similarly in a family sons enjoy better status than daughters. Status helps in making gradation in the position of the different members of their family and their social relations are determined in accordance with their position.

Since father’s status in the family is the highest of all, he is authorised to perform all the family responsibilities. The eldest son being next in importance to his father automatically obtains the same position after his father’s death.

All the members of the family perform a certain role and it is by this means that the working of the family is made possible. The roles that the different persons perform are determined and conditioned by the status that they hold in the family. In fact every status has a correspondent role attached to it.

Role is the outward manifestation of the status and, thus both of them go together. Every member of the family while performing his role keeps in view his status in the family and does the things accordingly.

The role maintains the balance of status system and thereby keeps intact the structure of the family. Since, there are a variety of status differing from person to person, so there are a number of roles varying from person to person according to his status.

For Instance, the role of parents in the family is quite different from that of the children but it needs be said that the functioning of the family can go well only if all of its members perform their respective roles properly.

3. Privilege:

In a social system every unit is gifted with a certain kind of privileges. These privileges also go with the roles that they perform and the status that they hold in a social structure. It is through the enjoyment of privileges that a unit is enabled to do its responsibilities nicely under all circumstance. It is this element that gives stability and continuity to a social system. The same thing can be said in the case of family as well. The members of the family are always in the enjoyment of certain privileges according to their status. It is by the exercise of these privileges enjoyed by the members that structure and functioning of the family remain intact.

4. Necessities and Aims:

Every social system consists of the needs, aims and ends of the people. They are related to the level of cultural and economic progress of the society. Sometimes they are also concerned with the social development of the people. Men have some basic needs and the fulfilment of them is the chief aim of a social system. For realization of these aims a social system has to set before it its certain ideals and ends.

In this way needs and alms play a vital role in the efficient working of any social system. Family as a social system is concerned with fulfilling some-physical and social needs of the people. There are some basic needs like sex impulse, procreation of race and the provision of home, which cannot be met elsewhere except in the family.

These needs aim at ensuring good life to the people. It is right that in the modern times many of the functions of the family have been taken over by some other associations, but all the same there are some primary functions which must be performed in the family in all civilized societies.

5. Sanctions:

The sanctions determined by the social values and Ideals play in important part in the field of human conduct. The social sanctions make a distinction between what is right and what is wrong in the activities and behaviour of the individuals. Society permits its members to do certain things and forbids them to do others and thereby lays down a standard for the general conduct of its members.

The members are allowed to do only those things, which are beneficial for the life and stability of the social order. In this way sanctions also help a lot in the strengthening of a social system. They maintain discipline and orderly conditions in it. This element is found in abundance in the working of the family as well. There are some set rules and codes of behaviour which are binding on the members and which they cannot ignore easily.

Thus the family as a social system depends largely for its life and sound working on a set of rules, which operate in the form of social sanctions. The more active and forceful are these social sanctions, the more solid and the longer lasting will be the structure of the family. This is why in the past families were more integrated and well-disciplined because there was more force behind the social sanctions.

In every social system there exists a supreme power which acts as a controlling figure in it. It, on the one hand, resolves the conflicts of different units and on the other, keeps intact the unity of that social system. The family as a social system vests its supreme power in the father or husband who supervises and controls the activities of other members.

There can be no challenge or disobedience to the command of the head of the family. Only such families last long in which there is unity of command and a well-knit controlling power.

7. Ideal Principles:

The family, as a social system, derives its life out of the inter-relations and inter-actions of its members. Every member of the family has a special function to do and a particular role to play for its well-being. There is great need of making. It certain that all the members of the family do their part well. For this purpose there exists some ideal principles. These principles maintain solidarity and balance in the family. These principles are in the form on unwritten maxim and are based on common consent. They are so vital to the social life that they cannot be set aside easily and in their absence a good family life cannot be made possible.

8. Sentiments:

Sentiments occupy an important place in a social system. The sentiments especially influence collective life. It is under their influence that an individual gives preference to collective interest over his own individual gain. They develop general working patterns of different groups, which afford stability and uniformity to a social system.

Family as a social system gives expression to a number of sentiments. The chief among these are a sentiment of love, the sentiment of co-operation, sentiment of sympathy and the sentiment of respect. These sentiments form the be all and end all of family life.

Thus it is clear from the above facts that family is truly a social system because it contains most of the basic elements of a social system. It is right that in the modern times family is undergoing great changes. As a result of this fact it is feared that family may not lose in course of time, its character of being a social system.

But such doubts appear to be unfounded because there are so many elements of social system, which cannot vanish from family. Thus in the end it can be said that family is definitely a social system with this much exception that it has been more apparent in a joint family.

Essay # 4. Changes in the Modern Family:

It is a well-known fact that change is the Law of Nature. There is no human organisation on social institution which has remained uniform and static at all times and under all circumstances. It has to move and change with the changing conditions, or it is apt to become obsolete and go out of existence. This rule is fully applicable on the age-old institution of family as well. The family as it is now is much different from what it was a few generations ago.

Several changes have taken place in its nature and structure with the result that it has undergone an overall transformation. Whereas about a century back the family was more of a community, it has become today more of an association.

According to Ogburn and Nimcoff, “The family has changed a good deal in the past and has assumed many different forms and functions. The family has proved to be a very resilient and flexible institution. Despite radical changes in form and function, the family has continued to exist in every society known to us.”

It points to the fact that in the recent times many changes have occurred in the family and some of them may briefly be mentioned here.

Referring to some of the changes occurred in the modern family and the forces bringing about them Davis writes, “Modern civilization characterized by an elaborate industrial technology, a high degree of urbanization, and a great amount of geographical and social ability, has sheered away the extended kingship bonds. The role effective kinship group is now the immediate family and even this unit has lost in size and function. True, the immediate family has gamed in importance by being freed from the control of extended kindred, but it has declined in importance in other ways.”

It is clear from this statement that in the modern time a large number of changes have occurred in the organization and working have the family and several factors has been operating to bring about these changes.

Some of the more important changes in family life need be mentioned here in order to reveal its present position:

(i) To begin with, the joint family system is declining and in its place single-family system is coming into prominence. Unlike the large family of traditional society the modern families are small in size. They consist of the husband, wife and their minor children. This is of course the first and the fundamental change that has occurred in the structure of family.

(ii) In the modern time there has occurred a change in the mutual relation of parents and children. The control of parents over their children has lessened a great deal and now the family discipline is not as tight as it was in the ancient families. The children have become less obedient to their parents and they are very particular about their freedoms and rights.

(iii) There has taken place a change in the mutual relation of husband and wife in the family. Unlike old times women have become independent and self-reliant in many ways. Now that the women have gamed equal fights with men, their mutual relationship has undergone much change. Mowrer has correctly written of modern woman that ‘she is no longer the drudge and slave of other days.’

(iv) The modern family is no longer a permanent association. It is precarious and can be rendered void at any time. Marriage has been reduced to a mere social contract, which it is not difficult to break in the event of even the slightest friction. According to Maciver, “The Modern family in comparison with the ancient and medieval families is very weak and unstable.”

(v) There has come about a good deal of change in the extent of family functions. Many of the functions which family performed previously are no longer under its care. They have been transferred to several external agencies. The family has ceased to be an economic as well as social unit. When compared with the family of medieval times, the functions of the modern family are few. All but gone are its economic educational, religious and protective functions. They have been transferred to the State, the church, the school, and industry.

(vi) The modern family is under less religious control. It has been replaced by legal control. With the decline of the Influence of religion the family morals have also become comparatively loose. The modern family has become secular in outlook and it has given up many of its religious activities.

(vii) The rigidity traditionally associated with marital and sexual relationships no longer characterizes the modern family. The use of contraceptive and means of birth control has rendered the size of the family very small. There is not much affinity among the blood relations of the family. In this way the relations in the family have become more formal and mechanical in Nature.

(viii) The family seems to be coming on the verge of disorganization. The number of divorces is on the increase. The control, which the family exercises over the individual is being lessened rapidly. Thus the family has undergone a good deal of transformation in the present century.

Factors Responsible for Changes in the Family :

It is clear from the foregoing facts that a large number of changes have occurred in the structure of family. This process has not completed yet and is liable to continue till indefinitely even in the unknown future. There is not one but many factors which are working at the root of all these changes.

Referring to some of these factors Jay Rumney and Joseph Maier write, “The modern family which is still essentially patriarchal in character has been shorn of much of its power. The State is tending to become a super-parent, having arrogated to itself much of the patriarch’s authority. Profound economic changes since the Industrial Revolution have deprived the family of its economic functions as a unit of production. It is now mainly a unit of consumption. The new economy, requiring the use of womanpower opened up new occupations to women, they became economically in dependent of their husbands. The political and economic emancipation of woman as well as periods of prolonged unemployment undermined the authority of the father, especially if his earnings were surpassed by those of his wife and children. A new morality emerged in conflict with the traditional moral standards. Large families became rare. Urbanization led to a wide dissemination of contraceptive knowledge. The small independent if it, consisting of parents and one or two offspring became the rule.”

Thus, lit short, some of the causes and factors of family changes may be explained in the following order:

1. Impact of Industrialization:

The first important factor bringing about changes in the structure of family has been the force of industrialization. The Industrial Revolution substituted the power machine for the manual tool. As new techniques of production advanced they shelved the old family of its economic functions. New factories with heavy machines have been set up which have taken both the work and the workers out of the family.

Now cloth is produced not on the family handloom but in the textile mill. Thousands of workers who are drawn out of home are required to work in the factory. Not only males but females also have begun to go to the factory for work. The work of women has become specialized like that of men. They instead of being busy with the multifarious tasks of the family have started going to workshops and factories for work.

As a result of it women have become as good the earning members of the family as men. This earning power of the women has made them free from dependence on men. In this way industrialization has greatly affected the character of modern family. As Maciver says, ” The family has changed from a production to consumption unit.”

2. Decline of Religious Control:

The modern family has become secular in its outlook because of the decline of the force of religions. Marriage has become a civil contract rather than a religious sacrament. It can be broken at any time. The authority of religion over the conditions of marriage and divorce has suffered a great decline.

Divorce is a frequent occurrence in modern family while in traditional family it was a rare phenomenon. Religion has been a great uniting and solidifying factor in the, family. And with the loss of its force the family is bound to undergo disintegration.

3. Effect of Urbanism:

An inevitable result of industrialization has been the, growth of urbanism. Urbanism has materially affected not merely the size of the home but also the essentials of the family life. It has substituted legal controls for informal controls and has brought the family into competition with specialized agencies. The result is that many of the family functions have been taken over by the external agencies.

For example, the educational, health and recreational functions of the family are now performed by schools, hospitals and recreational centres respectively. Under the joint force of industrialization and urbanization the family has ceased to be a social as well as economic unit. The joint family system is vanishing and in its place the single-family system is becoming the order of the day. It has even affected the mutual relations of the different members of the family.

To quote Davis,” It has forced individuals to co-operate with countless person who are not kinsmen. It has also encouraged them to join special interest groups thus drawing them out of the unspecialized and heterogeneous family with its wide sex and age differences.” In this way urbanism and industrialization have caused considerable modifications in the structure of family.

4. Effect of Changing Mores:

The mores concerning family life are constantly changing and this factor has. Also greatly affected the organization of family. Now the mutual relations of different members of the family have undergone remarkable change and it is all the result of changing mores. According to Maciver and Page “The basis of husband wife relationship in the family is no longer domination but co­operation”.

Previously everywhere, the wife was dominated by the husband and so the family stability survived because of the unity of command. But with the removal of this dominance the family organization has been exposed to powerful perils. Thus as a result of all these factors the family organization is not stable and it is undergoing quick modifications. But notwithstanding all these facts the family still continues to be a strategic social Institution.

5. Social Mobility:

The critics are of the opinion that social mobility has cut still deeper into the family organization. In so far as individuals improve their class status by virtue of their own achievement rather than by birth, an intrinsic function of the family is lost to it.

In this connection Davis writes, “In a completely open society where all vertical positions were filled purely by individual accomplishment, there could scarcely be a family organization; each family member would tend to find himself in a different. Social stratum, from the others, and the invidious sentiments thus brought into the family circle would prove incompatible with family sentiment.”

The organizations of the family can remain intact only if its members feel dependent on it for their personal advance in life. If this requirement is fulfilled by some external factors, it adversely affects the family organization. This is exactly what is happening in the present society, people do not feel themselves so much. Attached to family because so many external factors are on their disposal to help them in their individual development.

Essay # 5. Sociology Significance of the Family:

The family is by far the most important primary group in society. Historically it has been transformed from a more or less self-contained unity into a definite and limited organization of minimum size, consisting primarily of the original contracting parties: On the other hand it continues to serve as a total community for the lives born within it, gradually relinquishing this character as they grow toward adulthood. The family more profoundly than any other organization, exists only as a process.

Referring to the sociological of the family Maciver and Page opine, “Of all the organizations, large or small, which society unfolds, none transcends the family in the intensity of its sociological significance. It influences the whole life of society in innumerable ways, and its changes reverberate through the whole social structure. It is capable of endless variation and yet reveals a remarkable continuity and persistence through change”.

Thus, in short, family is the first and foremost organ of society and this fact can be proved by the following arguments:

1. Universal in Character:

The family is the most nearly universal of all social forms. It is found in all societies, at all stages of social development, and exists far below the human level, among a myriad species of animals. Almost every human being is or has been a member of some family. There is no other social group that can equal family in this matter.

2. Formative Influence:

Family is also significant because it exerts the profoundest formative influence on the life of the individuals. It is the earliest social environment of man’s life and plays a vital role in moulding it. No other organization can compete with family in this respect. According to Maciver, “In particular it moulds the character of the individual by the impression both of organic and of mental habits”.

Its influence in infancy determines the personality structure of the individual. It is largely from his parents that the child receives his physical inheritance and mental training, on the basis of which he leads the whole of his life. It is well-said by a critic, “To be well-born is to possess the greatest of all gifts. To be ill-born there is nothing which this world can afford that will be adequate compensation for the lack of good heredity.” Thus family has come to surpass all other social organizations in the matter of formative influence on human personality.

3. Nuclear Position in the Social Structure:

Family is the nucleus of all the social organizations. Frequently in the simpler societies, as well as in the more advanced types of patriarchal society the whole social structure is built of family units. Only in the higher complex civilizations does the family cease to fulfill this function, but even in them the local community, as well as its divisions of social classes tends to remain unions of families. One of the first definitions ever given of a community made it “a union of families” and for the local community the definition, with some qualification, still holds today.

4. Performance of Basic Functions:

The significance of the family as a social institution may be measured by the number of basic functions it performs. Compared with the family of medieval times, the functions of the modern family are few. All but gone are its economic, educational, religious and protective functions. They have been transferred to the State, the church, the school and industry. Notwithstanding the loss of functions, the family remains a strategic social institution. It is our parents that first cure us of our natural wildness, and break in us the spirit of independency we are all born with.

It is to them that we owe the first rudiments of our submission and to the honour and deference which children pay to parents all societies are obliged for the principle of human obedience, writes Mandeville.

In addition to performing this all-important function of socializing the individual, the family regulates sexual relationships, provides for the affectional needs of its members, makes possible the prolonged care, which children require and transmits the values of the culture.

It remains a powerful agent of social and political control and economic differentiation. Children generally stay in the social class to which their parents belonged. They inherit both the property and the cultural advantages, which its possession offers.

5. Proper Organization of Society Dependent upon Family:

Proper social organization largely depends upon sound organization of families. If in a particular society families disintegrate, that society can never be safe and sooner or later it is found to meet its doom. This is why at all times one major cause of social disorganization has been family disorganization.

Families develop the characters of the members of the society. In the opinion of ADLER, a man’s role in the family determines his role in society. There is no exaggeration in calling family a cornerstone of society.

6. An Important Agency of Social Control:

Family is an important agency of social control. Family controls sex passions in society. A strict control over sex relationships is necessary for maintaining the order otherwise society will disintegrate. In all cultures, family exercises some degree of control over the unmarried members from falling into bad habits.

No parents would like their children to adopt the career of crime. The children under the influence of their parents drop bad habits and learn good habits. In the making of great men families have always played a major role. In this way the making of a good citizen in society depends upon the parents.

7. Family is the Conveyer of Culture:

The family not only moulds character and personality of the individuals, but it also imparts its culture to them. It is while living in the family that the child acquires knowledge about the culture of society. It is an efficient vehicle for the transmission of culture from one generation to another. It is a very good socializing agency that makes the people social and cultured beings.

According to Deway and Tufts, “The family is a social agency for the education and protection of the race.” It is through family that the individuals come to know the customs, traditions, social values and cultural background of their community. Family provides them knowledge and understanding of the past or d thereby prepares them to live well in the future. Thus in all these ways family plays a vital role in the field of preservation and transmission of social culture.

8. Family is Vital to the Process of Socialization :

Another point of significance of family is that it plays a vital role in the process of socialization of the individuals. Merrill is of the opinion that family is an enduring association of parent and offspring whose primary functions are the socialization of the child and the satisfaction of the members.

It is in the family that child learns all good and human qualities like sincerity, sympathy, self-submission, conscious­ness of responsibility and so forth. It is the character developed in the family, which helps the child in becoming an important and responsible member of society.

F. J. Wright was quite correct in saying that in every family, the child gets an opportunity for free expression of thoughts and developing his entire personality. It has been conclusively proved that the proper development of the child is impossible without a good environment in the family. The tendencies and habits, which he acquires in the family remain with him for the whole of his life.

It is in view of this fact that Freud says, “The view-point of a child towards the senior in the family determines his attitude and viewpoint towards the elders in society.” Thus it is obvious that ‘family is the cradle of social virtues and no other social group contributes more than family in the process of socializing the individuals. Confucius remarked quite correctly that if you want to improve society, improve its families. Society will improve automatically when the families improve.”

It is clear from the above account that family is the most important social institution. No other human organization can overshadow it in the matter of sociological significance. This fact is true not only from the structural view-point, but also from the functional stand-point.

There are some functions of the family, which no other group can undertake successfully. There are some clear uses of the family, which no one can derive from any other group. Without family the process of socialization would remain incomplete, the task of preserving and transmitting culture to posterity would be half done and there would be no organization to safeguard their social and cultural values. Its significance also lies in the fact of its being the oldest and universal human organization.

It is even the parent of society whose structure is raised on the foundations of family. If family were to vanish, it would expose the whole human race to the horrors of complete decay. The present changes in the family need not be taken to mean the signal of its possible downfall in the future; it is rather a process of its adjustment to the current needs and the changing times. Family in the past has remained an indispensable social system and it is sure to continue as such in the future as well.

Thus on account of its strategic position the family more than any other group exerts persistent, intimate and far reaching influence on the habits, attitudes and social experiences of the people. It plays the foremost role in the formation of personality. It occupies a key place in social organization.

Related Articles:

• Difference between Modern Family and Traditional Family | Psychology
• Social Development in Children: 6 Factors | Psychology
• Group: Definition, Types and Dynamics | Social Psychology
• Dependence Process of a Child | Essay | Child | Social Psychology

Essay , Psychology , Family , Essay on Family

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.2 Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Learning objective.

• Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories.

Sociological views on today’s families generally fall into the functional, conflict, and social interactionist approaches introduced earlier in this book. Let’s review these views, which are summarized in Table 15.1 “Theory Snapshot” .

Table 15.1 Theory Snapshot

Social Functions of the Family

Recall that the functional perspective emphasizes that social institutions perform several important functions to help preserve social stability and otherwise keep a society working. A functional understanding of the family thus stresses the ways in which the family as a social institution helps make society possible. As such, the family performs several important functions.

First, the family is the primary unit for socializing children . As previous chapters indicated, no society is possible without adequate socialization of its young. In most societies, the family is the major unit in which socialization happens. Parents, siblings, and, if the family is extended rather than nuclear, other relatives all help socialize children from the time they are born.

One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children. In most societies the family is the major unit through which socialization occurs.

Colleen Kelly – Kids Playing Monopoly Chicago – CC BY 2.0.

Second, the family is ideally a major source of practical and emotional support for its members. It provides them food, clothing, shelter, and other essentials, and it also provides them love, comfort, help in times of emotional distress, and other types of intangible support that we all need.

Third, the family helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction . All societies have norms governing with whom and how often a person should have sex. The family is the major unit for teaching these norms and the major unit through which sexual reproduction occurs. One reason for this is to ensure that infants have adequate emotional and practical care when they are born. The incest taboo that most societies have, which prohibits sex between certain relatives, helps minimize conflict within the family if sex occurred among its members and to establish social ties among different families and thus among society as a whole.

Fourth, the family provides its members with a social identity . Children are born into their parents’ social class, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth. As we have seen in earlier chapters, social identity is important for our life chances. Some children have advantages throughout life because of the social identity they acquire from their parents, while others face many obstacles because the social class or race/ethnicity into which they are born is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Beyond discussing the family’s functions, the functional perspective on the family maintains that sudden or far-reaching changes in conventional family structure and processes threaten the family’s stability and thus that of society. For example, most sociology and marriage-and-family textbooks during the 1950s maintained that the male breadwinner–female homemaker nuclear family was the best arrangement for children, as it provided for a family’s economic and child-rearing needs. Any shift in this arrangement, they warned, would harm children and by extension the family as a social institution and even society itself. Textbooks no longer contain this warning, but many conservative observers continue to worry about the impact on children of working mothers and one-parent families. We return to their concerns shortly.

The Family and Conflict

Conflict theorists agree that the family serves the important functions just listed, but they also point to problems within the family that the functional perspective minimizes or overlooks altogether.

First, the family as a social institution contributes to social inequality in several ways. The social identity it gives to its children does affect their life chances, but it also reinforces a society’s system of stratification. Because families pass along their wealth to their children, and because families differ greatly in the amount of wealth they have, the family helps reinforce existing inequality. As it developed through the centuries, and especially during industrialization, the family also became more and more of a patriarchal unit (see earlier discussion), helping to ensure men’s status at the top of the social hierarchy.

Second, the family can also be a source of conflict for its own members. Although the functional perspective assumes the family provides its members emotional comfort and support, many families do just the opposite and are far from the harmonious, happy groups depicted in the 1950s television shows. Instead, and as the news story that began this chapter tragically illustrated, they argue, shout, and use emotional cruelty and physical violence. We return to family violence later in this chapter.

Families and Social Interaction

Social interactionist perspectives on the family examine how family members and intimate couples interact on a daily basis and arrive at shared understandings of their situations. Studies grounded in social interactionism give us a keen understanding of how and why families operate the way they do.

Some studies, for example, focus on how husbands and wives communicate and the degree to which they communicate successfully (Tannen, 2001). A classic study by Mirra Komarovsky (1964) found that wives in blue-collar marriages liked to talk with their husbands about problems they were having, while husbands tended to be quiet when problems occurred. Such gender differences seem less common in middle-class families, where men are better educated and more emotionally expressive than their working-class counterparts. Another classic study by Lillian Rubin (1976) found that wives in middle-class families say that ideal husbands are ones who communicate well and share their feelings, while wives in working-class families are more apt to say that ideal husbands are ones who do not drink too much and who go to work every day.

Other studies explore the role played by romantic love in courtship and marriage. Romantic love , the feeling of deep emotional and sexual passion for someone, is the basis for many American marriages and dating relationships, but it is actually uncommon in many parts of the contemporary world today and in many of the societies anthropologists and historians have studied. In these societies, marriages are arranged by parents and other kin for economic reasons or to build alliances, and young people are simply expected to marry whoever is chosen for them. This is the situation today in parts of India, Pakistan, and other developing nations and was the norm for much of the Western world until the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Lystra, 1989).

Key Takeaways

• The family ideally serves several functions for society. It socializes children, provides practical and emotional support for its members, regulates sexual reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity.
• Reflecting conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict.
• Social interactionist understandings of the family emphasize how family members interact on a daily basis. In this regard, several studies find that husbands and wives communicate differently in certain ways that sometimes impede effective communication.

For Your Review

• As you think how best to understand the family, do you favor the views and assumptions of functional theory, conflict theory, or social interactionist theory? Explain your answer.
• Do you think the family continues to serve the function of regulating sexual behavior and sexual reproduction? Why or why not?

Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue-collar marriage . New York, NY: Random House.

Lystra, K. (1989). Searching the heart: Women, men, and romantic love in nineteenth-century America . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Tannen, D. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York, NY: Quill.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• 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: 04 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Introduction to the Sociology of Family

Special thanks goes to author Katie Nutter-Pridgen for this comprehensive introductory chapter to the Sociology of Family. Her work is published to the OER commons.

• Describe society’s current understanding of family
• Define the sociological imagination and apply it to the study of family
• Identify two organizations that provide scholarly information about families
• Name the cross-cultural functions of the family
• Recognize changes in marriage and family patterns
• Differentiate between lines of decent and residence

Introduction: What is Family?

What is a family? A husband, a wife, and two children—maybe even a pet—has served as the model for the traditional U.S. family for most of the twentieth century. But what about families that deviate from this model, such as a single-parent household or a homosexual couple without children? Should they be considered families as well?

The question of what constitutes a family is a prime area of debate in family sociology, as well as in politics and religion. Social conservatives tend to define the family in terms of structure with each family member filling a certain role (like father, mother, or child). Sociologists, on the other hand, tend to define family more in terms of the manner in which members relate to one another than on a strict configuration of status roles. Here, we’ll define family as a socially recognized group (usually joined by blood, marriage, cohabitation, or adoption) that forms an emotional connection and serves as an economic unit of society. Sociologists identify different types of families based on how one enters into them. A  family of orientation refers to the family into which a person is born. A  family of procreation describes one that is formed through marriage. These distinctions have cultural significance related to issues of lineage.

Drawing on two sociological paradigms, the sociological understanding of what constitutes a family can be explained by symbolic interactionism as well as functionalism. These two theories indicate that families are groups in which participants view themselves as family members and act accordingly. In other words, families are groups in which people come together to form a strong primary group connection and maintain emotional ties to one another over a long period of time. Such families may include groups of close friends or teammates. In addition, the functionalist perspective views families as groups that perform vital roles for society—both internally (for the family itself) and externally (for society as a whole). Families provide for one another’s physical, emotional, and social well-being. Parents care for and socialize children. Later in life, adult children often care for elderly parents. While interactionism helps us understand the subjective experience of belonging to a “family,” functionalism illuminates the many purposes of families and their roles in the maintenance of a balanced society (Parsons and Bales 1956).

How Do We Define Family?

People in the United States as a whole are somewhat divided when it comes to determining what does and what does not constitute a family. In a 2010 survey conducted by professors at the University of Indiana, nearly all participants (99.8 percent) agreed that a husband, wife, and children constitute a family. Ninety-two percent stated that a husband and a wife without children still constitute a family. The numbers drop for less traditional structures: unmarried couples with children (83 percent), unmarried couples without children (39.6 percent), gay male couples with children (64 percent), and gay male couples without children (33 percent) (Powell et al. 2010). This survey revealed that children tend to be the key indicator in establishing “family” status: the percentage of individuals who agreed that unmarried couples and gay couples constitute a family nearly doubled when children were added.

The study also revealed that 60 percent of U.S. respondents agreed that if you consider yourself a family, you are a family (a concept that reinforces an interactionist perspective) (Powell 2010). The government, however, is not so flexible in its definition of “family.” The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family as “a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together” (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). While this structured definition can be used as a means to consistently track family-related patterns over several years, it excludes individuals such as cohabitating unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples. Legality aside, sociologists would argue that the general concept of family is more diverse and less structured than in years past. Society has given more leeway to the design of a family making room for what works for its members (Jayson 2010).

Family is, indeed, a subjective concept, but it is a fairly objective fact that family (whatever one’s concept of it may be) is very important to people in the United States. In a 2010 survey by Pew Research Center in Washington, DC, 76 percent of adults surveyed stated that family is “the most important” element of their life—just one percent said it was “not important” (Pew Research Center 2010). It is also very important to society. President Ronald Regan notably stated, “The family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms” (Lee 2009). While the design of the family may have changed in recent years, the fundamentals of emotional closeness and support are still present. Most responders to the Pew survey stated that their family today is at least as close (45 percent) or closer (40 percent) than the family with which they grew up (Pew Research Center 2010).

Alongside the debate surrounding what constitutes a family is the question of what people in the United States believe constitutes a marriage. Many religious and social conservatives believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, citing religious scripture and the basics of human reproduction as support. Social liberals and progressives, on the other hand, believe that marriage can exist between two consenting adults—be they a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman—and that it would be discriminatory to deny such a couple the civil, social, and economic benefits of marriage.

A Sociological Perspective on Family: Developing Your Sociological Imagination

Sociological imagination.

According to C. Wright Mills, the average person lives too narrow a life to get a clear and concise understanding of today’s complex social world. Our daily lives are spent among friends and family, at work and at play, and watching TV and surfing the internet. There is no way one person can grasp the big picture from his or her relatively isolated life. There’s just not enough time or capacity to be exposed to the complexities of a society of over 315 million people. There are thousands of communities, millions of interpersonal interactions, billions of internet information sources, and countless trends that transpire without many of us even knowing they exist. What can we do to make sense of it all?

Psychology gave us the understanding of self-esteem, economics gave us the understanding of supply and demand, and physics gave us the Einstein theory of E=MC2. When I learned of the sociological imagination by Mills, I realized that it gives us a framework for understanding our social world that far surpasses any common-sense notion we might derive from our limited social experiences. C. Wright Mills (1916-1962), a contemporary sociologist, suggested that when we study the family we can gain valuable insight by approaching it at two core societal levels. He stated, “neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both” (Mills, C. W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford Univ. Press, p. ii). Mills identified “Troubles” (challenges on the personal level) and “Issues” (challenges on the larger social level) as key principles for wrapping our minds around many of the hidden social processes that transpire in an almost invisible manner in today’s societies.

Personal troubles  are private problems experienced within the character of the individual and the range of their immediate relation to others. Mills identified the fact that we function in our personal lives as actors and actresses who make choices about our friends, family, groups, work, school, and other issues within our control. We have a degree of influence in the outcome of matters within the personal level. A college student who parties 4 nights out of 7, who rarely attends class, and who never does his homework has a personal trouble that interferes with his odds of success in college. But when 50 percent of all college students in the country never graduate, we call it a larger social issue.

Larger social issues  lie beyond one’s personal control and the range of one’s inner life. These pertain to society’s organization and processes. To better understand larger social issues, we need to define social facts.  Social facts  are social processes rooted in society rather than in the individual. Émile Durkheim (1858-1917, France) studied the “science of social facts” in an effort to identify social correlations and ultimately social laws designed to make sense of how modern societies worked given that they became increasingly diverse and complex (Durkheim, Émile. 1982. The Rules of the Sociological Method. Ed. Steven Lukes; trans. W.D. Halls. New York: Free Press, p. 50-59).

The real power of the Sociological Imagination is found in learning to distinguish between the personal and social levels in our own lives. Once we do that, we can make personal choices that serve us the best, given the larger social forces that we face. We can also better understand the circumstances and experiences of others.

Family Culture

Another key point in studying the family from a sociological perspective is to understand that all families have some cultural traits in common, but all also have their own unique family culture. Culture is the shared values, norms, symbols, language, objects, and way of life that is passed on from one generation to the next. Culture is what we learn from our parents, family, friends, peers, and schools. It is shared, not biologically determined. In other words, you are only born with drives, not culture. Most families in a society have similar family cultural traits. But, when you marry you will learn that the success of your marriage is often based on how well you and your spouse merge your unique family cultures into a new version of a culture that is your own.

Yet, even though family cultures tend to be universal and desirable, we often judge other cultures as being “good, bad, or evil” while we typically judge our own culture as being good. We have to consider our perspective when studying families from different cultures. Are we ethnocentric or cultural relativist?

Ethnocentrism  is the tendency to judge others based on our own experiences. In this perspective, our culture is right, while cultures that differ from our own are wrong. I once visited a beautiful Catholic cathedral, Cathédrale St. Jean in Lyon, France. I fell in love with this beautiful and historic monument to the religious devotion of generations of builders. I learned that it took about 300 years to build, that England’s King Henry the VIII married his Italian bride there, and that a few families had nine generations of builders working on it. I left with a deep sense of appreciation for it all. On the bus back to our hotel, we met two American tourists who reacted very differently to their vacation in France. The gentleman said, “These people will eat anything that crawls under the front porch, they never bathe, they dress funny, and they can’t speak one *#&@ word of English!”

Another more valuable and helpful perspective about differing cultures is the perspective called cultural relativism , which is the tendency to look for the cultural context in which differences in cultures occur. If you’ve eaten a meal with a friend’s family, you have probably noticed a difference in subtle things like the food that is served and how it is prepared. You may have noticed that the friend’s family communicates in ways different from your own. You might also notice that their values of fun and relaxation also vary from your own. To dismiss your friend’s family as being wrong because it isn’t exactly like yours is being closed-minded. Cultural relativists like all the ice-cream flavors, if you will. They respect and appreciate cultural differences even if only from the spectators’ point of view. They tend to be teachable, child-like, and open-minded. They tend to enjoy or learn to enjoy the many varieties of the human experience.

An ethnocentric person thinks on the level of carrot soup: peel carrots, add water, and boil. The cultural relativist thinks on the level of a complex stew: peel and prepare carrots, potatoes, onions, mushrooms, broth, tofu, and 10 secret herbs and spices, and simmer for two hours. The diversity of the human experience is what makes it rich and flavorful.

Family Research

The American Sociological Association ( ASA ) is the largest professional sociology organization in the world. One section of ASA members focuses its studies specifically on the family. Here is an excerpt of that section’s mission statement:

“Many of society’s most pressing problems — teenage childbearing, juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, domestic violence, child and elder abuse, divorce — are related to or rooted in the family. The Section on Family was founded to provide a home for sociologists who are interested in exploring these issues in greater depth.” (Retrieved 18 May 2010)

Many family sociologists also belong to the National Council on Family Relations ( NCFR ). This council’s mission statement reads as follows:

“The National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) provides an educational forum for family researchers, educators, and practitioners to share in the development and dissemination of knowledge about families and family relationships, establishes professional standards, and works to promote family well-being.” (Retrieved 30 May 2014)

There are other family-related research organizations in the world, but these two rank among the largest and most prestigious organizations in the field of family studies. As with all of sociology and other social sciences, science and scientific rigor are paramount. It is not enough to simply study the family from our narrow personal points of view. We have to reach into the larger social picture and see the hidden social processes that teach us how to inform marriage and family therapy, provide useful and accurate data to governmental and policy-making figures, and provides reliable advice that will help the most people in the most efficient way.

This becomes a scientific endeavor then to study and examine the family with rules of scientific engagement and analysis. Those earning a Ph.D. in a family-related field learn and execute this science with rigor. If researchers make the results of their study public and present them for critical review by other family scientists, then scientific rigor is even stronger and the findings can be afforded more credibility. For example, studies have shown that the leading factor of divorce is not any of the following: sex problems, failures to communicate, money mismanagement, nor even in-law troubles. What is the leading cause of divorce? Would you believe it is marrying too young? Specifically, if you marry at 17, 18, or 19 you are far more likely to divorce than if you wait to marry until your 20s. This was discovered and confirmed over decades of studying who divorced and which factors contributed more to divorce than others (see chapter 12). The cool thing about knowing the risks of marrying as a teen is that you can choose to wait until you are older, more established in your sense of self, and more experienced in knowing your own likes and dislikes.

Cross-Cultural Functions of the Family

What are the functions of families? In studying the family, sociologists have identified some common and nearly universal family functions, meaning that almost all families in all countries and cultures around the world have at least some of these functions in common.

Economic Support

By far, economic support is the most common function of today’s families. When your parents let you raid their pantry, wash your clothes for you, or replenish your checking account, that’s economic support. For another young adult, say in New Guinea, if she captures a wild animal and cooks it on an open fire, that’s also economic support in a different cultural context. I’ve always been amazed at how far family economic cooperation extends. Some families cooperate in businesslike relationships. In Montreal, Quebec, Canada, there is an established pattern of Italian immigrants helping family and friends emigrate from Italy to Canada. They subsidize each other’s travel costs, help each other find employment once in Canada, and even privately fund some mortgages for one another. Each immigrant supported through this system is expected to later support others in the same manner. To partake in this form of economic cooperation is to assume a very businesslike relationship.

Emotional Support

Emotional relationships are also very common, but you must understand there is a tremendous amount of cultural diversity in how intimacy is experienced in various families around the world. Intimacy is the social, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, and physical trust that is mutually shared between family members. Family members share confidences, advice, trust, secrets, and ongoing mutual concern. Many family scientists believe that intimacy in family relationships functions as a strong buffer to the ongoing stresses family members experience outside of the home.

Socialization of Children

Socialization of children is covered in more detail in future modules. For now, keep in mind that children are born with the potential to be raised as humans. Through the process of socialization , children must acquire the tools they need to survive in their culture. In addition to learning the basics about how to feed themselves, children also need older family members or friends to take the time to protect and nurture them into their cultural and societal roles. Today the family is the core of primary socialization  (where our initial socialization takes place, usualy as children). But many other societal institutions contribute to the socialization process, including schools, peer groups, religious establishments, workplaces, and media.

Control of Sexuality and Reproduction

The family has traditionally asserted control over sexuality and reproduction. A few centuries ago many fathers and mothers even selected the spouses for their children (they still do in many countries). Today, U.S. parents want their adult children to select their own spouses. Older family members tend to discourage unwed mothers and encourage pregnancy and childbirth only in marriage or a long-term relationship. Unwed Mothers are mothers who are not legally married at the time of the child’s birth. Being unwed brings up concerns about economic, emotional, social, and other forms of support for the mother that may or may not be available from the father. Many unwed fathers reject their fatherly obligations.

When an unwed mother delivers her baby, it is often the older female family members rather than the birth father who end up providing the functions of support for that child. Most of the live U.S. births each year are to married mothers. Only about 10 percent of teen mothers and 35 percent of all mothers were unwed (retrieved 30 May 2014  SOURCE ). This trend of relatively high unwed birth rates suggests that more and more families have less control over sanctioning childbirth only within marriage. On the other side of the coin, it also shows that people are able to exercise more choice in building their family instead of relying on cultural stereotypes and expectations.

Ascribed Status

Finally, ascribed status is given to children by their families because it is a type of status that is present at birth. With your friends, have you noticed that one or two tend to be informally in charge of the details? You might be the one who calls everyone and makes reservations or buys the tickets for the others. If so, you would have the informal role of “organizer.” Status is a socially defined position, or what you do in a role. There are three types of status considerations:  Ascribed status  is present at birth (race, sex, or class), achieved status  is attained through one’s lifetime and can be positive or negative (college student, movie star, teacher, athlete, or felon), and master status  stands out above our other statuses and can distract others from seeing who we really are.

You were born into your racial, cultural-ethnic, religious and economic statuses. Those shaped to some degree the way you grew up and were socialized. By far in our modern societies, achieved status (which comes as a result of your own efforts) is more important than ascribed status (which you’re born with) for most members of society. However, the degree of achievement you attain often depends heavily on the level of support your family gives to you.

Another consideration about roles is the fact that one single role can place a rather heavy burden on you (e.g., student).  Role strain  is the burden one feels within any given role. And when one role comes into direct conflict with another or other roles, you might experience role conflict.  Role conflict  is the conflict and burdens one feels when the expectations of one role compete with the expectations of another role.

Marriage Patterns

With single parenting and cohabitation (when a couple shares a residence but not a marriage) becoming more acceptable in recent years, people may be less motivated to get married. In a recent survey, 39 percent of respondents answered “yes” when asked whether marriage is becoming obsolete (Pew Research Center 2010). The institution of marriage is likely to continue, but some previous patterns of marriage will become outdated as new patterns emerge. In this context, cohabitation contributes to the phenomenon of people getting married for the first time at a later age than was typical in earlier generations (Glezer 1991). Furthermore, marriage will continue to be delayed as more people place education and career ahead of “settling down.”

One Partner or Many?

People in the United States typically equate marriage with monogamy , when someone is married to only one person at a time. In many countries and cultures around the world, however, having one spouse is not the only form of marriage. In a majority of cultures (78 percent),  polygamy , or being married to more than one person at a time, is accepted (Murdock 1967), with most polygamous societies existing in northern Africa and east Asia (Altman and Ginat 1996). Instances of polygamy are almost exclusively in the form of polygyny. Polygyny refers to a man being married to more than one woman at the same time. The reverse, when a woman is married to more than one man at the same time, is called  polyandry . It is far less common and only occurs in about 1 percent of the world’s cultures (Altman and Ginat 1996). The reasons for the overwhelming prevalence of polygamous societies are varied but they often include issues of population growth, religious ideologies, and social status.

While the majority of societies accept polygyny, the majority of people do not practice it. Often fewer than 10 percent (and no more than 25–35 percent) of men in polygamous cultures have more than one wife; these husbands are often older, wealthy, high-status men (Altman and Ginat 1996). The average plural marriage involves no more than three wives. Negev Bedouin men in Israel, for example, typically have two wives, although it is acceptable to have up to four (Griver 2008). As urbanization increases in these cultures, polygamy is likely to decrease as a result of greater access to mass media, technology, and education (Altman and Ginat 1996).

In the United States, polygamy is considered by most to be socially unacceptable and it is illegal. The act of entering into marriage while still married to another person is referred to as bigamy and is considered a felony in most states. Polygamy in the United States is often associated with those of the Mormon faith, although in 1890 the Mormon Church officially renounced polygamy . Fundamentalist Mormons, such as those in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), on the other hand, still hold tightly to the historic Mormon beliefs and practices and allow polygamy in their sect.

The prevalence of polygamy among Mormons is often overestimated due to sensational media stories such as the Yearning for Zion ranch raid in Texas in 2008 and popular television shows such as HBO’s Big Love and TLC’s  Sister Wives . It is estimated that there are about 37,500 fundamentalist Mormons involved in polygamy in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, but that number has shown a steady decrease in the last 100 years (Useem 2007).

U.S. Muslims, however, are an emerging group with an estimated 20,000 practicing polygamy. Again, polygamy among U.S. Muslims is uncommon and occurs only in approximately 1 percent of the population (Useem 2007). For now polygamy among U.S. Muslims has gone fairly unnoticed by mainstream society, but like fundamentalist Mormons whose practices were off the public’s radar for decades, they may someday find themselves at the center of social debate.

Residency and Lines of Descent

When considering one’s lineage, most people in the United States look to both their father’s and mother’s sides. Both paternal and maternal ancestors are considered part of one’s family. This pattern of tracing kinship is called bilateral descent . Note that  kinship , or one’s traceable ancestry, can be based on blood or marriage or adoption. Sixty percent of societies, mostly modernized nations, follow a bilateral descent pattern. Unilateral descent (the tracing of kinship through one parent only) is practiced in the other 40 percent of the world’s societies, with high concentration in pastoral cultures (O’Neal 2006).

There are three types of unilateral descent: patrilineal , which follows the father’s line only; matrilineal , which follows the mother’s side only; and  ambilineal , which follows either the father’s only or the mother’s side only, depending on the situation. In partrilineal societies, such as those in rural China and India, only males carry on the family surname. This gives males the prestige of permanent family membership while females are seen as only temporary members (Harrell 2001). U.S. society assumes some aspects of partrilineal decent. For instance, most children assume their father’s last name even if the mother retains her birth name.

In matrilineal societies, inheritance and family ties are traced to women. Matrilineal descent is common in Native American societies, notably the Crow and Cherokee tribes. In these societies, children are seen as belonging to the women and, therefore, one’s kinship is traced to one’s mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and so on (Mails 1996). In ambilineal societies, which are most common in Southeast Asian countries, parents may choose to associate their children with the kinship of either the mother or the father. This choice maybe based on the desire to follow stronger or more prestigious kinship lines or on cultural customs such as men following their father’s side and women following their mother’s side (Lambert 2009).

Tracing one’s line of descent to one parent rather than the other can be relevant to the issue of residence. In many cultures, newly married couples move in with, or near to, family members. In a patrilocal residence system it is customary for the wife to live with (or near) her husband’s blood relatives (or family or orientation). Patrilocal systems can be traced back thousands of years. In a DNA analysis of 4,600-year-old bones found in Germany, scientists found indicators of patrilocal living arrangements (Haak et al 2008). Patrilocal residence is thought to be disadvantageous to women because it makes them outsiders in the home and community; it also keeps them disconnected from their own blood relatives. In China, where patrilocal and patrilineal customs are common, the written symbols for maternal grandmother ( wáipá ) are separately translated to mean “outsider” and “women” (Cohen 2011).

Similarly, in matrilocal residence systems, where it is customary for the husband to live with his wife’s blood relatives (or her family of orientation), the husband can feel disconnected and can be labeled as an outsider. The Minangkabau people, a matrilocal society that is indigenous to the highlands of West Sumatra in Indonesia, believe that home is the place of women and they give men little power in issues relating to the home or family (Joseph and Najmabadi 2003). Most societies that use patrilocal and patrilineal systems are patriarchal, but very few societies that use matrilocal and matrilineal systems are matriarchal, as family life is often considered an important part of the culture for women, regardless of their power relative to men.

Currently, most relationships in the United States follow a neolocal residence pattern, where a new couple moves away from their family and establishes a entirely new home.

Sociologists view marriage and families as societal institutions that help create the basic unit of social structure. A sociological perspective on families means appreciating the role of large-scale (macro) social forces (like history and social institutions) and using scientific research to gather information. Family may be defined differently—and practiced differently—in cultures across the world, but there are features that are shared by families, as well.

Key terms found in this reading. You should be able to define all of this important vocabulary.

• achieved status
• Ascribed status
• bilateral descent
• Cohabitation
• Cultural relativism
• Ethnocentrism
• family of orientation
• family of procreation
• Larger social issues
• master status
• Matrilineal
• matrilocal residence
• neolocal residence
• Patrilineal
• patrilocal residence
• Personal troubles
• primary socialization
• Role conflict
• Role strain
•  Social facts
• Socialization
• sociological imagination

Questions for Review

1. What does it mean to look at family from a sociological perspective? In other words, when you use a sociological imagination to examine families, what can you see?

2. Summarize the cross-cultural functions of the family. Which of these functions do you think U.S. society finds most important? Which of these functions to YOU find most important? Why?

3. Using your family of origin, your family of procreation, or another kinship grouping (ie: your chosen family) to complete a ‘fact sheet’ that includes aspects of your family’s structure, authority, marriage norms, residence, and decent. Try to find another (real or imagined) family with traits different from yours. How might the differences on the ‘fact sheet’ contribute to different lifestyles, opportunities, or experiences?

4. Name two organizations that conduct and present useful research about families in the United States.

Altman, Irwin, and Joseph Ginat. 1996. Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, Philip. 2011. “Chinese: Maternal Grandmothers, Outside Women.” FamilyInequality.com , Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/chinese-maternal-grandmothers-outside-women/ ).

Glezer, Helen. 1991. “Cohabitation.” Family Matters 30:24–27.

Glick, Paul. 1989. “The Family Life Cycle and Social Change.” Family Relations 38(2):123–129.

Griver, Simon. 2008. “One Wife Isn’t Enough … So They Take Two or Three.” The Jewish Chronicle Online , April 24. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/one-wife-isn’t-enough-so-they-take-two-or-three ).

Haak, Wolfgang et al. 2008. “Ancient DNA Reveals Male Diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean Route.” Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences , November 17. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226 ).

Harrell, Stevan. 2001. “Mountain Patterns: The Survival of Nuosu Culture in China.” Journal of American Folklore 114:451.

Jayson, Sharon. 2010. “What Does a ‘Family’ Look Like Nowadays?” USA Today , November 25. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/marriage/2010-11-18-pew18_ST_N.htm ).

Joseph, Suad, and Afsaneh Najmabadi. 2003. “Kinship and State: Southeast Asia, East Asia, Australia and the Pacific.” Pp. 351–355 in Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law, and Politics . Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.

Hammond, Ron, Paul Cheney, and Raewyn Pearsey. 2015.  Sociology of the Family Textbook,  Retrieved May 22, 2020 from http://www.freesociologybooks.com.

Lambert, Bernd. 2009. “Ambilineal Descent Groups in the Northern Gilbert Islands.” American Anthropologist 68(3):641–664.

Lee, Richard. 2009. The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Mails, Thomas E. 1996. The Cherokee People: The Story of the Cherokees from Earliest Origins to Contemporary Times . New York: Marlowe & Co.

Murdock, George P. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary . Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murphy, Patrick, and William Staples. 1979. “A Modernized Family Life Cycle.” Journal of Consumer Research 6(1):12–22.

Museum of Broadcast Communications. 2010. “Family on Television.” Retrieved January 16, 2012.

O’Neal, Dennis. 2006. “Nature of Kinship.” Palomar College. Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_2.htm ).

Parsons, Talcott, and Robert Bales. 1955. Family Socialization and Interaction Process . London: Routledge.

Pew Research Center. 2010. “The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families.” November 18. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-marriage-rise-new-families ).

Powell, Brian, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman. 2010. Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and Americans’ Definitions of Family . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Respers France, Lisa. 2010. “The Evolution of the TV Family.” CNN , September 1. Retrieved February 13, 2012 ( http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/index.html ).

Ruoff, Jeffrey. 2002. An American Family: A Televised Life . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Strong, B., and C. DeVault. 1992. The Marriage and Family Experience . 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Current Population Survey (CPS).” Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html ).

Useem, Andrea. 2007. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting a Co-Wife.” Slate , July 24. Retrieved January 16, 2012 ( http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html ).

Sociology of Family Copyright © by donnagiuliani is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Essay on Importance of Family for Students and Children

500 words essay on importance of family.

In today’s world when everything is losing its meaning, we need to realize the importance of family more than ever. While the world is becoming more modern and advanced, the meaning of family and what stands for remains the same.

A family is a group of people who are related by blood or heritage. These people are linked not only by blood but also by compassion, love, and support. A person’s character and personality are shaped by his or her family. There are various forms of families in today’s society. It is further subdivided into a tight and extended family (nuclear family, single parent, step-family, grandparent, cousins, etc.)

Family – A synonym for trust, comfort, love, care, happiness and belonging. Family is the relationship that we share from the moment we are born into this world. People that take care of us and help us grow are what we call family, and they become lifelines for us to live. Family members have an important role in deciding an individual’s success or failure in life since they provide a support system and source of encouragement.

It does not matter what kind of family one belongs to. It is all equal as long as there are caring and acceptance. You may be from a joint family, same-sex partner family, nuclear family, it is all the same. The relationships we have with our members make our family strong. We all have unique relations with each family member. In addition to other things, a family is the strongest unit in one’s life.

Things That Strengthens The Family

A family is made strong through a number of factors. The most important one is of course love. You instantly think of unconditional love when you think of family. It is the first source of love you receive in your life It teaches you the meaning of love which you carry on forever in your heart.

Secondly, we see that loyalty strengthens a family. When you have a family, you are devoted to them. You stick by them through the hard times and celebrate in their happy times. A family always supports and backs each other. They stand up for each other in front of a third party trying to harm them proving their loyalty.

Most importantly, the things one learns from their family brings them closer. For instance, we learn how to deal with the world through our family first. They are our first school and this teaching strengthens the bond. It gives us reason to stand by each other as we share the same values.

No matter what the situation arises, your family will never leave you alone. They will always stand alongside you to overcome the hardships in life. If anyone is dealing with any kind of trouble, even a small talk about it to the family will make ones’ mind lighter and will give them a sense of hope, an inner sense of strength to fight those problems.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Family

One cannot emphasize enough on the importance of family. They play a great role in our lives and make us better human beings. The one lucky enough to have a family often do not realize the value of a family.

However, those who do not have families know their worth. A family is our source of strength. It teaches us what relationships mean. They help us create meaningful relationships in the outside world. The love we inherit from our families, we pass on to our independent relationships.

Moreover, families teach us better communication . When we spend time with our families and love each other and communicate openly, we create a better future for ourselves. When we stay connected with our families, we learn to connect better with the world.

Similarly, families teach us patience. It gets tough sometimes to be patient with our family members. Yet we remain so out of love and respect. Thus, it teaches us patience to deal better with the world. Families boost our confidence and make us feel loved. They are the pillars of our strength who never fall instead keep us strong so we become better people.

We learn the values of love, respect, faith, hope, caring, cultures, ethics, traditions, and everything else that concerns us through our families. Being raised in a loving household provides a solid foundation for anyone.

People develop a value system inside their family structure in addition to life lessons. They learn what their family considers to be proper and wrong, as well as what the community considers to be significant.

Families are the epicentres of tradition. Many families keep on traditions by sharing stories from the past over the years. This allows you to reconnect with family relatives who are no longer alive. A child raised in this type of household feels as if they are a part of something bigger than themselves. They’ll be proud to be a part of a community that has had ups and downs. Communities thrive when families are strong. This, in turn, contributes to a robust society.

Q.1 What strengthens a family?

A.1 A family’s strength is made up of many factors. It is made of love that teaches us to love others unconditionally. Loyalty strengthens a family which makes the members be loyal to other people as well. Most importantly, acceptance and understanding strengthen a family.

Q.2 Why is family important?

A.2 Families are very important components of society and people’s lives. They teach us a lot about life and relationships. They love us and treat us valuably. They boost our self-confidence and make us feel valued. In addition, they teach us patience to deal with others in a graceful and accepting manner.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App

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.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Family Relationships — Importance of Family Relationships

Importance of Family Relationships

• Categories: Family Relationships Parent-Child Relationship

About this sample

Words: 515 |

Published: Aug 31, 2023

Words: 515 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Emotional support and security, healthy development and identity formation, nurturing communication skills, shared traditions and cultural heritage, crisis support and resilience, socialization and moral development, interpersonal skills and conflict resolution, elderly care and generational exchange, building strong communities and societal cohesion, conclusion: the enduring significance of family bonds.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 703 words

3 pages / 1408 words

3 pages / 1161 words

1 pages / 616 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Family Relationships

Family is an integral part of everyone's life. It is the first place where we learn about relationships, values, and love. As a college student, I can confidently say that my family has played a significant role in shaping [...]

Life is a journey filled with choices, and one of the most significant choices many people face is whether to embrace the single life or commit to the institution of marriage. Each path offers its unique set of experiences, [...]

McCashin, K. (2012). The modern family? Changes in parental roles and their effect on spousal relationships. Family Journal, 20(3), 236-241. McLeod, S. (2017, [...]

Social media has become an integral part of modern society, shaping the way we communicate, connect, and interact with others. With the rise of platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat, the dynamics of human [...]

As a child, my grandmother was someone I looked up to. I mean this less in the literal sense. Her arrivals at the front door were a cause for celebration. I would leap into her open arms as a large smile appeared across her [...]

It took me eighteen years to realize what an extraordinary influence my mother has been on my life. She's the kind of person who has thoughtful discussions about which artist she would most want to have her portrait painted by [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Functionalist Perspective on the Family

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Functionalists view the family as a vital institution that performs essential functions for society. These include socializing children, providing emotional support, contributing to economic stability, and offering a sense of belonging for its members.

Key Takeaways

• Functionalists believe that the institutions that make up societies have roles beneficial and essential to them. Family is one example of such an institution.
• Functionalists perspectives on the family hold that families perform functions such as socializing children, providing emotional and practical support, regulating sexual activity and reproduction, and providing social identity.
• Prior to the Industrial Revolution, family members tended to perform productive tasks that were differentiated by sex and age. However, the emergence of factory labor shifted this dynamic, provoking families to serve complementary roles in providing support for workers.
• Murdock argued that families consist of instrumental and expressive roles. Instrumental roles provide financial support and establish family status, while expressive roles involve providing emotional support and physical care.
• Parsons devised the functional fit theory of the family, and argued that nuclear families, although performing a narrower scope of functions than those of the past, were essential to socializing members and stabilizing adult personalities through the emotional security of marital relationships.

The Functionalist View of Society

Functionalism is what sociologists call a structural-consensus theory. By structural, sociologists mean that functionalists argue that there exists a social structure that shapes individual behavior through the process of socialization.

Functionalists believe that a successful society is based on value consensus , where people agree about shared norms and values . In this way, people can join forces in society to cooperate and work toward shared goals (Holmwood, 2005).

Functionalists posit that successful societies have a stable social structure in which different institutions perform unique functions that contribute to the maintenance of all of society. This is similar to how different organs in the body perform different functions to keep an animal alive.

Functionalists assume that each of these institutional organs does things that are beneficial, or even essential, for the individual and society.

Thus, the essence of the functionalist view of the family is that the family performs several essential functions for society.

Families socialize children, provide emotional and practical support for their members, regulate sexual activity and reproduction, and provide members with a social identity.

A corollary of this essentialist view of the family is the belief that a sudden or far-reaching change to family structure or processes threatens the stability of the institution of family in itself, potentially weakening society (Holmwood, 2005).

Functions of the Family in Pre-Industrial Society

Pre-industrial families (before factories) — meaning those from the 17th to 19th centuries — tended to have large numbers of children. Economies in pre-industrial society were dominated by family-based economies — what Siskind (1978) calls the kinship mode of production .

Typically, all family members worked at productive tasks differentiated by sex and age. The family itself would have consisted of a structure, such as a head of household, their spouse and children, the head’s parents and possibly ancillary relatives.

Together, this unit worked productively, producing the things needed to sustain the family’s survival. The kinship relation, in this time, represented a binding obligation to work for the subsistence of the family.

In the pre-industrial era, marriages were arranged largely for social and economic purposes, rather than for romantic love. Marriage served as a contractual agreement based on a specific division of labor.

Although people would generally attend to their assigned roles within family units, these tasks may have been flexible, depending on the needs of the family.

The tasks and the needs that the family structure could fulfill in pre-industrial society included:

Being a unit of production

Caring for the young, old sick and poor

The primary socialization and control of children

The education of children

Murdock’s Four Functions of the Nuclear Family

The nuclear family is a family that consists of 2 generations: a parental married couple and their kin.

In 1949, the sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual functions of the nuclear family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic.

Murdock considered the family to regulate sexual relations between adults, ensuring that they are controlled and socially acceptable. While Murdock did not deny the existence of sexual relationships outside of marriage, he considered family to be the socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults.

Murdock believed that stable satisfaction of the sex drive within monogamous heterosexual relationships would prevent sexual jealousy (Murdock, 1949).

2. Reproduction

This sexual function of the family gives way to reproduction, which, Murdock argues, is necessary for ensuring the survival of society.

3. Socialization

The family plays a vital role in training children for adult life. The family, as a primary agent of socialization and enculturation, teaches young children ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes.

Parents, through teaching their children manners and civility, reflect themselves in their offspring (Murdock, 1949).

4. Economic Needs

Additionally, parents teach children gender roles. Murdock argued that these gender roles are an important part of the economic function of the family.

Murdock thought of each family as having a division of labor that consists of instrumental and expressive roles . Instrumental roles are those that provide financial support and establish family status, which Murdock purported were taken on by men.

Expressive roles typically involve work inside of the family, providing emotional support and physical care for children.

Functionalists consider this gender differentiation of roles to be an essential part of the family, because they ensure that the family is well-balanced and coordinated. When family members move outside of these roles, Murdock believes that the family is thrown out of balance and at risk of collapse if not recalibrated.

For example, suppose a father decides to quit his job in favor of caring for children during the daytime. In that case, the mother must take on an instrumental role, such as getting paid employment, in order for the family to maintain balance and function (Murdock, 1949).

Parsons: Functions of the Nuclear Family

According to Parsons (1951), although the nuclear family performs functions that are reduced in comparison to what it did in the past, it is still the only institution that can perform the core functions of primary socialization and the stabilization of adult personalities.

1. Primary Socialization

Primary socialization refers to the early period in a person’s life where they learn and develop themselves through interactions and experiences around them. This results in a child learning the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture.

This socialization is important because it sets the groundwork for all future socialization. For example, if a child sees their mother denigrating a minority group, the child may then think that this behavior is acceptable, provoking them to continue to have this opinion about minority groups (Parsons, 1951).

Functionalists stress gender role socialization as a vital part of primary socialization. If primary socialization is done correctly, functionalists believe, boys learn to adopt the instrumental role in a family, provoking them to go to work and earn wages.

Meanwhile, girls learn to adopt an expressive role, provoking them to do care work, housework, and bring up children (Parsons, 1951).

2. The Stabilization of Adult Personalities

Parsons argued that the traditional family provides emotional support and stress relief for its adult members (particularly the husband after a workday).

This “warm bath” of relaxation helps maintain societal order by preventing disruptive behavior.

The stabilization of adult personalities, otherwise known as “warm bath theory,” emphasizes the emotional security found within marital relationships. This stabilization serves to balance out the stresses and strains of life faced by most adults.

In addition, the stabilization of adult personalities within marriage allows adults to act on the child-like dimension of their personality by playing with their children, using their toys, and so forth (Parsons, 1951).

Another factor that aids the stabilization of adult personalities is the sexual division of labor within nuclear families. Within isolated nuclear families, people are allocated particular roles in order to allow the unit to function correctly.

There are the aforementioned expressive and instrumental roles (Parsons, 1951).

Parsons: Functional Fit Theory

Talcott Parsons (1951) maintained a functional fit theory of the family and devised a historical perspective on the evolution of the nuclear family.

According to functional fit theory, the type of family that fits a society’s structure, and the functions it performs, change as societies change.

For example, from the 17th to 20th centuries, as Western societies industrialized, the main family type changed from the extended to the nuclear family.

The nuclear family is indicative of greater shifts in the structure of society, and how people subsisted within it. Labor becomes decentralized and specialized, with workers in industrial plants taking on small tasks.

The emergence of factories allowed items that were once made by hand or within families, such as canned goods and clothing, to be manufactured on a mass scale. The family unit no longer needed to account for the large undertaking of self-sufficiency.

Instead, instrumental family members could earn wages which other members could then use to buy necessities. As young children could not contribute to this wage system in the same way that they could to, say, a farm, the need for large families to carry out labor lessened.

Additionally, declining infant and childhood mortality gave rise to the expectation that most children would live to adulthood.

Out of these broad-level societal changes came the nuclear family, which suited more complex industrial society better, but performed a reduced number of functions. This smaller, nuclear family unit suited the need of industrial societies for a mobile workforce, one that could move to find work in a rapidly changing and growing economy.

Additionally, the need for extended family lessened as more and more functions, such as education and healthcare, were gradually subsumed by the state (Parsons, 1951).

Criticisms of the Functionalist Perspective on the Family

The possibility that other institutions could perform the functions of the family. For example, a school or workplace may provide daycare services, or government subsidies may help a family stay afloat instrumentally.

Murdock assumes that all nuclear families function well, ignoring families that are dysfunctional despite the presence of both instrumental and expressive roles.

Feminist sociologists posit that Murdock’s argument that the family is essential is ideological, and that traditional family structures typically disadvantage women.

Parson’s view of the instrumental and expressive roles of men and women may have applied during the 1950s, but is now out of date. Women now go out to work and the biological roles as set out by Parsons no longer apply as clearly.

Anthropological research shows that there are some cultures that do not fit the traditional model of the nuclear family. One such example is that of the Nair, a group of Indian Hindu castes, who lived historically in large family units called Tharavads that housed the descendants of one common female ancestor.

The marriage customs among this group have evoked much discussion and controversy among Indian jurists and social scientists (Panikkar, 1918).

Some functionalist sociologists disagree with Parson’s idea that the nuclear family only performs basic instrumental and expressive functions. Fletcher (1988), for example, argues that the family carries out three essential functions that no other social institution can.

These are the long-standing satisfaction of the sexual and emotional needs of parents, having and rearing children in a stable environment, and the provision of a common residence where all family members can return after work or school.

However, Fletcher argues that the family also retains its education, health, and welfare function. Child-rearing and socialization in families are made more effective by state institutions offering resources such as prenatal care, health clinics, doctors, social workers, schools and teachers, and housing officers.

He notes that most parents take primary responsibility for their children’s health – such as by teaching them hygiene and caring for and treating minor illnesses.

Additionally, parents can guide and encourage their children on an educational and occupational level, as well as provide material and welfare support, well beyond childhood. Children often reciprocate these supports when their parents enter old age.

Fletcher, while acknowledging that the nuclear family has largely lost its economic function of production, highlights that it has shifted into a major unit of consumption.

Families spend a large proportion of their income on home or family-oriented consumer goods.  Willmott and Young (1975) suggest that this can motivate family members to earn as much as possible.

Historians have suggested that Parson’s interpretation of the functions of the family was overly simplistic. These historians have noted the evidence suggesting that industrialization follows different historical patterns in different industrial societies.

For example, in Japan, industrialization stresses the importance of holding a job for life with the same company, and employees are encouraged to view their colleagues as part of an extended family. This extends the kinship network (Jansenns, 2002).

Chambers, D., & Gracia, P. (2021). A sociology of family life: Change and diversity in intimate relations . John Wiley & Sons.

Crano, W. D., & Aronoff, J. (1978). A cross-cultural study of expressive and instrumental role complementarity in the family. American Sociological Review , 463-471.

Fletcher, R. (1988). The Shaking of the Foundations: family and society . Routledge.

Holmwood, J. (2005). Functionalism and its Critics. Modern social theory: An introduction , 87-109.

Janssens, A. (2002). Family and social change: The household as a process in an industrializing community (No. 21). Cambridge University Press.

Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure .

Panikkar, K. M. (1918). Some Aspects of Nayar Life. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 48, 254-293.

Parsons, T. E., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action .

Siskind, J. (1978). Kinship and mode of production. American Anthropologist, 80 (4), 860-872.

Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1975). Michael Gordon,” The Symmetrical Family”(Book Review). Journal of Social History, 9 (1), 120.

What is the Family? Definition Essay

• 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

Introduction

Critical analysis, reference list.

In the human perspective, a family is a group of persons connected by kinship, compassion, or sharing of residence. In a number of societies, the family is the basic unit for the socialization of children. A basic family unit is made up of a father, mother, and children, and is known as a nuclear family, however, this unit can be extended to include other relations to be known as an extended family.

The concept of the family has undergone a transformation and in today’s society, many people define the family structure as an arbitrary cultural set-up, a statement could be partially true. In ancient times, the family was a closely-knit, patriarchal clan consisting of a man, his wife or wives, and several children!

This has changed to include a monogamous parent taking care of the children. Besides, certain concepts of the family have broken with tradition within specific communities while some have been implanted through migration to thrive or else disappear in the new communities and societies.

Current debates and interest concerning the family have forced individuals to reassess themselves in a society driven by change and uncertainty. Because of its intricate nature, sociologists have not succeeded in coming with a universal definition of what family is and how is constructed. Rather, the definition is subject to individual interpretation and depends on the value a person attaches to being a member of a communal social group.

The aim of the paper is to give a concise definition of family, and the context of family structures such as the traditional family; single parent family, blended family and cohabiting relationship families. The paper also examines the influences that have progressively shaped the concept of family from the past to the present day.

A family is generally defined as a group of individuals who are linked by kinship or adoption, and who have a common residence. (Germov and Poole, 2011, 132). Kinship ties are connections or associations that link individuals through genealogy lines or marriage.

However, a few writers disagree with this concept. For instance, George Murdock, an American anthropologist, defines family as a social group that lives together, support each other economically, and raise children (Germov and Poole, 2011, 128).

In the mid 20 th century, sociologists defined family as a man living together with his wife and children, joined by blood, marriage or adoption. The couple had sex, procreated, and cared for the children jointly, besides bringing resources such as money and food together. The family members also guarded and supported each other.

Again, some writers have given a different perspective. Some asserted that previous definitions of the concept of the family should be altered as they are founded on ‘monolithic’ models that exhibit partiality towards a specific kind of family typified by gender discrimination and legal attachment, instead of gender fairness and patterns of care or emotional response.

Besides, modern reproductive methods have changed family associations and the definition of terms such as ‘mother’ and ‘father’ gas considerably changed. For instance, women past their menopausal age can now have children through surrogate mothers. Consequently, an increasing number of studies are focusing on what really defines a family. This perspective overlooks the gender inclination of the couple and the legitimacy of the relationship, and centers rather on the patterns of caring and affection.

The concept of the family has been conventionally related to the traditional family setup, which can be defined as a relationship in the children live with both the biological parents with the father often at work while the mother stays at home (Germov & Poole, 2011, 128). Today less than ten percent of families satisfies this principle.

The second approach is that of single parent setup in which the child resides with one of the parents, and may result from death, divorce, separation, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, or a nonunion pregnancy. Milstead and Perkins (2010, para. 8) recognized that teenage mothers were less likely to enter marriage and preferred to care for the child without paternal help leading to certain social and economic deficits for both the mother and child including lack of proper education, poorly paying occupations, reliance on welfare, and bad health for both of them.

The third approach is that of a blended family, in which the child lives with one of the biological parents, and that parent’s partner. This type of family may also include children born to the new couple. This family setup is made up of children, one of the biological parents, and a stepparent (Kinnear, 2010, 8). Even though the availability of another adult may lead to more material and financial resources, studies indicate that such children may be more disadvantaged than those living in stable single-parent families. In fact, children living in blended families have a higher likelihood of suffering emotionally and/or psychologically than those in single parent families.

The fourth perspective is that of a cohabiting relationship, in which a child lives with one of the biological parents, and that parent’s significant other, however, in contrast to blended families, the adults are not married. This type of family has been on the rise and a possible explanation could be that couples take it as a good practice before marriage. In contrast, Joltes (2007, para. 2) notes that those who have cohabited are more likely to divorce than those who have not. Cohabiting families regularly create less defined family roles, lower levels of parental support, supervision and involvement, and more conflicts (Kinnear, 2010, 8).

In contrast from the family setups described above, the traditional family is characterized by a unit comprising of a married couple with two or more children. In this setup, the male adult is the head of the house and the breadwinner too, while the female adult performs household tasks and cares for children and her husband.

Back then, the gender roles were clear. Most (preferably all) members of the family attended a church service weekly. Children were obedient, respectful and responsible. Families resided in the same town, or at least close to each other. Instances of divorce were an abomination and were very rare. Unmarried couples were uncommon too, and the act was thought of as shameful (Briggs, 2002, 5).

The number of unmarried adults was very low. The 1950s was a period when everybody worked together towards a common goal; society was stable or improving, and disagreements extremely rare. Women were satisfied with their housekeeping roles and respected their husbands as the house heads. Similarly, it was generally accepted that homosexuality, divorce, sex before marriage, abortion, and illegitimate birth did not exist, or occurred only to ‘bad’ families. Indeed, such issues were never conversed in an open forum.

For instance, women living in Australia in the 1950s had their lives centred on family and housekeeping tasks. Women who held wartime jobs were supposed to quit their jobs to create opportunities for men who had previously been in war. Consequently, women quit their jobs and returned to their housekeeping tasks. However, a few women challenged these norms and retained their jobs, but were paid less than men for similar jobs and were often given lowly paying jobs.

The practices in the traditional family have transformed significantly, and it is unlikely that we will ever switch back to the conventional nuclear family as the only ideal type of family. For the near future, the new family setup is here to stay. The ‘cereal packet’ image of the family comprising of the father, mother, and the children joyously having breakfast together is a bad reminder of how single-parent, blended, extended, same-sex, or childless families have considerably dented the idea of a perfect family.

Add this to the effects of the multiplicity of ethnic and cultural origins, aboriginal Australians and post-war migrations, and all Australians will finally encounter family forms quite dissimilar from their own. In Australia, as in many societies, the nuclear family setup is no longer conventional.

Towards the end of the 20th century, major demographic changes had affected even the family setup. Societies were aging while the number of children and youths was diminishing. These anomalies led to a shift in roles that today challenge the traditional family setup.

Today, families may comprise of couples who may be married or cohabiting, and have a child who is either a co-resident. A new form of family setup emerged in the 21st century, as mentioned by Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck. The two sociologists write that from the mid 70s onwards, significant changes occurred in family life and relationships; marriage rates were failing, divorce was on the increase, and fertility rates dropping. According to Saggers and Sims (2004, 34), these changes marked the end of the family.

While often referred to as a ‘haven in a heartless world’, the fact is that families cannot be insulated from the world of which we are a component. In fact, change in the family stricture has always been inherently linked to wider social changes. As society undergoes swift, turbulent and far-reaching changes in economic, cultural and political aspects, family keeps pace with the changes (Saggers and Sims, 2004, 32).

The family, as we once knew it, has undergone rapid transformations and is today a shadow of its former self. Previously unacceptable behaviors such as homosexuality and same-sex families are now welcomed in the family. Consequently, these unnatural acts have further deteriorated the family by causing same-sex families, which raises important sociological questions about the actual meaning of the term ‘family’.

Secondly, the rising number of women in the workforce has altered the basic roles of members of the family. Divorce and separation, once abhorred, is now a normal affair. Indeed, parental divorce disrupts the lives of almost one in five Australian children. Cohabiting has also found its way into the modern family, and this has resulted into a popular and often quoted belief that the Australian family is disintegrating.

While the social construct of the family has evolved to cater for the social pressures of modern life, the values attached to it are perhaps more enduring. While the concept of the family is multifaceted, perhaps it comes down to the individuals belonging to any particular family group, who seek the similar values of belonging and compassion that offer a true definition of what a family is.

Briggs, Freda. 2002. The changing family, from Children and Families : Australian Perspectives , Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Joltes, Richard. 2007. Critical Enquiry: Family Values . Web.

Kinnear, Pamela. 2002. New families for changing times . Discussion Paper No 47. Web.

Milstead, Kayla & Perkins, Gerra. 2010. Family structure Characteristics and academic success: Supporting the work of school counsellors. Academic Leadership, Vol 8, issue 4. Web.

Poole, Marylin & Germov John. 2011. Public Sociology, An introduction to Australian Society , 2nd edition, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Saggers, Sherry and Sims, Margaret. 2004. Diversity: Beyond the nuclear family , Edited by Marilyn Poole, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

• Is the American Family in a State of Decline or Just Changing? - Analysis
• Analysis of the family social network
• Familiy Changes
• The Definition of Marriage
• Best Practices of Using Hybrid/Blended Learning Classes
• Sociological View of Family
• Marriage and Alternative Family Arrangements
• Family Formations, Breakdowns and Re-formations
• The Discussion on the Institute of Family
• Critical Theories of Bodies, Genders, Sexualities and Identities
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 21). What is the Family? https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-family/

"What is the Family?" IvyPanda , 21 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-family/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'What is the Family'. 21 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "What is the Family?" March 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-family/.

1. IvyPanda . "What is the Family?" March 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-family/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "What is the Family?" March 21, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/what-is-the-family/.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2020

The relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy (parallel samples studies)

• Ali Zakiei 1 ,
• Hosna Vafapoor 2 ,
• Mostafa Alikhani 3 ,
• Vahid Farnia 3 &
• Farnaz Radmehr 3  

BMC Psychology volume  8 , Article number:  88 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

28k Accesses

23 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

General Self-efficacy is a key variable in clinical, educational, social, developmental, health and personality psychology that can affect the outcomes of people’s lives. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between family functions and personality traits with general self-efficacy among university students and the general population.

To conduct this two-part study, the first part was carried out on a sample of 500 students, and in the second part the study was repeated on a larger sample consisting of 1000 participants from the general population data were collected from the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), Family Assessment Device (FAD), and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). The analysis was performed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Fisher’s z test and regression analysis.

The results of the present study revealed that all the subscales of family functions and all personality traits are significantly related to general self-efficacy among university students and general population ( p  < 0.001). But in the general population, there was no significant correlation between openness to experience with general self-efficacy) ( p  > 0.05). Furthermore, the results of regression analysis showed subscales of family functions and all personality traits together can predict 27 and 35% of the variance in general self-efficacy among university students and the general population, respectively.

Personality traits play a role in predicting general self-efficacy, but the personality trait of conscientiousness plays a greater role than other personality traits and also compared to family functioning, personality traits play a greater role in predicting general self-efficacy.

Peer Review reports

General self-efficacy is one of the interesting psychological issues for researchers. So that some consider self-efficacy as an important precondition for self-management in the process [ 1 ]. Some researchers have shown that general self-efficacy is an important predicting factor for academic achievement at various levels of education [ 2 ]. Furthermore, self-efficacy is one of the factors influencing health promotion, for example, it has an important role in reducing high-risk behaviors leading to HIV [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Moreover, it is also associated with behaviors such as oral health behaviors and smoking [ 6 , 7 ]. On the other hand, its relationship with depression, anxiety, and other mental health indicators have also been confirmed [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].

In the psychology literature, general self-efficacy is considered as a motivational construct and has been defined as a person’s belief in his abilities and competencies for the success of a particular assignment [ 11 , 12 ]. Self-efficacy beliefs mean confidence in our ability to organize, manage, and control life situations [ 13 ]. Bandura believes that the origins of self-efficacy are from early family experiences [ 13 ].

Family function or efficiency is a collaborative effort to the establishment and maintain the family balance. A family with an optimal function is an open system whose members are emotionally interconnected, but members have nevertheless been encouraged to expand their identities. Such a family is full of love and every family member is accepted unconditionally. As a result of this acceptance, the family can resolve conflicts and willingly respond to the request for help from members [ 14 ].

The family function in essence refers to the systemic characteristics of the family. In other words, family function means the ability of the family to protect the entire family system to keep pace with changes in life, to resolve conflicts, to reach union among members and success in discipline, compliance with the boundaries between individuals and the enforcement of the rules and principles governing the family institution. One of the important models in the field of family function is McMaster’s family pattern. This pattern was introduced by Epstein, Baldwin & Bishop in 1983 at McMaster University [ 15 ].

Family function evaluation according to this model is based on a system approach. The model utilizes a general systems theory approach in an attempt to describe the structure, organization, and transactional patterns of the family unit. The basic principles of this model include: the relationship between parts and components of the family with each other, the incomprehensibility of a component separate from other components of the family, the important role of structure and Interactive patterns of family in determining and shaping the behavior of family members [ 16 ]. Therefore, in this study, considering the comprehensiveness of this model, it was used.

Personality marks the relatively stable individual difference in physical appearance, behavior and experience of humans over time [ 17 ].

One of the most prominent personality models is the model of the five big personality factors [ 18 ], which is the dominant approach for representing the human trait structure today [ 19 ].

The big five personality factors include: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Neuroticism refers to the vulnerability to emotional instability and self-consciousness. Openness to experience is characterized by the cognitive disposition to creativity and esthetics. Agreeableness and extraversion focus on the interpersonal relationship: Extraversion reflects the tendency to be gregarious, enthusiastic, assertive, and to seek excitement, whereas agreeableness refers to the tendency to be warm, kind, gentle, trusting, and reliable. Conscientiousness is understood as the tendency toward dutifulness and competence [ 20 ].

A review of previous studies shows that general self-efficacy and personality traits are strongly related. For example, the results of the study Judge & Ilies (2002) indicated that there was a negative correlation between general self-efficacy and neuroticism. Also, the results of this study showed that there were positive correlations between general self-efficacy and variables of extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness [ 21 ]. The results of another study indicated that, besides the four traits mentioned by Judge and Ilies (2002), agreeableness and general self-efficacy were significantly related, and neuroticism could negatively predict general self-efficacy [ 22 ]. Ebstrup et al. (2011) in their study, confirmed the findings of Judge and Ilies (2002) and showed that self-efficacy beliefs significantly predict the relationship between the four factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness [ 22 ].

For researchers, there is a question that self-efficacy is more influenced by personality traits or family factors? So far, no research has responded to this question. Responding to this question may help to a better understanding of this concept. On the other hand, it seems that to answer this important question, we need to study simultaneously (parallel), so that we can compare the results with each other.

A more comprehensive understanding of the interactions between family function and personality traits with self-efficacy seems necessary. There are claims in this regard that make the problem complicated and confusing. For example, some people believe that the impact of the life important persons (for example parents) in development of self - efficacy has been declared previously [ 23 , 24 ]. On the other hand, some researchers have confirmed that there is a relationship between self-efficacy and personality traits [ 22 ]. Their results showed that there is a relationship between all five big personality factors and self-efficacy [ 22 ].

Rationale and objectives

General Self-efficacy is a key variable in clinical, educational, social, growth, health and personality psychology that can affect the outcomes of people’s lives.

General self-efficacy plays a key role in academic achievement. The results of studies conducted on 23 countries worldwide indicated the fact that general self-efficacy and academic achievement have a positive relationship [ 25 ].

Considering the importance of self-efficacy in health, improving the performance and success of individuals in life and education, carrying out studies on self-efficacy among university students and other people seems necessary. Also, paying attention to the associated factors with general self-efficacy can help us to a better understanding of the matter of this concept. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between family functions and personality traits with general self-efficacy among university students and the general population.

In previous studies conducted in a statistical sample, personality and family variables were not investigated simultaneously. On the other hand, comparing correlations and impact coefficients in two statistically different age samples can help us better understand general self-efficacy.

Considering the importance of self-efficacy in daily life, and to allow for comparing the results between two different age groups, we have selected two distinct samples which made it possible to investigate and evaluate the relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy.

Also, this study was conducted to investigate the role of family functioning and personality traits in predicting general self-efficacy and we were looking for an answer to the question that which components of family functioning and personality traits play a greater role in predicting general self-efficacy?

Study design and participants

This correlational study included two parts. In the first part, the statistical population included all students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in 2015. The age range of the participants was 18–27 years.

Sampling method in the first study, the random stratified sampling method was that each faculty was considered as a community category and within each category sampling was done by simple random sampling. Random selection of individuals in each faculty was done in such a way that first by throwing the dice and the number 4 came, the researcher selected the students who entered the faculty according to the multiple of 4 from the entrance of the university, and if desired and qualified Being entered into the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the research. This process continued until the sample size was completed in each faculty. Thus, 500 people were selected as a sample from different faculties.

To determine the sample size, the Cochran’s sample size formula, depicted below, was used. Cochran’s Formula for estimating the size of the sample: \( n=\frac{Z_{1-\frac{\alpha }{2}}P\left(1-P\right)}{d^2} \) . (z = 1.96, d = 0.05, p  = 0.5). Based on this formula, the size of the sample was determined 350. Considering the possibility of a drop of participants and to decrease the second type error, the size of the sample for the study was determined 500.

Participants were asked to respond to the questionnaires. Detailed explanations on how to complete the questionnaires were provided by the researchers, and the participants were requested to ask for more clarification in case of encountering problems filling out the questionnaires. Further, the questionnaires were completed individually in the presence of the researchers. Finally, the questionnaires were collected and the obtained data were analyzed.

In the second part of the study, the statistical population included all individuals aged 20 to 60, have been living in Kermanshah City (Iran) for at least 5 years before the study and did not have the conditions for entering the student group.

For the second sample, 1000 participants were selected. Because of the lack of a list of the statistical population and the possibility to utilize random sampling (the most appropriate method in this study) two-stage cluster sampling was recognized. In this method, the city was first divided into six regions (the criterion was the municipal areas). After that, each area was divided into clusters and from each cluster, the samples were randomly selected.

Also, the random selection of individuals in each cluster was performed in this way that the researcher first stood on the main street of that area, and selected the passengers whose order of passing was according to the multiple of 4, then if they were willing, were included in the study according to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion.

Individuals volunteered to participate in this study and signed an informed consent form. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the information contained in the questionnaires. This study was registered in the Research Center of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences and approved by the local ethics committee.

Instruments

The data collection instruments were similar in both studies, and three questionnaires were used: the general self-efficacy scale (GSE), family assessment device (FAD), and the revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R).

The general self-efficacy scale

This 10-item psychometric scale with multiple choice questions (MCQ) was developed by Schwarzer, Jerusalem and Romek [ 26 ]. Moreover, each question can have a score of 1 to 4 (1 = not at all true, 2 = hardly true, 3 = moderately true, 4 = exactly true), and the total score of the questionnaire range from 10 to 40. Its Cronbach’s alpha and internal consistency coefficient have been reported to be .81–.91 [ 27 ]. This scale was normalized by Rajabi [ 28 ] in Iran (α = 0.82). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 for the first sample and 0.91 for the second one.

The family assessment device (FAD)

This 60-item scale was developed based on the McMaster model of family functions, and it measures the structural, occupational, and interactive characteristics of families. This model evaluates six dimensions of family function: 1- Problem-solving 2- Communication 3- Roles 4- Affective involvement 5- Behavior Control 6- Affective Response [ 29 ].

The response option for each statement was 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. After recoding positively oriented items, item scores were summed to obtain a total score, which could range from 60 to 240, with higher scores representing better functioning [ 30 ]. The scoring is based on the Likert spectrum, lower scores indicate healthier functioning. Furthermore, the reliability of the scale was reported .72–.92 [ 30 ]. The reliability and validity of this scale have been confirmed in various studies [ 31 ]. The FAD shows good reliability and validity, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient between 0.78 and 0.86 [ 32 ]. Also, Zadehmohamadi and Malekkhosravi (2006), by Cronbach’s alpha, the reliability coefficient for the total questionnaire 0.71 and the sub-scales, Problem-solving 0.72, Communication 0.70, Roles 0.71, Affective Involvement 0.73, Behavior Control 0.66, Affective Response 0.71 are reported [ 33 ]. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.86 for the first sample and 0.92 for the second one.

The revised NEO personality inventory

In the current study, the short form of the NEO Five Factor personality inventory was applied. In 1989, Costa and McCrae have designed the short form of the five factor inventory for measuring the five main personality traits, which included conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and extraversion. This questionnaire includes 60 items and only measures the five main personality traits. The procedure for developing this scale was such that using factor analysis, 12 questions with the highest factor weight for all five factors were selected to form the short form of the inventory [ 34 ]. The short form of the NEO Five Factor Inventory has been translated into many languages and has been validated many times. Roshanchsly et al. [ 35 ] and Pakdaman et al. [ 36 ], validated this inventory. The responses to the questions in this inventory are based on a five-option Likert spectrum ranging from “completely disagree = 5” to “completely agree = 1”. In the current study, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for the questionnaire on the first sample set was 0.79, while it was 0.66 for the second sample of the study. Furthermore, in the present study, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O) were 0.71, 0.82, 0.86, 0.78, 0.75, respectively , for the students sample, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience were 0.69, 0.80, 0.88, 0.71, and 0.70, respectively, for the general population. In a study, Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the scales were 0.84, 0.79, 0.74, 0.72, and 0.82 for N, E, O, A, and C respectively [ 37 ].

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used as mean and standard deviation. The One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to evaluate the normal distribution of depression scores, personality traits, general self-efficacy, and family function. Pearson correlation coefficient test to investigate the relationship between personality traits and family function with general self-efficacy, Fisher’s z test to compare correlation coefficients and linear regression model to predict general self-efficacy (dependent variable) based on personality traits and family function (independents variable) were used. All analyses were performed using SPSS21 statistical software (JB39397R39KFC9) at a significant level of 5%.

The mean age in the students group (21.78 ± 2.28) was lower than the general population (33.49 ± 10.28) (Student’s t-test =25.18, < 0.001). In both groups, the majority of people were female, with a percentage of 58% in the student group and 55.8% in the general population, respectively. In Table  1 , the mean and standard deviations of the variables studied are in the whole sample.

To examine the relationship between family functions and personality traits with GSE in both groups selected for the study, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was employed.

The results of Table 2 showed that in both studies, there was a significant negative relationship between all family subscales and self-efficacy. This means that increasing self-efficacy is possible by reducing each of the subscales and the overall family function score.

In general, there was a significant negative relationship between total FAD and self-efficacy with a correlation coefficient of − 0.50 at the level of P  < 0.001 in the first study and with a correlation of − 42 at − 0 P < 0.001 in the second study (lower scores in FAD questionnaire indicate healthier functioning). On the other hand, only in the first study, there was a significant positive relationship between the openness to experience personality trait and self-efficacy ( p  < 0.05). Therefore, only among students increased the openness to experience personality by increasing self-efficacy. Also, the results showed that in the first and second studies, there was a significant positive relationship between the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with self-efficacy. In that sense, that with the increase of each personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness), the level of self-efficacy increased. However, in both studies, the neuroticism personality trait with self-efficacy had a significant negative relationship with p  < 0.001 and this personality trait had a reverse effect on self-efficacy. Also, the results of Fisher test showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the correlations. Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between personality traits and self-efficacy was not influenced by the groups we studied.

In order to predict general self-efficacy based on family functions and personality traits, regression analysis was utilized (Table  3 ).

The results of the regression analysis of the first study showed that the subscales of family functions and personality traits together can predict 27% of the variance in general self-efficacy. Among the subscales of family functioning, the subscale of communication (− 0.15) and general functioning (− 0.18) could predict general self-efficacy. In addition, among the personality traits, neuroticism (− 0.14), extraversion (0.14), agreeableness (0.12) and conscientiousness (0.30) were able to predict general self-efficacy. These results showed that in the first study, the relationship between family function and personality traits of neuroticism had a significant role in decreasing self-efficacy, and personality traits of responsibility, extroversion and conscientiousness had a significant role in increasing self-efficacy.

Additionally, the results of enter method regression analysis indicated that among the predicting variables, conscientiousness can predict general self-efficacy the most. Also, in a separate regression analysis, in which the total score of family functions was entered into the equation, the results indicated that it could predict general self-efficacy with an effect size of − 0.15. Therefore, according to the results of analysis in the first study, it can be argued that conscientiousness plays the most prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy compared to all the other variables.

Furthermore, the results of the regression analysis in the second study revealed that the subscales of family functions and personality traits together could predict 35% of the variance in general self-efficacy. Among the subscales of family functioning, the subscales of communication, problem solving and general functioning were able to predict general self-efficacy. Additionally, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness were able to predict general self-efficacy. The regression results also showed that in the second study, the relationship between subscales, Communication, Problem solving and General Functioning as well as personality traits of neuroticism have a significant and decreasing role in self-efficacy and also personality traits of responsibility, extroversion and conscientiousness have a significant and increasing role in self-efficacy.

Additionally, the results of enter method regression analysis indicated that among the predicting variables, conscientiousness can predict general self-efficacy the most. Also, in a separate regression analysis, in which the total score of family functions was entered into the equation, the results indicated that it could predict general self-efficacy with an effect size of − 0.20. So, according to the results of the analysis in the second study, it can be argued that conscientiousness played the most prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy compared to all the other variables.

Given that the status of the age variable in the second sample (the general publicatin) was different from that in the sample consisting of university students, it was decided that the role of age is to be controlled in the relationship between family function and personality traits and general self-efficacy (Table  4 ).

β Standardized coefficient in regression analyses.

The results of the analysis showed that, in the group aged under 30 years old, family functions and personality traits together were able to predict 47% of general self-efficacy, while this rate was equal to 29 and 53% in the 30–50 age range and the age group over 50 years old, respectively. Therefore, the highest impact of personality traits and family function on self-efficacy was in the age group above 50 and under the age group of 30 years.

The results depicted in Table 4 show that by controlling the age variable (split-half correlation), a significant relationship was found between all personality traits, except for openness to experience, and family functioning. Also, in the group aged less than 30 years old, the highest effect sizes belonged to general family functions and conscientiousness, respectively. Moreover, in the 30–50 age group, the highest effect size belonged to conscientiousness. In other words, conscientiousness played a prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy. As for the third age range, i.e. older than 50 years, agreeableness played a significant role in predicting general self-efficacy. Comparing the mean scores of general self-efficacy of the three age groups showed that there was no significant difference between these three groups with regards to general self-efficacy.

For controlling the role of age in predicting self-efficacy in the second sample, multiple regression analysis was used, and the results are presented in Table  5 . The results of the analysis showed that age had a moderating role in the relationship between variables.

Our findings revealed that there was a relationship between family functions and general self-efficacy in both studies. This means that the healthier functioning of the family, the higher the general self-efficacy of its members. These results were in line with the results of studies conducted by Hall [ 38 ]; Caprara et al. [ 39 ]; Hoeltje et al. [ 40 ]; Lotfinia et al. [ 41 ].

To explain the relationship between family functions and general self-efficacy, it is noteworthy that a healthy family with optimum functioning is supported by its members, and general self-efficacy can be strengthened by social support [ 42 ]. Additionally, families with optimum functioning boast parenting styles that can nurture self-efficacy beliefs [ 12 ]. Moreover, the most important explanation for this part of the results is Bandura’s perspective based on social learning the family is regarded as one of the crucial sources for imitation and mimicking of general self-efficacy, and parental behaviors and lifestyles are effective patterns for nurturing general self-efficacy [ 12 ].

The children of from families with proper functioning are free to have their say and are provided with the opportunity to express their thoughts on various issues and make suggestions when necessary. As a result, this feeling is bred that they will be able to find suitable solutions for problems, believe in their abilities, and experience higher efficacy. Also, children can express their strengths and weaknesses without any fear in dialogue and interaction-inducing atmosphere, resulting in strengthening one’s beliefs in their strengths, their ability to find solutions to their weaknesses, and their general self-efficacy.

The results of the present study suggested that the general family functions had the strongest correlation with general self-efficacy among all the components of family functions in both groups. The results also showed that there was a relationship between all personality traits and general self-efficacy in the first study, while in the second one, four personality traits and general self-efficacy were correlated, and no relationship was observed between openness to experience and general self-efficacy. In addition, the results of the present study indicated that conscientiousness had the strongest correlation with general self-efficacy in both groups.

Furthermore, the results of studies carried out by Judge and Ilies (2002), Caprara et al. (2005), Stroble et al. (2011),, Gerhardt et al. (2007), and McGeown et al. (2014) indicated that personality traits and general self-efficacy were correlated, which is consistent with the results of the present study [ 21 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. According to the results of the present study, it can be expressed that the higher neuroticism trait is accompanied with the lower general self-efficacy. Additionally, it can be stated that the more the features of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience are increased, the higher increased the general self-efficacy will be, and vice versa. Judge et al. (2007) and Saleem et al. (2011) concluded that self-efficacy was correlated with personality traits, especially neuroticism and extraversion [ 46 , 47 ]. Also, the results of a study on teachers showed that self-efficacy was positively correlated with conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness, whereas no relationship was observed between neuroticism and self-efficacy [ 48 ]. In this study, agreeableness and general self-efficacy were strongly related, and the reasons for the inconsistency of the results could be the sample size and the instrument employed for measuring general self-efficacy.

Also people with neuroticism display incompatibility when faced with tough conditions, and so they are not capable of managing and controlling situations, and have low self-esteem. Therefore, general self-efficacy is also low [ 48 ]. On the other hand, extroverts seek the support of others when faced with tough conditions because of their high flexibility [ 39 , 49 ]. They also receive the encouragement of others because of higher sociability, leading to placing more emphasis on one’s capabilities and competency [ 50 ]. Besides, extroverts tend to express their ideas and feelings, which is deemed a great source for general self-efficacy [ 12 ].

To better explain the relationship between general self-efficacy and openness to experience, it can be stated that one with this personality trait will be interested in experiencing new and unfamiliar things [ 51 ]. That is why they feel that they can handle academic tasks and assignments and feel bound to carry out their tasks, increasing their efforts because they believe in themselves which will help them reach general self-efficacy. Moreover, those who are open to experience tend to meet challenging situations and get less disappointed when faced with unexpected situations; rather, they embrace such situations and display this characteristic most of the time [ 50 ].

The results of the present study showed that conscientiousness and general self-efficacy were correlated, which is consistent with the results of studies carried out by Colquitt & Simmering (1998) and Jones & Green (2001). It can be argued that it is not unexpected that one with more conscientiousness will have more general self-efficacy because they probably believe in their abilities and limitations and select realizable goals for themselves. People with conscientiousness are characterized as being diligent, feeling duty bound, not giving up in the face of obstacles, and being goal-oriented. They also perform their tasks carefully, which will help them achieve success, that will in turn result in the formation of feelings of competence and general self-efficacy [ 52 , 53 ]. On the other hand, people with conscientiousness often work in groups, benefiting from the support of the group [ 49 ]. Therefore, the higher the level of one’s conscientiousness, the higher their general self-efficacy [ 21 ].

We suggested that there is a significant relationship between agreeableness and general self-efficacy among the students. However, in the general population (the second study), this relationship is not significant. To explain this finding of the study, we have to focus on the characteristics of the participants in the two samples since considering the age range of the students, agreeableness will be higher, and this trait is reduced when age increases.

The study results revealed that the subscales of family functions and personality traits together can predict between 27 and 35% of the general self-efficacy. These results explain that between 27 and 35% of the general self-efficacy is under the influence of family functions and personality traits, future researches can find other related variables.

Reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory which was introduced by Bandura [ 54 ] explains the relationships among the environment, self, and behavior. Our study is matching this theory, because we investigated the family function and personality traits, so we considered the environment (Family), self (personality traits), and behavior (general self- efficacy).

Our results revealed that conscientiousness played the most prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy compared to all other variables.

Given the values of the regression coefficients in the regression analysis, it can be concluded that general self-efficacy is more personality-oriented and is highly influenced by personality traits, which is in line with theories stressing that general self-efficacy is personality-oriented. On the other hand, this finding can be intriguing for psychologists and behavioral science researchers.

We concluded that after controlling the age variable, a significant relationship was found between family functions and all personality traits, except for openness to experience, among the general population. In addition, in the group aged less than 30 years old, the general family functions and conscientiousness had the strongest correlations with general self-efficacy, respectively. This result is inconsistent with the general findings of the present study, indicating the importance of family in this age range. Moreover, in the 30–50 age range, the highest effect size belonged to conscientiousness. In other words, conscientiousness plays an important role in predicting general self-efficacy, which is in line with the overall findings of the present study. As for the third age group, i.e. those over the age of 50, agreeableness plays a considerable role in predicting general self-efficacy. The role of the age should be considered to determine which factor has more influence on self-efficacy, however, general self-efficacy is not influenced by age since the results of our study showed that there was no relationship between age and general self-efficacy.

As a result, Annesi (2007) reported that no change in general self-efficacy was seen by changing age [ 55 ].

The results of this study led us to the conclusion that self-efficacy is influenced by personality traits and these traits are more influenced by genetics and nature. It is suggested that in future research, the contribution of each of the nature and nurture factors in the formation of self-efficacy be determined.

Limitations and strengths

Our study has several limitations. Due to the length of the research questionnaire questions, it may affect the accuracy of the participants’ answers. Therefore, it is suggested that shorter forms of these questionnaires be used in future research. Also, this research was conducted in one of the Kurdish cities of western Iran (Kermanshah), so the generalization of these results to other cultures and cities of Iran and the world should be cautious. Finally, the cross-sectional design was another limitation of the present study. It is recommended that longitudinal design be performed in the future. This study was conducted with a large sample conducted in western Iran. Also, participants were evaluated in the study sample by trained and experienced individuals.

Conclusions

This study again highlights the role and importance of personality traits for researchers and psychologists. Since general self-efficacy plays an essential role in psychosocial health and human progression. This leads us to realize that the effect of personality traits can be considered through self-efficacy on psychosocial health and performance. However, other studies need to investigate the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between personality traits and psychosocial health and performance.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

General Self-Efficacy Scale

Family Assessment Device

Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Multiple choice questions

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Openness to experience

Baljani E, Rahimi J, Amanpour E, Salimi S, Parkhashjoo M. Effects of a nursing intervention on improving self-efficacy and reducing cardiovascular risk factors in patients with cardiovascular diseases. J Hayat. 2011;17(1):45–54.

Google Scholar  

Greene BA, Miller RB, Crowson HM, Duke BL, Akey KL. Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2004;29(4):462–82.

Wingo BC, Desmond RA, Brantley P, Appel L, Svetkey L, Stevens VJ, et al. Self-efficacy as a predictor of weight change and behavior change in the PREMIER trial. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013;45(4):314–21.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lee Y-H, Salman A, Fitzpatrick JJ. HIV/AIDS preventive self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, and risky sexual behavior in adolescents: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(5):653–60.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rezaei M, Zakiei A, Reshadat S, Ghasemi SR. The role of individual and personality factors in controlling risky behaviours related to AIDS: proposing a causal model. Personal Ment Health. 2017;11(1):51–63.

Mizutani S, Ekuni D, Furuta M, Tomofuji T, Irie K, Azuma T, et al. Effects of self-efficacy on oral health behaviours and gingival health in university students aged 18-or 19-years-old. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(9):844–9.

Sterling KL, Diamond PM, Mullen PD, Pallonen U, Ford KH, McAlister AL. Smoking-related self-efficacy, beliefs, and intention: assessing factorial validity and structural relationships in 9th–12th grade current smokers. Addict Behav. 2007;32(9):1863–76.

Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Pastorelli C, Cervone D. The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to psychosocial outcomes in adolescence: predicting beyond global dispositional tendencies. Personal Individ Differ. 2004;37(4):751–63.

Bandura A, Locke EA. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(1):87–9.

Ghasemi R, Rajabi-Gilan N, Reshadat S, Zakiei A, Zangeneh A, Saedi S. The relationship of social support and self-efficacy with mental health and life satisfaction. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2017;27(147):228–39.

Mortan RA, Ripoll P, Carvalho C, Bernal MC. Effects of emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2014;30(3):97–104.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. NewYork: W.H. Freemn & Company; 1997.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Kalmijn M, Uunk W. Regional value differences in Europe and the social consequences of divorce: A test of the stigmatization hypothesis. Soc Sci Res. 2007;36(2):447–68.

Boterhoven de Haan KL, Hafekost J, Lawrence D, Sawyer MG, Zubrick SR. Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMasterFamily assessment device. Fam Process. 2015;54(1):116–23.

Epstein NB, Bishop DS, Levin S. The McMaster model of family functioning. J Marital Fam Ther. 1978;4(4):19–31.

Asendorpf JB. Persönlichkeitspsychologie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011.

McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. A five-factor theory of personality. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, editors. Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 1999.

Roccas S, Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Knafo A. The big five personality factors and personal values. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28(6):789–801.

Shi J, Yao Y, Zhan C, Mao Z, Yin F, Zhao X. The relationship between big five personality traits and psychotic experience in a large non-clinical youth sample: the mediating role of emotion regulation. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:648.

Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):797–807.

Ebstrup JF, Eplov LF, Pisinger C, Jørgensen T. Association between the five factor personality traits and perceived stress: is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety Stress Coping. 2011;24(4):407–19.

Pajares F. Self-efficacy during childhoodand adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. 2006;5:339–67.

Astray-Caneda V, Busbee M, Fanning M. Social learning theory and prison work release programs. In: Plakhotnik MS, Nielsen SM, Pane DM, editors. Proceedings of the tenth annual College of Education & GSN research conference. Miami: Florida International University; 2013. p. 2–8.

Schwarzer R, Luszczynska A. Self-efficacy, adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors, and health. Self-efficacy Beliefs Adolescents. 2006;5:139–59.

Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M, Romek V. Russian version of the general self-efficacy scale. Foreign Psychology (Moskow). 1996;7:71–7.

Schwarzer R, Born A. Optimistic self-beliefs: assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychol. 1997;3(1–2):177–90.

Rajabi G. Reliability and validity of the general self-efficacy beliefs scale (gse-10) comparing the psychology students of shahid chamrin university and azad university of Marvdasht. New Thoughts Educ. 2006;2(1–2):111–22.

Miller IW, Ryan CE, Kietner GI, Bishop DS, Epstein NB. The McMaster approach to families: theory, assessment, treatment and research. J Fam Ther. 2000;21:168–89.

Georgiades K, Boyle MH, Jenkins JM, Sanford M, Lipman E. A multilevel analysis of whole family functioning using the McMaster family assessment device. J Fam Psychol. 2008;22(3):344.

Fogarty CT. Evaluating and treating families: the mcmaster approach. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;11(4):176.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nooripour R, Tamini BK, Abbaspour P, Alikhani M. Investigation of family functioning and parental tensioning in addicts. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2016;14(1):82–5.

Zadehmohamadi A, Malek khosravi, G. Preliminary study of psychometric properties and validation of family assessment device (FAD). J Fam Res. 2006;2(5):69–89.

Garossifarshi M. New approaches in personality assessment application of factor analysis in personality. Tabriz: Daniel Press; 2002.

Roshanchsly R, Shaeiri M, Atryfrd M, Nikkhah A, Qaem-Maqami B, Rahimi-Rad A. Psychometric properties of “five-factor NEO personality inventory NEO-FFI”. J Daneshvar-Raftar. 2007;16:27–36.

Pakdaman S, Atashpoor B, Asgari A. The relationship between personality and academic achievement. J Iranian Psychologists. 1998;16:96–105.

Furnham A, Crump J. Personality correlates of passive-aggressiveness: a NEO-PI-R domain and facet analysis of the HDS Leisurely scale. J Mental Health (Abingdon, England). 2017;26(6):496–501.

Hall AS. Expanding academic and career self-efficacy: A family systems framework. J Counseling Development: JCD. 2003;81(1):33–9.

Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Regalia C, Scabini E, Bandura A. Impact of adolescents’ filial self-efficacy on quality of family functioning and satisfaction. J Res Adolesc. 2005;15(1):71–97.

Hoeltje CO, Silbum SR, Garton AF, Zubrick SR. Generalized self-efficacy: family and adjustment correlates. J Clin Child Psychol. 1996;25(4):446–53.

Lotfinia H, Mohebb N, Abdoli E. A study of the relationship between self-efficacy and general health with family function on male high-school grade students. Instr Eval. 2013;23(6):41–54.

Lundberg CA, McIntire DD, Creasman CT. Sources of social support and self-efficacy for adult students. J Coll Couns. 2008;11(1):58–73.

Strobel M, Tumasjan A, Spörrle M. Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: self-efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-being. Scand J Psychol. 2011;52(1):43–8.

Gerhardt MW, Rode JC, Peterson SJ. Exploring mechanisms in the personality–performance relationship: mediating roles of self-management and situational constraints. Personal Individ Differ. 2007;43(6):1344–55.

McGeown SP, Putwain D, Simpson EG, Boffey E, Markham J, Vince A. Predictors of adolescents’ academic motivation: personality, self-efficacy and adolescents’ characteristics. Learn Individ Differ. 2014;32:278–86.

Judge TA, Jackson CL, Shaw JC, Scott BA, Rich BL. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(1):107–27.

Saleem H, Beaudry A, Croteau A-M. Antecedents of computer self-efficacy: A studyof the role of personality traits and gender. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27(5):1922–36.

Pandey N, Kavitha M. Relationship between Teachers’ personality traits and self efficacy: an empirical analysis of school teachers in Karaikal region. Pac Bus Rev Int. 2015;8(3):37–42.

Fredickson B. The role of positive emotionsin positive psychology. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218–26.

Redmond B. Self-efficacy theory: Do I think that I can succeed in my work; 2010.

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Updating Norman’s “adequacy taxonomy”: intelligence and personality dimensionsin natural language and in questionnaires. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;49(3):710–21.

Colquitt JA, Simmering MJ. Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(4):654–65.

Jones J, Green B. The relationships among self-regulationmotivation and personality traits of college students. Division C: section 5. Holt: Reinhart & Winston; 2001.

Bandura A. Social cognitive theory. In: Vasta R, editor. Annals of child development. Six theories of child development, vol. 6. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1989. p. 1–60.

Annesi JJ. Relations of age with changes in self-efficacy and physical self-concept in preadolescents participating in a physical activity intervention during afterschool care. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;105(1):221–6.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Substance abuse prevention research center and clinical Research Development Unit (CRDU) of Imam Khomeini, Mohammad Kermanshahi and Farabi Hospital, University of Medical sciences, Kermanshah, Iran for their support, cooperation and assistance throughout the period of study.

This article is the result of the findings of the research project 95091that was approved and financed by Vice Chancellor for research and Research and Technology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. The funder had a role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sleep Disorders Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

Hosna Vafapoor

Substance Abuse Prevention Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

Mostafa Alikhani, Vahid Farnia & Farnaz Radmehr

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AZ, MA conceived, designed, evaluated, and drafted the manuscript, HF, FR Data collection, AZ conduct data analyses, VF, MA, FR, AZ interpreted findings and revised the manuscript, VF contributed to grammar editing, All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farnaz Radmehr .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All participants gave their signed written informed consent. The Medical Research and Ethical Committee of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (Kermanshah, Iran; registration No. IR.KUMS.REC. 1395.69) approved the study, which was performed under the ethical principles laid down in the seventh and current edition (2013) of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zakiei, A., Vafapoor, H., Alikhani, M. et al. The relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy (parallel samples studies). BMC Psychol 8 , 88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00462-w

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2020

Accepted : 21 August 2020

Published : 27 August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00462-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• General self-efficacy
• Personality traits
• Family functions

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Socioeconomic aspects of the family

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• University of Minnesota Libraries - Sociology - The Family
• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - The Family and Family Structure Classification Redefined for the Current Times
• Open Oregon Educational Resources - Sociology of Gender - What is a Family?
• Pressbooks - Sociology of Family - Introduction to the Sociology of Family
• Social Sci LibreTexts - Family
• Purdue University - What is a Family?
• family - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• family - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

family , a group of persons united by the ties of marriage , blood, or adoption , constituting a single household and interacting with each other in their respective social positions, usually those of spouses, parents , children , and siblings. The family group should be distinguished from a household, which may include boarders and roomers sharing a common residence . It should also be differentiated from a kindred (which also concerns blood lines), because a kindred may be divided into several households. Frequently the family is not differentiated from the marriage pair, but the essence of the family group is the parent-child relationship, which may be absent from many marriage pairs.

At its most basic, then, a family consists of an adult and his or her offspring. Most commonly, it consists of two married adults, usually a man and a woman (almost always from different lineages and not related by blood) along with their offspring, usually living in a private and separate dwelling. This type of unit, more specifically known as a nuclear family , is believed to be the oldest of the various types of families in existence. Sometimes the family includes not only the parents and their unmarried children living at home but also children that have married, their spouses, and their offspring, and possibly elderly dependents as well; such an arrangement is called an extended family .

At its best, the family performs various valuable functions for its members. Perhaps most important of all, it provides for emotional and psychological security , particularly through the warmth, love , and companionship that living together generates between spouses and in turn between them and their children. The family also provides a valuable social and political function by institutionalizing procreation and by providing guidelines for the regulation of sexual conduct. The family additionally provides such other socially beneficial functions as the rearing and socialization of children, along with such humanitarian activities as caring for its members when they are sick or disabled. On the economic side, the family provides food, shelter, clothing, and physical security for its members, some of whom may be too young or too old to provide for the basic necessities of life themselves. Finally, on the social side, the family may serve to promote order and stability within society as a whole.

Historically, in most cultures , the family was patriarchal , or male-dominated. Perhaps the most striking example of the male-dominated family is the description of the family given in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), where the male heads of the clans were allowed to have several wives as well as concubines. As a general rule, women had a rather low status. In Roman times the family was still patriarchal, but polygamy was not practiced, and in general the status of women was somewhat improved over that suggested in the Hebrew Bible, although they still were not allowed to manage their own affairs. The Roman family was an extended one. The family as it existed in medieval Europe was male-dominated and extended.

In the West, industrialization and the accompanying urbanization spawned—and continue to spawn—many changes in family structure by causing a sharp change in life and occupational styles. Many people, particularly unmarried youths, left farms and went to urban centres to become industrial workers. This process led to the dissolution of many extended families.

The modern family that emerged after the Industrial Revolution is different from the earlier model. For instance, patriarchal rule began to give way to greater equality between the sexes. Similarly, family roles once considered exclusively male or female broke down. Caring for the home and children, once the exclusive duty of the female, is often a shared activity, as, increasingly, is the earning of wages and the pursuit of public life, once the exclusive domain of the male. The structure of the family is also changing in that some couples choose not to marry legally and instead elect to have their children out of wedlock; many of these informal relationships tend to be of short duration, and this—as well as the rise in levels of divorce—has led to a rapid increase in the number of one-parent households.

Especially in Western cultures, the modern family is today more of a consuming as opposed to a producing unit, and the members of the family work away from home rather than at home. Public authorities, primarily governmental ones, have assumed many of the functions that the family used to provide, such as caring for the aged and the sick, educating the young, and providing for recreation. Technological advancements have made it possible for couples to decide if and when they want to have children.

Family law varies from culture to culture , but in its broadest application it defines the legal relationships among family members as well as the relationships between families and society at large. Some of the important questions dealt with in family law include the terms and parameters of marriage, the status of children, and the succession of property from one generation to the next. In nearly every case, family law represents a delicate balance between the interests of society and the protection of individual rights.

The general rule in marriages until modern times was the legal transfer of dependency, that of the bride, from father to groom. Not only did the groom assume guardianship, he usually assumed control over all of his wife’s affairs. Often, the woman lost any legal identity through marriage, as was the case in English common law . There have been exceptions to this practice. Muslim women, for instance, had considerable control over their own personal property. The use of dowries , an amount of money or property given to the husband with the bride in compensation for her dependency, has long been practiced in many countries, but it has tended to disappear in many industrial societies.

In general, modern marriage is best-described as a voluntary union, usually between a man and a woman (although there are still vestiges of the arranged marriage that once flourished in eastern Europe and Asia). The emancipation of women in the 19th and 20th centuries changed marriage dramatically, particularly in connection with property and economic status. By the mid-20th century, most Western countries had enacted legislation establishing equality between spouses. Similarly changed is the concept of economic maintenance, which traditionally fell on the shoulders of the husband. Though many laws still lean toward this view, there was increasing recognition of a woman’s potential to contribute to the support of the family. At the beginning of the 21st century, family law and the notion of family itself was further complicated by calls for acceptance of same-sex marriages and nontraditional families.

Dissolution of marriages is one of the areas in which laws must try to balance private and public interest, since realistically it is the couple itself that can best decide whether its marriage is viable. In many older systems—e.g., Roman, Muslim, Jewish, Chinese, and Japanese—some form of unilateral divorce was possible, requiring only one party to give notice of the intention, usually the male. Most modern systems recognize a mutual request for divorce, though many require an attempt to reconcile before granting divorce. Extreme circumstances, in which blatant neglect, abuse, misbehaviour, or incapacity can be demonstrated, find resolution in civil court. Many systems favour special family courts that attempt to deal more fairly with sensitive issues such as custody of children.

The issue of children poses special problems for family law. In nearly every culture, the welfare of children was formerly left to the parents entirely, and this usually meant the father. Most societies have come to recognize the general benefit of protecting children’s rights and of prescribing certain standards of rearing. Thus, more than in any other area, family law intervenes in private lives with regard to children. Compulsory education is an example of the law superseding parental authority . In the case of single-parent homes, the law will frequently provide some form of support. Legislation on child labour and child abuse also asserts society’s responsibility for a child’s best interests.

The succession of family interests upon the death of its members can be considered a part of family law. Most legal systems have some means of dealing with division of property left by a deceased family member. The will , or testament, specifies the decedent’s wishes as to such distribution, but a surviving spouse or offspring may contest what appear to be unreasonable or inequitable provisions. There are also laws that recognize family claims in the event that property is left intestate (i.e., with no will to determine its distribution).

What Is The Importance Of Family Unity In Modern Society?

With advancements in technology, changing cultural norms, new priorities, and advanced forms of communication fueled by the internet, you may wonder how family holds up in modern society. The concept of family is likely to continue to be essential for people from all walks of life, despite changing beliefs and customs. Research often demonstrates the importance of family for numerous areas of well-being . No matter how much life changes and the concept of family evolves, it may continue to benefit human health and wellness by offering a sense of belonging and support. If you’re experiencing family-related challenges, it can be helpful to speak to an objective person, such as a licensed therapist, for insight and guidance.

Its definition may evolve, but family may remain essential  

The traditional definition of a "nuclear family" typically entailed one man and one woman who were married and had biological children. However, today’s families can be more inclusive and may look different than family stereotypes. Additionally, research usually labels many different types of families.

Benefits of a healthy family 

As modern life can add pressure and stress, a healthy family dynamic can have multiple benefits, regardless of whether it's a biological family, adoptive family, or chosen family. 

Helps you meet your basic needs

Many years ago, Abraham Maslow created the Hierarchy of Needs . At the bottom of this hierarchy are usually basic needs, including water, food, rest, and health. A family may provide these necessities, which can serve as building blocks for other needs. 

Research also suggests that social connection can be considered a need, as it usually improves physical and mental health. Family may offer social connection in abundance. 

Allows you to belong to something and foster a sense of unity

A sense of belonging can come from the family, group, or community we belong to, and it can contribute to our emotional well-being by allowing us to feel connected socially. 

Offers an important built-in support system and promotes family connection

Research shows that the support system families provide can have a profound impact  throughout different stages of life. Difficult times are often inevitable, but a family may provide a sense of stability and connection that can make it easier to get through them. 

A family bond contributes to health 

Children might experience a healthy lifestyle when they live in a healthy family. They may eat healthy meals, enjoy time outdoors, and get prompt medical attention when needed. 

Health benefits can exist for parents in families, too. Research has shown that people with children in their families tend to live longer , even after the children have grown up and moved away. 

Families provide support when someone is ill

Facing medical problems alone can be challenging. A family may help alleviate this difficulty by offering support and assistance as you heal. 

Offers community benefits by reinforcing family values.

A strong family structure may reduce the likelihood of delinquency and crime. This can mean that the family unit may substantially impact an individual and their community. 

The importance of family and love in educating children

One way many parents contribute to society is by educating their children. Parents and caregivers often begin teaching children at a very young age. They may help them learn to walk and teach them new words as they develop their vocabulary and language skills. They also may teach them manners and take advantage of learning opportunities in everyday life. 

Many parents also encourage scholarship opportunities, ethical behavior, and social skills that can benefit children throughout adolescence and into adulthood.

All families may struggle sometimes

Even though families can have benefits, they may face challenges at times. When it comes to overcoming the difficulties of family life, you might find support in your friends. You can also seek the help of a professional with training and experience in family dynamics. 

Seeking help

Talking to a therapist may help you explore your feelings about family and learn to express those feelings openly. You may also learn to understand the family influences that shaped your personality. 

Benefits of online therapy in enhancing family relationships

Online therapy can be an easy and convenient way to receive insight and guidance from a licensed therapist. It can be helpful to vent to an objective person during therapy sessions, and you can attend these sessions from any location with an internet connection. With an online therapy platform, you can even seek out a therapist who specializes in helping their clients navigate family-related concerns.

Effectiveness of online therapy

 Although more research may be needed regarding the efficacy of individual online therapy for addressing family-related challenges, a growing body of evidence generally supports the idea that online therapy can be just as effective as face-to-face therapy.

What is the importance of a family bond in life?

Family can often serve as a cornerstone of our emotional support system, playing a role in each individual's emotional health. This foundational element often sets the stage for future relationships and helps build self-esteem.

What is the importance of family connection to a person?

Family can provide unconditional love and emotional support, which are key factors in building an individual's self-esteem. These early relationships set the groundwork for personal relationships and adult life.

What are 10 important aspects of family in your life?

• Emotional support:  Family offers a safety net for emotional well-being.
• Unconditional love: The love from family is often lifelong and uncompromising.
• Moral and ethical guidance: Family serves as our first role model, teaching us social skills and crucial role values.
• Financial support: Financial stability often starts with family support.
• Educational support: Family’s involvement can positively impact academic performance.
• Healthy families: A supportive family environment can contribute to healthy relationships.
• Family traditions and history: Knowing your family history adds a sense of belonging.
• Role models: Family provides the first role models in a child’s life.
• Open communication: Communication within the family contributes to emotional health and strong personal relationships.
• Sense of belonging: Family gatherings, such as family meals, add to the sense of community.

Why are family relationships among the most important support we will ever have?

Family relationships can lay the foundation for how we manage future relationships. The skills learned in the family context are applied to personal relationships in adult life, playing an important role in our overall emotional well-being.

What are the most important values in your relationships as a family?

Important values, like unconditional love and open communication, can form the bedrock on which the emotional health of each individual in the family is built. These values often lead to a unified family, increasing senses of security, stability and support.

What is important in life: family or love?

Family often provides the first experience of unconditional love, and this foundational emotional support sets the tone for what we seek in other personal relationships throughout adult life.

Is having a family the most important thing?

Having a family often offers emotional support and unconditional love, serving as an individual’s foundational support system and playing a crucial role in emotional health. However, many aspects of life are important, and family is not necessarily more important than other relationships in your life. 

Why is family more important than happiness?

Family often serves as a significant source of happiness, fulfilling our needs for emotional support and unconditional love. 

What is the importance of family unity?

Family unity offers a conducive environment for emotional health and well-being. This unity is often fostered through open communication during family meals, contributing to each individual's ability to maintain relationships.

What brings unity to the family?

Common values and open communication are key factors that bring family unity. Family meals and traditions also play a part, serving as regular platforms for them to express emotional support and unconditional love.

• What Is Family Support? Understanding Services Available To You Medically reviewed by Laura Angers Maddox , NCC, LPC
• Is Sibling Rivalry Normal? How Conflict Between Siblings Works Medically reviewed by Elizabeth Erban , LMFT, IMH-E
• Relationships and Relations

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:

The Modern American Family

 key trends in marriage and family life.

The American family has undergone significant change in recent decades. There is no longer one predominant family form, and Americans are experiencing family life in increasingly diverse ways.

In 1970, 67% of Americans ages 25 to 49 were living with their spouse and one or more children younger than 18.

Over the past five decades, that share has dropped to 37%.

With the drop in the share of adults living with a spouse and children, there has been an increase in other types of family living arrangements, like unmarried adults raising children.

A recent survey finds that the U.S. public is more accepting of some family types than others . And, broadly speaking, Americans are more pessimistic than optimistic about the future of the institution of marriage and the family.

What’s behind the change in family structure?

There are several factors that have contributed to these changes. Americans are marrying later in life, and a rising share have never been married.

% of U.S. adults ages 18 and older who are married or have never been married

Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 1970-2000 decennial census and 2010-2021 American Community Survey (IPUMS).

While the overall share of married adults has declined, certain types of marriages have become more common over time. Since the 1970s, a growing share of Americans are in interracial or interethnic marriages.

% of U.S. married adults ages 18 and older who are intermarried

Note: Intermarried refers to marriages between a Hispanic and a non-Hispanic spouse, or marriages between non-Hispanic spouses who come from different racial groups. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 1970-2000 decennial census and 2010-2021 American Community Survey (IPUMS).

In 2015, same-sex marriages became legal nationally, and since then there has also been an increase in the proportion of Americans in same-sex marriages. In 2021, there were over 700,000 same-sex married couples in the United States , accounting for approximately 1% of all married couples. 

% of U.S. married adults ages 18 and older in a same-sex marriage

Source: Pew Research Center analysis of 2015-2021 American Community Survey (IPUMS).

Changes in fertility patterns have also had a significant impact on family dynamics. Compared with their counterparts in the 1970s, women today have fewer children.

The relationship between marriage and parenthood has also shifted, as more women are having children without being married .

Taken together, these changes help explain why married couples raising children together is no longer the norm.

Let’s take a closer look at the changes in family life over the past decades to understand how the American family has evolved and what it looks like today:

Differences by education, race and ethnicity

What form a family takes is increasingly shaped by educational attainment and varies significantly across racial and ethnic groups.

Today, individuals with a bachelor’s degree are much more likely to be married than those with less education – a change from the 1970s, when adults with a high school diploma were as likely as college graduates to be married. There are also growing racial and ethnic disparities since that time, with Asian and White adults increasingly more likely to be married than those who are Black or Hispanic.

Explore the data to see how these differences play out in American families. To start, click on a tab to display   data on the share of Americans who are married; the number of children women have, on average; or   the share of children living with two married parents. Then, choose a filter to show differences by education or by race and ethnicity.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 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

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Functions of the Family

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Functions of the Family. (2016, May 01). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/functions-of-the-family-essay

"Functions of the Family." StudyMoose , 1 May 2016, https://studymoose.com/functions-of-the-family-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Functions of the Family . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/functions-of-the-family-essay [Accessed: 4 Sep. 2024]

"Functions of the Family." StudyMoose, May 01, 2016. Accessed September 4, 2024. https://studymoose.com/functions-of-the-family-essay

"Functions of the Family," StudyMoose , 01-May-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/functions-of-the-family-essay. [Accessed: 4-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). Functions of the Family . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/functions-of-the-family-essay [Accessed: 4-Sep-2024]

• Family is losing its functions Pages: 2 (372 words)
• Functionalism: Examining the Societal Functions of the Family Pages: 4 (1128 words)
• A family ritual to strengthen family bonds Pages: 3 (843 words)
• Integrative Paper on The Family Crucible’s Brice Family Pages: 5 (1302 words)
• Our Changing Family Values: Separation from the Nuclear Family Pages: 6 (1791 words)
• Therapeutic Perspective View of Family Counseling Family Pages: 6 (1504 words)
• Misleading Title of Modern Family: Deeper Looks into Family Structures Pages: 5 (1233 words)
• How Family Thanksgiving Day Can Help With Family Bonding For Filipinos Pages: 4 (1112 words)
• Two Career Family VS One Career Family Pages: 3 (796 words)
• Roles and functions of Healthcare Management Pages: 2 (348 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Will Our Hostage Son Be Next?

By Adi and Yael Alexander

Mr. and Mrs. Alexander are the parents of Edan Alexander, an American member of the Israel Defense Forces who has been held hostage in Gaza since Oct. 7.

For 11 months, the family of Hersh Goldberg-Polin tapped into reserves of strength that most people never need to find. We watched it firsthand, as parents of a hostage ourselves. Our 20-year-old son Edan, an American citizen who graduated from high school in Tenafly, N.J., was serving in the Israel Defense Forces near Gaza when Hamas took him captive on Oct. 7.

For 331 days, the world has failed our son and his fellow hostages: The Israeli government has abandoned them, too many countries have turned a blind eye, and while we’re grateful for the U.S. government’s steadfast support, its efforts have yet to yield results.

Last month, the world watched as Hersh’s parents, Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg, told the story of their 23-year-old son at the Democratic National Convention. Ms. Goldberg, looking small next to the podium, and Mr. Polin, hunched over the microphone, spoke with emotion and clarity. With heavy hearts, we rewatched their speech on Sunday, hours after the world learned that the bodies of Hersh and five other hostages were recovered by the Israeli military in Gaza.

The result of Hamas’s cruelty and Israel’s indifference have now come to bear, and two people who have become family to us have paid the ultimate price. Hersh’s brutal killing has us racked with pain for the Goldberg-Polins and fear that our own son Edan will soon meet the same fate.

None of this had to happen.

Since October, we — along with Jon, Rachel, and other hostage families — have warned that our loved ones could be killed in captivity without a deal to bring them home. Every day as captives puts their lives more at risk.

And yet, after one hopeful but temporary cease-fire agreement that released more than 100 hostages , we have only experienced delay after delay.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .