Nuclear Families

The nuclear family, which is the most preferred type, consists of parents and their biological or adopted children (Murdock 1949). Another version of this is the single-parent family, where one parent raises their biological or adopted children alone, often due to unwed motherhood, divorce, or the death of a spouse.

Blended Families

The second most common family form is the blended family, formed through remarriage and including at least one child from a previous relationship. Extended family refers to relatives beyond the nuclear and blended family level, including cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and step-relatives.

In more recent times, the traditional idea of what constitutes a family has faced criticism for being too limited. Nowadays, families—particularly in developed societies—come in various forms such as single-parent families, foster families, same-sex couples, and families without children, among others, diverging from traditional norms. What binds these diverse family structures together are shared commitments, care, and strong emotional connections, increasingly recognized as the defining features of family (Benokraitis 2015). This evolving understanding of family is influenced by factors like divorce and remarriage. Many individuals may not grow up in their original family setting but instead become part of a stepfamily or blended family. Whether it’s a single-parent, joint, or two-parent family, a person’s original family or the family they are born into typically serves as the social environment where young children learn about relationships.

In certain situations, parents may find themselves unable to take care of their children. As of 2018, approximately three million children were living with someone who wasn’t their biological or adoptive parent. This can happen for various reasons such as when parents face mental health issues, substance abuse problems, or legal troubles like incarceration. In some cases, children may also experience physical or sexual abuse from their parents or may be abandoned by them.

This diversity of reasons results in a wide range of living arrangements for these children, involving various individuals and organizations. Roughly half of these children end up living with their grandparents, while around 20 percent live with other relatives (ChildStats 2022). Sometimes, a grandparent or another relative temporarily takes care of the children, often informally. In other cases, this arrangement becomes more permanent, and government agencies like the state or city child welfare department get involved.

When children are placed in foster care or other forms of care away from their parents, agencies and families typically prioritize keeping siblings together. Brothers and sisters often serve as important sources of support to help each other navigate social challenges and maintain a sense of continuity.

Research has shown that when siblings are placed together, they tend to form closer bonds with their foster caregivers and report greater satisfaction with their foster home compared to those who are separated (Hegar and Rosenthal 2011). Separating siblings can lead to concerns about each other’s well-being or their birth families, and it can also hinder their adjustment to their new living situation (Affronti et al. 2015).

Sometimes, siblings find themselves taking on more of a parental role, especially when there are significant age differences among them or when there are very young children in the family. These older siblings might help with parental duties during situations like divorce or when children are sent to live with someone else.

These siblings, sometimes called “parentified,” may struggle with handling the responsibilities of being like a parent when they are still young. Research by Lamothe (2017) suggests these experiences can be traumatic and may lead to problems like compulsive disorders and difficulties in relationships and self-care that can last a lifetime.

Cohabitation

More and more couples are choosing to live together before or instead of getting married. Cohabitation refers to when partners live together in a romantic relationship without being married. According to Gurrentz (2018), in 2018, 15 percent of young adults aged 25-34 were living with a partner they were not married to, which is an increase from 12 percent a decade ago. This rise in cohabitation is likely due to a decrease in the social stigma associated with it. Horowitz et al. (2019) report that 69 percent of Americans surveyed believe it’s acceptable for adults to live together if they are not married or do not plan to marry, while 16 percent find it acceptable only if marriage is on the horizon.

Couples who choose to cohabit often do so to spend more time together or to save money on living expenses. Many see it as a way to test the waters before tying the knot. According to Horowitz et al. (2019), 66 percent of married couples who lived together before getting engaged viewed cohabitation as a step toward marriage. Additionally, 44 percent of unmarried cohabiting adults see moving in together as a precursor to marriage.

However, recent research, as noted by Jayson (2010), suggests that cohabitation has little impact on the long-term success of a marriage. Surprisingly, those who do not live together before marriage tend to have slightly higher rates of staying married for more than ten years. Cohabitation may also contribute to the trend of delaying marriage among both men and women.

Same-Sex Couples

The number of same-sex couples has increased significantly over the past decade. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2020), there were 594,000 same-sex couple households in the United States, marking a 50 percent rise since 2000. This growth can be attributed to more couples forming relationships, the increasing social acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals, and a greater willingness among people to openly share their identity. Currently, same-sex couple households account for 1.5 percent of all partner-headed households nationwide.

The legalization of same-sex marriage across the United States following the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges Supreme Court decision has had substantial effects on various aspects of life. Now, same-sex married couples are entitled to federally mandated spousal rights and benefits, impacting areas such as Social Security, veterans benefits, and family leave. Previously, LGBTQ+ individuals faced barriers in accessing these benefits, including limitations on taking family leave or visiting their partner in the hospital during times of illness.

In terms of demographics, same-sex couples resemble opposite-sex couples in many ways. On average, same-sex couple households have an age of 52 and an annual household income of around $107,000, while opposite-sex couple households have an average age of 59 and an average income of $97,000. However, same-sex couples are less likely to have children under 18 years old, with a rate of 14 percent compared to 38 percent among opposite-sex couples, including both married and unmarried couples.

Research examining parenting among same-sex couples has found no significant difference compared to opposite-sex couples. In fact, studies by Biblarz and Stacey (2010) suggest that children of lesbian couples may even have slightly lower rates of behavioral problems and higher levels of self-esteem. Furthermore, prior to nationwide legalization, states where same-sex marriage was legal saw a decline in the rate of suicide among high school students, highlighting the positive impact of legalization on the emotional and mental wellbeing of LGBTQ+ individuals (Johns Hopkins University 2017).

Singles

Approximately three out of every ten American adults identify as single, meaning they are not married or in a committed relationship. This proportion varies significantly depending on age and gender. For instance, half of men under 30 are single, while around a quarter of men aged 30 to 64 fall into this category. Among women, about 30 percent of those under 30 are single, compared to 19 percent of women aged 30 to 60. There are also differences along racial lines; White and Hispanic adults are less likely to be single than Black individuals. Single people are more commonly found in urban areas, with New York City having a particularly high concentration.

Despite both single men and women feeling pressure to marry, women often face more intense scrutiny. Single women are frequently depicted as unhappy or lacking something they should have, while single men are often portrayed as perpetual bachelors unable to settle down. Single women may feel insecure and marginalized within their families when their unmarried status is criticized (Roberts 2007). However, women over 35 who are single often report feeling content and secure in their status, especially as many have achieved success in education and careers. Overall, women today feel more empowered and prepared to live independently without a spouse compared to previous generations (Roberts 2007).

The decision to marry or remain single can be influenced by various factors, including religious and cultural expectations. Asian individuals are more likely to marry, while Blacks are less likely to do so (Venugopal 2011). Those who place little importance on religion are also more likely to be unmarried compared to those who prioritize religion. However, for Black women, the importance of religion doesn’t seem to affect their marital status (Bakalar 2010). In general, being single is not necessarily a rejection of marriage; rather, it’s a lifestyle choice that may or may not include marriage.

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

Families are often so ingrained in our lives that we may overlook the fact that they evolve gradually over time. Nuclear families, which consist of parents and children, don’t just suddenly appear. Instead, parents typically meet, court or date each other, and then decide to have children. However, even after the family is formed, it continues to evolve. Children grow up and eventually leave home, leading to shifts in roles and dynamics within the family unit. 

From a psychological perspective, families begin with intimacy, which is essentially the closeness we share with others (Payne 2020). This need for intimacy is something we all seek throughout our lives, aiming for meaningful relationships. Interestingly, the way our adult intimate relationships unfold can be traced back to our infancy and the bond we formed with our main caregiver, historically our mother. This developmental process is explained by attachment theory. Attachment theory suggests that different styles of caregiving lead to various types of relationship “attachments.” For example, when mothers respond promptly to their infants’ needs, soothing them when they cry, it results in infants forming secure attachments (Ainsworth 1973; Bowlby 1969). Around 60% of children develop these secure attachments. As adults, those who were securely attached as children tend to rely on the models of relationships they formed in infancy with their primary caregiver (often the mother) to cultivate fulfilling adult relationships. Securely attached adults feel at ease both depending on others and being depended upon. 

It’s important to note that inconsistent or dismissive parenting can also impact how infants develop their attachment styles, but in a different way (Ainsworth 1973). Early research on attachment styles involved observing infants as they interacted with their caregivers, were separated from them, and then reunited. Approximately 20% of the observed children showed a “resistant” attachment style, meaning they displayed anxiety even before and especially during separation, while another 20% exhibited an “avoidant” attachment style, actively avoiding their caregiver after separation (such as ignoring the mother upon reunion). These early attachment patterns can have lasting effects on how individuals relate to others in adulthood. Adults with an anxious-resistant attachment style tend to worry that others don’t love them and may become frustrated or angry when their needs aren’t met. On the other hand, adults with an anxious-avoidant attachment style may appear indifferent towards their intimate relationships and feel uncomfortable relying on others or being relied upon themselves. 

Table 1.1 Early Attachment and Adult Intimacy

_{Source: Payne, Whitney. 2020. Human Behavior and the Social Environment II. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Libraries.} 

The positive news is that we have the power to change our attachment style. While it’s not a simple task, it is achievable for anyone to develop a secure attachment. This journey typically involves the assistance of a supportive and reliable individual, as well as the insecure individual reaching a sense of coherence. This means realizing that their upbringing doesn’t define their character permanently or reflect the entire world, nor does it prevent them from deserving love or others from being trustworthy (Treboux et al. 2004).