Annotated Bibliography and Literature Review

Parenting Practices in Diverse Family Structures: Examination of

Adolescents’ Development and Adjustment

Velma McBride Murry Vanderbilt University

Melissa A. Lippold The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This article explored the implications of diverse family structures on adolescents’ adjustment, with an emphasis on whether and, if so, how diverse family structures influence and predict developmental outcomes. Family relationships within the family unit are a stronger predictor of adolescents’ development than the particular family structure. Transi- tions in families that result in notable reductions in effective parenting practices and economic well-being will nega- tively affect youth, regardless of family structure. Family processes that promote optimal growth and development among youth in traditional two-parent, heterosexual households work similarly for those growing up in nontraditional family structures. A conceptual model to advance this field of research is offered, and implications for research and policy are discussed.

The 21st century can be characterized as an explo- sion of diversity in our society. Increased popula- tion diversity has facilitated an emergence of a hybrid America that includes peoples of many nationalities, ethnicities, and cultures (Murry, Hill, Witherspoon, & Berkel, 2015). Several patterns have been associated with the drastic population shift, including increased immigration and notice- able shifts in family formations. For example, in 2010, the number of immigrants in the United States reached a record 40 million; consequently, one out of every three Americans is a person of color (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Another obvious shift in our society over the past decade is the expansion of family structures. Family structure is a complex construct that involves not only with whom a child resides but also the marital status of their parents, biological relatedness of adults in the home to each other and to the child, parents’ gender identity, as well as transition and mobility patterns of caregivers in and out of the home. Children’s living arrange- ments are diverse, varying in the presence or absence of mothers and fathers in the household and reflecting residence patterns that in addition to biological parents and siblings can also include

stepparents, stepsiblings, grandparents, and other extended kin.

From ecological and ecodevelopmental perspec- tives, family structure may best be understood within the current historical context and societal norms. As detailed by Pearce, Hayward, Chassin, and Curran (2018, in this issue), current demo- graphic trends suggest that families are becoming increasingly diverse. For example, marriage rates are declining and cohabitation rates and rates of nonmarital childbirth are increasing, which has led to an increasing number of children growing up in single-parent homes. In addition, family structure diversity has been associated with increases in the number of same-sex couple households, with a cur- rent estimate of 690,000 families (Gates, 2011). Increases in same-sex, married-like, and cohabiting parents as well as foster, adoptive, multigenera- tional, and living apart/together families also cre- ate diverse family structures and compositions (Cherlin, 2010; see Pearce et al., 2018 in this issue for a review). Many same-sex couples form families and become parents through donor insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, foster care, or adoption (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Riskind & Patter- son, 2010). Adding to diverse family formations is the number of grandparents raising children, with current estimates of 2.7 million grandparents rais- ing children in the United States (Ellis & Simmons, 2014). Taken together, these changes in family com- position illustrate an array of family households where children live, grow, and develop (Stacey,

Support was provided by Lois Autrey Betts Chair (Murry) and SRA Workgroup Grant Award (Murry & Lippold). The authors gratefully thank Misha Innis-Thompson, Marlena L. Debreaux, and Alexandra Alvarez Rivas for editorial assistance. Requests for reprints should be sent to Velma McBride Murry,

Department of Human and Organizational Development, Pea- body College, Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place, PMB 229, Nashville, TN 37203. E-mail: velma.m.murry@ vanderbilt.edu

© 2018 Society for Research on Adolescence DOI: 10.1111/jora.12390

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 28(3), 650–664

1996; Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013). Each of these circumstances has potential consequences for how families manage, organize, and socialize their children.

Yet social norms and inherent values about what constitutes family are often relegated to two-parent biological, heterosexual married adults raising chil- dren, characterized as the “ideal family,” at the exclusion of other family formations. In fact, most conceptual models used to guide empirical studies of family structure have focused on the conse- quences of household composition, used inter- changeably with marital status of the parent, for families’ economic viability and resources to opti- mize family members’ well-being. Often examined are ways in which transitions in families cause structures and relationships to change, such as divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation, targeting dif- ferential effects on a variety of family and youth outcomes. Consequently, there are a plethora of studies documenting differences in the well-being of children growing up in two-parent, married households and of those raised with divorced, cohabiting, or single parents (see Waldfogel, Crai- gie, & Brooks-Gunn, 2010 for a recent review).

A common conclusion from comparative studies of diverse family structures is that children in two- parent, married households fare better than those in other family structures on behavioral, educa- tional, and social emotional developmental out- comes, with greater deleterious consequences for children residing in cohabiting, divorced, and step- families (Haskins, 2015; Moore, Jekielek, & Emig, 2002). For example, studies exploring associations between family structure and child adjustment have found that children who live with no biologi- cal parent or in single-parent households are more likely to be exposed to harsh, inconsistent parent- ing. These youths exhibited more behavioral con- trol problems, had higher teen pregnancy rates, and had more academic problems than children residing with two biological parents. Further, out- comes for children in stepfamilies are often similar to children growing up in single-parent families and those whose parents are divorced. Children growing up in each of these households fare worse than those in two-parent families (biological or adoptive parents) on dimensions of academic per- formance, social achievement, and psychological adjustment (Moore et al., 2002). Is it structure in and of itself that matters for youth development or is the effect of family structure on youth outcomes more complex than parents’ marital status and number of adults in the household?

To address this question, we conducted a com- prehensive systematic review of extant studies to determine if, how, and under what conditions fam- ily structures matter for youth adjustment. Specific consideration was given to identifying crucial con- textual processes that may affect and influence family processes, parenting, family relationship quality, and resources, all of which collectively impact a child’s home environment. These factors and processes intersect with family socioeconomic status (SES), parental characteristics (e.g., race/eth- nicity, parenting practices), family conflict, and other adults in children’s lives, such as grandpar- ents (Biblarz & Raftery, 1999; Carlson & Corcoran, 2001). Our systematic review was informed and guided by perspectives that are proposed to reflect relevance and sensitivity to critical contextual pro- cesses that impact adolescents and their families, including Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (1986), economic theory (J. Coleman, 1988; Schultz, 1974), and family systems theory (Burton, 2007; M. Coleman, Ganong, & Russell, 2013; Greef & Du Toit, 2009; Weaver & Coleman, 2010). Relying on these theories, we sought to gain insights on if, how, and under what conditions family types mat- ter for adolescent development and adjustment.

SCOPE AND OVERVIEW

The current review provides an overview of the empirical findings wherein scholars have sought to understand and explain ways in which family households, marital status, family formation, and family structures influence and affect youth devel- opment. Given our interest in the studies of diverse family structures, we conducted an initial set of searches in PsycINFO, a database with an extensive collection of nearly 4 million records of psychology, sociology, human development, economics, and behavioral and social science literatures. Our search included combinations of the following key words: adolescents and family structure, family formation, single-parent families, stepfamilies, gay and lesbian families, two-parent families, grandparents, and divorced families. From this comprehensive litera- ture search, we selected relevant studies to address the following questions: (1) Do families whose struc- ture are characterized as “nontraditional” experi- ence additional stressors, due to social structural and political stigmatization, that warrant unique parenting practices and approaches to prepare their children to negotiate experiences of diversity? and (2) Under what conditions does family structure matter for parenting practices and child outcomes?

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 651

Before delving into summarizing relevant stud- ies that address our guiding questions, we briefly discuss the nature of sociohistorical factors and processes that have influenced the field of family studies and our understanding of the effects of family structure on youth development. Drawing on relevant theoretical frameworks to guide our review, we then discuss micro-level processes within diverse family structures, such as family interactions and specific parenting behaviors, cul- minating with the proposal of a conceptual model that illuminates ways in which society, historical time, and culture are fused together to form sys- tems that affect definitions, social norms, and val- ues regarding family structures, how families function, and in turn their linkages to youth outcomes.

SOCIOHISTORICAL AND SOCIOCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON FAMILY FORMATION AND

FAMILY STRUCTURES

Historically, normality with regard to what consti- tutes “family” is a term coined from an “ideal” model for North America—middle-class, first mar- riage, nuclear family, consisting of a mother and father and their genetic or adopted children resid- ing together in a household (Coontz, 1997; Scan- zoni, 2004) . The continuing decline in the number of two-parent families and marked increase in the other family formations has resulted in a “refash- ioning of what was traditionally considered ‘nor- mal’ family composition” (Mundy & Wofsy, 2017, 337). While married, two-parent heterosexual fami- lies are now the minority, families that are diverse, as described earlier, continue to be characterized as “alternative,” nontraditional, and not ideal. What is more, heterosexual, married, nuclear, two-parent house- holds continue to be held as the referent family struc- ture by which all other family forms are compared. Consequently, how well or less well other families are functioning and parenting, and the extent to which family members are faring, are often based on the extent to which what goes on inside “non- traditional families” is similar to the patterns and processes that occur in “traditional” family struc- tures. The main prediction of sociological perspec- tives is that the two-biological-parent family is generally the optimal form for the successful social- ization of children in modern society and that chil- dren from any kind of alternative family will, on average, do less well (Amato, 2005).

We contend that family structure in and of itself is not the driving force for understanding or

explaining how family formation affects families and adolescents. That is, according to the ecological model, proximal and distal processes affect and influence how families organize, interact, and func- tion. Acknowledged in this theory is the importance of considering human development (and responses) as products of dynamic relational interactions that are inextricably linked with and infused into multi- ple interlocking contextual systems. This theory fur- ther emphasizes that, although humans are influenced by their environments, they are also are active agents in their environment with capacities to influence, as well as be influenced by, their envi- ronment (e.g., Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009). Thus, although family structure is one aspect that may affect youth development, its effects likely vary based on other contextual factors.

Our review found a paucity of studies under- taken to disentangle the role of contextual pro- cesses and family structure on adolescents’ outcomes. Although very few studies were found that addressed contextual factors, several key find- ings emerged. First, given the continued perpetua- tion of an ideal image of normality with regard to family structure, youth whose family structures are characterized as alternative, nontraditional, not ideal, or atypical may experience feelings of marginalization as a consequence of being per- ceived as “different.” Thus, such youth may experi- ence social stigma because their family does not resemble the referent family—two-parent, hetero- sexual households—and their “different” family structure is conjectured to be associated with numerous negative outcomes.

Feelings of “otherness” also may elevate parents’ awareness of the need to socialize their children on ways to manage social stigma and their lives as socially marginalized families. This process of par- ental socialization—that is, transmitting values, norms, information, and social perspectives to their children to instill a sense of self-pride and to help them prepare for potential barriers and biases that they may encounter (Murry et al., 2015; see Stein, Coard, Kiang, Smith, & Mejia, 2018 in this issue)— is often associated with parenting among families of color and African Americans specifically. In diverse family structures, parents may also help their children develop strategies for countering negative experiences associated with social labeling of differences as a function of the structure of their family as well as build resilience and empower- ment to navigate and reject negative messages about their family form (Brega & Coleman, 1999; Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota, & O’Campo, 1993;

652 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

Phinney & Chavira, 1995). Although cultural–racial socialization is common among African American families regardless of family structure, its examina- tion in terms of family structure, such as single, divorced, stepfamily, and same-sex families is sel- dom studied (Bowman & Howard, 1985).

Little is known about how stigma and societal norms regarding varying family structures influ- ence parenting and family communication patterns. We contend that families whose structure is more highly stigmatized in our society, such as stepfami- lies and same-sex families, must also teach their children how to manage their lives and interpret their experiences in a society in which both the parents and children are often devalued (Berkel et al., 2009; Murry, Berkel, Miller, Chen, & Brody, 2009). Some evidence of such socialization has merged in studies of stepfamilies. Emerging from these studies is that some stepfamilies report feel- ing stigmatized, including feeling caught between conflicting media messages of the “evil” stepparent and the unattainable ease of integration into a new family depicted by shows such as the Brady Bunch (Claxton-Oldfield, O’Neill, Thomson, & Gallant, 2006; M. Coleman et al., 2013) . In a similar vein, studies of stigma in gay and lesbian families revealed that they are particularly likely to face marginalization and discrimination. Same-sex fami- lies confront internal and enacted forms of sexual- orientation–related stigma (Goldberg & Smith, 2011) that overlap, in many ways, with the experi- ences of racial–ethnic parents with regard to racial– ethnic race-related challenges. To examine this phe- nomenon, Oakley, Farr, and Scherer (2017) adapted the Racial Socialization Measure (Hughes & Chen, 1997) to determine whether and how gay and les- bian parents engage in cultural socialization around being a same-sex parent family. Results revealed that most parents engaged in practices to promote children’s awareness of diverse family structures and emphasized messages to celebrate gay and lesbian culture and heritage. Proactive par- enting about ways in which their family structure was similar to and different from other family structures was also emphasized. Parents also reported having regular talks that prepared their children for experiencing bias around issues related to heterosexism and sexual stigma, thereby pro- moting their children’s awareness of their diverse family structure and preparing them for potential stigma-related barriers. These socialization prac- tices were similar in both gay fathers’ and lesbian mothers’ families. The line of inquiry needs to be expanded to examine how such socialization

impacts youth development and adjustment and to determine if messages and strategies change over time as a function of their children’s developmental stage. As Oakley et al. (2017, 16) note, “open dia- logue about issues of heterosexism and stigmatiza- tion of the LGBTQ community may be more developmentally relevant for older children whose engagement with a broader social context might have important implications for identity and psy- chosocial development.”

There are several ways that marginalization may affect families. One way is through increased likeli- hood of exposure to discrimination and prejudices as a consequence of structure, including elevated stress. Such elevations in stress can evoke mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression, lead- ing to other psychological and physical health problems. Discrimination may also spill over and impact family relationships, employment, housing, and educational opportunities (Murry & Liu, 2014).

Despite the potentially deleterious effects of marginalization, stigma, and cultural norms on families whose structure do not reflect the “ideal” family, regardless of race and ethnicity, it is sur- prising that so little research has been conducted on the marginalization of families based on family structure. We contend the need for greater consid- eration to be undertaken to explain how discrimi- nation, oppression, and segregation are manifested in the lives of parents and youth across diverse family structures. In fact, an obvious omission in studies of cultural socialization practices in families of color is the lack of consideration given to the extent that family structure also matters in terms of messages and strategies employed to prepare youth for potential bias and discrimination. A more detailed discussion of ethnic–racial socialization has been provided in this issue by Stein et al. (2018, this issue). Despite this void, our summary, thus far, highlights that, depending on historical time and cultural norms, family structure may lead to marginalization or stigma for youth, which may affect their development over the life course. The extent to which parents are able to successfully socialize youth around issues of marginalization may depend on the degree to which their family structure is socially labeled in a manner that nega- tively affects youth well-being. Although the com- plexities of marginalization due to family structure have not been adequately studied, several studies have focused on the economic impact of changes in family structure. Economic theories provide an important lens by which to examine their spillover effects on families and adolescent well-being.

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 653

THE ROLE OF ECONOMICS AND POVERTY

Parental resources are important pathways by which family structure may affect child develop- ment (Waldfogel et al., 2010). Applying economic theories to explain how family structure influences youth outcomes is guided by two areas of foci: (1) the effects that resources, such as income and social capital, have on parenting and youth adjust- ment, and (2) how financial strain may affect par- enting practices and, subsequently, affect youth outcomes.

The first area of foci suggests that, from an eco- nomic perspective, youth in families with high eco- nomic resources may be more likely to succeed than those with less. However, in addition to income level, families’ economic status is partly a function of human and social capital, such as the family’s capacities to extend their resources through connections with broader social networks (J. Coleman, 1988; Schultz, 1974). Greater human and social capital has been associated with increased parenting competence and positive fam- ily functioning (Belcher, Peckuonis, & Deforge, 2011). Research has documented that children are better able to develop the necessary knowledge and skills needed for reaching educational and employment goals when their parents have access to or have effective marketing skills to provide youth with financial resources (Davis-Kean, 2005).

Studies of economics and family structure are often studies of single-parent families and consis- tently conclude that youth who reside in this fam- ily structure are more at risk for growing up in poverty than their counterparts in other types of family households (Bisceglia, Cheung, Swinkin, & Jenkins, 2010). Several reasons have been offered to explain why single-parent families are more likely to be poor. First, single mothers tend to be younger at childbirth, less likely to complete education, and if employed, have low-waged positions. Conse- quently, they are less prepared to economically support their children. Second, the negative conse- quences of growing up in single-parent economi- cally poor families also include lack of having enough adults in one’s home to provide care for children. Thus, father absence not only takes a toll on mothers raising children solo, but also reduces children’s access to male role models, creating a void in the socialization of sons on ways men may successfully achieve in market activity (McLana- han, 2004; Powell & Parcel, 1997).

These explanations have been met with numer- ous critical reviews, including difficulty

disentangling the effects of single-parent status from the deleterious effects of poverty itself (e.g., raising children in low-resource neighborhoods with low-performing schools) on child outcomes. Moreover, studies of single-parent households often assume that parents are “parenting solo” without other adults’ assistance (Murry, Bynum, Brody, Willert, & Stephens, 2001)—yet single par- ents may rely on others such as grandparents, other relatives, and friends. However, socioeco- nomic status, in and of itself, does not fully explain how children will fare as a function of family struc- ture (Amato, 2005). Studies are clearly warranted that disentangle and address the intersectionality of economic stress, family structure, and parenting behavior. Addressing this issue is of great impor- tance because it is unknown whether the perpetu- ated portrayal about single-parenthood having a negative impact on child outcomes can be applied across diverse populations and SES levels (Bloome, 2014; Murry et al., 2001). Is it family structure or economic status that matters for youth growing up in single-parent households or is it other critical factors and processes?

Nevertheless, it has been well documented that any change in the family that impacts income and causes economic hardship can create instability with detrimental consequences for children’s well- being that last over their life course (Brown, Stykes, & Manning, 2016). It is important, however, to rec- ognize that transitions are not the same in all kinds of family structures. Equally important are findings suggesting that some changes in family structures may improve economic circumstances. For exam- ple, remarriage after a divorce may increase eco- nomic well-being (M. Coleman et al., 2013). Youth born to unmarried mothers who then marry fare better than those whose mothers remained unmar- ried (Aughinbaugh, Pierret, & Rothstein, 2005). Further, the creation of a stepfamily also may be associated with increases in economic well-being and human capital (M. Coleman et al., 2013). The extent to which family structure is equated with reduced well-being may depend on a family’s abil- ity to pool resources. In a study on military fami- lies, Arnold, Lucier-Greer, Mancini, Ford, and Wickrama (2017) found that differential outcomes across family structure were attributed to the pre- sent parent’s ability and capacity to pool economic and social resources that may be otherwise unlikely available in other family structures.

Although not explicitly stated, economic theo- ries imply that two-parent households are ideal in modern capitalist society, because two-parent

654 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

households may be more likely to have access to, accumulate, and provide income and human and social capital. Parents in two-parent families may be able to provide complementary resources, dis- tributing and sharing household services and eco- nomic resources to foster the highest attainment for their children. From this perspective, children from alternative families, especially single-parent families, may have access to fewer economic and social resources, increasing the risk for adolescent maladjustment. However, these theories do not specify the specific composition of the two-parent family, and thus one can assume that two-parent families, regardless of structured circumstance, same-sex parent, remarried, and stepfamilies, will foster positive developmental outcomes for children.

A second research focus are studies examining ways in which economic well-being may affect youth outcomes through its effects on caregiver strain and stress (see Jones, Loiselle, & High- lander, 2018 in this issue for a review), which may subsequently affect their parenting practices. Parents who experience more financial strain and stress may be more likely to experience depression and family conflict, and subsequently be less likely to engage in effective parenting practices (Conger et al., 1990, 1992; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lor- enz, & Simons, 1994; Murry et al., 2009). Parents in some types of family structures, in particular single-parent homes, may be more likely to experi- ence financial strain and stress due to poverty, which may have negative implications for parent- ing quality, as highly stressed parents also report elevated depression, anxiety and low positive affect, which have been directly linked with inef- fective parenting (Murry et al., 2001). For example, Amato (2005) found that the risk for children in single-parent families was associated with a lack of resources, which caused parental stress, low- ered parent’s psychological functioning, creating a stressful household, and had a negative impact on children’s development throughout adulthood. In contrast, married two-parent families may have increased access to resources to meet the demands of stressful life events and this reduced stress increases the likelihood of effective parenting. Thus, given the central role that effective parent- ing may play in mediating the effects of family structure on youth outcomes, we next review the- ories on family relationships and specific parent- ing practices that may be critical to ensure the positive adjustment and development of adolescents.

EFFECTIVE PARENTING PRACTICES

Several theories suggest that parents are important influences on youth regardless of family structure, and that effective parenting practices are likely to be important for adolescents across a wide variety of family structures. The prominent theory by which parents affect adolescent development is socialization theory (Baumrind, 1978; Parcel & Menaghan, 1990). The essence of socialization the- ory is that parents engage in practices to help chil- dren internalize the values, attitudes, and behavioral standards of the family and the broader culture, equipping youth to become productive members of a defined society or group and develop emotional security (see Jones et al., 2018 in this issue).

Research and theory have identified several specific parenting practices and behaviors that are critical to promoting child and adolescent adjust- ment. For example, general tools or dimensions of parenting include behavioral control or demand- ingness as well as warmth and responsiveness (Baumrind, 1978; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; see Lansford et al., 2018 in this issue for a review). Thus, the extent to which a parent successfully monitors their child and engages in effective disci- pline practices, as well as their ability to maintain a warm, close relationship, may both be critical to promote child adjustment (Greenberg & Lippold, 2013; Lippold & Jensen, 2017).

Research has found that parent–child relation- ships have important implications for adolescent well-being in diverse family structures and that relationship quality is critical for promoting child and adolescent well-being. For example, positive relationships with both biological parents and step- parents have been associated with reductions in internalizing and externalizing problems for youth (Jensen, Lippold, Mills-Koonce, & Fosco, 2017). Par- ental involvement of the nonresident parent has been linked to elevated self-esteem in children residing in both never-married and postdivorced family structures (Bastaits & Mortelmans, 2016). Loss of contact with fathers is an important risk factor after changes in family structure and has been associ- ated with maladjustment for youth (Carlson, 2006; M. Coleman et al., 2013).

Another critical aspect of effective parenting is parental involvement, which is sometimes expanded to include parental monitoring. Studies examining connections between parental involve- ment and adolescent outcomes are often embedded in theories of social learning (Patterson, DeBaryshe,

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 655

& Ramsey, 1989), problem behavior (Jessor & Jes- sor, 1977), and various sociological accounts of delinquency. Emerging from these studies are find- ings that propose that disruptions in parental involvement and support, the use of punitive par- enting practices, and low levels of parental moni- toring compromise youths’ development of prosocial skills and self-regulatory abilities that protect them from engagement in risky behavior. The mechanisms through which parental involve- ment affect youth outcomes have been further clar- ified. A few studies have shown that parental monitoring may be closely tied to parental warmth and the extent to which youth are comfortable sharing information about their activities with their parents (Lippold, Greenberg, Graham, & Feinberg, 2014; Racz & McMahon, 2011). Given this, it seems important to recognize that family structures and transitions can affect levels and degree of parenting quality and consistency, including parental involvement, monitoring, and warmth, which are likely to influence adolescent development, adjust- ment, and well-being. Moreover, the effects of fam- ily structure on children’s well-being may not be limited to what parents do or do not do. Broader interactions within the family system may also play a critical role in whether and how family structure affects child adjustment.

A FAMILY SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

Family structure also may affect youth outcomes via its effects on the interactions between multiple family members, which in turn may ripple throughout the family system. Family systems the- ory (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985) posits that families form multilevel, adaptive, and regula- tory systems. Family patterns of interaction, such as roles, boundaries, and rules become stable over time as family systems seek equilibrium. Yet, tran- sitions, such as changes in family structure, can disrupt family systems, causing family systems to reorganize and adapt to new circumstances.

Transitions to new family structures, such as relationship dissolution, changes in caregivers, and/or the integration of new family members into a family may affect family processes in numerous ways. First, the structure of the family itself may change—as after a change in family structure, some individuals may be considered within or outside of family boundaries (M. Coleman et al., 2013; Jensen, 2017). New patterns of who is “in” and “out” of the family may create new challenges for family relationships, especially if youth become

triangulated between different family members or coalitions form between some members who are in versus outside of the new family. Family conflict and triangulation between family members has been associated with negative outcomes across diverse family structures, such as stepfamilies (M. Coleman et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2017)

Second, family rules, roles, and boundaries may shift. Some studies suggest that some family struc- tures may place children at risk for role diffusion. For example, in single-parent families where mother–child relations may become more peer-like, and in stepfamilies, where stepparent–child rela- tions may be defined more as friends than as par- ent–child, children may not learn how to interact appropriately with authority figures, placing them at risk for sundry negative outcomes (Nock, 1988). Studies on single parents have also found that roles in families can shift, with children taking on more adult-like roles, and such adultification has been associated with negative outcomes for youth (Ack- erman, D’Eramo, Umylny, Schultz, & Izard, 2001; Burton, 2007). Children growing up in a household in which the parent is absent due to death or divorce may experience heightened emotional stress, coupled with responsibility overload, as children may mature in ways inappropriate for their age (Weinstein & Thornton, 1989). Parent roles may also change, as in the case of stepfami- lies, resident parents may be required to take on more caregiving responsibilities (M. Coleman et al., 2013). Family structural changes, such as the transi- tion to a stepfamily, may also create role ambigu- ity, where specific roles in the family become unclear (M. Coleman et al., 2013). For example, during the creation of a stepfamily, mothers may take on new roles such as mediator, gatekeeper, or defender of either the child or stepparent (Weaver & Coleman, 2010). Role ambiguity can be stressful for families, because there are often no clear role models or guidelines for the stepparent role (M. Coleman et al., 2013).

Third, the quality of relationships in the family may change as a result of the structural transition, and changes in the quality of one relationship in the family may spill over to affect other relation- ships in the family as well (M. Coleman et al., 2013; Jensen et al., 2017). For example, the integra- tion of new members into the family, such as a stepparent, may cause increased conflict or strain in the stepparent–child relationship, but also in other relationships, such as between the resident and nonresident biological parents. Relationships between stepchildren and adults may be affected

656 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

by the couple relationships in the family (e.g., between the stepparent and resident biological par- ent, as well as the relationship between the resi- dent and nonresident biological parents). Consistent with a family systems perspective, rela- tionships in families can be linked. Children who have better relationships with their parents are more likely to accept and have a better relationship with their stepparent (M. Coleman et al., 2013; Marsiglio, 1992). Further, positive relationships between stepparent’s children are associated not only with better child outcomes but also with bet- ter mental health and marital satisfaction for both the parent and stepparent (M. Coleman et al., 2013; Greef & Du Toit, 2009). In contrast, exposure to family situations in which there is conflict between adults that compromises effective co-parenting and causes youth to be triangulated between adults has been associated with maladjustment for youth (M. Coleman et al., 2013; Jensen, 2017).

From a family systems perspective, after a change in family structure the extent to which a family can successfully transition to a new, healthy family sys- tem with multiple high-quality relationships may have important implications for youth adjustment (Jensen, 2017; Jensen et al., 2017; Lippold & Jensen, 2017). Families in which family structural changes are accompanied by triangulation or conflict between family members, poor-quality relation- ships, and role diffusion may place youth at risk for maladjustment. Further, this perspective suggests that transitions may place strain on families, and that multiple family transitions may be an impor- tant risk factor for family maladjustment. Thus, it is important to not only consider pathways by which family structure may affect youth outcomes but also the effect of the transition itself.

THE EFFECTS OF TRANSITIONS

The effects of family structure on youth outcomes may depend in a large part on whether or not the change in structure disrupts effective parenting practices (Waldfogel et al., 2010). The dynamic effect of transitions has additionally been less stud- ied than the static effect of structure.

Examining the mechanisms through which tran- sitions in families affect youth is important because differences in family structure and transitions may influence parenting, namely monitoring and attach- ment, as well as shifts in residential mobility and family income, as they may offer insights on differ- ential outcomes of adolescents often associated with family structure. In this regard, Astone and

McLanahan (1991) and others (Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994) found that, while the majority of single-headed families are low income, a child’s development may be compromised in single- mother families only if parents are unable to pro- vide optimal amounts of support and capacity to monitor and control the child. Further, these mech- anisms appear to operate differently for White and African American youth and may partially explain differences in youth adjustment. Results from a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 adolescents aged 12–13 assessed across three waves revealed that living in non–two-parent fam- ily structures was consistently associated with higher concurrent levels of substance initiation, lower parental monitoring and relationship quality, lower income, and higher residential mobility (Mays, 2012). Although the effects of family disrup- tions/transitions on substance initiation and par- enting were less robust than hypothesized, the effects did reinforce previous studies that have consistently shown that living outside a two-parent family, or consistently living in a single-parent family, is negatively associated with parenting, income, and residential stability over time. These authors found that changes in parenting, residen- tial mobility, and income demonstrated greater sig- nificance and compromised adjustment for White but not African American youth. Race differences were attributed to variability in risk factors that may lead to differential outcomes. Specifically, African American youth growing up in single-par- ent families are more likely to be exposed to con- textual risk factors, such as economic deprivation and neighborhood characteristics which are associ- ated with academic problems, whereas White youth are more likely to be exposed to individual and peer-level risks (Mays, 2012; Wallace & Mur- off, 2002). From these studies, it can be surmised that regardless of family structure and the fact that some families confront a myriad of stressors, par- ental monitoring and exposure to emotionally con- nected, warm, and supportive family environments are pivotal leveraging points for positive youth outcomes across all social classes, regardless of the diversity of family structure. These findings sug- gest the need to examine with greater specificity the contributions of race in understanding how family transitions and family structure differen- tially impact youth outcomes.

It is important to note that some studies suggest that the transition itself into a new family structure may pose risk for adolescent maladjustment, and that this transition itself may underlie much of the

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 657

risk associated with particular family structure, rather than the structure itself (Lee & McLanahan, 2015). For example, results from a community- based study comparing behavioral outcomes of children growing up in different types of house- holds (including single, married, and cohabiting families as well as those residing with grandpar- ents, aunts/uncles, other extended family members, and nonrelated adults) revealed that change in fam- ily composition has a more significant effect on chil- dren than the particular type of family structure. For example, children raised in cohabiting families experience more transitions than those in any other family structure due to their mother’s transitions into and out of cohabitation, and some studies sug- gest that youth in cohabitating families may be at risk for negative outcomes (Raley & Wildsmith, 2004). The high number of transitions associated with cohabitation may also increase the risk of par- ental separation; parental separation, regardless of race and ethnicity, is higher among cohabitating couples than those born to married parents (Brown, 2010; Osborne, Manning, & Smock, 2007). Results from a systematic review of studies using the Frag- ile Families and Child Well-Being Study made a similar conclusion that the number of family transi- tions may be critical for youth development (Wald- fogel et al., 2010). These authors concluded that “children raised by stable single or cohabiting par- ents are at less risk than those in unstable single or cohabiting parents” (p. 87).

In fact, Arnold et al. (2017) examined the role of family transitions on parenting and youth well- being in military families across various family structures. Military families often experience fre- quent transitions to new living environments and multiple stressors associated with extended periods where parents(s) are deployed. In their comparison of variability of military adolescents’ adjustment, Arnold et al. (2017) found a significant relationship between family structure (biologically married, sin- gle-parent, and stepfamily) and adolescent’s aca- demic performance and depressive symptoms. Those growing up in biologically married house- holds reported more favorable outcomes compared with adolescents in other family structures. Differ- ential outcomes, however, were attributed to increased stability in two-parent households and a lower number of transitions.

It is worth noting that a consistent finding that emerged across studies included in our systematic studies is that growing up in a stable family with few transitions may be what matters, regardless of family structure. We also contend that while all

families regardless of structure are influenced by larger social cultural, ecological, historical contex- tual factors and processes, these macro-level sys- tems are seldom included in studies linking family structure to adolescent development and adjust- ment. Further, there is a need for models of theo- retic frameworks to guide such studies. Given this, we propose a sociocultural ecological model to illustrate the pathways through which society and culture are fused together to form systems that affect definitions and social norms regarding family structures. Family mechanisms, such as parenting practices, family relationships and resources, and family transitions, are pivotal mediators and mod- erators to explain how and why some family struc- tures matter for youth development (Figure 1).

DISCUSSION

The diversity explosion of the United States over the past decade has also witnessed an expansion of family structures beyond the traditional two-par- ent, heterosexual households with children (Frey, 2013). In fact, the “traditional family structure” is now atypical in many populations, as other never- married, single, stepfamilies, extended, and gay and lesbian families have increased substantially (see Pearce et al., 2018 in this issue). Yet, studies of family structure continue to rely on the “traditional family structure” as the referent group to which other family structures are compared. Inherent in many of these comparison studies is the assump- tion that children fare much better in families headed by a biological mother and father. Results from comparison studies clearly demonstrate that the effects of family structure on youth outcomes varies depending on a number of contextual factors such as cultural stigma, family relationships, and whether or not the family structural transition results in less effective parenting practices and decreased income. These findings suggest that fam- ily structure is not what matters per se, but that rather changes in other aspects of family function- ing are what impact youth adjustment. Although there are a plethora of studies suggesting that, on average, youth in two-parent homes fare better than those in single family homes or stepfamilies (Berger & McLanahan, 2015), a growing body of research suggests that these relationships are not universal. Given the above theoretical frameworks, it is no surprise that the effects of family structure on youth adjustment are complex.

Further, while the impact of family structure is not inconsequential, the majority of youth who live

658 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

in nontraditional family structures or experience transitions in family type also adjust well. What is more, when family structure difference does occur, effects are quite small in magnitude and clinical sig- nificance (Demo & Acock, 1996). Further, several scholars contend that differences in family function- ing, parenting practices, and youth outcomes demonstrate greater differences within than between family structures (Blackwell, 2010; Manning & Lamb, 2003). In sum, composition of the family does not change what is important to the child about being a member of a family. In fact, “children’s opti- mal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular struc- tural form it takes” (Perrin, 2002, p. 341).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Although much attention has been given to family structure, there are notable gaps in our knowledge

about its effects, especially during adolescence, which highlight important future research direc- tions. An unexpected finding was that most papers focused on examining the implications of family structure on families of young to middle age chil- dren, with few papers targeting adolescents. This is a notable gap in the literature, considering that the parent–child relationship changes substantially during the adolescent transition.

Further, much of the research attention is on comparing what goes on inside nuclear, intact, or traditional families to processes in stepfamilies, sin- gle-parent/mother families, and other nontradi- tional family structures. To address this gap, in addition to studies that compare outcomes between different family structures, more studies are needed that study variation within specific family structures (e.g., studying processes that explain variation among stepfamilies or another specific group). Within-group comparisons are essential to understanding family processes that may promote resilience and successful adaptation among families

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model. Society and culture are fused together to form systems that affect definitions and social norms regarding family structures. How family structure affects youth outcomes may depend on family mechanisms, such as parenting prac- tices, family relationships and resources, and family transitions. More research is needed as to how sociocultural ecological contextual processes and social position may interact with various family mechanisms to collectively influence how family structure affects youth outcomes.

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 659

who face similar challenges and have similar resources (Jensen, 2017; Jensen, et al., 2017). Under- standing factors that promote adaption within as well as across family structures will help the field identify common effective parenting practices, as well as parenting practices that may be particularly salient in certain family structures.

Studies also rarely investigate issues of culture as well as the role of social norms and stigma on the effects of family structure, and how these may affect parenting behaviors. While studies have con- sistently demonstrated the protective nature of racial–ethnic socialization in buffering youth from negative societal messages about their race or eth- nicity (Brody, Kim, Murry, & Brown, 2005; Murry et al., 2009; Stein et al., 2018 in this issue), little is known about the extent to which parenting is uniquely tailored as a function of family structure. In addition, the nuances experienced by families whose structure elevates their risk for exposure to discrimination and marginalization needs to be examined, as such experiences affect not only youths’ social interactions but also their develop- ment over the life course. The negative conse- quences of institutionalized discrimination and oppression for people of color have been well- documented. However, the manifestations of these incidences as a function of family structure with regard to workforce, legal, housing, education, and health care systems, all of which have potential consequences for children’s developmental out- comes, have been ignored in studies of family structure. In this regard, realms of competencies for adolescents growing up in traditional and new family configurations may include adaptive coping with marginalization as a consequence of “nontra- ditional” family types (Cherlin, 2010).

Although it has been well documented that these constructs play a major role in the develop- ment of youth, particularly those who are marginalized in the United States because of their social positions and socioeconomic status, this issue remains underexplored in studies of family struc- ture. Not considering the important moderating effects of ancestral heritage, immigration history, religion, and traditions of normative and maladap- tive development across and within different fam- ily structures dilutes and obscures the experiences of children growing up in these families (Lin & Kelsey, 2000). An important future direction is to more explicitly test how culture affects family structure, including studies that identify how par- enting practices within specific family structures differ based on culture. Given this, future studies

of family structure need to give greater considera- tion to ways in which cultural and environmental factors across and within diverse family structures impact youth development and adjustment.

Finally, several methodological gaps have fore- stalled the advancement of studies of family struc- tures on adolescent development. For example, much of our work on parenting relies on global measures of family relationships that occur over a long time (e.g., year to year). Yet in the case of changes in families, there may be many short-term changes, along with fluctuations in parent–child relationships and interactions that are not captured using global measures over long time scales. The use of longitudinal data and methods that can cap- ture shorter term, dynamic family processes may be critical to fully understanding how parenting changes across different family structures, espe- cially when a structural transition occurs (Lippold, Hussong, Fosco, & Ram, 2018). We may also need more qualitative studies to more fully capture infor- mation not sufficiently conveyed in quantitative methods, including ways in which beliefs, attitudes, values, feelings, and motivations underlie what goes on inside families within and between family structures. Further, as most studies include only parent reports, there is a need for more studies with a multi-informant study design, which capture the perspectives of children as well as the multitude of different roles adults can take in the family.

CONCLUSION

Although one of the traditional hallmarks of science is to be objective and value-free, it would be naive to assume that social science researchers are not influenced by cultural ideologies and belief systems about family life. Studies of family structure con- tinue to be nested in frameworks that perpetuate values, opinions, and beliefs about what constitutes “a normal, traditional family.” This perspective has likely influenced every aspect of research, including the types of issues addressed, the way hypotheses and research questions are worded, the selection of samples and measurement instruments, and inter- pretations of the meaning of data (see Cherlin, 2010 and Amato, 2005 for excellent discussions of the roles played by values in family research in gen- eral). Most notable is a lack of progress in identify- ing the unique normative processes of development among children growing up in new familial config- urations. Thus, the field continues to grapple with identifying critical aspects of adolescents’ social environmental contexts that are influenced by

660 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

family structure and, in turn, impact their growth and development.

The authors charge the field to give greater con- sideration to refining the conceptualization of family structure. This endeavor may require refining mea- sures of household composition so that measures of family structure are more reflective of the roles and relationships of members of the household, rather than assuming how members are related to each other and function as a family based on adults’ rela- tionship/marital status and/or “headship.” Such work will require the field to develop new methods of inquiry to capture the experiences of adolescents growing up in diverse family structures, including greater use of multimethodological approaches that capture the perspective of many different family members, to more accurately capture the experi- ences and nuances of adolescents growing up in diverse family structures.

In closing, there is a need to update family poli- cies to include family structures beyond two-parent heterosexual families. Nearly all family policies in the United States are based on nuclear family mod- els, including the parental rights doctrine. Thus, family law and policies, as well as legal traditions regarding parenthood, are nested in the context that the referent family structure is two-parent, heterosexual, same resident structures, which is sometimes referred to as the natural family. The majority of family policies are designed to promote or enhance marriage, regulate reproduction, protect children, and legislate parents’ obligations to pro- vide financial support for their children, with some attention to ways in which physical and legal cus- tody of children affect adjustment and develop- ment. Yet, the protective nature of these policies is not necessarily applying to all families. For exam- ple, the rights of same-sex families, including mar- riage, adoption, and parental rights, differ from state to state (Polikoff, 2013). Critical to develop- ment of policy that addresses the legal protection and rights of all families regardless of family struc- ture is the need for research that can inform policy and practice (Cancian & Haskins, 2014). This research should also provide empirical evidence to guide culturally informed and relevant preventive interventions and services that are applicable to diverse family structures.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, B. P., D’Eramo, K. S., Umylny, L., Schultz, D., & Izard, C. E. (2001). Family structure and the

externalizing behavior of children from economically disadvantaged families. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.2. 288

Amato, P. R. (2005). The impact of family formation changes on the cognitive, social, and emotional well- being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15, 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2005.0012

Arnold, A. L., Lucier-Greer, M., Mancini, J. A., Ford, J. L., & Wickrama, K. S. (2017). How family structures and processes interrelate: The case of adolescent men- tal health and academic success in military families. Journal of Family Issues, 38, 858–879. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0192513X15616849

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family struc- ture, parental practices, and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309–320.

Aughinbaugh, A., Pierret, C. R., & Rothstein, D. S. (2005). The impact of family structure transitions on youth achievement: Evidence from the children of the NLSY79. Demography, 42, 447–468. https://doi.org/10. 1353/dem.2005.0023

Bastaits, K., & Mortelmans, D. (2016). Parenting as medi- ator between post-divorce family structure and chil- dren’s well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 2178–2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016- 0395-8

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth and Society, 9, 239–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X7800900302

Belcher, J. R., Peckuonis, E. V., & Deforge, B. R. (2011). Family capital: Implications for interventions with families. Journal of Family Social Work, 14, 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2010.542113

Berger, L. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (2015). Income, rela- tionship quality, and parenting: Associations with child development in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 77, 996–1015. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jomf.12197

Berkel, C., Murry, V. M., Hurt, T. R., Chen, Y., Brody, G. H., Simons, R. L., . . . Gibbons, F. X. (2009). It takes a village: Protecting rural African American youth in the context of racism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-008-9346-z

Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1999). Family structure, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success: Rethinking the “pathology of matriarchy.” American Journal of Sociology, 105, 321–365. https://doi.org/10. 1086/210314

Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 3–22.

Bisceglia, R., Cheung, C., Swinkin, E., & Jenkins, J. (2010). Family structure and children’s mental health in Western countries. In M. E. Garralda & J.-P. Ray (Eds.), Increasing awareness of child and adolescent mental health (pp. 27–48). Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson.

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 661

Blackwell, D. L. (2010). Family structure and children’s health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, 10, 246.

Bloome, D. (2014). Racial inequality trends and the inter- generational persistence of income and family struc- ture. American Sociological Review, 79, 1196–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414554947

Bowman, P. J., & Howard, C. (1985). Race-related social- ization, motivation, and academic achievement: A study of Black youth in three-generation families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-7138(09)60438-6

Brega, A., & Coleman, L. (1999). Effects of religiosity and racial socialization on subjective stigmatization in Afri- can-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1999.0213

Brody, G. H., Kim, S., Murry, V. M., & Brown, A. C. (2005). Longitudinal links among parenting, self-pre- sentations to peers, and the development of externaliz- ing and internalizing symptoms in African American siblings. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050108

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspec- tives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723

Brown, S. L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-3737.2010.00750.x

Brown, S. L., Stykes, J. B., & Manning, W. D. (2016). Trends in children’s family instability, 1995–2010. Jour- nal of Marriage and the Family, 78, 1173–1183. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12311

Burton, L. (2007). Childhood adultification in economi- cally disadvantaged families: A conceptual model. Family Relations, 56, 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1741-3729.2007.00463.x

Cancian, M., & Haskins, R. (2014). Changes in family composition: Implications for income, poverty, and public policy. Annals of the American Academy of Politi- cal and Social Science, 654, 31–47. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0002716214525322

Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involve- ment, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 137–154. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00239.x

Carlson, M. J., & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family structure and children’s behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00779.x

Cherlin, A. (2010). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of research in the 2000s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 403–419. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00710.x

Claxton-Oldfield, S., O’Neill, S., Thomson, C., & Gallant, B. (2006). Multiple stereotypes of stepfathers. Journal of

Divorce and Remarriage, 44, 165–176. https://doi.org/ 10.1300/j087v44n01_09 https://doi.org/10.1300/ J087v44n01_09

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95– S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Russell, L. (2013). Resilience in stepfamilies. In D. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 85–103). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3917-2

Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family pro- cess model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01644

Conger, R., Elder, G., Lorenz, F., Conger, K., Simons, R., Whitbeck, L., . . . Melby, J. (1990). Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 643–656. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/352931

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541–561. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00768.x

Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243

Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent educa- tion and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294

Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adolescent well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457–488.

Ellis, R. R., & Simmons, T. (2014). Co-resident grandparents and their grandchildren: 2012, U.S. Census Bureau. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Frey, W. H. (2013). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Gates, G. (2011). Family formation and raising children among same-sex couples. NCFR Report, Issue FF51, F1- F4. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed u/wp-content/uploads/Gates-Badgett-NCFR-LGBT-Fa milies-December-2011.pdf

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2011). Stigma, social con- text, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 139–150. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0021684

Greef, A. P., & Du Toit, C. (2009). Resilience in remarried families. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37, 114– 126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180802151919

662 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

Greenberg, M. T., & Lippold, M. A. (2013). Promoting healthy outcomes among youth with multiple risks: Innovative approaches. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhea lth-031811-124619

Haskins, R. (2015). No way out: Dealing with the conse- quences of changes in family composition. In P. R. Amato, A. Booth, S. M. McHale, & J. Van Hook (Eds.), Families in an era of increasing inequality: Diverging des- tinies (pp. 167–199). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Inter- national Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 319-08308-7_13

Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An examination of race-related socialization among African American families. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 200–214. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s1532480xads0104_4

Jensen, T. M. (2017). Constellations of dyadic relationship quality in stepfamilies: A factor mixture model. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10. 1037/fam0000355

Jensen, T. M., Lippold, M. A., Mills-Koonce, R., & Fosco, G. M. (2017). Stepfamily relationship quality and chil- dren’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Family Process. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/famp.12284

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psy- chosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Jones, D. J., Loiselle, R., & Highlander, A. (2018). Parent– adolescent socialization of social class in low-income White families: Theory, research, and future directions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 622–636.

Knight, G. P., Bernal, M. E., Garza, C. A., Cota, M. K., & O’Campo, K. (1993). Family socialization and the eth- nic identity of Mexican-American children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 99–114. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022022193241007

Lansford, J., Rothenberg, W. A., Jensen, T., Lippold, M., Bacchini, E., Bornstein, M. . . . Al-Hassan, S. H. (2018). Bidirectional relations between parenting and behavior problems from age 8 to 13 in nine countries. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 571–590.

Lee, D., & McLanahan, S. (2015). Family structure transi- tions and child development. American Sociological Review, 80, 738–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0003122415592129

Lin, S. S., & Kelsey, J. L. (2000). Use of race and ethnicity in epidemiologic research: Concepts, methodological issues, and suggestions for research. Epidemiologic Reviews, 22, 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxf ordjournals.epirev.a018032

Lippold, M. A., Greenberg, M. T., Graham, J. W., & Fein- berg, M. E. (2014). Unpacking the effect of parental monitoring on early adolescent problem behavior: Mediation by parental knowledge and moderation by parent–youth warmth. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 1800–1823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X13484120

Lippold, M. A., Hussong, A., Fosco, G. M., & Ram, N. (2018). Lability in the parent’s hostility and warmth toward their adolescent: Linkages to youth delin- quency and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 54, 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000415

Lippold, M. A., & Jensen, T. (2017). Harnessing the strength of families to prevent social problems and promote adolescent well-being. Children and Youth Ser- vices Review, 79, 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.c hildyouth.2017.06.066

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York, NY: Wiley.

Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well- being in cohabiting, married, and single-parent fami- lies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x

Marsiglio, W. (1992). Stepfathers with minor children liv- ing at home: Parenting perceptions and relationship quality. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 195–214. https:// doi.org/10.1177/019251392013002005

Mays, S. A. (2012). The influence of family structure and transitions on parenting, income, residential mobility, and substance initiation in early adolescence: A comparison of Caucasian and African American youth. (Doctoral disser- tation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional (72–4305).

McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1353/de m.2004.0033

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual develop- ment: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. https://doi.org/10. 2307/1129720

Moore, K. A., Jekielek, S. M., & Emig, C. (2002). Marriage from a child’s perspective: How does family structure affect children, and what can we do about it? (Research Brief). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Mundy, B., & Wofsy, M. (2017). Diverse couple and fam- ily forms and universal family processes. In S. Kelly (Ed.), Diversity in couple and family therapy (pp. 337– 363). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Murry, V. M., Berkel, C., Miller, S. R., Chen, Y.-F., & Brody, G. H. (2009). Linking parental socialization to interpersonal protective processes, academic self-pre- sentation, and expectations among rural African American youth. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013180

Murry, V. M., Bynum, M. S., Brody, G. H., Willert, A., & Stephens, D. (2001). African American single mothers and children in context: A review of studies of risk and resilience. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011381114782

Murry, V. M., Hill, N. E., Witherspoon, D. W., & Berkel, C. (2015). Children in diverse ethnic communities. In

DIVERSE FAMILY STRUCTURES 663

M. Bornstein, T. Leventhal, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Hand- book of child psychology and developmental science, 4 (7), pp. 416–454. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Murry, V. M., & Liu, N. (2014). Are African Americans living the dream 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act? 2014 Council on Contemporary Families Civil Rights Symposium. Retrieved from https://conte mporaryfamilies.org/civil-rights-symposium/

Murry, V. M., Liu, N., & Bethune, C. (2015). Develop- mental patterns of rural African American adolescents. In L. Crockett, & G. Carlos (Eds.), Rural minority youth and families (pp. 203–225). New York, NY: Springer.

Nock, S. L. (1988). The family and hierarchy. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 957–966. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/352107

Oakley, M., Farr, R. H., & Scherer, D. G. (2017). Same-sex parent socialization: Understanding gay and lesbian parenting practices as cultural socialization. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 13, 56–75. https://doi.org/10. 1080/1550428X.2016.1158685

Osborne, C., Manning, W. D., & Smock, P. J. (2007). Mar- ried and cohabiting parents’ relationship stability: A focus on race and ethnicity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 1345–1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2007.00451.x

Parcel, T. L., & Menaghan, E. G. (1990). Maternal work- ing conditions and children’s verbal facility: Studying the intergenerational transmission of inequality from mothers to young children. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 132–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786675

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0003-066x.44.2.329

Pearce, L. D., Hayward, G. M., Chassin, L., & Curran, P. J. (2018). The increasing diversity and complexity of family structures for adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 591–608.

Perrin, E. C., & The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2002). Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex par- ents. Pediatrics, 109, 341–344. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.109.2.341

Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent coping with problems related to ethnicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0501_2

Polikoff, N. D. (2013). Custody rights of lesbian and gay parents redux: The irrelevance of constitutional princi- ples. UCLA Law Review, 60, Discourse 226.

Powell, M., & Parcel, T. (1997). Effects of family structure on the earnings attainment process: Differences by gender. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 419–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/353480

Racz, S. J., & McMahon, R. J. (2011). The relationship between parental knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent conduct problems: A 10-year update.

Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 377–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0099-y

Raley, R. K., & Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022- 2445.2004.00015.x

Riskind, R. G., & Patterson, C. J. (2010). Parenting inten- tions and desires among childless lesbian, gay, and heterosexual individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017941

Scanzoni, J. H. (2004). Household diversity—The starting point for healthy families in the new century. In M. Coleman & L. Ganong (Eds.) The handbook of contempo- rary families: Considering the past, contemplating the future (pp. 3–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/ 10.4135/9781412976022

Schultz, T. P. (1974). Economics of the family: Marriage, chil- dren and human capital. Chicago, IL: University of Chi- cago Press.

Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethinking fam- ily values in the postmodern age. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Stein, G., Coard, S., Kiang, L., Smith, K. R., & Mejia, Y. (2018). The intersection of racial-ethnic socialization and adolescence: A closer examination at stage-salient issues. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 28, 609–621.

Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Economic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221– 242. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/73.1.221

Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bio- ecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4, 198–210. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Foreign-born population in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M., & Kreider, R. M. (2013). Ameri- can’s families and living arrangements: 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Frag- ile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20, 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0002

Wallace, J. M., Jr., & Muroff, J. R. (2002). Preventing sub- stance abuse among African American children and youth: Race differences in risk factor exposure and vulnerability. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22, 235–261. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013617721016

Weaver, S. E., & Coleman, M. (2010). Caught in the mid- dle: Mothers in stepfamilies. Journal of Social and Per- sonal Relationships, 27, 305–326. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0265407510361729

Weinstein, M., & Thornton, A. (1989). Mother-child rela- tions and adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior. Demography, 26, 563–577. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2061258

664 MURRY AND LIPPOLD

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.