ArticlePDF Available

Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment

January 2008
Journal of Family Issues 29(7):944-980

DOI:10.1177/0192513X07311232

Authors:

University of Texas at Austin

As patterns of union formation and dissolution in adult lives become complex, the living arrangements of American children are becoming increasingly fluid. With a sample (N = 12,843) drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, this study attempted to capture this complexity by mapping out children's family structure histories across their early life course, investigating the implications of these arrangements for their general adjustment, and finally, identifying family processes that explained these associations. The findings suggest that a sizable minority of young people experience dynamic family structure arrangements. Moreover, family structure at adolescence best predicted later emotional distress, and family structure at adolescence plus an indicator of cumulative family instability across childhood best predicted current marijuana use. More so than indicators tapping social control, levels of family connectedness and parent—adolescent relationship quality were key conduits for these associations.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = = 12,843)

Figures - uploaded by Shannon E. Cavanagh

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Shannon E. Cavanagh

Content may be subject to copyright.

http://jfi.sagepub.com

Journal of Family Issues

DOI: 10.1177/0192513X07311232

2008;

2008; 29; 944 originally published online Jan 4,Journal of Family Issues

Shannon E. Cavanagh

Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/7/944

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

National Council on Family Relations

can be found at:Journal of Family Issues Additional services and information for

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/29/7/944

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 42 articles hosted on the Citations

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

944

Family Structure History

and Adolescent Adjustment

Shannon E. Cavanagh

The University of Texas at Austin

As patterns of union formation and dissolution in adult lives become complex,

the living arrangements of American children are becoming increasingly fluid.

With a sample (N = 12,843) drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of

Adolescent Health, this study attempted to capture this complexity by mapping

out children’s family structure histories across their early life course, investi-

gating the implications of these arrangements for their general adjustment, and

finally, identifying family processes that explained these associations. The find-

ings suggest that a sizable minority of young people experience dynamic

family structure arrangements. Moreover, family structure at adolescence best

predicted later emotional distress, and family structure at adolescence plus an

indicator of cumulative family instability across childhood best predicted cur-

rent marijuana use. More so than indicators tapping social control, levels of

family connectedness and parent–adolescent relationship quality were key con-

duits for these associations.

Keywords: family structure instability; adolescent emotional distress;

adolescent drug use; parenting processes

n the past half century, increases in divorce, nonmarital fertility, and

cohabitation, combined with declines in marriage and remarriage, have

dramatically altered the context in which American children and adoles-

cents are raised (Casper & Bianchi, 2002). For example, although point

estimates indicate that most children live with both biological parents, life

course estimates suggest that more than half of all children will spend some

time in an alternative family (i.e., single-parent, cohabiting-stepparent, or

Journal of Family Issues

Volume 29 Number 7

July 2008 944-980

10.1177/0192513X07311232

http://jfi.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Author’s Note: Please address all correspondence to Shannon E. Cavanagh, Department of

Sociology, The University of Texas, 1 University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712; e-mail:

scavanagh@mail.la.utexas.edu. This article is based on data from the Add Health project, a

program designed by J. Richard Udry (principal investigator) and Peter Bearman and funded by

Grant No. P01HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

to the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with cooperative

funding participation from 17 other federal agencies. The author acknowledges the support of

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 945

married-stepparent family; Bumpass & Lu, 2000). These statistics paint a

portrait of a social institution and individual families in flux. In other

words, the growing diversity of family types in the population is matched

with an increase in family structure transitions in children’s life courses.

Importantly, this complexity in children’s living arrangements is linked to

their development. This study attempts to shed light on this link by map-

ping out children’s family structure histories across their early life courses

and then investigating the implications of these arrangements for their gen-

eral adjustment.

Two theoretical perspectives guide this study. First, the life course para-

digm, an orienting theoretical perspective, frames its basic aims. Specifically,

this perspective focuses attention on the linked lives of parents and their

children—the connections between parents’ romantic lives and their children’s

adjustment. Moreover, this perspective emphasizes the long view of life

course dynamics by moving beyond a focus of family structure at a point in

time to one that incorporates the whole of children’s family structure experi-

ences, including family structure statuses at key developmental phases, the

duration in these statuses, and the tempo and timing of family structure

change (Elder, 1998). To this end, this study investigates the link between the

marital histories of parents and the basic adjustment of their children during

adolescence. Coupling these foci demonstrates how the route to a particular

family structure helps to define its developmental impact.

Second, this study draws on the family process paradigm, an explanatory

theory, to answer the important why question: Why are the marital histories

of parents developmentally significant for their children? The family

process paradigm posits that parenting behaviors and family relationships

are key mechanisms underlying this form of linked lives (Amato, 2000;

McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Simons, 1996). Consequently, this study

attempts to explain how relationships and behaviors in the home serve as

conduits by which parents’ cumulative decisions about their romantic lives

affect their children’s well-being.

grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to Shannon E.

Cavanagh (HD046185-01), Kathleen Mullan Harris (HD07168-23), and Chandra Muller

(HD40428-02), as well as a Youth and Adolescent Dissertation Award from the Henry A. Murray

Research Center of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Studies at Harvard University, awarded

to Cavanagh. This research was also supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation

(REC-0126167) to the Population Research Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Chandra

Muller (principal investigator). Opinions reflect those of the author and not necessarily those of

the granting agencies. The author would like to thank Kelly Raley and Rob Crosnoe as well as

the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (or Add Health)

provides a valuable resource for this important line of family research

because it allows the construction of children’s perceptions of parents’ mar-

ital histories, the assessment of intrafamily dynamics, and the measurement

of a host of behaviors for a nationally representative sample of young

people in the United States. Utilizing this resource to unpack the link

between family composition and individual well-being will only become

more meaningful as American families continue to evolve and change.

A Closer Look at Family Structure

The structure of American families has undergone dramatic change over

the past 60 years. These changes are meaningful, in part, because of their

implications for child and adolescent well-being (Amato, 2000; McLanahan

& Sandefur, 1994). Although the magnitude and long-term implications of

family change continue to be contested (Booth & Amato, 2001; Cherlin, 1999;

Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Wallerstein, Lewis, & Blakeslee, 2000), scholars

agree that young people in stable two–biological parent families generally

have higher levels of psychological well-being and engage in fewer problem

behaviors than do their peers in other family forms (Chase-Lansdale, Cherlin,

& Kiernan, 1995; Doherty & Needle, 1991; Johnson & Hoffman, 2000).

This body of work typically employs a static view of family structure,

capturing it at a point in parents’ marital histories (e.g., the family situation

at a given age or at the time of a survey). Young people, however, often live

in homes marked by multiple parental relationships, including spells of

marriage, divorce, single parenthood, cohabitation, remarriage, and all of

the above (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae, 1998; Hill, Yeung, &

Duncan, 2001; Osborne, 2005; Wu & Martinson, 1993).

An emerging literature has coupled retrospective reports of family struc-

ture histories with conventional point estimates to effectively capture the

complexity of children’s living arrangements (Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Hao

& Xie, 2002; Teachman, 2003; Wu & Martinson, 1993). For instance, more

than a third of all births occur outside of marriage (Hamilton, Martin, &

Ventura, 2006), with a third of these occurring within cohabiting relation-

ships (Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Osborne, 2005). At the same time, although

divorce rates have remained constant over the past 25 years, still about a half

of all marriages end in divorce, and half of these involve children (Amato,

2000). Remarriage rates have also declined, yet residing in a stepparent

family remains a common experience for American children (M. Coleman,

946 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Ganong, & Fine, 2000). An increasing proportion of these stepparent

families are formed through cohabitation, not marriage or remarriage,

making cohabiting-stepparent families an increasingly more prevalent family

structure status for young people (Bumpass, Raley, & Sweet, 1995). Last,

related to these changes in adult relationships, the likelihood that young

people will spend some time in single-parent family has increased signifi-

cantly (Bumpass & Lu, 2000). Although most young people reside in

mother-only families, father-only families are becoming more common

(Garasky & Meyer, 1996; Harris, Cavanagh, & Elder, 2000). Thus, time in

these different statuses suggests that family structure, from the perspective

of the child, is dynamic, evolving, and unstable.

Dimensions of Family Structure Histories

Guided by the life course perspective, this study seeks to extend this

emerging literature by exploring the complexity of children’s living arrange-

ments from birth through early adolescence. Viewing children’s living

arrangements longitudinally, assessing different family structure statuses (be

they families of two biological married parents, a single parent, or a married

or cohabiting stepparent), measuring the amount of time spent in a particular

family structure, and tracking transitions from one family status to another all

give family structure histories their form and meaning (Elder, 1998). The first

objective of this study, then, is to develop dimensions of family structure his-

tories that capture family structure across children’s early life courses.

Timing of family structure statuses is the first dimension considered. On

one hand, being born into an alternative family structure (e.g., single parent,

stepparent) may be most salient for adolescent adjustment because such a

status may undercut early socialization practices that can set the stage for

later, more risky development (Wu & Martinson, 1993). This status may

also serve as a proxy for the different economic contexts into which

children are born, as well as unmeasured selection factors (e.g., mother,

father, and child characteristics) that contribute to the likelihood of being

born into alternative families and being less well adjusted (Hao & Xie,

2002). On the other hand, residing in a single-parent family during adoles-

cence may undermine the ways that the resident parent monitors and super-

vises her or his children, which according to social control theory, increases

the likelihood that adolescents engage in inappropriate behaviors (Liska &

Reed, 1985; Wu & Martinson, 1993). Similarly, residing in a stepparent

family in adolescence may also increase the likelihood of emotional distress

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 947

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and inappropriate behaviors because stepparents may lack the interest

and/or authority to monitor and supervise their stepchildren, especially in a

cohabiting-stepparent household (Teachman, 2003; Thornton, 1991). For

these reasons, I explore the associations between adolescent adjustment and

family structure at birth and during adolescence.

Another aspect of family structure timing is duration, or time spent in a

given family structure (Hao & Xie, 2002). Duration in a particular family

type can tap the extent to which household members are able to set and

negotiate practices, rules, and relationships within the family (Wu &

Martinson, 1993). Consider a 16-year-old adolescent born into a single-

mother family whose mother remarried when the child was 3 and stayed

married. This adolescent shares the same current family structure status as

another 16-year-old who was born into a two–biological married parent

family, resided in it through age 12, experienced a parental divorce, and then

the remarriage of his resident parent at age 14. The degree to which family

rules and relationships are established in each of these two situations is

likely different, thereby differentiating the implications of this particular

status for each adolescent (Hao & Xie, 2002). Overall, I expect that the

longer young people reside in a given family structure, the less likely they

will be to report behavior problems than those newer to the family structure.

The second dimension of family structure history that I consider is the

level of instability and change in family structure. This dimension is impor-

tant because changes in parents’ marital statuses constitute a major stressor

in a young person’s life. The loss or addition of a parental figure may dis-

rupt a child’s sense of security and create ambiguity in household rules,

family relationships, and parental expectations about behavior. This disrup-

tion is exacerbated by residential moves and dramatic changes in family

income and parents’ employment patterns (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994;

Teachman, 2003; Wu & Martinson, 1993). Because family structure change

is repeatable across a child’s life, the stress associated with family instabil-

ity can accumulate over time. Thus, multiple family transitions are expected

to entail cumulative risk for adolescents (Cavanagh & Huston, 2006).

Just as the timing of different family structure statuses may have differ-

ential implications for young people, so too may the timing of family insta-

bility. Although less research has investigated the timing of family

instability, some researchers suggest that family structure change in early

childhood is most salient to child and adolescent development because dis-

ruption in this life stage undermines the quality of parent–child relationships,

which serve as the foundation for subsequent development (McLanahan,

1985; Parson & Bales, 1955; Yabiku, Axinn, & Thornton, 1999). Others

948 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

point to the significance of parental monitoring and supervision during

adolescence for understanding adolescent adjustment (Liska & Reed, 1985;

McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Family instability during this stage might

be especially problematic because family rules and expectations designed

to control and support adolescents as they navigate this life stage may be

less well defined or enforced.

Together, these dimensions of family structure history provide a picture

of parents’ marital histories. The next section outlines how family structure

history, conceptualized in these ways, provides value to our understanding

of the role of family structure in the early life course.

Family Structure Histories and Adolescent Adjustment

Adolescent adjustment is certainly a broad construct, one that encom-

passes different behaviors and statuses. The two aspects of adolescent adjust-

ment considered in this study are emotional distress and current marijuana

use. These behaviors, although potentially serious to health and well-being in

adolescence and beyond, are part of the construction of adolescence in the

United States—10%–15% of the child and adolescent population has some

symptoms of depression at any one time, and nearly half of all high school

seniors have experimented with marijuana (Johnston, O’Malley, & Buchman,

2003; Smucker, Craighead, Craighead, & Green, 1986). Importantly, these

behaviors represent ways that young people cope with family change.

A large interdisciplinary literature has documented the associations

between family structure (measured at a point in time) and these indicators of

adolescent adjustment. First, parental divorce is associated with a rise in child

and adolescent psychological distress that typically dissipates within 2 years

following the event, although the negative effects of divorce can continue into

subsequent stages of life (Chase-Lansdale et al., 1995; Cherlin et al., 1998;

Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994). Those in stepparent families also report higher

levels of emotional distress (Dawson, 1991). Second, a smaller body of

research suggests that parental divorce and remarriage are associated with

drug use, with young people in alternative families, especially those who

experience family disruption in adolescence, more likely to use marijuana

than others (Doherty & Needle, 1991; Hoffman & Johnson, 1998).

The second objective of this study, then, is to investigate the link

between multiple dimensions of family structure and adolescent emotional

distress and marijuana use. In doing so, this study identifies which of these

dimensions or which combination of dimensions best explains differences

in adolescent adjustment.

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 949

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Explaining the Link Between Family Structure

Histories and Adolescent Adjustment

The life course perspective, as an orienting theory, focuses attention on

the link between parents’ marital histories and adolescent well-being and so

guides the conceptualization of family structure history. Yet this perspective

does less to address an equally compelling question: Why does this linked-

lives phenomenon exist? To answer this question, this study turns to an

explanatory theory: the family process paradigm.

This paradigm posits that alterations in family roles and functioning

brought on by changes in family status such as a divorce, remarriage, or

cohabitation explain the negative outcomes of these changes. Family

structure change can result in a home environment that is unstructured

and chaotic for young people. The entrance or exit of a parent’s romantic

partner can set in motion inconsistent parenting behaviors, brought on by

some combination of parental stress, economic insecurity, changes in a

resident parent’s work schedule, parental dating, or adjustment to new

household members (Amato, 2000). These changes introduce uncertainty

into adolescents’ lives, affecting how close they feel to their parents as well

as their connectedness with their families in general. In turn, parent–adolescent

closeness and family connectedness help to determine how effective

parents are at ensuring that their children engage in healthful behaviors

(Baurmrind, 1991).

Family transitions and their accompanying changes may also affect how

the resident parent or parents monitor and supervise their children’s everyday

lives, with lower levels of monitoring and supervision increasing adolescents’

opportunities to engage in problem behaviors (Amato, 2000; McLanahan &

Sandefur, 1994; Simons, 1996). This may be especially true if adolescents

are not close to their parents (J. S. Coleman, 1988). Taken together, the ero-

sion of family relationships and supervision in adolescents’ everyday lives

that can be triggered by family change may make young people more sus-

ceptible to emotional distress and drug use (Aseltine, 1996; Jessor, 1987).

The third objective of this study, then, is to investigate the degree to

which aspects of parenting behaviors and the parent–adolescent relation-

ship explain the links between family structure history and adolescent

adjustment. To pursue this objective, this study considers adolescent reports

of parental presence in the home, parental control over everyday aspects of

adolescents’ lives, warmth and closeness in the parent–adolescent relation-

ship, and adolescents’ feelings of connectedness with the family.

950 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Research Design and Methods

Source of Data and Sample

The data for this research come from Add Health, a nationally represen-

tative study of adolescents in Grades 7 through 12 in the United States in

1995. Add Health used a multistage, stratified school-based cluster sam-

pling design. For each study school, Add Health collected an in-school sur-

vey from every student (about 90,000) who attended on the day of

administration. About 1 year later, Add Health selected a nationally repre-

sentative sample from this pool of students to participate in the Wave 1 in-

home interview, conducted between April and December 1995. The Wave

2 in-home interview, nearly identical in content and form to Wave 1, was

conducted between April and September 1996 (see Bearman, Jones, &

Udry, 1997). Overall, about 14,700 adolescents completed both waves of

the in-home interview.

Two selection criteria were applied to create the analytical sample for

this study. First, because analyses required data from both in-home inter-

views, the sample was limited to adolescents who participated in Wave 1

and Wave 2 and who had valid sampling weights, which adjust for the dif-

ferential likelihood that certain social groups were included in Add Health

(Chantala & Tabor, 1999). Second, because of the focus on family structure

and relationships with parents, young people had to reside with at least one

biological or adoptive parent at birth to be included in the sample. Overall,

these criteria resulted in an analytical sample of 12,843.

This analytic sample is smaller than the full Wave 1 sample. The impor-

tant question is whether these exclusions introduced bias. The first criterion

is common to all longitudinal research using Add Health, and the second

excluded 534 adolescents. Although neither greatly biased the analyses

sample, these exclusions did result in a sample of adolescents who were

more advantaged and from more stable homes. These biases must be kept

in mind when interpreting results, although they are arguably offset by the

many benefits of Add Health, such as its large sample size and longitudinal

family data.

Measures

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all study variables, except those

dealing with family structure.

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 951

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

952 Journal of Family Issues

Adolescent emotional distress was based on adolescent responses to 20

items that capture symptoms of emotional distress. Most (n = 18) were

taken from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

(Radloff, 1977) that ask about behaviors and feelings in the past week,

including feeling depressed, talking less than usual, and feeling unliked

(see appendix for complete list). The other 2 questions (frequent crying and

sleeplessness) refer to behaviors in the past year. Because responses for

some questions ranged from 0 to 3 and others from 0 to 4, all items were

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N

12,843)

Variable MSE% n

Outcomes

Psychological distress 0.00 0.00

Current marijuana use 26.0 4,450

Parenting behaviors

Parental presence 2.88 0.02

Parental control 2.01 0.05

Parent–adolescent closeness 3.47 0.01

Family connectedness 3.83 0.02

Individual characteristics

Male 50.1 6,266

Age 15.02 0.11

Race and ethnicity

White 67.5 6,926

African American 14.8 2,622

Asian American 4.2 980

Latino/Latina 12.1 2,144

Other 1.4 171

Children of immigrants 16.0 2,853

Family characteristics

Parents’ educational attainment

Less than high school 11.9 1,627

High school graduation 26.5 3,167

Some college education 29.6 3,642

At least college graduation 31.1 4,325

Missing education 0.6 82

Household income

Income less than $32,000 43.4 5,734

Missing income 8.5 1,151

Number of children in the home 1.48 0.03

Note: All values are weighted.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 953

standardized with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The Emotional

Distress Index thus reflects the mean score across the 20 standardized items

(α=.88). Adolescent current marijuana use was based on adolescent

reports of marijuana use at Wave 2. Adolescents were asked about use since

the last in-home survey; current users were coded as 1, all others as 0.

Family structure history was indexed with a set of measures that reflect

family structure at birth; family structure at Wave 1; the duration of the

Wave 1 family structure; the number of parental divorces, remarriages, and

cohabitations that adolescents experienced from birth through early adoles-

cence; and the timing of these changes. Three sources of data from the

Wave 1 in-home interviews were used to construct these measures: youth

reports of current household composition (including resident parents, step-

parent, and parent’s partner), the duration of life spent with current house-

hold members, and reports of whether and for how long they lived with a

nonresident biological parent. These data were combined to create indica-

tors of resident parent composition for each year in an adolescent’s life

through Wave 1 (Heard & Harris, 2001).

For each year in an adolescent’s life, family structure was operational-

ized into eight mutually exclusive categories: two biological parents, bio-

logical mother and stepfather, biological father and stepmother, two adoptive

parents, surrogate parents (foster, relative, other parent type), single-mother

family, single-father family, and no parent or person acting in the parental

role. From this array, I created five indicators of family structure history:

family structure at birth; family structure at Wave 1; the number of years in

the Wave 1 family structure; a count of the cumulative changes in the resi-

dent parent’s marital trajectory from birth through Wave 1; and counts of

changes in the resident parent’s marital trajectory during early childhood,

middle childhood, and early adolescence.

The first measure, family structure at birth, was captured with two indi-

cators that reflect whether the adolescent resided with a single parent (n =

2,373), a biological parent and a stepparent (n = 179), or two biological or

adoptive parents (n = 10,291) in the first year of life. Adolescents who spent

their first year of life living in a mother-only (n = 2,132) or father-only (n =

241) family composed the single-parent family at birth category. The sec-

ond measure, family structure at Wave 1, was based on a set of six binary

variables that included two–biological parent or two–adoptive parent

families (n = 7,482), married-stepparent families (n = 1,696), cohabiting-

stepparent families (n = 327), single-mother families (n = 2,663), single-

father families (n = 355), and other families (n = 320). The other family

category was rather heterogeneous and included young people who lived

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

954 Journal of Family Issues

with a surrogate parent, such as a grandmother, aunt, or foster parent, or with

no parent or parent-like figure. These adolescents were more likely to be

born into single-parent families and to experience more family instability

than all others.

The third measure captured duration, or the number of years in which

adolescents resided in their Wave 1 family structure. This measure ranges

from 1 to an adolescent’s age at Wave 1, depending on the adolescent’s

family structure history. For instance, an adolescent who has always lived

with both biological parents or with only his single mother will have a dura-

tion value equal to his age, but an adolescent who has spent the past 3 years

living with her single father following a spell with her single mother will

have a duration value of 3. Because duration can vary among adolescents

in the same family type, these six independent measures were entered

together in regression models (Hao & Xie, 2002). Measures of family struc-

ture at Wave 1 and duration in this structure distinguished between married-

and cohabiting-stepparent unions.

The fourth measure, cumulative family instability, was a count that

increased by 1 for each transition from one family structure status to another,

from birth to Wave 1. For example, an adolescent born into a two–biologi-

cal parent family who then resided with her single mother at age 5 and who

then lived with her single father from age 8 through Wave 1 would have a

family instability score of 2. Likewise, an adolescent who resided in a

mother-only family or a two–biological parent family through Wave 1

would each have an instability score of 0 (Cavanagh, Schiller, & Riegle-

Crumb, 2006). The final measure divided up the number of cumulative family

transitions into three development stages: early childhood, or the number

of changes from birth through age 5; middle childhood, or the number of

changes from age 6 through 11; and early adolescence, or the number of

changes from age 12 through Wave 1.

These family structure measures have a few caveats. No distinction

between formal (marriage) and informal (cohabitation) unions was made

in the construction of measures reflecting two–biological parent families or

family instability. Consequently, those born into a cohabiting two–biological

parent family were included with married two–biological parent families

and married two–adoptive parent families, and a transition from cohabita-

tion to marriage for a given couple (biological parents or not) was not

included in measures of family instability. Recall, however, that distinc-

tions between cohabiting- and married-stepparent families at Wave 1 are

identified. Moreover, if sample members experienced multiple family struc-

tures in a given year, only one of the statuses is reflected in these measures.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Finally, transitions that a child experienced that are separate from her or his

resident parent’s transitions were not included (e.g., a child of divorced

parents may have lived for a period with his aunt and experienced her

divorce and remarriage but at the time of Wave 1 was living with his bio-

logical mother). These limitations underestimate the level of family insta-

bility and the time spent in cohabiting families for this sample.

Four indicators that tapped parenting practices and family relationships, each

measured at Wave 1, were constructed. Beginning with family relationships,

family connectedness was the mean response to four items (0 = low, 4 = high)

that asked adolescents how much people in their family understood them, how

much they and their family had fun together, how much they wanted to leave

home (reversed), and how much their family paid attention to them (α=.74).

Second, a series of items asked adolescents about their level of closeness to their

resident mother and father, as well as their closeness to their nonresident bio-

logical mother and father, if applicable; their satisfaction in their relationship

with their resident mother and father; the extent to which they felt their resident

mother and father was warm and loving to them and cared for them; and about

their satisfaction with their communication with their resident mother and father.

Items were asked about each parent separately. To allow for the range of parental

figures to be considered in this measure, the maximum value for each item was

selected (i.e., the maximum score on satisfaction in relationships with resident

mother and father). Because the closeness-to-parent item was asked of resident

parents and nonresident biological parents, the maximum mother questions (res-

ident and nonresident) and the maximum father questions (resident and nonres-

ident) were calculated, and then the maximum of these measures was used to

calculate the final measure. Parent–adolescent closeness was the mean response

(0 = low, 4 = high) of these five items (α=.85).

These dimensions of family relationships are often combined into a sin-

gle scale (e.g., Crosnoe, 2004; Resnick et al., 1997), but researchers suggest

that global measures of family relationships obscure the mechanisms by

which family processes explain adolescent development (Dorius, Bahr,

Hoffman, & Harmon, 2004). Because of the focus on diverse family

forms—which included parents as well as full, step-, and half siblings—

uncoupling these aspects of family relationships was important. Although

these items were correlated, the r was less than .55.

Turning to parenting behaviors, parental control was based on seven items

that asked adolescents if they made all their own decisions about curfew on

weekends, friends, clothes, how much television to watch, which television

shows to watch, time to go to bed on weeknights, and what to eat. Each item

was reverse coded so that higher values indicated greater parental control.

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 955

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

956 Journal of Family Issues

The index averaged these items across adolescent reports (α=.63). Parental

presence, ranging from 0 to 4, indicated whether a parent was present in the

home most or all of the time when the adolescent went to school in the morn-

ing, came home from school in the afternoon, ate evening meals (five to seven

dinners a week), and went to bed at night (α=.32).

Four individual-level controls, all measured at Wave 1, were included in all

analyses. Age and gender account for adolescents’ differential opportunities to

experience family structure change (age) as well as emotional distress and

drug use (Hoffman & Johnson, 1998; Umberson, Williams, & Anderson,

2002). Adolescents’ race and ethnicity (dummy variables for non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic Black, Asian American, and other) and immigrant-

generation status were also controlled to account for unmeasured characteris-

tics of social location and culture associated with family structure history,

emotional distress, and drug use (Gil, Vega, & Biafora, 1998; Hoffman &

Johnson, 1998; Hogan & Kitagawa, 1985). First-generation immigrants were

foreign-born youth of parents who were not born in the United States, or they

were U.S. citizens born abroad who migrated to this country as children.

Second-generation immigrants were born in the United States but had at least

one foreign-born parent. Third-generation immigrants (and above) included

adolescents born in the United States to U.S.-born parents (Harris, 1999).

Three Wave 1 family-level controls were included. First, parents’ educa-

tional attainment, based on parent reports, was measured as the highest

number of years of schooling completed by the parent and her or his cur-

rent partner. Responses were coded into four dummy variables: college

education or more, some college education, high school graduation or GED

(reference category), or less than a high school education. Adolescent

reports were used when parent reports were missing (n = 1,441). For ado-

lescents who were missing both parent reports and self-reports of parent

education, parents’ educational attainment was coded as high school grad-

uate and a missing flag was included in the analyses (n = 82). Low family

income, again based on parent reports, was a binary measure that indicated

whether the family earned less than $32,000 per year. Those for whom

income information was missing were included in the reference category,

with a binary variable indicating missing data. Finally, the number of

children in the home was also controlled in these analyses.

Analytic Techniques

The first objective of this study was to develop measures of parents’ mar-

ital histories. Descriptive analyses explored these dimensions. The second

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

objective concerned the association between these histories and adolescent

adjustment. I explored these associations with a series of ordinary least

squares (OLS) regression models (when predicting emotional distress) and

logistic regressions models (when predicting marijuana use). Each dimen-

sion of family structure history was estimated separately to determine

which measure of family structure history resulted in the best-fitting model.

Given the large number of models estimated for each outcome, two mea-

sures of model fit are presented: the negative log likelihood (for logistic

regression models) or R

(for OLS regression models) and the BIC

(Bayesian information criterion) statistic. The BIC statistic is calculated as

–χ

+ df(ln N), where df is the degrees of freedom associated with the model

being estimated, N is the sample size (12,843), and χ

is the likelihood ratio

for testing the estimated model to a model with no covariates. The BIC sta-

tistic is negative when the estimated model is a better fit than the null

model; models with more negative BIC values fit the data better than do

those with less negative values.

All statistics are presented; however, following Teachman (2003), I

place greater emphasis on differences in the BIC statistics. Because con-

ventional test statistics are influenced by sample size and the number of

variables in the model, it is difficult to reject poor-fitting models using the

log likelihood statistic or R

. More important, substantively uninteresting

differences between models can be considered to be statistically significant

when sample sizes are large. Given these limitations and the large sample

in Add Health, the BIC statistic is a useful tool for model selection

(Rafferty, 1995).

The third objective concerned the role of family processes in explaining

or mediating the link between family structure histories and adolescent

adjustment. Each of the linkages among family structure history, dimen-

sions of family processes, and adolescent adjustment was tested in a multi-

variate context (Baron & Kenny, 1986), but for the sake of brevity, only

findings from models that include parenting behaviors (i.e., parental pres-

ence, parental supervision) and relationship factors (i.e., parent–child

closeness, family connectedness) are presented, estimated separately and

then jointly with family history measures from the best-fitting model iden-

tified in the second objective (full results available upon request).

All analyses used sampling weights to adjust for Add Health’s complex

sampling design. A robust cluster estimator was also used to adjust standard

errors for the clustered nature of the sampling frame (StataCorp, 2001).

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 957

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Results

Family Structure Histories

The first objective of this study concerned the measurement of parents’

marital histories. The following section explores these family structure

history measures in depth (Table 2). The first dimension was the timing of

family structure statuses. Most children spent their first year of life in

two–biological parent or two–adoptive parent families (80%); about 19%

resided in single-parent families; and a handful resided in stepparent

families (1%). By early adolescence, more heterogeneity in family structure

was evident. Although two–biological parent families remained the modal

family type (58%), about a quarter of children resided in single-parent

families (21% with mother, 3% with father); another 16% resided in step-

parent families (13% with a parent and his or her married partner, 3% with

a parent and his or her cohabiting partner); and 3% resided in homes with

no parent figure present.

Duration in Wave 1 family structure was also considered. Not surprisingly,

those in two–biological parent families lived longest in their current family

structure (M = 14.96 years), followed by those in mother-only families

(M = 8.77), married-stepparent families (M = 8.09), father-only families

(M = 5.97), families with no parent figure present (M = 5.33), and finally,

cohabiting-stepparent families (M = 5.16).

Regarding family instability, most children experienced no family struc-

ture change from birth though Wave 1, but about a third of the sample expe-

rienced the exit or entry of a parent or a parent’s romantic partner at least

one time. About 19% experienced one family transition, 13% experienced

two, 4% experienced three, and 1% experienced four or more family struc-

ture transitions from birth through early adolescence. Examining family

instability at different developmental stages, about 13% of young people

experienced at least one transition during early childhood; about 17% expe-

rienced at least one family transition between ages 6 and 11 (about 5%

experiencing two or more transitions during this life stage); and about 15%

experienced at least one transition during adolescence (about 5% experi-

encing two or more transitions). Not surprisingly, in comparison with the

sample as a whole, adolescents who were older at Wave 1 and who there-

fore had more opportunity to experience family structure change during

adolescence reported more transitions during this development stage than

did others.

958 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 959

Family Structure History and Adolescent Emotional Distress

The second objective of this study was to investigate the association

between dimensions of family structure history and adolescent adjustment.

The first set of multivariate regression models sought to identify the aspects

of family structure history that best predicted adolescent reports of emo-

tional distress (Table 3).

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Family Structure History

Variables (N

12,843)

Variable MSE% n

Family structure at birth

Two–biological or adoptive parents 80.2 10,176

Stepparent family 1.3 179

Single parent family 18.5 2,488

Family structure at Wave 1

Two–biological parent family 58.3 7,310

Married stepparent family 13.3 1,749

Cohabiting stepparent family 2.5 307

Mother-only family 20.7 2,764

Father-only family 2.8 348

Other family form 2.5 365

Cumulative family instability 0.62 0.02

Number of transitions

0 63.3 8,130

1 18.5 2,379

2 13.0 1,671

3 3.6 467

4 1.1 146

5+ 0.4 51

Family transitions between

Ages 0 and 5 0.17 0.01

Ages 6 and 11 0.24 0.01

Ages 12 to Wave 1 0.19 0.01

Years in current family structure

Two–biological parent family 14.96 0.12 7,310

Married stepparent family 8.09 0.16 1,749

Cohabiting stepparent family 5.16 0.29 307

Mother-only family 8.77 0.18 2,764

Father-only family 5.98 0.38 348

Other family form 5.33 0.34 365

Note: All values are weighted.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 3

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Estimates Predicting Adolescent Depression (N

12,843)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

bSEbSEbSEbSEbSEbSEbSE bSE

Family structure history

Family structure at birth

Single-parent family 0.022*** 0.00 0.013** 0.00

Stepparent family 0.021 0.02 0.016 0.02

Family structure at Wave 1

Married stepparent 0.020*** 0.01 0.016* 0.01 0.007 0.01

Cohabiting stepparent 0.041*** 0.01 0.036** 0.01 0.028* 0.01

Single-mother family 0.018*** 0.00 0.016** 0.00 0.009 0.00

Single-father family 0.046*** 0.01 0.043** 0.01 0.034** 0.01

Other family type 0.039*** 0.01 0.035** 0.01 0.027* 0.01

Number of years in Wave 1 family

structure

Two–biological parent family –0.001*** 0.00

Married stepparent 0.002 0.00

Cohabiting stepparent 0.000 0.00

Single-mother family 0.000 0.00

Single-father family 0.004

†

0.00

Other family type 0.003 0.00

Family instability

Cumulative change 0.009*** 0.00 0.002 0.00 0.004 0.00

Ages 0–5 0.009** 0.00

Ages 6–11 0.005 0.00

Ages 12–Wave 1 0.012*** 0.00

(continued)

960

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 3 (continued)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

bSEbSEbSEbSEbSEbSEbSE bSE

Individual characteristics

Male –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00

Age 0.010*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00 0.010*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00

Race and ethnicity

African American 0.017*** 0.01 0.012* 0.01 0.012* 0.01 0.011* 0.01 0.016** 0.01 0.016** 0.01 0.012* 0.01 0.010* 0.01

Asian American 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01 0.051*** 0.01

Latino/Latina 0.033*** 0.01 0.032*** 0.01 0.032*** 0.01 0.032*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01 0.032*** 0.01 0.032*** 0.01

Other –0.007 0.01 –0.008 0.01 –0.009*** 0.01 –0.009 0.01 –0.009 0.01 –0.009 0.01 –0.009 0.01 –0.009 0.01

Children of immigrants –0.019** 0.01 –0.017** 0.01 –0.018** 0.01 –0.017** 0.01 –0.018** 0.01 –0.019** 0.01 –0.018** 0.01 –0.018** 0.01

Family characteristics

Parents’ educational attainment

Less than high school 0.026*** 0.01 0.030*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01 0.035*** 0.01 0.034*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01 0.032*** 0.01

Some college education –0.004 0.00 –0.004 0.00 –0.005 0.00 –0.005 0.00 –0.005 0.00 –0.005 0.00 –0.005 0.00 –0.005 0.00

At least college graduation –0.020*** 0.00 –0.022*** 0.00 –0.022*** 0.00 –0.022*** 0.00 –0.023*** 0.00 –0.022*** 0.00 –0.022*** 0.00 –0.022*** 0.00

Missing education 0.050 0.03 0.050 0.03 0.048 0.01 0.047 0.03 0.051 0.03 0.050 0.03 0.049 0.01 0.048 0.03

Household income

Income less than $32,000 0.020*** 0.00 0.012** 0.00 0.010* 0.00 0.009* 0.00 0.012** 0.00 0.012** 0.00 0.011** 0.00 0.010** 0.00

Missing income 0.005 0.01 0.004 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.006 0.01 0.006 0.01 0.006 0.01 0.005 0.01

Total number of siblings in home 0.003 0.00 0.003

†

0.00 0.004* 0.00 0.004* 0.00 0.003 0.00 0.003

†

0.00 0.004* 0.00 0.004* 0.00

Intercept –0.128 0.02 –0.129 0.02 –0.132 0.02 –0.128 0.02 –0.134 0.02 –0.128 0.02 –0.136 0.02 –0.134 0.02

.082 .082 .085 .085 .082 .081 .085 .086

BIC′ –909 –945 –958 –943 –950 –926 –951 –944

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

961

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The results shown in Model 1, the baseline model, indicate that most of

the individual and family control variables were significantly associated

with adolescent emotional distress. Older youth, girls, adolescents of color

(i.e., African American, Asian American, and Latino/Latina), and those in

lower-income households and with less-educated parents were significantly

more distressed than others. At the same time, adolescents whose parents

were immigrants were less distressed. Models 2, 3, and 4 added family struc-

ture statuses at different points in young people’s life courses. Results from

Model 2 suggest that when compared to those born into two–biological

parent or two–adoptive parent families, those born into single-parent

families were more depressed in adolescence. Those born into stepparent

families did not differ from those in two–biological parent or two–adoptive

parent families. Results from Model 3 indicate that adolescents living in

any type of alternative family at Wave 1 were significantly more depressed

at Wave 2 than were those in two–biological parent families. The family

structure effect appeared strongest among young people in cohabiting-step-

parent and single-father families. Additional analyses indicate that young

people in these family forms do not differ from one another on the measure

of emotional distress but are more depressed than those in mother-only

families and married-stepparent families (as well as those in two–biological

parent families).

Model 4 included indicators of family structure duration. These results

indicate that the longer that young people resided in married two–biological

parent or two–adoptive parent families, the less emotionally distressed they

were. Conversely, those who resided in father-only families for longer peri-

ods were somewhat more depressed. The BIC statistics associated with the

models indicate that all models fit the data better than does the baseline

model. Comparing the fit between Model 2 (BIC′=–945), Model 3 (BIC′=

–958), and Model 4 (BIC′=–943) suggests family structure at adolescence

best predicts adolescent depression.

Models 5 and 6 tested dimensions of family instability. Cumulative

family instability (Model 5) and instability in early childhood and adoles-

cence (Model 6) were significantly associated with adolescent emotional

distress. Again, the BIC statistics associated with these models indicate that

both fit the data better than the baseline model and that cumulative family

instability (BIC′=–950) fit the data better than instability measured at dif-

ferent stages across the early life course (BIC′=–926).

The last two models included dimensions of family structure timing and

family instability. Model 7 included indicators of timing and instability that

best fit the data—family structure at Wave 1 and cumulative family instability.

962 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 963

Model 8 added indicators of family structure at birth. Beginning with Model

7, the simultaneous consideration of family structure at Wave 1 and cumula-

tive instability altered the associations between these aspects of family struc-

ture history and emotional distress. For instance, cumulative family instability

was no longer associated with emotional distress once family structure at

adolescence was taken into account. Similarly, the strength of the associa-

tions between family structure statuses and depression were modestly

reduced, suggesting that part of the family structure effect is explained

by the instability that preceded it. Turning to Model 8, the addition of

family structure at birth also changed the strength of associations between

family structure history and emotional distress. Net of subsequent family

structure change, young people born into single-parent families remained

significantly more depressed in adolescence than those born into two–

biological parent or two–adoptive parent families. At the same time, the

associations between family structure at adolescence and emotional distress

was attenuated, with young people residing in married-stepparent families

and single-parent families during adolescence no longer significantly more

distressed than those in two–biological parent families.

Which specification of family structure history best explained the relation-

ship between family structure and adolescent emotional distress? The BIC sta-

tistics indicate that Model 3 (BIC′=–958), the more parsimonious model that

included only family structure at adolescence, better fit the data than did

Model 7 (BIC′=–951) and Model 8 (BIC′=–944). Therefore, current family

structure alone best predicted adolescent emotional distress in adolescence.

Family Structure History and

Adolescent Current Marijuana Use

A similar set of logistic regression models was estimated to determine

which aspects of family structure history best predicted current marijuana

use (see Table 4). Beginning with Model 1, older youth, Latino/Latinas,

those in the residual race and ethnicity category, and those whose resident

parents had some college education were more likely to recently use mari-

juana, whereas those who were children of immigrants and in families with

more siblings were less likely to engage in this behavior.

Models 2, 3, and 4 added family structure statuses at different points in

young people’s lives. According to Model 2, being born into single-parent

families increased the odds of current marijuana use by 48%. As with

emotional distress, those born into stepparent families did not differ from

those in two–biological parent or two–adoptive parent families. Living in

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

964

Table 4

Logistic Regression Estimates Predicting Current Marijuana Use in Adolescence (N

12,843)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Family structure history

Family structure at birth

Single-parent family 0.39*** 1.48 0.11 1.12

Stepparent family 0.37 1.45 0.37 1.45

Family structure at Wave 1

Married stepparent 0.39*** 1.47 0.17

†

1.18 0.07 1.07

Cohabiting stepparent 1.09*** 2.97 0.86*** 2.36 0.77*** 2.16

Single-mother family 0.56*** 1.75 0.43*** 1.53 0.36*** 1.43

Single-father family 0.77*** 2.15 0.60*** 1.83 0.52*** 1.68

Other family type 0.57*** 1.77 0.39* 1.47 0.30

†

1.35

Number of years in Wave 1

family structure

Two–biological parent family –0.04*** 0.96

Married stepparent –0.03** 0.97

Cohabiting stepparent 0.06* 1.06

Single-mother family –0.01 0.99

Single-father family 0.00 1.00

Other family type 0.02 1.02

Family instability

Cumulative change 0.23*** 1.26 0.12*** 1.13 0.14*** 1.15

Ages 0 –5 0.22*** 1.24

Ages 6–11 0.19*** 1.21

Ages 12–Wave 1 0.26*** 1.30

Individual characteristics

Male 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 –0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00

Age 0.17*** 1.19 0.17*** 1.19 0.17*** 1.19 0.20*** 1.22 0.17*** 1.19 0.17*** 1.19 0.17*** 1.19 0.17*** 1.19

(continued)

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

965

Table 4 (continued)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Race and ethnicity

African American –0.25 0.78 –0.34** 0.71 –0.39*** 0.68 –0.39*** 0.68 –0.29* 0.75 –0.29* 0.75 –0.40*** 0.67 –0.39*** 0.68

Asian American –0.08 0.92 –0.07 0.93 –0.06 0.94 –0.06 0.94 –0.06 0.94 –0.06 0.94 –0.06 0.94 –0.06 0.94

Latino/Latina 0.41** 1.51 0.39** 1.47 0.39** 1.47 0.39** 1.47 0.41*** 1.51 0.42*** 1.52 0.40*** 1.49 0.39*** 1.48

Other 0.63** 1.88 0.62* 1.85 0.59* 1.80 0.58* 1.78 0.59* 1.80 0.59* 1.80 0.58** 1.79 0.58* 1.79

Children of immigrants –0.49*** 0.61 –0.46*** 0.63 –0.45** 0.64 –0.45** 0.64 –0.48*** 0.62 –0.48*** 0.62 –0.46*** 0.63 –0.46*** 0.63

Family characteristics

Parents’ educational attainment

Less than high school 0.02 1.02 –0.01 0.99 –0.01 0.99 –0.01 0.99 0.03 1.03 0.03 1.03 –0.01 0.99 –0.02 0.98

Some college education 0.26** 1.30 0.25** 1.29 0.25** 1.28 0.25** 1.28 0.25** 1.28 0.25** 1.28 0.24** 1.27 0.24** 1.27

At least college graduation 0.11 1.12 0.14 1.15 0.16 1.17 0.16 1.17 0.14 1.15 0.14 1.15 0.16

†

1.17 0.17

†

1.19

Missing education 0.24 1.27 0.22 1.24 0.25 1.28 –0.22 0.80 0.31 1.36 0.31 1.36 0.28 1.32 0.28 1.32

Household income

Income less than 32,000 0.09 1.09 0.04 1.04 –0.08 0.93 –0.05 0.95 0.02 1.02 0.02 1.02 –0.07 0.93 –0.07 0.93

Missing income –0.13 0.88 –0.15 0.86 –0.16 0.85 –0.16 0.85 –0.13 0.88 –0.13 0.88 –0.16 0.85 –0.17 0.84

Number of children –0.09** 0.91 –0.08** 0.92 –0.06* 0.94 –0.06* 0.94 –0.08** 0.92 –0.08** 0.92 –0.06* 0.94 –0.06* 0.94

in the home

–2 log likelihood –7,137 –7,110 –7,045 –7,049 –7,074 –7,078 –7,036 –7,033

BIC′ –205 –241 –342 –325 –321 –294 –350 –337

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

any alternative family structure during adolescence increased the odds of

marijuana use by at least 47% (Model 3). The observed effect was strongest

for young people in cohabiting-stepparent families. The likelihood that

these young people recently used marijuana was significantly greater than

all others, except those in father-only families.

Duration in current family structure was also important (Model 4).

Specifically, the longer that young people resided in married-parent

families—either with two biological/adoptive parents or with a biological

parent and his or her married partner—the less likely they were to use mar-

ijuana. Conversely, young people who resided in cohabiting families for

longer periods, net of other factors, were more likely to use marijuana.

Although each model highlighted interesting links between family structure

history and adolescent marijuana use and the BIC statistics indicate that all

models fit the data better than the baseline model does, the model fit statis-

tics favored Model 3 (BIC′=–241 for Model 2, BIC′=–342 for Model 3,

BIC′=–325 for Model 4). Again, measures of family structure in adolescence

best predicted lifetime marijuana use.

Both cumulative family instability (Model 5) and instability at each

stage of the early life course (Model 6) were significantly associated with

marijuana use. As illustrated in Model 5, each transition in childhood liv-

ing arrangement was associated with a 26% increase in the odds of using

marijuana. The BIC statistics associated with these models indicate that

both fit the data better than the baseline model does, but cumulative family

instability (BIC′=–321 in Model 5) better fit the data than did family insta-

bility at different stages (BIC′=–294 in Model 6).

As with emotional distress, Models 7 and 8 included dimensions of family

structure timing and family instability when predicting current marijuana use.

Model 7 included indicators of family structure at adolescence and cumula-

tive family instability—dimensions of family structure and family instability

that best fit the data. Model 8 added family structure at birth. Beginning with

Model 7, once cumulative family instability was taken into account, the coef-

ficients associated with each family structure status during adolescence were

reduced by at least 20%, with more than half the negative association

between marijuana use and living in a married-stepparent family, for

instance, explained by the instability that preceded it (b = 0.39 in Model 3,

b = 0.17 in Model 7). With the exception of married-stepparent families, all

family structure measures remained significantly associated with the likeli-

hood of adolescent marijuana use. The coefficient associated with cumulative

family instability was also reduced by nearly half (b = 0.23 in Model 5, b =

0.12 in Model 7). Family structure at birth was added to Model 8. Neither

966 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

indicator of family structure at birth was associated with marijuana use in

adolescence. The effects of family structure at Wave 1 were modestly atten-

uated, and the coefficient associated with cumulative instability changed little

once family structure at birth was controlled. The BIC statistics associated

with Models 7 and 8 indicate that both fit the data better than the baseline

model does, but indicators of family structure at adolescence and cumulative

instability (BIC′=–350 in Model 7) better fit the data than did indicators in

Model 8 (BIC′=–337) and all other models.

Worth noting is that the associations between the control variables in

models predicting adolescent depression and current marijuana use changed

little once aspects of family structure history were added to the model. The

effect of being African American on both outcomes, however, did change

once family structure was taken into account. Beginning with emotional

distress, African American youth were significantly more depressed than

Whites, net of individual and family factors (Model 1 in Table 3). This

effect was attenuated but still significant once family structure was taken

into account, suggesting that part of the African American disadvantage in

mental health is explained by differences in family composition. Turning to

current marijuana use, African American youth did not differ from other

youth in the baseline model (Model 1 in Table 4). Differences between

African American and Whites emerged once family structure status was

taken into account; that is, African American youth were significantly less

likely to use once family structure was specified. Together, changes in the

associations among race, family structure, and adolescent adjustment sug-

gest that African American youth look about the same or better than Whites

once family structure is held constant.

The Role of the Family Environment

The final objective of this study was to investigate the degree to which

aspects of the family environment explained the link between family struc-

ture history and adolescent adjustment. Building on the best-fitting model

identified in the prior section, this set of analyses explored whether parent-

ing behaviors (i.e., parental supervision and control) and relationships

within the family (i.e., parent–adolescent closeness and family connected-

ness) mediated the associations between family structure history and the

two indicators of adolescent adjustment.

The baseline for analyses of emotional distress included only measures

of family structure at Wave 1 (Model 1; see Table 5). Parental control and

parental presence were added in Model 2. Each was significantly associated

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 967

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

with emotional distress, positively for parental control and negatively for

parental presence. With the exception of the residual family category, the

coefficients associated with each family structure status were attenuated

once these behaviors were taken into account, but all remained statistically

significant. The reduction was strongest for youth in father-only families,

where the effect was reduced by more than half (b = 0.046 in Model 1, b =

0.022 in Model 2).

Indicators of parent–adolescent closeness and family connectedness were

added in Model 3. These factors were both negatively associated with emo-

tional distress. Once taken into account, the effects were attenuated across

all current family structure statuses, with the married- and cohabiting-step-

parent family and mother-only family effects no longer significant at con-

ventional levels. These reductions suggest that the family structure effects

associated with these kinds of families were explained by differences in the

quality of family relationships. Model 4 considered the joint role of all

family environment measures. Each measure remained significantly associ-

ated with emotional distress. And with the exception of the residual family

category, the coefficients for all current family structure statuses were

reduced and no longer significant at conventional levels. The BIC statistic

(BIC′=–2,332) indicates that Model 4 is by far the best-fitting model for

adolescent emotional distress.

The best-fitting model previously identified served as the baseline for

the current marijuana use analyses (Table 6). Parental control and presence

were added, and both predicted lower lifetime marijuana use (Model 2).

The magnitude of the family structure and family instability coefficients

was reduced once these factors were taken into account. The greatest reduc-

tion in the family structure effect again involved father-only families, with

differences in indicators of social control reducing this coefficient by about

half (b = 0.60 in Model 1, b = 0.27 in Model 2). These family factors had

little effect on the cumulative family instability coefficient.

Parent–adolescent closeness was modestly associated with current mar-

ijuana use. Family connectedness, however, was significantly related to this

outcome, with a one-unit increase in family connectedness associated with

a 45% decrease in the odds of current marijuana use (Model 3). Once taken

into account, the family structure and cumulative family instability effects

were attenuated but remained statistically significant.

When considering the joint role of parenting behaviors and family relation-

ships (Model 4), only coefficients associated with cohabiting-stepparent

families and single mother families remained significantly associated with mar-

ijuana use. Cumulative family instability remained significantly associated

968 Journal of Family Issues

(text continues on page 973)

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 5

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Estimates Predicting Adolescent Depression,

Net of Parenting Behaviors (N

12,843)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

bSEbSEbSEbSE

Family structure history

Family structure at Wave 1

Married stepparent 0.020*** 0.01** 0.016 0.01 0.009

†

0.01 0.008 0.01

Cohabiting stepparent 0.041*** 0.01** 0.034 0.01 0.019

†

0.01 0.018 0.01

Single-mother family 0.018*** 0.00** 0.012 0.00 0.009

†

0.00 0.008

†

0.00

Single-father family 0.046*** 0.01* 0.022 0.01 0.022* 0.01 0.015 0.01

Other family type 0.039*** 0.01*** 0.038 0.01 0.030** 0.01 0.030** 0.01

Parenting behaviors

Parental presence –0.015*** 0.00 –0.006*** 0.00

Parental control 0.005*** 0.00 0.006*** 0.00

Parent–adolescent closeness –0.018*** 0.00 –0.017*** 0.00

Family connectedness –0.050*** 0.00 –0.049*** 0.00

Individual characteristics

Male –0.052*** 0.00 –0.052*** 0.00 –0.045*** 0.00 –0.046*** 0.00

Age 0.009*** 0.00 0.009*** 0.00 0.003* 0.00 0.004*** 0.00

Race and ethnicity

African American 0.012* 0.01 0.009

†

0.01 0.016** 0.00 0.014** 0.01

Asian American 0.051*** 0.01 0.048*** 0.01 0.046*** 0.01 0.045*** 0.01

Latino/Latina 0.032*** 0.01 0.030*** 0.01 0.034*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01

Other –0.009 0.01 –0.009 0.01 –0.013 0.02 –0.012 0.02

Children of immigrants –0.018** 0.01 –0.019** 0.01 –0.015* 0.01 –0.016** 0.01

(continued)

969

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Family characteristics

Parents’ educational attainment

Less than high school 0.033*** 0.01 0.034*** 0.01 0.034*** 0.01 0.033*** 0.01

Some college education –0.005 0.00 –0.006 0.00 –0.007 0.00 –0.028 0.00

At least college graduation –0.022*** 0.00 –0.024*** 0.00 –0.023*** 0.00 –0.023*** 0.00

Missing education 0.048 0.01 0.033 0.01 0.031 0.01 0.032** 0.01

Household income

Income less than 32,000 0.010* 0.00 0.010* 0.00 –0.008* 0.00 0.008* 0.00

Missing income 0.005 0.01 0.007 0.01 0.009 0.01 0.009 0.01

Number of children in the home 0.004* 0.00 0.004* 0.00 0.003

†

0.00 0.002

†

0.00

Intercept –0.132 0.02 –0.102 0.02 0.218 0.03 0.199 0.03

.085 .096 .176 .181

BIC′ –958 –1,096 –2,281 –2,332

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

970

Table 5 (continued)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

bSEbSEbSEbSE

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 6

Logistic Regression Estimates Predicting Adolescent Lifetime Marijuana Use,

Net of Parenting Behaviors (N

12,843)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Family structure history

Family structure at Wave 1

Married stepparent 0.17

†

1.18 0.16 1.17 0.10 1.11 0.10 1.11

Cohabiting stepparent 0.86*** 2.36 0.75*** 2.12 0.71*** 2.03 0.65*** 1.92

Single-mother family 0.43*** 1.53 0.33*** 1.39 0.36*** 1.43 0.31*** 1.36

Single-father family 0.60*** 1.83 0.27 1.31 0.41** 1.51 0.24 1.27

Other family type 0.39* 1.47 0.39* 1.48 0.33

†

1.39 0.34

†

1.40

Cumulative family instability 0.12*** 1.13 0.10** 1.11 0.10* 1.10 0.10* 1.11

Parenting behaviors

Parental presence –0.20*** 0.82 –0.11** 0.90

Parental control –0.08*** 0.92 –0.07*** 0.93

Parent–adolescent closeness –0.14

†

0.87 –0.13 0.88

Family connectedness –0.60*** 0.55 –0.58*** 0.56

Individual characteristics

Male 0.00 1.00 0.13 1.01 0.08 1.08 0.09* 1.09

Age 0.17*** 1.19 0.01*** 1.14 0.11*** 1.12 0.08*** 1.08

(continued)

971

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Race and ethnicity

African American –0.40*** 0.67 –0.40*** 0.67 –0.34** 0.71 –0.36** 0.70

Asian American –0.06 0.94 –0.11 0.90 –0.12 0.89 –0.14 0.87

Latino/Latina 0.40*** 1.49 0.39*** 1.48 0.43*** 1.53 0.43*** 1.53

Other 0.58** 1.79 0.55* 1.74 0.58* 1.79 0.56

†

1.75

Children of immigrants –0.46*** 0.63 –0.45*** 0.64 –0.43** 0.65 –0.43** 0.65

Family characteristics

Parents’ educational attainment

Less than high school –0.01 0.99 0.05 1.05 0.02 1.02 0.06 1.06

Some college education 0.24** 1.27 0.22** 1.25 0.23** 1.26 0.22** 1.25

At least college graduation 0.16

†

1.17 0.13 1.14 0.17

†

1.19 0.16

†

1.17

Missing education 0.28 1.32 –0.19 0.83 0.09 1.09 –0.17 0.84

Household income

Income less than 32,000 –0.07 0.93 –0.05 0.95 –0.09 0.91 –0.08 0.92

Missing income –0.16 0.85 –0.13 0.88 –0.15 0.86 –0.13 0.88

Number of children in the home –0.06* 0.94 –0.05

†

0.95 –0.08* 0.92 –0.07* 0.93

–2 log likelihood –7,036 –6,977 –6,732 –6,708

BIC′ –350 –450 –917 –946

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 6 (continued)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

972

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

with current use. The BIC statistic for this model (BIC′=–946) indicates

that it was by far the best-fitting model estimated for this outcome.

Conclusion

The “ideal” structure of families continues to be a great source of debate

among the American public as well as among social scientists and policy

makers. This study sought to contribute to this debate by integrating the life

course perspective and the family process paradigm with an important data

source that combines detailed information about adolescents and their

families. Three key themes emerged from this research.

The first concerns the complexity of adolescent living arrangements. The

Add Health study design allowed for the construction of retrospective family

structure histories covering birth through adolescence. It is important to note

that these histories likely underreported family change. Adolescents may not

know their family context during their earliest years, or they may not know

enough about the relationships that their mothers and fathers had with their

respective partners to decide whether they were cohabiting or not (Raley &

Wildsmith, 2004), notwithstanding other data limitations already discussed.

Still, these measures reflect adolescent perceptions of their families (White,

1998) and highlight how change and instability within the family define the

experience of a growing proportion of American youth.

Although most adolescents in this sample were born into two–biological

parent families, the family experiences of these young people became much

more complex by adolescence. At Wave 1, more than 40% of young people

resided in a home without both biological parents. Moving beyond single-

parent or stepparent designations, the household roster format revealed that

although most youth in alternative families were residing in mother-only or

married-stepparent families, a nontrivial proportion of young people lived

in father-only families, cohabiting-stepparent families, and other family

forms. Reflecting these shifts in family structure, about a third of the sam-

ple experienced a family transition by Wave 1, with those who experienced

at least one change reporting an average of nearly two family structure

changes. Consequently, these young people spent time adjusting to house-

holds with varying family compositions as well as differing rules and

expectations about behaviors as they underwent the myriad social, psycho-

logical, and biological changes marking childhood and adolescence.

The second theme relates to the linked lives of parents and children, how

timing and stability in family structure shape adolescent adjustment. This

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 973

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

study operationalized family instability in two ways: instability at different

developmental stages and cumulative family instability. Family structure

timing was operationalized in three ways: family structure at birth, family

structure during adolescence, and time or duration in a family structure

status during adolescence. Beginning with instability, cumulative family

instability was the better predictor of adolescent adjustment and in the case

of current drug use, remained significantly associated with this behavior, net

of a host of family and individual characteristics, including family structure

at adolescence. Turning to the timing of family structure, family structure at

adolescence was most strongly related to both dimensions of adolescent

adjustment, net of cumulative instability plus a host of individual and family

characteristics. For both outcomes, young people in cohabiting-stepparent

families and father-only families were among the most likely to be

emotionally distressed and currently using marijuana.

The other indicators of family structure history also inform our under-

standing of family structure and adolescent behavior. For instance, family

structure at birth was significantly related to adolescent emotional distress.

The persistence of this effect, even after family structure during adolescence

was taken into account, suggests that selection factors (e.g., the social and/or

genetic factors that predict psychological well-being of the mother and father)

play an important role in explaining differences in adolescent emotional distress.

At the same time, the effects of duration in two-parent families—two–biological

parent families as well as married- and cohabiting-stepparent families—on

current marijuana use highlight important aspects of family life. On one hand,

once duration in married-stepparent families was taken into account, adoles-

cents in these families were significantly less likely to use than others, a pat-

tern similar to the one observed in two–biological parent families. On the

other, longer durations in cohabiting-stepparent families were associated with

a higher likelihood of current use when compared to those newer to this

family form. This pattern suggests that duration alone is not what distin-

guishes stepparent and cohabiting-parent families.

A third theme relates to role of family processes in understanding the

link between family structure history and adolescent adjustment. Again,

family structure at adolescence was strongly related to both indicators of

young people’s adjustment. Theory suggests that family structure at this

development stage taps differences in social control processes in the home.

Results from the mediation analyses provide modest support for this explanation,

with, for example, the observed father-only effect on both outcomes reduced once

differences in parental presence and control were taken into account. This

suggests that one reason why young people in this family form do less well

974 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 975

may be a result of single fathers being less effective or experienced in mon-

itoring their children’s behavior and well-being (Hogan & Kitagawa, 1985;

Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Steinberg, 1990). But overall, the effects of these

social control measures were relative modest.

A more compelling explanation for why family structure matters during

adolescence relates to differences in the quality of relationships and level of

connectedness within the family. The BIC statistics in Model 3 in Tables 5

and 6 are nearly 2.5 times the size the BIC in the best-fitting family struc-

ture history model, suggesting that indicators of family relationships go a

long way in predicting adolescent emotional distress and marijuana use.

Importantly, the associations between family structure and emotional distress

were largely explained by these indicators. For instance, the coefficients asso-

ciated with married- and cohabiting-stepparent families, single-mother

families, and single-father families were reduced by at least half once these

indicators were taken into account. Moreover, the coefficients associated

with stepparent families, married or cohabiting, and single-mother families

were no longer significant at conventional levels. This finding suggests that

family relationships buffer young people in important ways as they navigate

adolescence but that the quality of these ties differs across family structure

statuses in ways that increase the emotional distress of young people.

Although these findings provide strong evidence for the linkage between

parents’ relationship histories and adolescent adjustment, a few caveats are

in order. First, although Add Health’s household roster format provided

leverage in identifying and distinguishing different family structure statuses,

it is still unclear, for instance, whether young people in two–biological

parent households are living with cohabiting or married parents and, more

generally, how issues of recall bias these reports. Another option is to use

longitudinal prospective reports of family structure, collected in a similar

way from both parent and child. Such an approach captures family change

as it is happening and can improve operationalizations of family structure

history. A second caveat relates to omitted variable bias—that is, parents’

mental health history and drug use may be driving the associations among

family structure history, parenting practices and family relationships, and

adolescent emotional distress and drug use. Unfortunately, few measures of

adult well-being were collected in Add Health. Future research using data

sets that include comprehensive measures of both parent and child well-

being (e.g., The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development;

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2006) as well

as family structure history can be used to disentangle this effect.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Also worth noting is that the parenting measures in Add Health are

nowhere near as rich as those commonly used in family research. For

instance, indicators that tap parental discipline—or better yet, parents’ own

reports of monitoring, presence in the home, or discipline—may better cap-

ture the social control processes by which family structure is related to ado-

lescent adjustment. Even with better measures, however, the mediational

framework tested here could be reinterpreted. Specifically, the more delete-

rious family processes may not be a consequence of family structure history

but are endogenous with family structure or simply co-occur in families at

greater risk for divorce, remarriage, or cohabitation (Hetherington, Bridges,

& Insabella, 1998). If this is the case, the causal sequences outlined above

are spurious. To disentangle the associations among family structure,

family processes, and adolescent adjustment further, future research should

use prospective longitudinal data that consider pre- and postdisruption mea-

sures of the family context. Such research will better illuminate how the

family shapes adolescent adjustment.

This study attempted to look at an old problem—the significance of

family structure for adolescent adjustment—in a new way by threading

together different theories with a unique data set that allows for detailed

measurement of the family. The findings help to explain the evolution of

families and its implications for the development of children.

Appendix

Emotional Distress Index

How often was each of the following true during the last week?

1. You were bothered by things that usually don’t bother you.

2. You didn’t feel like eating, your appetite was poor.

3. You felt that you couldn’t shake off the blues, even with help from your family

and friends.

4. You felt that you were just as good as other people.

5. You had trouble keeping your mind on what you were doing.

6. You felt depressed.

7. You felt that you were too tired to do things.

8. You felt hopeful about the future.

9. You thought your life had been a failure.

10. You felt fearful.

11. You were happy.

12. You talked less than usual.

13. You felt lonely.

14. People were unfriendly to you.

(continued)

976 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 977

Appendix (continued)

15. You enjoyed life.

16. You felt sad.

17. You felt that people disliked you.

18. It was hard to get started doing things.

Scale: 0 = never or rarely,1 = sometimes,2 = a lot of the time,3 = most of the time

or all the time.

Please tell me how often you have had each of the following conditions in the past

12 months.

1. Cried frequently?

2. Felt very tired, for no reason?

Scale: 0 = never,1 = just a few times,2 = about once a week,3 = almost every day,

4 = every day.

References

Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage

and Family, 62, 1269-1287.

Aseltine, R. H. (1996). Pathways linking parental divorce with adolescent emotional distress.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 133-148.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderate–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Baurmrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and sub-

stance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56-95.

Bearman, P., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (1997). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent

Health: Study design. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Carolina Population Center.

Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce

well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 197-212.

Bumpass, L. L., & Lu, H. H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s

family contexts in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.

Bumpass, L. L., Raley, R. K., & Sweet, J. A. (1995). The changing character of stepfamilies:

Implications of cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing Demography, 32, 425-436.

Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Continuity and change in the American family.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cavanagh, S. E., & Huston, A. (2006). Family instability and children’s early problem behav-

ior. Social Forces, 85, 575-605.

Cavanagh, S. E., Schiller, K., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (2006). Marital transitions, parenting, and

schooling: Exploring the linkage between family structure history and adolescents’ acade-

mic status. Sociology of Education, 79, 329-354.

Chantala, K., & Tabor, J. (1999). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health:

Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the Add Health data. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina, Carolina Population Center. Retrieved October 30, 2007,

from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/strategies.html

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. J., & Kiernan, K. E. (1995). The long-term effects of

parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A developmental perspective. Child

Development, 66, 1614-1634.

Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Going to extremes: Family structure, children’s well-being, and social

science. Demography, 36, 421-428.

Cherlin, A. J., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on

mental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63, 239-249.

Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A reconsid-

eration. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 359-381.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of

Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of

progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1288-1307.

Crosnoe, R. (2004). Social capital and the interplay of families and schools. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 66, 267-280.

Dawson, D. A. (1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being: Data from the

1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and Family,

53, 573-584.

Doherty, W. J., & Needle, R. H. (1991). Psychological adjustment and substance use among

adolescents before and after a parental divorce. Child Development, 62, 328-337.

Dorius, C. J., Bahr, S. J., Hoffman, J. P., & Harmon, E. L. (2004). Parenting practices as mod-

erators of the relationship between peers and adolescent marijuana use. Journal of

Marriage and Family, 66, 163-178.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course and human behavior. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook

of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 939-991). New

York: John Wiley.

Garasky, S., & Meyer, D. (1996). Reconsidering the increase in father-only families.

Demography, 33, 385-393.

Gil, A. G., Vega, W. A., & Biafora, F. (1998). Temporal influences of family structure and

family risk factors on drug use initiation in a multiethnic sample of adolescent boys.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 373-393.

Hamilton, B. E., Martin J. A., & Ventura S. J. (2006). Births: Preliminary data for 2005.

Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hestats/prelimbirths05/prelimbirths05.htm

Hao, L., & Xie, G. (2002). The complexity and endogeneity of family structure in explaining

children’s misbehavior. Social Science Research, 31, 1-28.

Harris, K. M. (1999). The health status and risk behavior of adolescents in immigrant families.

In D. Hernandez (Ed.), Children of immigrants: Health, adjustment, and public assistance

(pp. 286-347). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Harris, K. M., Cavanagh, S. E., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2000, March). The well-being of adoles-

cents in single-father families. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population

Association of America, Los Angeles.

Heard, H., & Harris, K. M. (2001, August). The life course effects of race, class, and family

structure on adolescent sexual behavior and fertility. Paper presented at the annual meet-

ing of the American Sociological Association, Anaheim, CA.

Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters? What does not?

Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and children’s adjustment.

American Psychologist, 53, 167-184.

978 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cavanagh / Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment 979

Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New

York: Norton.

Hill, M. S., Yeung, W. J., & Duncan, G. J. (2001). Childhood family structure and young adult

behaviors. Journal of Population Economics, 14, 271-299.

Hoffman, H. P., & Johnson, R. A. (1998). A national portrait of family structure and adoles-

cent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 633-645.

Hogan, D. P., & Kitagawa, E. M. (1985). The impact of social status, family structure, and neigh-

borhood on the fertility of black adolescents. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 825-855.

Jessor, R. (1987). Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent prob-

lem drinking. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 331-342.

Johnson, R. A., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2000). Adolescent cigarette smoking in U.S. racial/ethnic

subgroups: Findings from the National Educational Longitudinal Study. Journal of Health

and Social Behavior, 41, 392-407.

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2003). Monitoring the Future national

survey results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2002 (NIH Publication

No. 03-5374). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Liska, A. E., & Reed, M. D. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and delinquency:

Estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 50, 547-560.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, S. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child

interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 1-102). New

York: John Wiley.

McLanahan, S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American Journal of

Sociology, 90, 873-901.

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what

helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2006). NICHD Study of Early

Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved

November 1, 2007, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd.cfm

Osborne, C. (2005). Marriage following the birth of a child among cohabiting and visiting

parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 14-26.

Parson, T., &. Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. New York:

Free Press.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report emotional distress scale for research in

the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Rafferty, A. (1995). Bayesian model select in social research. Sociological Methodology, 11,

111-163.

Raley, R. K., & Wildsmith, E. (2004). Cohabitation and children’s family instability. Journal

of Marriage and Family, 66, 210-219.

Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al.

(1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study

of Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 823-832.

Simons, R. L. (1996). Understanding differences between divorced and intact families: Stress,

interaction, and child outcome. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smucker, M. R., Craighead, W. E., Craighead, L. W., & Green, B. J. (1986). Normative and

reliability data for the Children’s Emotional Distress Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 14, 25-39.

StataCorp. (2001). Stata (Release 6.0) [Statistical software]. College Station, TX: Author.

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationships. In S. S.

Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255-276).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Teachman, J. (2003). Childhood living arrangements and the formation of coresidential

unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 507-524.

Thornton, A. (1991). Influences of marital history of parents on the marital and cohabitational

experiences of children. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 868-894.

Umberson, D., Williams, K., & Anderson, K. (2002). Violent behavior: A measure of emo-

tional upset? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 189-206.

Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2000). The unexpected legacy of divorce: A 25 year

landmark study. New York: Hyperion.

White, L. K. (1998). Whose counting? Quasi-facts and stepfamilies in reports of number of

siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 725-733.

Wu, L. L., & Martinson, B. B. (1993). Family structure and the risk of a premarital birth.

American Sociological Review, 58, 210-232.

Yabiku, S. T., Axinn, W. G., & Thornton, A. (1999). Family integration and children’s self-

esteem. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1494-1524.

980 Journal of Family Issues

distribution.

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on August 10, 2008 http://jfi.sagepub.comDownloaded from

La Mediación del Apego en los Problemas de Conducta Internalizados y Externalizados y las Prácticas Parentales en Preadolescentes Mexicanos

Thesis

Full-text available

Jun 2020

Abstract: Preadolescence is a point of inflexion in development as many factors dictate the path from childhood into adolescence and most importantly, from adolescence to adulthood. It is a critical moment given that the quality of Parental Attachment and Parental Practices influence the development of Externalizing and Internalizing Problem Behaviors in preadolescents. This cross-sectional study uses preadolescent-perceived Parental Practices and quality of Parental Attachment to identify the strongest associations with Problem Behaviors across five Structural Equation Models. The total sample was comprised by 306 students from 3 public elementary schools in Mexico City (48.8% girls, age M=10 SE=0.92) from 4th (33%) 5th (31%) and 6th (36%) grades. Participants answered the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (Tay-Karapas, González, Silva, Tirado, & Córdova, 2015), the Parental Practice scales (Segura, Vallejo, Osorno, Rojas, & Reyes, 2011), the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (Escribano, Aniorte, & Orgilés, 2013) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Rivera Gutiérrez, 2013). The models presented good fit statistics and displayed 6 robust predictors across models: Maternal Communication and Autonomy, Maternal Anxious Attachment, Maternal Psychological Control, Paternal Imposition, Parental Inconsistent Discipline as well as Parental Involvement and Communication. Attachment mediation was found in Inconsistent Discipline, making it a significant predictor for both Problem Behaviors. Internalizing Problem Behaviors acted as a significant mediator for most predictors and Externalizing Problem Behaviors. Resumen: La preadolescencia es un punto de inflexión en el desarrollo ya que muchos factores dictan el camino a la adolescencia y a la adultez. Es un momento crítico ya que la calidad del Apego Parental y las Prácticas Parentales influyen en el desarrollo de Problemas de Conducta Internalizada y Externalizada en preadolescentes. Este estudio transversal utiliza las Prácticas Parentales y Apego Parental percibidos por preadolescentes para identificar las asociaciones más fuertes con los Problemas de Conducta entre cinco modelos de ecuaciones estructurales. La muestra total se conformó por 306 estudiantes de 3 primarias públicas en la Ciudad de México (48% niñas, Edad M=10 DE=0.92) de 4° (33%) 5° (31%) y 6°(36%) año. Los participantes contestaron la Escala de Experiencias en Relaciones Cercanas (Tay-Karapas et al., 2015), la Escala de Prácticas Parentales (Segura et al., 2011), el Cuestionario de Parentalidad de Alabama (Escribano et al., 2013), así como el Cuestionario de Fortalezas y Dificultades (Rivera Gutiérrez, 2013). Los modelos presentan índices de ajuste buenos y demuestran 6 predictores robustos entre los modelos: Comunicación y Autonomía Materna, Apego Ansioso Materno, Control Psicológico Materno, Imposición Paterna, Disciplina Inconsistente Parental así como Involucramiento y Comunicación Parental. La mediación del apego se identificó en Disciplina Inconsistente, que consecuentemente se volvió un predictor significativo para ambos Problemas de Conductas. Los Problemas de Conducta Internalizada actuaron como mediadores significativos para casi todos los predictores y los Problemas de Conducta Externalizada.

Aile Aidiyetine Çok Yönlü BakışA Multidirectional Perspective to Family Belonging

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2023

Bu araştırmada aile aidiyetinin tanımlanmasına, aidiyet kavramının ilişkili olduğu bağlamlar ve kuramlara ilişkin açıklamalara ve örneklere yer ver verilmiştir. Bu araştırmada aile aidiyetine çok yönlü bir bakış açısı sağlanması amaçlandığı için kuramsal araştırmalar derinlemesine incelenmiştir. Bu araştırmanın yöntemini nitel araştırma yöntemleri arasında yer alan doküman inceleme araştırması oluşturmaktadır. Aile aidiyetinde aile üyeleri arasındaki kişilerarası ilişkilerin ötesinde bütünsel karşılıklı etkileşime ve kişinin kendisini, içsel huzur gibi duygularını ifade edebildiği aile kavramına vurgu yapılmaktadır. Aile aidiyetinin tanımlanmasında ve kavramsallaştırılmasında etkili olan kuramlar arasında insancıl kuramlar ile pozitif psikolojiye işaret eden psikolojik iyi oluşa vurgu yapan kuramlar ve aile bütünselliğine, kişilerarası ilişkilere vurgu yapan sistemik aile terapisi kuramı gibi kuramlar yer almaktadır. Aile aidiyetine etki eden unsurlara bakıldığında ise aile içi paylaşımlar ve aile içinde anlam yüklenen değerler, sosyo-kültürel durumlar ve ilişkilerde rolleri dengeli sürdürme gibi durumlar öne çıkmaktadır. Bu unsurlar aynı zamanda aile aidiyetinin sağlanması ve sürdürülmesinde anahtar niteliği taşıyan unsurlar olabilmektedir. Sonuç olarak aile aidiyetinin tek boyutla ele alınabilecek bir kavram olmadığı, çeşitli kuramlar ve aile aidiyetinin ilişkili olduğu unsurlar ile bağlamlar açısından değerlendirilmesinin anlamlı olduğu söylenebilir.

Stieffamilien

Chapter

May 2023

Anja Steinbach

Düşük Sosyo-Ekonomik Duruma Sahip Ailelerin İçinde Bulundukları Duruma İlişkin DeğerlendirmeleriEvaluations of Families with Low Socio-Economic Status Regarding Their Situation

Article

Mar 2023

Ali Osman Özpolat

Aile olgusu işlevlerinden ötürü toplum açısından önem arz eden bir kurum olmuştur fakat uygulanan politikalar nedeniyle günümüzde sayısız riskler ile karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Bu bakımdan aile için sorun teşkil eden etmenlerin ortaya koyularak en fazla risk yaşadıkları konulardan birisi olan sosyo-ekonomik durumun irdelenmesi önem arz etmektedir. Bu bağlamda araştırmamızın temel amacı düşük sosyo-ekonomik duruma sahip ailelerin içinde bulundukları duruma ilişkin deneyimlerini belirleyerek ekonomik sorunlar yaşayan ailelerin ihtiyaçlarına yönelik öneriler geliştirmektir. Nitel araştırma yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada fenomenolojik desenden yararlanmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak sosyo-demografik bilgi formu ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Çalışma kapsamında elde edilen veriler, içerik analizi tekniği kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sürecinde MAXQDA nitel analiz programı kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda araştırma kapsamında Ankara İlinin Mamak İlçesinden düşük sosyo-ekonomik durum içerisinde olan 9 kadın ve 8 erkek olmak üzere toplam 17 aile ile derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilerek veriler toplanmıştır. Araştırmamızın sonuçlarına göre ailelerin; gelir seviyesi düşük, işsizlik oranı yüksek, engellilik ya da kronik hastalık oranı yüksek, eğitim seviyeleri düşük, erken yaşta evlilik ve hane nüfusu fazla, suça sürüklenme ya da suç mağduru olma durumu yüksek, madde kullanımı ile uygunsuz ve yetersiz hane özelliklerine sahip olma gibi hususları yaygın olarak yaşandıkları görülmüştür.

Adolescent Employment, Family Income and Parental Divorce

Article

Feb 2023

Orta Çocukluk Dönemindeki Çocuklarda Aile Aidiyetinin Algılanan Ebeveyn Tutumları ve Empati ile İlişkisi

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2022

Bu araştırmanın amacı orta çocukluk dönemindeki çocukların aile aidiyetlerinin algıladıkları ebeveyn tutumları ve empatik eğilimleri ile arasındaki ilişkileri incelemek ve bu değişkenlerin cinsiyete göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadıklarını belirlemektir. Araştırmanın örneklemini, Sakarya ilinin Adapazarı ilçesindeki beş resmi ortaokulda öğrenim gören sayıları 412 olan 5. ve 6. sınıf öğrencileri oluşturmuştur. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre, aile aidiyeti ile ebeveynden algılanan duygusal sıcaklık tutumu arasında anlamlı pozitif yönde bir ilişkinin olduğu saptanmıştır. Diğer yandan, aşırı koruyucu ebeveyn tutumlarından yalnızca annenin aşırı koruyuculuğu ile çocuğun aileye aidiyet duygusu arasında anlamlı negatif yönde bir ilişkinin olduğu bulunmuştur. Ebeveyn reddediciliği ise aile aidiyeti ile negatif yönde ilişkiler göstermiştir. Ebeveynin eleştiren, yargılayan yaklaşımı arttıkça aile aidiyetinin azaldığı görülmüştür. Araştırmada aile aidiyeti duygusu ve empatik eğilimler arasında ise anlamlı pozitif yönde bir ilişkinin olduğu bulunmuştur. Araştırmanın sonuçları, cinsiyetin koruyucu ve reddedici ebeveyn tutumunda olduğu kadar aile aidiyeti duygusunda ve empatik eğilimlerde önemli bir değişken olduğunu göstermiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Aile aidiyeti, ebeveyn tutumu, empatik eğilim, orta çocukluk.

Does parental separation moderate the heritability of health risk behavior among adolescents?

Article

Jul 2023
SOC SCI MED

Social influences on adolescents' health risk behavior are well documented, but little is known about the interaction of parental separation with genetic sensitivities. Using data from a German sample of 1762 twins, this study examines whether family living arrangements moderate the influence of genetic predispositions on health risk behavior. Derived from variance decomposition moderator models, three key findings emerge. Firstly, genetic contributions to drug use are significantly higher in single-mother families, indicating an amplified heritability potentially resulting from triggered genetic sensitivities or challenges in preventing genetic risks from unfolding. Secondly, unique environmental factors have a greater impact on drug use in single-mother families. Lastly, no heritability differences are found in smoking and excessive alcohol consumption between family types. These findings provide novel evidence of increased importance of genetic influences on drug use in single-mother families, shedding light on gene-environment interactions, and informing policy interventions that support vulnerable family arrangements.

Unpacking the linkages between single parent households and early adolescent adjustment

Article

Feb 2023
SOC SCI RES

Living with an unmarried mother is consistently associated with adjustment issues in adolescence, but these associations can vary by both time and place. Following life course theory, this study applied inverse probability of treatment weighting techniques to data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1979) Children and Young Adults study (n = 5,597) to estimate various treatment effects of family structures through childhood and early adolescence on internalizing and externalizing dimensions of adjustment at age 14. Young people who lived with an unmarried (single or cohabiting) mother during early childhood and adolescence were more likely to drink and reported more depressive symptoms by age 14 than those with a married mother, with particularly strong associations between living with an unmarried mother during early adolescence and drinking. These associations, however, varied according to sociodemographic selection into family structures. They were strongest for youth who more closely resembled the average adolescent living with a married mother.

A cross-national comparison of the linkages between family structure histories and early adolescent substance use

Article

Nov 2022

Family structure can influence adolescent health with cascading implications into adulthood. Life course theory emphasizes how this phenomenon is dynamic across time, contextualized in policy systems, and grounded in processes of selection and socialization. This study used data from the U.S. (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Child and Young Adults, n = 6236) and U.K. (Millennium Cohort Study, n = 11,095) to examine associations between a single mother family structure between ages 0–14 and early adolescent substance use at age 14 across time and place, using inverse probability of treatment weighting to explore how results varied by selection into family structure. In both countries, single parenthood, regardless of its timing during childhood, consistently predicted adolescent substance use when samples were re-weighted to resemble the overall population. However, when samples were re-weighted so that their background characteristics resembled those of actual single parent families, there was little evidence that single parenting posed risks, suggesting that single parenting might matter less for adolescents who are likely to experience it (and vice versa). In addition, more generous welfare policy in the U.K. than in the U.S. did not appear to have ameliorated the observed role of single parenting in adolescent substance use. Findings supported a model of disadvantage saturation, where single parenting has little additional impact over the myriad other disadvantages that single parent families tend to experience, rather than a model of cumulative disadvantage, where single parenting compounds or adds to other disadvantages. Policy and interventions might more valuably focus on these other disadvantages than on family structure.

Impact of Divorce on Children Wellbeing

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2022

The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1986
J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators. (46 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The Changing Character of Stepfamilies: Implications of Cohabitation and Non-marital Child Bearing

Article

Full-text available

Sep 1995
DEMOGRAPHY

Divorce, nonmarital childbearing, and cohabitation are reshaping family experience in the United States. Because of these changes, our traditional definitions of families decreasingly capture of the social units of interest. We have noted how a significant proportion of officially defined single-parent families actually are two-parent unmarried families. The present paper expands on this perspective with respect to stepfamilies. We must broaden our definition of stepfamilies to include cohabitations involving a child of only one partner, and must recognize the large role of nonmarital childbearing in the creation of stepfamilies. We find that cohabitation and nonmarital childbearing have been important aspects of stepfamily experience for at least two decades, and that this is increasingly so. To define stepfamilies only in terms of marriage clearly underestimates both the level and the trend in stepfamily experience: when cohabitation is taken into account, about two-fifths of all women and 30% of all children are likely to spend some time in a stepfamily.

Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2019: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use

Book

Jan 2020

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/null/1/FINAL.pdf

Bayesian model selection in social research

Article

Jan 1995

A.E. Raferty

Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital

Article

Jan 2000

J.S. Coleman

The Health Status and Risk Behaviors of Adolescents in Immigrant Families

Article

Jan 1999

K.M. Harris

Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health

Article

Jan 1991

Protecting adolescents from harm. Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health

Article

Sep 1997
J Am Med Assoc

M. D. Resnick

The Impact of Social Status, Family Structure, and Neighborhood on the Fertility of Black Adolescents

Article

Jan 1985

Black teenagers living in metropolitan areas of the US initiate sexual intercourse at earlier ages than other teenagers and have higher rates of premarital pregnancy. Ethnographic studies of black families have claimed that economic uncertainties cause young blacks to delay marriage, while many young women achieve adulthood through premarital parenthood. It is also probable that girls who grow up in a female-headed family or who see their sisters become teenage parents are more likely to accept single-parenthood as a way to achieve adult status. The ethnographic explanations of the fertility behaviors of black adolescents are tested, using data from a random sample of more 1000 black females aged 13-19 who lived in the city of Chicago in 1979.-Authors

A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

Article

Aug 1998

Using 3 years of data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, we examine the distribution of drug use among adolescents aged 12-17 years by family structure. In addition, we investigate the plausibility of two hypotheses that purport to explain the association between family structure and adolescent behavior, namely economic resources and residential mobility. The results of cross-tabulations and multivariate logistic regression models indicate that the risk of drug use, including problem use, is highest among adolescents in father-custody families (father-only and father-stepmother families), even after controlling for the effects of sex, age, race-ethnicity, family income, and residential mobility. The risk of drug use is lowest in mother-father families. Economic resources and residential mobility fail to explain these relationships, thus casting doubt on their ability to explain the association between family structure and an important adolescent behavior.

Family Structure History and Adolescent Adjustment

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Offending trajectories in a New Zealand birth cohort

Antisocial Behavior of Adoptees and Nonadoptees: Prediction from Early History and Adolescent Relati...

Family Instability and Children's Early Problem Behavior

Marital Transitions, Parenting, and Schooling: Exploring the Link Between Family-Structure History a...

Postdivorce Family Stability and Changes in Adolescents’ Academic PerformanceA Growth-Curve Model

Parental Cohabitation Experiences and Adolescent Behavioral Outcomes