SENIOR SEMINAR FINAL DRAFT CAPSTONE THESIS

Running Head = FAMILY STRUCTURE AND WELLBEING
Are The Kids All Right?
An Analysis of the Effects of Adolescent Family Structure on Adult Psychological Wellbeing*
Margaret Matthews
Skidmore College
Word Count: 6634
* Please direct all correspondence to Margaret Matthews,815 N. Broadway, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs,
NY 12866. E-mail: mmatthew@skidmore.edu

FAMILY STRUCTURE AND WELLBEING
2
ABSTRACT
The prevalence of nontraditional structures is rising, increasing the need for continued research
into the ways in which these changes impact children into adulthood. The family is the primary
system of socialization as it introduces an individual to society. Previous research has found that
traditional married two-parent families provide the strongest support for children across modes
of wellbeing including economic, educational, and psychological fulfillment. This study
investigates whether family structure type influences adult psychological wellbeing,
hypothesizing that adults from traditional two-parent families will report better wellbeing than
other nontraditional family types. Data from the 2014 General Social Survey provide a sample of
1,235 adult respondents. Results reveal that adults from traditional family structures report better
psychological wellbeing than adults from nontraditional family structures. Age yielded strong
predictive results in relation to psychological wellbeing as well, suggesting that happiness
increases with age. These results support previous findings that family structure matters, even
well into adulthood. These findings may be accounted for by the chain of emotionally
demanding internal and external events experienced by individuals from nontraditional family
structures, rendering them more susceptible to psychological distress.

3
The family has been called the primary socialization unit, as it is the first impactful
structure that introduces an individual to the notions of society. The influence of family structure
on various child outcomes has been investigated thoroughly for decades (Acock and Kiecolt
1989; Lansford et al. 2001; Lopoo and DeLeire 2014). This study aims to examine the long-term
effects of family structure in adolescence on adult wellbeing, as there remains a need for
continued investigation of its impact throughout adulthood.
This area of study is important to continue in contemporary society as nontraditional
family structures are becoming more prevalent and accepted (Guzzo 2015). Remarriage creates
blended families, which can introduce children with a new parent figure and siblings. Stepfamily
prevalence has increased from 24 to 31 percent in the past 25 years (Guzzo 2015). Recent
technological advancements and cultural shifts have afforded more opportunity to individuals
wishing to raise a child alone. Most single parents, however, do not initially choose to be on their
own. Single parenting is often the result of spouse or partner death, divorce, or partner absence.
This research will add to the knowledge we have about the long-term impacts of nontraditional
family structures on adults.
Prior research examines the effects of family structure on various aspects of child
wellbeing (Amato and Cheadle 2005; Musik and Meier 2009; Schwartz 2006). The finding that
nontraditional family structure disrupts child educational, economic, behavioral, and
psychological wellbeing has been persistent (Acock and Kiecolt 1989; Barrett and Turner 2005).
The majority of studies examine the impact of family structure on the wellbeing of children,
adolescents, and young adults, but less has been done to investigate the long-term effects on
adult wellbeing. Studies investigating the long-term influence of family structure present
conflicting findings, which can be attributed to mediating variables used, variability in samples

4
and populations studied, or years conducted (Kiecolt and Acock 1990; Lopoo and DeLeire 2014;
McLeod 1991). This research seeks to continue the conversation by investigating whether there
is a significant negative long-term impact on psychological wellbeing when coming from a
nontraditional family structure versus a traditional two-parent family.
Because this is a multi-faceted area of study, additional factors will be considered in the
analysis, including respondent’s number of siblings, age, gender, and race. These controls are
included due to of the findings in prior research that indicate their association with family
structure and psychological wellbeing (Brown, Manning, and Stykes 2015; Kiecolt and Acock
1990; Ross and Mirowsky 1999). Much of the preceding research has consistently found that
traditional family structures promote the best outcomes (Barrett and Turner 2005; Falci 2006;
Lopoo and DeLeire 2014). Therefore, I predict that adults who were living with both mother and
father at age 16 will report fewer days of poor mental health in the past 30 days than those who
were not.
LIFE COURSE DISRUPTION AND ANOMIE
The theoretical justification for this study is twofold. The first, life course disruption
theory, attempts to explain the distress experienced by adults from nontraditional families as a
result of the disruption caused by a change in family structure (Mirowsky and Ross 2003). The
second, anomie, posits that distress occurs due to the sense of normlessness existing among for
children growing up in nontraditional structures (Jaffe 1963). The inclusion of both theories is
important in order to account for distress caused by the physical changes that occur due to family
shifts as well as the internal struggles that may exist for individuals navigating their
understanding of self in terms of their atypical family unit.

5
Life course disruption theory simply states that disruptive life events create distress (Ross
and Mirowsky 1999; Bachman, Coley, and Carrano 2012; Lopoo and DeLeire 2014). The family
is a tremendously impactful system, thus when a life disruption within the family occurs, ensuing
significant distress is to be expected. The explanations behind this distress are expanded upon
through anomic theory.
Anomie describes feelings of normlessness resulting from a society that is disintegrated
and lacking in accepted values (Durkheim [1897] 2013). One of the numerous interpretations of
anomie substitutes the family for society as a whole, suggesting that individual inability to self-
regulate originates from a disintegrated or atypical family system (Wenz 1978; Jaffe 1963).
Durkheim’s ([1897] 2013:53) introduction of anomic suicide provided an example of a widowed
man who is less resistant to suicide after the death of his wife not only because the event itself is
distressing but because he finds himself unable to adapt to the newness of his life situation. This
example relates directly to the anomic family, as children who undergo significant changes in
their family structure may feel unable or uncertain how to adjust. The literal adjustments that
may occur include changing homes, negotiating time spent between parents or adjusting to the
new absence of a parent, which relate to the life course disruption theoretical explanation. The
internal adjustments that can exist include transformations in self-identification and changes to
personal life story that may be difficult to grapple with. Children who were born into atypical
family structures, too, may struggle with feelings of normlessness as they attempt to understand
their social selves in the context of the more widely accepted version of the standard traditional
family.

6
Using life course disruption theory and family anomie I hypothesize that feelings of
uncertainty, normlessness, and social disintegration will increase a child’s susceptibility to
lowered psychological wellbeing in adulthood.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review will first discuss the variations in family structure, as some studies
suggest that outcomes depend on the type of nontraditional family and family dynamics. Family
dynamics include parent-child relations and family complexity, aspects that have been found to
significantly mediate results. The prevailing effects family structures have on adolescent and
adult wellbeing will then be addressed, Other related aspects of wellbeing will be discussed,
which speak about not only psychological health but also economic achievement, educational
attainment, avoidance of risky behaviors, and marital success.
Effects of Family Structure Variations
The variances among all family structure types can have important effects on child
outcomes (Amato and Cheadle 2005; Biblarz and Gottainer 2000). When considering family
structure, one typically refers solely to the parents. However, parents are not the only participants
in the family unit. Brown et al. (2015) incorporates family complexity into their study of family
structure in order to account for the variances that occur due to sibling presence. Family
complexity refers generally to the addition of half or stepsiblings to the household but can
involve biological siblings as well. Half and stepsiblings add a different kind of complexity to
the family than a full biological sibling because of their unique relationships with adults present.
Their study found that around 11 percent of children live in homes in which their biological

7
parent is not the household head. Stepparents typically focus the majority of their resources to
their own biological child, and when this parent is the household head, the stepchild is then
receiving less support than his or her stepsiblings. This disproportionate distribution of time and
resources from both biological and stepparents has been found to reduce the optimal living
climate for the individual as well as elements of wellbeing.
The psychological impact of a divorce on children creates stronger and more lasting
negative psychological effects than the death of a parent (McLeod 1991). There are lingering
negative psychological effects that permeate into adulthood (Amato and Sobolewski 2001).
Speculations for this lasting distress turn to parent-child relations for explanation, because the
strain caused on parent-child bonds may continue into adulthood.
Family dynamics refers to the way in which families typically interact. The parent-child
relationship is a foundational introduction to socialization as parents offer the child explicit
examples of how a human should interact with others and what is expected of certain roles and
relationships (Falci 2006). It has been found that when parent-child relations are positive and
productive, or provide children with the necessary tools to understand his or her social location,
psychological wellbeing is higher.
When both parent-child relations and family structure are assessed together,
psychological wellbeing becomes an even more salient outcome. Research finds that parent-child
relations can influence psychological wellbeing independently from family structure (Musik and
Meier 2009). This means that even if a family structure is disrupted, distress can be avoided if
parent-child relations remain active, positive, and supportive. Typically, when a family structure
undergoes transition, a strain is placed on the parent-child relationship due to the natural strain it
creates for the parents as well as the confusion and anger it imposes on the child (Magnuson and

8
Berger 2009). In cases of divorce, a child’s time is negotiated between parents. If and when
single parents remarry, a new adult figure is introduced into the household, which may also
lower the amount of time and affection available to be given by the parent to the child. This
finding can be reversed if a stepparent is proactive and invested in creating a strong bond with
their stepchild. Stepfamilies can operate like traditional two-parent families when both adults
work to form positive and productive relationships with the children present.
Parental involvement is a form of parent-child relations found to influence psychological
wellbeing into adulthood (Flouri 2003). Flouri’s (2003) study suggests that low parent-child
relations warrant a stronger adverse result for women in midlife than for men. Because the effect
found a significant difference in psychological wellbeing as a function of gender, the present
study will include gender as an additional variable in order to further explore whether the effect
of family structure influences adults differently based on gender.
Family disruption affects not only children but parents as well. Lansford et al. (2001)
found that adults who undergo a divorce or the death of a spouse report lower psychological
wellbeing than continuously married adults. This finding could suggest that when a parent’s
psychological wellbeing is low, children’s own mental health may follow suit. While the current
study does not address the mental wellbeing of parents, it does include all nontraditional family
types into one category, which may be justified by this finding as it suggests that parental
distress causes child distress.
The life course disruption theory implies the inherent distress that inevitably arises
through disruptive events such as parent death, parental separation and remarriage (Schwartz
2006). The cause of disruption in family structure is important when attempting to understand
why distress occurs and how it expresses itself later in life.

9
Biblarz and Gottainer’s (2000) study finds that there is no difference in level of
attainment between children from two-parent families versus children from widowed single-
mother families. Their study examines the differences in educational attainment, occupational
status, and psychological wellbeing of children from single-mother families resulting from
divorce versus the death of the father. Children from single-mother divorced families yield
substantially lower attainments than children from two-parent and widowed mother families,
suggesting that there may be no lasting negative impact from the death of a parent on child
attainment later in life.
Amato (2005) finds that children from single-parent families that resulted in the death of
a parent score higher on measures of wellbeing than those from divorced families. However, all
causes of parental separation for children from single and divorced families culminate in lower
levels of wellbeing than continuously married families. Divorce is speculated to produce worse
outcomes than the death of a parent because marital dissolution presents conflict into the
household that the child can witness and experience (Amato and Sobolewski 2001).
Berger and McLanahan (2015) found that children from traditional family types score
higher on cognitive skills and exhibit fewer behavioral problems than children from
nontraditional family structures, with no difference among scores for children across
nontraditional family types. This is an interesting finding because it suggests that young children
are significantly negatively affected no matter what the nontraditional family structure makeup.
When considering children’s lives long-term, however, the amount of success and wellbeing can
differ based on the type and cause of nontraditional family structure (Teachman 2004; Biblarz
and Gottainer 2000).

10
Investigations into specific family types allow for a more in-depth understanding of the
variety that exists among nontraditional family types. The present study does not differentiate
between nontraditional types, which is justified by Berger and McLanahan’s (2015) findings.
It is important to consider the variations that occur among nontraditional family
structures when assessing this research as all nontraditional structures have been grouped
together. While the current research is assessing the difference between nontraditional and
traditional family structures, neither group is homogenous, thus influences of distress may be
attributed to the variations that occur as a result of the origin of disruption.
Consequences of Family Structure
Life event attainment.
Louis and Zhao (2002) found that despite the influence of family structure on
psychological wellbeing, the effect no longer yielded significant results into adulthood when
accounting for certain life experiences. These life experiences include marital status,
employment status and job satisfaction, recent financial change, and health. When accounting for
these variables, their study no longer found a significant relationship between family structure
and psychological wellbeing.
Two-parent families have a better shot at providing the best economic situation for their
children and consequently setting them up to be more successful with future economic
attainments (Acock and Kiecolt 1989). Adults involved in a divorce are extremely financially
strained during and after the divorce process. This puts their children at a higher financial
disadvantage than their two-parent family peers because their divorcing parents were forced to
expend economic resources elsewhere. Biblarz and Gottainer (2015) found that there are no

11
differences in educational and economic attainment between traditional two-parent families and
single-parent families that resulted in the death of a spouse. Lopoo and DeLeire (2014) found no
difference among nontraditional family types in terms of educational and economic attainment,
suggesting that any disruption lessens resources. Lopoo and DeLeire (2014) found that adults
from two-parent families earn around a quarter more than adults from single-mother households.
Adults from nontraditional family structures have been found to have less successful
marriages and higher levels of marital discord than adults from traditional families (Amato and
Cheadle 2005; Lopoo and DeLeire 2014). Teachman (2004) examined a number of marriage
characteristics among married women in order to determine if there were significant differences
between women as a function of the family structure in which they were raised. The
characteristics used to determine marriage success were age at time of marriage, level of
education at the time of marriage, premarital birth, premarital conception, and cohabitation
before marriage. Women from nontraditional families showed indicators of less successful
marriages based on the characteristics measured, with the exception of women from single-
parent families that resulted in the death of a parent.
Risky behaviors.
Traditional family structures provide the strongest support against violent tendencies into
adolescence and adulthood, as the family unit is central in constructing a social perspective for
behavior (Schwartz 2006). Lansford et al. (2001) find that children of two-parent families report
fewer behavioral problems than children from other family types. Walters (2013) finds parental
involvement to be mediating effect of behavioral issues, meaning that children are at a higher
risk of delinquency and adult crime when parental involvement is low. When family disruption
occurs, parental involvement is decreased because parents must commit time to their own life

12
changes in addition to tending to their child’s wellbeing (Walters 2013). Bachman, Coley, and
Carrano (2013) add to the life course disruption discourse in finding that family disruption
interferes with the child’s ability to cope with exterior transitions because he or she experiences
little to no stability within and outside of the home. When children’s ability to manage
unavoidable exterior transitions is compromised, the likelihood of taking part in risky behaviors
during adolescence rises. The timing of the family disruption is important, wielding the most
disadvantageous results for children when a family is disrupted later in adolescence.
Psychological wellbeing.
Previous research has demonstrated that the family unit has an important impact on
psychological wellbeing (Barrett and Turner 2005; Amato and Cheadle 2005; Teachman 2004).
Barrett and Turner’s (2005) findings suggest that even into young adulthood, individuals from
traditional family structures report lower levels of depressive symptoms than those from
nontraditional family types.
Studies that investigate older individuals also find that distress can linger into midlife and
older adulthood (Lansford et al. 2001; Teachman 2004). Acock and Kiecolt (1989) found that
feelings of distress were still present in individuals 10 years after their parents’ divorce. While
findings have pointed out numerous mediating effects of the relationship between family
structure and wellbeing, McLeod (1991:215) provides a comprehensive explanation for a
possible underlying and universal feature of family disruption that explains its prevalence across
nontraditional types: “Childhood parental losses appear to begin a chain of events which result in
life conditions conducive to the development of poor mental health.”

13
This suggests that children who experience loss, change, or conflict in their family are
predisposed for difficulties later in life. Children from traditional family structures are not
exposed to the potential hardships present in nontraditional family types. Living in a
nontraditional family structure puts children at risk for higher economic deprivation, strain on
parent-child relations, and increase in risky behaviors (Acock and Kiecolt 1989; Heard et al.
2008; Schwartz 2006). Previous literature has maintained with relative constancy that family
structure impacts psychological wellbeing (Lopoo and DeLeire 2014; Amato and Cheadle 2005;
McLeod 1991). Altogether, it appears that the variations in family structure are important but
even when controlling for specific complexities, such as type of nontraditional family, number of
siblings, or parent-child relations, the outcome generally remains that traditional two-parent
families offer the most protective situation for children. The current study will continue the
literature in an attempt to more fully understand the relationship between family structure in
adolescence and adult psychological wellbeing.
RESEARCH METHODS
The current research examines questions asked in the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS).
This data set analyzed a representative U.S sample of 2,538 individuals this year with a response
rate of 69 percent and was conducted using face-to-face interviews and computer-assisted
personal interviewing (CAPI). Not all questions were asked to every respondent and not all
respondents provided responses for questions they were asked. With split ballot and excluded
missing data accounted for, the sample size for this study is reduced to 1,235 individuals, which
means that my data response rate was around 47 percent. For further information about how
these data were collected, please visit the GSS website (http://www3.norc.org/GSS+Website/).

14
Measures
This research targets the influence of adolescent family structure on adult self-reported
mental health. I operationalize these concepts by looking at two GSS questions and attempt to
account for other factors through the inclusion of four control variables.
The question chosen to assess the dependent variable of psychological wellbeing used a
random subset of respondents and targeted recent mental health. The choice to assess recent
mental wellbeing rather than general happiness was in order to remain concise, assuming that
giving a specific time frame can be more accurate than asking the respondent to generalize his or
her overall happiness. The question asks, “Now thinking about your mental health, which
includes stress, depression, and problems with emotions, for how many days during the past 30
days was your mental health not good?” This variable asks respondents to give an estimated
number within the past 30 days that they felt they had poor mental health under the
conceptualized guidelines presented in the question, including zero days.
The independent variable asks, “Were you living with both your own mother and father
around the time you were 16? (IF NO: With whom were you living around that time?)” The
responses include “Other,” “Mother and father,” “Father and stepmother,” “Mother and
stepfather,” “Father,” “Mother,” “Male relative,” “Female relative,” and “Male and female
relatives.” For the purposes of this study, I dummied responses into two categories, calling
“Mother and father” a “Traditional Family Structure,” which was coded as a “1” and all other
responses were coded as “0” and were called a “Nontraditional Family Structure.” This
distinction was made in order to assess whether there is a significant difference in adult
psychological wellbeing between those who grew up in traditional family structures in relation to
all other family structures. While some findings suggest that there are differences among

15
nontraditional family types, this study aims to target whether a distinction remains between
traditional and nontraditional families in general (Biblarz and Gottainer 2000; McLeod 1991).
The first control I include is number of siblings, which asks respondents “How many
brothers and sisters did you have? Please count those born alive, but no longer living, as well as
those alive now. Also include stepbrothers and stepsisters, and children adopted by your
parents.” This is a ratio variable ranging from zero to 25 siblings. This variable was included in
order to account for previous studies’ findings that family complexity, or presence of other
members aside from parents, can influence child outcomes (Brown et al. 2015).
The second control variable asks the “Respondent’s age,” and varies from 18 to 89 with
an average age of 44 years old. This variable is important because research suggests that
psychological wellbeing increases with age (Mroczek and Kolarz 1998). Studies also speculate
that older individuals have had more time to recover from the psychological impact of family
structure, further diminishing distress (Acock and Kiecolt 1989).
The third control asks respondents’ sex. This variable only provides respondents with
either “Male” or “Female,” and the following study assumes that a respondent’s sex and gender
are the same. “Women” are coded as “1” and “Men” are coded as “0.”Some findings suggest that
there is a difference between the sexes when it comes to psychological response to family
structure effects (McLeod 1991; Schwartz 2006).
The final control variable, race, asks participants to identify as either “Black,” “White,”
or “Other.” Kiecolt and Acock (1990) found no negative influence for nontraditional families
among black Americans, suggesting that race is a mediating effect of family structure outcomes.
The variable was dummied into either “White,” which was coded as “1,” or “Other,” which was
coded as “0.”

16
FINDINGS
Univariate
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
The average number of days respondents reported having poor mental health in the past
thirty days is three days, shown in Table 1. Table 2 has been collapsed into seven categories in
order to more conveniently assess the breakdown of percentages. Around two-thirds of the
sample report no days of poor mental health. This is an interesting percentage to note as two-
thirds of the sample also report living with a traditional family structure at age 16. Only around
one-fifth of the sample report five or more days where they felt their mental health was poor.
Table 1 reports a standard deviation of 7 days, which indicates the variability in psychological
wellbeing.
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
Table 3 shows the frequency of each family type. The majority of respondents report
having lived in a traditional two-parent family, followed by about one fifth of the sample living
in a single-mother family. All other family types were less frequent, further necessitating the
need to combine all nontraditional types into one category.
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
Table 4 shows us that two thirds of the sample has or had between one and four siblings,
with nearly one-third of the sample reporting to having had five or more siblings in their lifetime.

17
TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
The largest portion of the sample is middle-aged. Almost one-third of the respondent’s
are young adults, with the other 25 percent is over 55. Table 1 demonstrates that 44 is the
average respondent age, which is consistent with the majority of respondents showing up in the
mid-range category, as seen in Table 5.
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE
The sample in this study is split almost equally between men and women. Table 6 shows
that there are very slightly fewer men in this study than women. This is representative of the U.S
population as there are more women than men Americans, but this sample suggests a more even
split than is true in reality.
TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE
Table 7 indicates the racial breakdown of respondents, with the majority being white and
only a quarter identifying as nonwhite.
TABLE 7 ABOUT HERE
The majority of respondents from this sample come from traditional family structures and
reports little to no days of poor mental health in the past thirty days. The four controls provide
context to the two main variables being studied, and allow for a more complex understanding
sample’s makeup.

18
Bivariate
TABLE 8 ABOUT HERE
The bivariate results shown in Table 8 support the hypothesis. There is a weak but
significant relationship between family structure and mental health. These findings suggest that
coming from a traditional family structure will promote fewer days of poor mental health in
adulthood. There is a relationship between age and mental health as well, suggesting that the
older you are, the fewer days you report that your mental health was poor in the past month.
There is no relationship between mental health and gender or number of siblings. White
respondents are significantly more likely to come from a traditional family, but there is no
significant relationship between race and mental health. Age and number of siblings are
positively correlated.
Multivariate
TABLE 9 ABOUT HERE
Table 9 presents the multivariate regression results. The F test yields significance at the
.01 level meaning that the combination of variables significantly impact mental wellbeing even
though only two variables are significant. Family structure, age, gender, number of siblings, and
race, according to the R2, explain about 2 percent of the variance on mental wellbeing. This
percentage indicates that there are other variables that are also responsible for mental health. The
literature review and discussion expand on these possible factors.

19
The t tests demonstrate which variables are significant in explaining the dependent
variable.
The constant of 5.321 indicates that when all variables are 0 (coming from a
nontraditional family, 0 years old, male, 0 siblings, not white) the number of days of poor mental
health in the past 30 days will be about 5 days. When coming from a traditional family, the
constant is decreased by about one day. Every 20 years of age, one day of poor mental health is
subtracted from the constant. Being a woman means adding half a day of poor mental health to
the constant. Number of siblings is positive but very low, meaning one would need 20 siblings in
order to add one day to the constant. Being white, interestingly, adds almost one full day of poor
mental health to the constant.
The Beta score allows for comparison of the strength of each variable on psychological
wellbeing to one another. The scores reveal that age is the most powerful factor on mental
wellbeing, followed closely by family structure. This may signify that the stronger indicator of
mental wellbeing is age rather than family structure. However, because age and family structure
are significantly correlated, the relationship between age and psychological wellbeing may be
due to the sample, which has older respondents more likely to come from traditional families
than younger respondents.
DISCUSSION
Luckily, despite significance, the results suggest that the relationship between
psychological wellbeing and family structure is not a strong one. However, because there is
significance, there is a need for consideration when raising children in nontraditional family
structures, as traditional families are the most preventative against psychological distress in

20
adulthood. Life course disruption theory and anomie provide possible explanations for the
significance. Life course disruption theory suggests that children from traditional families are not
exposed to one major adjustment and resulting possible distress. Anomie posits that children may
have difficulty understanding their social self when coming from families that stray from the
standard two-family ideal, which may result in feelings of normlessness that could carry into
adulthood.
The significance found between age and mental wellbeing can be explained through a
number of prior findings (Mroczek and Kolarz 1998; Mirowsky and Ross 2003; Lopoo and
DeLeire 2014). Previous research has found that life satisfaction increases with age (Mroczek
and Kolarz 1998; Mirowsky and Ross 2003). This explains the strong relationship between
mental health and age. The multivariate results in Table 9 show that age is the strongest
influencer of mental health, which provides hope that despite growing up in a nontraditional
family structure, psychological wellbeing will increase greatly with age. Life course disruption
theory might posit that the psychological effects of stressful events in adolescence may recede
with age due to the natural distance time provides between an individual from an event in time
(Lopoo and DeLeire 2014). However, the relationship between age and family structure render
the relationship between age and psychological wellbeing less clear.
Gender yields no significance in either the multivariate or bivariate results, but the
multivariate shows that being a woman increases poor mental health by half a day, which is the
previous literature would posit is due to the finding that women from nontraditional family
structures will report lower psychological wellbeing than men, although the multivariate results
do not distinguish between women from nontraditional versus traditional family types (Flouri
2004; Walters 2013) Number of siblings, too, did not reach significance, but results are

21
consistent with previous research in that a high number of siblings creates distress, possibly
because parents must delegate time among more individuals (Brown et al. 2015). The
multivariate results show that despite lack of significance, whiteness adds over half a day of poor
mental health, which the literature supports in that black Americans fare better psychologically
despite family structure disruptions (Kiecolt and Acock 1990). This result could also simply be
due to the fact that nearly 75% of respondents from this study are white, and thus show more
variability in results.
Table 9 shows that coming from a traditional family will subtract one full day from the
constant number of days of poor mental health. This indicates that adults who had a traditional
family in adolescence will report having had about one day fewer of poor mental health in the
past month on average in comparison to adults who grew up in any other family type. The
multivariate results support the hypothesis and are consistent with previous literatures findings
that family structure can impact mental health (Barrett and Turner 2005; McLeod 1991).
CONCLUSION
This research examined whether adolescent family structure has an influence on
psychological wellbeing in adulthood. I attempted to answer this question by analyzing a subset
of 1,235 individuals from the 2014 GSS sample of 2,538 respondents. The bivariate and
multivariate results shown in Tables 8 and 9 demonstrate that traditional family structure has a
positive influence on adult psychological wellbeing. While the relationship is weak, the
unstandardized coefficients in Table 9 explain the specific relationship between family structure
and wellbeing in demonstrating that individuals who grew up in traditional family structures will

22
report one fewer day of poor mental health in the past month than those who grew up in other
types of families.
Certain limitations do need to be acknowledged while contemplating the results. The
study was conducted during a set time frame of three months, and more time could have allowed
for inclusion of other variables as well as time for adjustments. The software used to analyze the
GSS data requires each variable to have at least 20% of the sample included, which necessitated
that I combine all nontraditional family types into one category. I would have liked to separate
the nontraditional family types into categories distinguished as yielding different outcomes in
previous literature. The GSS does not distinguish family type based on cause of nontraditional
family, which is an important distinction made in previous findings that widowed single parents
can foster better outcomes than divorced single parents (Biblarz and Gottainer 2000; Teachman
2004). This study operationalized mental health through respondents estimating the number of
days in the past month that mental and emotional health was poor. This is a limitation in that not
all respondents may have answered truthfully due to the stigma associated with mental health, or
simply over- or under- estimating the number of days. This limitation could have been accounted
for with the inclusion of other happiness and wellbeing questions used in combination with the
question I used.
Despite the limitations, this study is generalizable to the U.S population because the
results are formed from a large and random sample. Family structure is a topic of imperative
consideration as it as an almost universal institution of humanity. This research adds to our
continued understanding of family and its impact into adulthood. Despite the growing prevalence
and cultural acceptance of nontraditional families, adults from these structures continue to suffer
psychologically past childhood Future research may want to explore factors that might diminish

23
the negative effects that result from the difficulties associated with family changes, some of
which have been studied and are mentioned in the literature review. Additionally, distinguishing
between nontraditional family structure type as well as cause of nontraditional formation may
produce different results. Including a more inclusive definition of psychological wellbeing could
strengthen results as well.
The findings of the current research further assert that parents and mental health
professionals have a responsibility to consider the implications of nontraditional family
structures and seek ways to mediate the adverse outcomes. Providing an explanation for the
discrepancies between family structures may help adults from nontraditional structures further
understand their situation. Developing an understanding may help lead to acceptance, thus
allowing for adults to let go of some harbored feelings of distress. Ultimately, this study further
asserts that the family contributes to wellbeing. Two-parent traditional family structures are the
most protective forms over all others.

24
References
Acock, Alan C. and K. J. Kiecolt. 1989. "Is It Family Structure or Socioeconomic Status? Family
Structure during Adolescence and Adult Adjustment." Social Forces 68(2):553-571.
Amato, Paul R. 2005. “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and
Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation.” The Future of Children 15(2):75-96.
Amato, Paul R. and Jacob Cheadle. 2005. “The Long Reach of Divorce: Divorce and Child
Well-Being across Three Generations.” Journal of Marriage and Family 67(1):191-206.
Amato, Paul R. and Juliana Sobolewski. 2001. “The Effects of Divorce and Marital Discord on
Adult Children’s Psychological Well-Being.” American Sociological Review 66(6):900-921.
Bachman, Heather J., Rebekah L. Coley and Jennifer Carrano. 2012. "Low-Income Mothers'
Patterns of Partnership Instability and Adolescents' Socioemotional Well-being." Journal of
Family Psychology 26(2):263-273.
Barrett, Anne E. and R. J. Turner. 2005. "Family Structure and Mental Health: The
Mediating Effects of Socioeconomic Status, Family Process, and Social Stress." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 46(2):156-169.
Berger, Lawrence M. and Sara S. McLanahan. 2015. "Income, Relationship Quality,

25
and Parenting: Associations with Child Development in Two-Parent Families." Journal of
Marriage and Family 77:996-1015.
Bibliarz, Timothy J. and Greg Gottainer. 2000. "Family Structure and Children's
Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced Single-Mother Families." Journal of
Marriage and Family 62(2):533-548.
Brown, Susan L., Wendy D. Manning and J. B. Stykes. 2015. "Family Structure and Child Well-
being: Integrating Family Complexity." Journal of Marriage and Family 77(1):177-190.
Durkheim, Emile. 1897. “Anomic Suicide.” Pp. 50-56 in Social Theory: Roots & Branches, Fifth
Edition, edited by Peter Kivisto. Oxford University.
Falci, Christina. 2006. "Family Structure, Closeness to Residential and Nonresidential Parents,
and Psychological Distress in Early and Middle Adolescence." Sociological 4 47(1):123-
146.
Flouri, Eirini. 2004. Subjective Well-Being in Midlife: The Role of Involvement of and
Closeness to Parents in Childhood. Journal of Happiness Studies 5:335-358.
Heard, Holly E., Gorman, Bridget K., and Carolyn A. Kapinus. 2008. “Family Structure and
Self-Rated Health in Adolescence and Young Adulthood.” Population Research and Policy
Review 27(6):773-779.
Guzzo, Karen B. 2015. “Twenty-Five Years of Change in Repartnering

26
and Stepfamily Formation.” Center for Family Demographic Research, Working Paper
Series, Working Paper 17 (Available online at https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-
sciences/center-for-family-demographic-research/research-at-cfdr/working-papers-
table.html)
Jaffe, Lester D. 1963. “Delinquency Proneness and Family Anomie.” Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 54(2):146-154.
Kiecolt, Jill K., Acock, Alan C. 1990. “Childhood Family Structure and Adult Psychological
Well-being of Black Americans.” Sociological Spectrum 10:169-186.
Lansford, Jennifer E., Rosario Ceballo, Antonia Abbey, and Abigail J. Stewart. 2001.
“Does Family Structure Matter A Comparison of Adoptive, Two-Parent Biological,
Single-Mother, Stepfather, and Stepfather Households.” Journal of Marriage and Family
63:840-851.
Lopoo, Leonard M. and Thomas DeLeire. 2014. "Family Structure and the Economic Wellbeing
of Children in Youth and Adulthood." Social Science Research 43:30-44.
Louis, Vincent V., and Shanyang Zhao. 2002. “Effects of Family Structure, Family SES,
and Adulthood Experiences of Life Satisfaction.” Journal of Family Issues 23(8):986-
1005.
Magnuson, Katherine and Lawrence M. Berger. 2009. “Family Structure States and Transitions:
Associations With Children’s Well-Being During Middle Childhood.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 71:575-571.

27
McLeod, Jane D. 1991. “Childhood Parental Loss and Adult Depression.” Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 32:205-220.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 2003. Social Causes of Psychological Distress. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Musick, Kelly and Ann Meier. 2010. "Are both Parents always Better than One? Parental
Conflict and Young Adult Well-being." Social Science Research 39(5):814-830.
Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky. 1999. Parental Divorce, Life-Course Disruption, and
Adult Depression. Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:1034-1045.
Schwartz, Jennifer. 2006. Effects of Diverse Forms of Family Structure on Female
and Male Homicide. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:1291-1312.
Smith, Tom W, Marsden, Peter V, Michael Hout, and Jibum Kim. 2014. “General
Social Surveys, §1972-2014: cumulative codebook,” Principal Investigator, Tom W.
Smith; Co-Principal Investigators, Peter V. Marsden and Michael Hout. Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center.
Teachman, Jay D. 2004. "The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the
Characteristics of their Marriages." Journal of Family Issues 25(1):86-111.

28
Wenz, Fredrich V. 1978. “Economic Status, Family Anomie, and Adolescent Suicide
Potential.” The Journal of Psychology 98:45-47.

29
TABLES
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations (N=1235)
Variable Mean SD
Traditional Family .65 .48
Mental Health 3.34 7.23
Siblings 3.60 2.81
Age 44.09 13.43
Woman .51 .50
White .74 .44
Table 2. Number of Days of Poor Mental Health in the Last Month (in percentages)
Days Percent
0 64.1
1-4 15.4
5-9 7.8
10-14 3.7
15-19 2.3
20-24 1.7
25-30 4.9
Total 100.0
(N) (1235)

30
Table 3. Family Structure (in percentages)
Family Structure Percent
Mother& Father 64.9
Father & Stepmother 1.5
Mother& Stepfather 6.2
Father 2.9
Mother 19.1
Male Relative 0.2
Female Relative 1.0
Male & Female Relatives 1.9
Other 2.4
Total
(N)
100.0
(1235)
Table 4. Number of Siblings (in percentages)
Siblings Percent
0 3.1
1 18.3
2 22.1
3 16.9
4 11.9
5 8.4
6 6.2
7 4.0
8 2.8
9+ 6.2
Total 100.0
(N) (1235)
Table 5. Age (in percentages)
Age Percent
18-34 29.5
35-54 44.6
55-89 25.9
Total 100.0
(N) (1235)

31
Table 6. Gender (in percentages)
Gender Percent
Men 48.8
Women 51.2
Total 100.0
(N) (1235)
Table 7. Race (in percentages)
Race Percent
White 73.5
Black 15.9
Other 10.6
Total 100.0
(N) 1235

32
Table 8. Correlations (r) between Mental Health and Family Structure plus Gender, Age,
Number of Siblings, and Race (listwise deletion, two-tailed test, N=1235)
Traditional
Family
Woman Age** Number of
Siblings
White
Poor Mental
Health
-.093* .038 -.098* .018- .013-
Traditional
Family
-.029 .161* -.189* .194*
Woman -.004- .066- -.061-
Age .124* .126*
Number of
Siblings
-.187*
* p < .01
Table 9. Regression of Mental Health on Traditional Families and All Variables
b β
Traditional Family -1.242 -.082*
Age -.050 -.093*
Women .538 .037-
Number of Siblings .052 .020-
White .759 .046-
Constant 5.321
R2
= .019; F(5,1229) = 4.780; p < .01
*p < .01

SENIOR SEMINAR FINAL DRAFT CAPSTONE THESIS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to SENIOR SEMINAR FINAL DRAFT CAPSTONE THESIS

Similar to SENIOR SEMINAR FINAL DRAFT CAPSTONE THESIS (20)

SENIOR SEMINAR FINAL DRAFT CAPSTONE THESIS