Family Structure and Child Well-Being article review

Family Structure and Child Well-Being article review

In their article Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Integrating Family Complexity, the authors Susan L. Brown, Wendy D. Manning, and J. Bart Stykes highlight the importance of incorporating family structure and family complexity in research on the well-being of children. The main objective of the study was to establish whether family complexity is distinctively related to the well-being of a child irrespective of the family structure. First, the article seeks to determine whether there is value-added when some form of family complexity is added in research on family structure variation and child well-being. It also looks into whether the contribution of family complexity is dependent on family structure. Theoretically, the authors assert that it is crucial to take into consideration not just the parents but also siblings in the family setting. Apart from giving a descriptive description of children in contemporary complex families, the authors empirically tested two assertions. First, they tested the theory that family complexity is different from family structure and then tested the hypothesis that family complexity is associated with the well-being of a child.

The article uses data from the 2008 SIPP and focuses on two indicators of economic well-being among children, specifically the family income-to-needs ratio and public assistance. The article adds that measures of family structure mainly focuses on just parent-child relationships. According to Marcum, Lamanna & Riedmann (2017), this approach indirectly presumes that parents are the most significant component of the family setting, directing resources such as time and finances to children, which consequently models and determines their development and well-being.

The authors argue that the distribution of financial and parental resources to children may also be determined partly by the existence of other siblings, particularly when the siblings have different set parents. The article basis its argument from previous research, which states that parents tend to devote less in children who they not biologically related to. This deduction is based on extensive literature on married stepfamilies. Notably, the article anticipates that the relationship between family complexity and financial well-being may be dependent on family structure. Accordingly, the article proposes a competing hypothesis regarding the role of family complexity on the economic well-being of children in families with two biological parents who are married against other family structures. The study showed that children with family complexity in families with two biological parents who are married have a higher chance of receiving public assistance. Marcum, Lamanna & Riedmann (2017), concluded that family complexity seems to be mostly disadvantageous in the family structure that is supposedly the most defensive for children.

In the article, the authors note that research on the family structure has mushroomed over the past few decades. They note that scholars have conducted extensive research on living arrangement arrangements as well as their impact on the well-being of children. According to Marcum, Lamanna & Riedmann (2017), children living outside of families with two biological married parents are likely to get along less well, on average, compared to those living within this form of family. The article also cites that the differences among children in single-parent (father or mother), stepparents who are married, and families who are cohabiting (stepparent or two biological parents) were relatively insignificant. Such was the case in different spheres of child outcomes, among them behavioral cognitive, physical, and even mental health.

According to the authors, their research lays the basis for a fresh, child-centered approach to theorizing and evaluating children’s living arrangements. The article recognizes that the domino effects of substantial changes in family and fertility behaviors extend beyond changes in a child’s family structure by establishing the usefulness of incorporating family complexity into inquiries on child well-being. The article amplifies the opposing relationship between family complexity and well-being among children in families with two biological parents who are married, highlighting the significance of capturing both dimensions of children’s family lives. Accordingly, the authors cite that to achieve a finer distinction on the understanding of differences in child well-being, scholars of family matters must broaden research on the child’s family composition. Nevertheless, while there are few previous studies on family complexity, the limited studies that exist commonly show that sibling composition is connected with the well-being of children and adolescent well-being (Marcum, Lamanna & Riedmann, 2017).

In conclusion, the article draws attention to the importance of family structure to a child’s well-being. From the article, it is without a doubt that relationships within the family setup are significant for the development of children’s well-being. On the other hand, it also shows a research gap as it cites that a majority of research on how families shape children’s well-being mostly focuses on the relationship between parents and children, disregarding the critical aspect of family composition. In essence, while the life of a child’s family may differ, research into the extent of the effect of children’s living arrangements on their well-being has dawdled, focusing on the relationships between children to parents and generally disregarding the composition of siblings. While it is true that factors such as whether the child lives with two parents, whether they are married, presence of stepsiblings, or stepparent affects a children’s well-being. Such concerns dominate discussions of the family today as the impact of family complexity is distinctive across different family structures.