Family Instability and Children's Early Problem Behavior

Cavanagh, Shannon E.; Huston, Aletha C.

doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0120

Cited by 253 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

260

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More recent studies have shed light on these issues by considering the family histories of children. Their results support the thesis that instability in family structure contributes negatively to child wellbeing (Bachman et al 2011, Cavanagh and Huston 2006, Fomby 2007, Osborne and McLanahan 2007. There is also some evidence that the timing of family instability matters, with the worst outcomes experienced by children who experience instability while very young Huston 2008, Ryan andClaessens 2013), and of accumulation effects, whereby increased duration of exposure to vulnerable family types decreases socio-emotional and behavioural functioning (Pearce et al 2014).…”

Section: Family Structure and Child Socio-emotional Outcomes: Empiricmentioning

confidence: 55%

Early Life Course Family Structure and Children’s Socio-Emotional and Behavioural Functioning: A View from Australia

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children's early life experiences are important not only for their contemporary wellbeing, but also for their subsequent life outcomes as adolescents and adults. Research from developed countries has demonstrated that children in one-parent and reconstituted families, have worse socio-emotional and behavioural functioning than children from 'normative' or 'intact' families. We use recent Australian data from a nationally representative birth cohort study to examine the associations between family structure and children's socio-emotional and behavioural outcomes. We contribute to the literature in two ways: by testing whether previously established relationships in the US and the UK apply in Australia, and by deploying an innovative life course methodological approach that pays attention to the accumulation, patterning and timing of exposures to different family types during childhood.As in other countries, children in Australia who spend time in one-parent or reconstituted families experience more socio-emotional and behavioural problems than other children.Such differences disappear when accounting for socio-economic capital and maternal mental health. This suggests that providing additional income and mental health support to parents in vulnerable families may contribute to mitigating children's socio-emotional and behavioural difficulties in Australia.

show abstract

Section: Family Structure and Child Socio-emotional Outcomes: Empiricmentioning

confidence: 55%

Early Life Course Family Structure and Children’s Socio-Emotional and Behavioural Functioning: A View from Australia

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goodman & Greaves, 2010). Similarly, in the United States, the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) showed that children born to cohabiting parents were more likely to experience instability in parental relationships than were children born to two married parents (Cavanagh & Huston, 2006). On entry into school, SECCYD children with histories of parental relationship instability displayed more negative behaviors with both teachers and peers.…”

Section: Why More Problems For Children In Cohabiting Unions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioemotional Development in Changing Families

Golombok

Tasker

2015

Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the latter part of the 20th century, dramatic changes have taken place to the structure of the family such that the traditional nuclear family headed by a heterosexual married couple is now in the minority. This chapter begins with a description of these changes and some of the key factors involved. The consequences of different family contexts for parent–child relationships and children's socioemotional development are then examined. These include single‐parent families, stepparent families, cohabiting parent families, families created through assisted reproductive technologies, and families headed by same‐sex parents. The specific issues and concerns raised by each family type are outlined, followed by a discussion of key empirical findings regarding parenting and child adjustment. The chapter ends by drawing on research relating to children in these different family forms to examine the relative importance of family structure and family processes for children's socioemotional development. The implications for policy and practice, and directions for future research, are also discussed.

show abstract

“…A number of factors make U.S. cohabiting unions potentially disadvantageous environments for raising children, including lower incomes, lower relationship quality, and higher dissolution rates than marriages (Cavanagh and Huston 2006;Graefe and Lichter 1999;Manning and Brown 2006;Manning, Smock, and Majumdar 2004;Osborne and McLanahan 2007;Raley and Wildsmith 2004). Many of these differences predate union formation, and thus reflect the disproportionate selection of couples with the least resources and the lowest expectations for relationship stability into cohabiting relationships and cohabiting parenthood (Kenney and McLanahan 2006;Lillard, Brien, and Waite 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%