Family Structure
Family Structure
FAMILY-STRUCTURE CHANGES SINCE 1970
CAUSES OF FAMILY-STRUCTURE CHANGES IN THE UNITED STATES
CONSEQUENCES OF FAMILY-STRUCTURE CHANGES
Among the most significant social changes that have occurred in recent decades are profound transformations in the structure of the American family. Prior to the last third of the twentieth century, most Americans lived in a family consisting of a husband and wife and their biological children. Both divorce and nonmarital childbearing were relatively rare (Popenoe 1996). Consequently, during the 1950s, over 80 percent of American children under
| Table 1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family structure changes 1970–2003 | ||||||
| Year | ||||||
| Characteristic | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | 1995 | 2000 | 2003 |
| SOURCE: Fields 2004 | ||||||
| Household by Type (Percent) | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
| Family Households (TOTAL) | 81.2 | 73.7 | 70.9 | 70.0 | 68.8 | 67.9 |
| Married Couple (TOTAL) | 70.6 | 60.8 | 56.1 | 54.4 | 52.8 | 51.5 |
| Married Couple with Children | 40.3 | 30.9 | 26.3 | 25.5 | 24.1 | 23.3 |
| Married Couple without Children | 30.3 | 29.9 | 29.8 | 28.9 | 28.7 | 28.2 |
| Other Family Households (TOTAL) | 10.6 | 12.9 | 14.8 | 15.6 | 16.0 | 16.4 |
| Nonfamily Households (TOTAL) | 18.8 | 26.2 | 29.2 | 29.9 | 31.2 | 32.0 |
| Women Living Alone | 11.5 | 14.0 | 14.9 | 14.7 | 14.8 | 15.2 |
| Men Living Alone | 5.6 | 8.6 | 9.7 | 10.2 | 10.7 | 11.2 |
| Other Nonfamily Households | 1.7 | 3.6 | 4.6 | 5.0 | 5.7 | 5.6 |
| Median Age at First Marriage | ||||||
| Men | 23.2 | 24.7 | 26.1 | 26.9 | 26.8 | 27.1 |
| Women | 20.8 | 22.0 | 23.9 | 24.5 | 25.1 | 25.3 |
age eighteen were living with both biological parents, who were married to one another (Bumpass and Sweet 1989), and a large majority of adult men and women were married (Saluter and Lugaila 1998). Beginning in the 1960s, the structure of American families changed rapidly and dramatically (Wu and Wolfe 2001). The more prominent of these changes include much higher divorce rates (Cherlin 1992), more nonmarital births (Wu et al. 2001), the postponement of first marriage (Fields 2004), and an increase in nonmarital cohabitation (Bianchi and Casper 2000; Bumpass and Lu 2000). Understanding the factors leading to this dramatic transformation and the consequences of these changes is among the most significant issues faced by American society. In this entry, we explore recent data and research on family-structure issues and changes. Primary emphasis will be on the American family, but some international comparisons are provided.
FAMILY-STRUCTURE CHANGES SINCE 1970
For purposes of this entry, we use the definitions of household and family utilized by the U.S. Census Bureau. A household contains one or more people—everyone living in a housing unit makes up a household. There are two types of households: family households and nonfamily households. A family household has at least two members related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household is maintained by a married couple or by a man or women living with other relatives. A nonfamily household can be either a person living alone or a householder sharing a housing unit with nonrelatives, such as borders or roommates.
The data in Table 1 shows some of the major family-structure changes that occurred from 1970 to 2003. Most apparent are significant declines in the proportion of family households, especially married-couple families, and a corresponding increase in other family households (generally single parent) and nonfamily households. In 1970, 81.2 percent of all households in the United States were family households, and 86.9 percent of the family households included a married couple. By 2003, only 67.9 percent of all households were family households, and 75.8 percent of the family households included a married couple.
Table 1 also shows a significant increase in the median age at first marriage. For men, this increase was from 23.2 in 1970 to 27.1 in 2003, while for women, the increase was from 20.8 in 1970 to 25.3 in 2003. Further indication of the postponement of first marriage is apparent in looking at different age cohorts (data not shown). Of the cohort of individuals born from 1940 to 1944, 70 percent of the men and 79 percent of the women had been married before their twenty-fifth birthday. In comparison, of the cohort of individuals born from 1965 to 1969, only 40.6 percent of the men and 54.8 percent of the women had been married before their twenty-fifth birthday (Kreider 2005).
Other critical family-structure changes not shown in Table 1 that have occurred since 1970 include a substantial increase in both the proportion of births that occur outside of marriage and the number of cohabitating couples. About one-third of all births in the United States now occur out of marriage (McLanahan et al. 2001), while there has been a sevenfold increase in the number of cohabitating couples (to 5.5 million) since 1970 (Casper and Cohen 2000). The majority of these unmarried-partner households had partners of the opposite sex (4.9 million), but about one in nine (594,000) had partners of the same sex. Of these same-sex unmarried-partner households, 301,000 had male partners and 293,000 had female partners (Simmons and O’Connell 2003).
Tables 2 through 4 present information on current measures of family structure for the United States. Table 2 presents data on the marital history of American adults. The increased divorce rate is apparent by comparing those individuals who were in the fifty to fifty-nine age cohort with those who were seventy or more in 2001. About 40 percent of all persons aged fifty to fifty-nine had been divorced at least once, and about 30 percent had been married two or more times. In comparison, for persons seventy years old and older, only about 18 percent had been divorced and about 20 percent had been married two or more times.
| Table 2 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marital history for people 15 years and over, by age and sex, 2001 | ||||||||||
| Age | ||||||||||
| Characteristic | Total 15 and Over | 15-19 | 20-24 | 25-29 | 30-34 | 35-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | 70 or more |
| SOURCE : Kreider 2005 | ||||||||||
| Men | ||||||||||
| Never married | 30.9 | 99.1 | 83.9 | 50.8 | 29.5 | 21.5 | 14.2 | 6.3 | 4.3 | 3.3 |
| Married once | 53.4 | 0.9 | 16.0 | 46.3 | 60.8 | 66.2 | 65.1 | 62.6 | 67.5 | 75.5 |
| Married twice | 12.5 | - | 0.1 | 2.8 | 8.7 | 10.9 | 17.1 | 23.2 | 21.3 | 16.5 |
| Married 3 or more times | 3.2 | - | - | 0.1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 8.0 | 6.8 | 4.7 |
| Ever divorced | 21.0 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 7.5 | 15.4 | 22.9 | 29.5 | 40.8 | 30.9 | 18.6 |
| Ever widowed | 3.6 | - | - | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 2.9 | 7.6 | 23.1 |
| Women | ||||||||||
| Never married | 24.6 | 96.3 | 72.4 | 37.3 | 21.7 | 15.6 | 10.5 | 6.4 | 4.1 | 3.3 |
| Married once | 58.7 | 3.6 | 26.5 | 57.3 | 67.3 | 66.8 | 65.1 | 65.2 | 72.9 | 77.8 |
| Married twice | 13.6 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 5.1 | 10.0 | 15.7 | 19.8 | 22.1 | 17.4 | 15.5 |
| Married 3 or more times | 3.1 | - | - | 0.3 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 4.6 | 6.3 | 5.6 | 3.5 |
| Ever divorced | 23.1 | 0.2 | 2.6 | 11.9 | 18.6 | 28.1 | 35.4 | 38.9 | 28.4 | 17.7 |
| Ever widowed | 11.6 | - | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 3.5 | 9.5 | 23.3 | 56.3 |
| Table 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family and living arrangements and poverty status of Children from birth to 18, 2001–2002 | ||||||
| Age | ||||||
| Characteristic | Total Childrena | Percent | Under 6 | 6–11 | 12–18 | Percent in povertyb |
| aSOURCE: Kreider and Fields 2005 (Based on 2001 data) | ||||||
| bSOURCE: Fields 2003 (Based on 2002 data) | ||||||
| TOTAL | 72,501 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 17.6 |
| Two parent (TOTAL) | 51,112 | 70.5 | 70.0 | 68.7 | 67.4 | 10.1 |
| Both biological—married | 44,363 | 61.2 | – | – | – | – |
| Both biological—unmarried | 1,845 | 2.5 | – | – | – | 27.4 |
| Blended | 4,904 | 6.8 | – | – | – | – |
| Single parent (TOTAL) | 18,472 | 25.5 | 26.9 | 27.5 | 27.6 | – |
| Mother | 16,297 | 22.5 | 22.0 | 23.4 | 22.9 | 36.4 |
| Father | 2,175 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 4.1 | 4.7 | 14.7 |
| Neither parent | 2,917 | 4.0 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 31.0 |
| Table 4 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family structure by race/ethnicity and poverty status, 2003 | ||||||
| Race/Ethnicitya | Percent in povertyb | |||||
| Characteristics | Nonhispanic white | Black alone | Hispanic (any race) | |||
| aSOURCE: Fields 2004 | ||||||
| bSOURCE: DeNavas–Walt et al. 2004 | ||||||
| Family households (TOTAL) | 66.3 | 66.3 | 80.2 | 10.0 | ||
| Married couple | 54.3 | 30.9 | 54.6 | 5.4 | ||
| Other family | 8.7 | 29.8 | 17.9 | 28.0 | ||
| Female householder | 3.3 | 5.6 | 7.7 | 13.5 | ||
| Male householder | ||||||
| Nonfamily households (TOTAL) | 33.7 | 33.7 | 19.8 | – | ||
| Female householder | 18.9 | 18.5 | 9.0 | – | ||
| Male householder | 14.8 | 15.2 | 10.8 | – | ||
Table 3 presents data on the family and living arrangements of children. In 2001, 61.2 percent of children in the United States from birth to age eighteen were living with both biological parents, who were married to one another. Another 9 percent were living with cohabitating parents or in a blended family. About one-fourth of the children were living with a single parent (usually the mother), and 4 percent were not living with either of their parents.
Finally, Table 4 shows extensive differences in family structure by race and ethnicity. Most significantly, only 30.9 percent of black households in the United States consist of a married-couple family, a proportion much smaller than for either whites or Hispanics. Hispanics, in contrast, have a much higher proportion of family households and a much lower proportion of nonfamily households than whites or blacks.
Patterns of U.S. family-structure change show some similarities to changes occurring in other economically advanced societies, but there are important differences. For example, the percentage of births occurring out of marriage is greater in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and France than in the United States. However, these countries have lower child-poverty rates and fewer children living in single-parent households because most unwed mothers are in long-term cohabitating partnerships (Kiernan 2001). In less developed countries, family structures tend to be more traditional.
CAUSES OF FAMILY-STRUCTURE CHANGES IN THE UNITED STATES
Discussions of the causes of these major family structure transformations can be grouped into two categories. The first category includes significant cultural transformations in the United States, where norms and values regarding marriage, divorce, sexuality, and so on have changed extensively. Opinion polls during the 1950s indicated that most Americans considered divorce, sex outside of marriage, and remaining single while in adulthood as somewhat deviant. These same behaviors are much more acceptable today, and the stigma associated with an adult not being in a traditional married-couple family has mostly disappeared (Giele 2003; Hackstaff 2003).
The second category of factors affecting the American family structure includes economic changes, such as the increased employment of women and economic-restructuring processes that result in fewer men with jobs that pay enough to support a family. Women have entered the job force in increasing numbers since the 1960s, making American women much more economically independent. The result is that divorce and remaining single have become more attractive alternatives, especially when compared to an unfavorable marriage (Giele 2003).
Additionally, beginning in the 1970s, an economic-restructuring process in the United States and other advanced societies has resulted in a significant decline in the number of manufacturing jobs and a corresponding increase in the number of jobs in the service sector (Morris and Western 1999; Sassen 1990). This economic-structure transformation has family-structure implications for two major reasons. First, a majority of the employees in the declining manufacturing sector are male, while female employees predominate in the expanding service sector. Consequently, there are increased employment opportunities for females and reduced employment opportunities for males. Second, most of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost were middle-income, while the new service jobs vary extensively in quality. While some service jobs are high quality, many others are low-pay, low-skill, temporary, and seasonal (Albrecht 2004). In the past, even minimally skilled workers could often get a middle-income job in the manufacturing sector. This is no longer the case as workers who lack the skills to attain high-quality jobs are often forced to take low-quality jobs because many of the middle-income jobs no longer exist. The result is higher rates of unemployment and underemployment among males and shrinkage in the pool of male household heads financially able to support a family. Marriage thus becomes less attractive to women, the rate of unwed childbearing increases, and female-headed households proliferate (Albrecht et al. 2000; Wilson 1987, 1996).
CONSEQUENCES OF FAMILY-STRUCTURE CHANGES
In some sectors of society, the emergence of socially acceptable alternatives to the traditional family was met with euphoria because it was felt that the family had been an institution that generally suppressed women and limited individuality (Albrecht and Albrecht 2004). However, social science research is finding that many problems are emerging from changes in the American family (Haveman et al. 2001; Manning 2002; Waite and Gallagher 2000). A brief overview of the research on this topic indicates that men, women, and children in single-adult families all experience extensive disadvantages relative to their counterparts in married-couple families (Popenoe 1996). Of the long list of disadvantages, only a few will be highlighted here. Single-adult families experience much higher levels of poverty, especially for females, with all of its attendant problems (Albrecht et al. 2000; Corcoran et al. 1992; McLanahan 1985). Children who grow up with only one biological parent have significantly lower educational achievements. These young people are much less likely to graduate from high school and to attend and complete college (Amato and Keith 1991; Downey 1995; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Raley et al. 2005; Zill 1996). Girls from one-parent families are much more likely to become pregnant as teenagers than girls from married-couple families, while boys are much more likely to become delinquent (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Wells and Rankin 1991). These differences remain even when economic conditions are considered. The advantages of being part of a married-couple family are apparent for adults as well as children. In a variety of ways, both men and women are healthier, happier, and more economically prosperous when married (Lichter and Graefe 2001; Nock 1998; Haveman et al. 2001).
SEE ALSO Family; Family, Extended; Family, Nuclear; Female-Headed Families
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albrecht, Don E. 2004. Amenities, Natural Resources, Economic Restructuring, and Socioeconomic Outcomes in Nonmetropolitan America. Journal of the Community Development Society 35 (2): 36–52.
Albrecht, Don E., and Carol Mulford Albrecht. 2004. Metro/Nonmetro Residence, Nonmarital Conception, and Conception Outcomes. Rural Sociology 69 (3): 430–452.
Albrecht, Don E., Carol Mulford Albrecht, and Stan L. Albrecht. 2000. Poverty in Nonmetropolitan America: Impacts of Industrial, Employment, and Family Structure Variables. Rural Sociology 65: 87–103.
Amato, Paul R., and Bruce Keith. 1991. Separation from a Parent During Childhood and Adult Socioeconomic Attainment. Social Forces 70 (1): 187–206.
Bianchi, Suzanne M., and Lynne M. Casper. 2000. American Families. Population Bulletin 55 (4). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.
Bumpass, Larry L., and Hsien-Hen Lu. 2000. Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the United States. Population Studies 54 (1): 29–41.
Bumpass, Larry L., and James Sweet. 1989. Children’s Experience in Single-Parent Families: Implications of Cohabitation and Marital Transitions. Family Planning Perspectives 21 (6): 256–260.
Casper, Lynne M., and Philip N. Cohen. 2000. How Does POSSLQ Measure Up: Historical Estimates of Cohabitation. Demography 37: 237–245.
Cherlin, Andrew J. 1992. Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Corcoran, Mary, Roger Gordon, Deborah Laren, and Gary Solon. 1992. The Association Between Men’s Economic Status and Their Family and Community Origins. Journal of Human Resources 27: 575–601.
DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Robert J. Mills. 2004. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60–226. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf.
Downey, Douglas. 1995. Understanding Academic Achievement Among Children in Stephouseholds: The Role of Parental Resources, Sex of the Stepparent, and Sex of Child. Social Forces 73: 875–894.
Fields, Jason. 2003. Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P20–547. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-547.pdf.
Fields, Jason. 2004. America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P20–553. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf.
Giele, Janet Z. 2003. Decline of the Family: Conservative, Liberal, and Feminist Views. In Family in Transition, eds. Arlene S. Skolnick and Jerome H. Skolnick. 12th ed., 57–76. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hackstaff, Karla B. 2003. Divorce Culture: A Quest for Relational Equality in Marriage. In Family in Transition, eds. Arlene S. Skolnick and Jerome H. Skolnick. 12th ed., 178–190. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Haveman, Robert, Barbara Wolfe, and Karen Pence. 2001. Intergenerational Effects of Nonmarital and Early Childbearing. In Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, eds. Lawrence Wu and Barbara Wolfe, 287–316. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kiernan, Kathleen. 2001. European Perspectives on Nonmarital Childbearing. In Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, eds. Lawrence Wu and Barbara Wolfe, 77–108. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kreider, Rose. 2005. Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P70–97. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf.
Kreider, Rose, and Jason Fields. 2005. Living Arrangements of Children: 2001. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P70–104. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-104.pdf.
Lichter, Daniel T., and Deborah Roempke Graefe. 2001. Finding a Mate? The Marital and Cohabitation Histories of Unwed Mothers. In Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, eds. Lawrence Wu and Barbara Wolfe. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Manning, Wendy D. 2002. The Implications of Cohabitation for Children’s Well-Being. In Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children, and Social Policy, eds. Alan Booth and Anne C. Crouter, 121–152. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McLanahan, Sara. 1985. Family Structure and the Reproduction of Poverty. American Journal of Sociology 56: 873–901.
McLanahan, Sara, Irwin Garfinkel, Nancy Reichman, and Julien Teitler. 2001. Unwed Parents or Fragile Families? Implications for Welfare and Child Support Policy. In Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, eds. Lawrence Wu and Barbara Wolfe. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morris, Martina, and Bruce Western. 1999. Inequality in Earnings at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 623–657.
Nock, Steven L. 1998. Marriage in Men’s Lives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Popenoe, David. 1996. Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence that Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable for the Good of Children and Society. New York: Martin Kessler.
Raley, R. Kelly, Michelle L. Frisco, and Elizabeth Wildsmith. 2005. Maternal Cohabitation and Educational Success. Sociology of Education 78: 144–164.
Saluter, Arlene F., and Terry A. Lugaila. 1998. Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1996. U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports P20–496. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-496.pdf.
Sassen, Saskia. 1990. Economic Restructuring and the American City. Annual Review of Sociology 16: 465–490.
Simmons, Tavia, and Martin O’Connell. 2003. Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports CENSR-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf.
Waite, Linda J., and Maggie Gallagher. 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York: Doubleday.
Wells, L. Edward, and Joseph H. Rankin. 1991. Families and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Broken Homes. Social Problems 38: 71–93.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, William J. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.
Wu, Lawrence, Larry L. Bumpass, and Kelly Musick. 2001. Historical and Life Course Trajectories of Nonmarital Childbearing. In Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility, eds. Lawrence Wu and Barbara Wolfe, 3–48. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Wu, Lawrence, and Barbara Wolfe, eds. 2001. Out of Wedlock: Causes and Consequences of Nonmarital Fertility. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Zill, Nicholas. 1996. Family Change and Student Achievement: What We Have Learned, What It Means for Schools. In Family-School Links: How Do They Effect Educational Outcomes? eds. Alan Booth and Judith F. Dunn, 139–174. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Don E. Albrecht
Carol Mulford Albrecht