case study on nuclear family

Nuclear Family (Definition + History)

In various societies and throughout history, the concept of family has served as a foundational unit, providing support, structure, and a sense of belonging. The ways in which people define and live within families have evolved, leading to diverse structures and dynamics.

A nuclear family is a family unit consisting of two parents (mother and father) and their biological or adopted children living together in a single household. This structure is distinct from extended family systems, which include additional relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Delving into the historical context, theories, cultural variations, benefits, and challenges, we will explore the intricate tapestry of the nuclear family. Through this exploration, we aim to provide insights into its impact on individuals and society, and how it compares to other family structures.

History of the Nuclear Family

Ancient Societies

The concept of the nuclear family can be traced back to several ancient societies, each of which has contributed uniquely to the understanding and evolution of this family structure.

Ancient Rome, Greece, and China, while geographically and culturally distinct, showcased early instances of nuclear family units within their respective societies, laying the foundation for future generations.

In ancient Rome, the family structure was predominantly patriarchal . The paterfamilias , or the male head of the family, held considerable authority and power, dictating the family's decisions and actions.

Within this patriarchal setup, the nuclear family was a visible unit, distinguished by its immediate family members sharing a household, apart from the extended family.

The nuclear family in ancient Rome functioned as a fundamental economic, social, and educational unit . Parents, particularly fathers, bore the responsibility of nurturing the children, imparting cultural norms, values, and traditions , ensuring the continuity of Roman heritage.

The Roman household was a microcosm of Roman society, reflecting societal hierarchies, roles, and responsibilities. Furthermore, marriages were often arranged for political or economic advantages, thereby influencing the dynamics within the nuclear family.

Ancient Greece, much like Rome, valued the concept of the oikos or household, which typically consisted of the father, mother, and children.

The Greek polis (city-state) had a profound impact on family life, as it underscored the nuclear family’s role in contributing to civic responsibilities and duties. Families were seen as the building blocks of a city-state, and the familial roles were often aligned with serving the interests of the community.

Education was a pivotal aspect of Greek family life, especially within the nuclear family. Parents, with a particular emphasis on fathers, were tasked with educating their children in philosophy, arts, sports, and civic duties, molding them into well-rounded citizens.

The societal expectations and norms were deeply ingrained within the family structure, shaping individual identities and responsibilities.

In ancient China, Confucianism played a pivotal role in shaping family structures and dynamics. The philosophy promoted filial piety, respect for elders, and the value of family harmony.

While extended families were highly valued and respected, the nuclear family maintained its position as a vital unit within the larger family framework.

Parents in a Chinese nuclear family were revered and held authority, with children expected to obey and honor them. The emphasis on education, moral values, and social harmony were integral to family life.

Families were seen as the foundation of a stable and harmonious society, reflecting the broader societal values and norms.

Middle Ages to the Renaissance

Transitioning from ancient civilizations to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the nuclear family experienced shifts and adaptations, reflecting the changing socio-economic and cultural landscapes of the times.

The influence of the feudal system and the emergence of individualism during the Renaissance played crucial roles in molding family structures and dynamics.

Feudal System Influence

The Middle Ages in Europe were characterized by the feudal system , where land ownership and social status were linked. Noble families, owing to their wealth and status, often lived in large households with extended family members and servants.

However, peasants, constrained by economic limitations and living conditions, were more likely to reside in smaller, nuclear family units.

Within these nuclear family units, roles were clearly defined, with fathers working in fields or trades, mothers managing household duties, and children assisting based on their age and gender.

The church played a significant role in dictating family values, norms, and practices, influencing marriage, parenthood, and children's upbringing.

Changing Social Dynamics

The Renaissance period marked a departure from the rigid societal structures of the Middle Ages, ushering in an era of enlightenment, art, science, and individualism.

The emphasis on personal fulfillment, intellectual growth, and artistic expression brought about shifts in family dynamics and individual roles within the nuclear family.

Marriages became less about economic or political alliances and more about personal choice and mutual affection.

The concept of childhood was recognized, leading to changes in parenting styles and educational practices. The nuclear family became a space for individual growth, learning, and expression, reflecting the broader societal transformations.

Industrial Revolution Impact

The advent of the Industrial Revolution brought forth unprecedented changes in family life, especially concerning the nuclear family structure. The migration from rural areas to urban centers, coupled with the separation of work from home life, led to more pronounced roles within the family and a heightened focus on the immediate family unit.

Urbanization and Work Dynamics

The shift from agrarian (farming) societies to industrial urban centers called for changes in family structures and roles. Men increasingly worked away from home, becoming the primary breadwinners, while women assumed the role of homemakers, managing household duties and child-rearing.

The nuclear family became a distinct economic and social unit, adapting to the demands of industrialized urban life.

Children's roles within the nuclear family also evolved, with formalized education becoming a focal point. Schooling prepared boys for future employment and girls for homemaking, reinforcing gender roles and expectations .

The nuclear family became a microcosm of the industrial society, reflecting the values, norms, and aspirations of the time.

Evolution of Family Roles

The distinct roles of fathers as breadwinners and mothers as homemakers became more entrenched during the Industrial Revolution. However, this period also sowed the seeds for future changes and challenges to traditional gender roles within the nuclear family.

The economic pressures and opportunities in urban centers brought about discussions on women's rights, education, and employment, laying the groundwork for future social movements.

Children’s education and socialization became paramount, with schools and communities playing a pivotal role in shaping their values, skills, and aspirations.

The nuclear family, while maintaining its core structure, was evolving, adapting to the socio-economic realities and cultural shifts of the industrial age.

The 20th Century to Present

The 20th century and the dawn of the new millennium witnessed significant transformations in the nuclear family structure, influenced by world wars, social movements, technological advancements , and globalization .

The challenges and adaptations of the nuclear family during these times underscored its resilience and ability to reflect broader societal changes.

World Wars Influence

The tumultuous times during the two World Wars had a profound impact on family life. With men going off to war, many women stepped into the workforce , challenging and reshaping traditional gender roles within the nuclear family.

The post-war periods saw attempts to revert to traditional family roles, but the experiences of women during the wars had laid the foundation for future changes.

The wars also brought about economic, political, and social shifts, affecting family life and individual aspirations. The nuclear family was not isolated from these broader transformations; instead, it adapted, reflecting the changing values, norms, and expectations of society.

Social and Cultural Movements

The latter half of the 20th century was marked by a wave of social and cultural movements , advocating for civil rights, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights .

These movements challenged the traditional notions of the nuclear family, advocating for more inclusive and diverse family structures and roles.

The rise of feminism questioned gender roles within the family, advocating for women's rights, equality, and opportunities.

The LGBTQ+ rights movement brought forth discussions on same-sex families, challenging the heteronormative definition of the nuclear family.

These movements, along with technological advancements and globalization, continue to shape the modern nuclear family, reflecting the diversity and inclusivity of contemporary society.

The technological revolution and globalization in the 21st century further influenced family dynamics.

Virtual connectivity, changing work patterns, and exposure to varying cultural influences have shaped the modern nuclear family, making it a dynamic and adaptable social unit.

Tracing the origins and evolution of the nuclear family from ancient civilizations through significant historical epochs reveals its adaptability and resilience. The nuclear family has mirrored societal changes, evolving roles, and shifting values, maintaining its significance as a foundational unit of society.

Characteristics of the Nuclear Family

The nuclear family, a term familiar to many, consists of two parents and their children, living together in a single household.

This family model is distinguished from the extended family system, which encompasses additional relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Across cultures and through the tides of change, the nuclear family has showcased various characteristics and roles, often reflective of the societal norms and values of the time.

1. Stability and Support

One of the defining characteristics of the nuclear family is its provision of stability and support. The close-knit structure fosters an environment where individual members can rely on one another for emotional, financial, and social support.

This sense of security and belonging is fundamental to individual well-being and development, forming the bedrock of the family unit.

2. Defined Roles and Responsibilities

Within a nuclear family, roles and responsibilities are often clearly defined. Traditionally, parents are seen as providers and protectors, while children are nurtured and guided towards adulthood.

These roles, while evolving, continue to shape the dynamics within the family, influencing relationships, expectations, and individual identities.

3. Socialization and Value Transmission

The nuclear family plays a pivotal role in socializing children, imparting values, morals, and cultural norms.

Through interaction with parents and siblings, children learn about relationships, empathy, cooperation, and conflict resolution. This early socialization lays the foundation for individual development and societal integration .

Roles within the Nuclear Family

As society has evolved, so too have the roles within the nuclear family. Traditional roles have been redefined, expanded, and diversified, reflecting changes in societal expectations, gender norms, and individual aspirations.

Parental Roles

Traditionally, fathers were often the breadwinners, providing financial support, while mothers were primarily responsible for homemaking and child-rearing.

However, the latter half of the 20th century saw significant shifts in parental roles, with more women entering the workforce and men taking an active part in child-rearing and household duties. This shift towards more egalitarian roles has influenced family dynamics, relationships, and individual fulfillment.

Children’s Roles

Children within a nuclear family are not mere recipients of care and socialization but also contribute to the family dynamics.

The interactions between siblings, as well as with their parents, shape their social understanding, emotional intelligence, and individual identities.

The roles of children have also evolved, with changing expectations regarding autonomy, education, and contribution to household tasks.

Evolving Gender Roles

The movement towards gender equality has had a profound impact on roles within the nuclear family.

The increasing participation of women in the workforce, the advocacy for shared parenting and household responsibilities, and the recognition of diverse family structures have all contributed to the redefinition of gender roles within the family.

Impact on Individual Development

The characteristics and roles within the nuclear family have far-reaching implications for individual development. The family environment influences cognitive, emotional, social, and moral development, shaping the individuals children become.

Cognitive Development

The nuclear family is the first environment where children encounter learning. Through interaction, play, and exploration, children develop cognitive skills such as problem-solving, language acquisition, and critical thinking .

Parental involvement, support, and stimulation are crucial in fostering cognitive development, laying the groundwork for academic achievement and intellectual growth.

Emotional and Social Development

The emotional bonds formed within the nuclear family are foundational to children’s emotional and social development. The experience of love, trust, and security shapes their emotional well-being, self-esteem, and capacity for empathy and cooperation.

Social interactions within the family teach children about relationships , conflict resolution, and social norms, preparing them for integration into broader society.

Moral Development

The nuclear family is instrumental in instilling moral values and ethical principles. Through guidance, discipline, and role modeling, parents influence children’s understanding of right and wrong, responsibility, and respect for others .

This moral foundation guides individuals throughout their lives, influencing their character, decisions, and relationships.

The nuclear family, with its distinct characteristics and roles, serves as a cornerstone for individual development and societal cohesion. The stability, support, and socialization provided within this family structure shape the cognitive, emotional, social, and moral development of its members.

The evolution of roles within the nuclear family reflects broader societal changes and continues to influence family dynamics and individual aspirations. Understanding these characteristics and roles is essential in exploring the significance, benefits, and challenges of the nuclear family in contemporary society.

Pros and Cons of the Nuclear Family

Pros of the nuclear family.

Many people around the world grow up in a nuclear family, which is like a cozy little team made up of two parents and their kids. This type of family structure has lots of wonderful aspects that make it pretty popular!

1. Stability and Independence

Firstly, a big win for nuclear families is the sense of stability and independence they bring. Imagine your family as a tight-knit circle of support, like a cozy nest where everyone looks out for each other.

Being independent from a bigger, extended family means you get to make your own rules and traditions. It's like building your own little world where your family gets to decide what’s important.

2. Lots of Attention and Support

In a nuclear family, with fewer people in the house, parents can really zoom in on what each child needs.

This means every child gets a special spotlight, helping them feel valued and understood. It’s like having a cheerleading squad just for you, helping you grow strong and confident.

3. Managing Money and Moving Around

When it comes to money, nuclear families often find it easier to manage. It’s like having a smaller pie – when there are fewer people, everyone gets a bigger slice!

This can lead to better saving opportunities and smarter choices with money. Also, smaller families can pack up and move more easily, whether chasing better job opportunities, schools, or just a nicer place to live.

4. Adapting to Changes

Nuclear families are often like chameleons, able to adapt to new situations and ideas. They might be more open-minded, accepting people’s differences, and adjusting to new ways of thinking and living.

Cons of the Nuclear Family

However, it's not all sunshine and rainbows. There are some challenges that nuclear families face, affecting both individuals and the family as a whole.

1. Limited Support System

One of the hurdles is that a smaller family might not have as many hands on deck for support. Imagine facing a big storm with a smaller umbrella – it can be tough without extra help, especially during hard times like sickness or loss.

2. Feeling Isolated

Sometimes, a nuclear family might feel a bit like an island, especially if they live far from other relatives or if the parents are super busy. Kids in these families might miss out on the bustling, lively feeling of having a larger family around.

3. More Pressure on Parents

In a nuclear family, the parents are like superheroes – they have to do it all! From caring for the kids to running the household, it’s a big job. And just like superheroes can get tired, so can parents, which can be stressful.

4. Losing Traditions

Living away from the extended family can sometimes mean missing out on learning about family traditions and stories. It’s like having fewer threads to weave the tapestry of your family’s history, leading to a weaker connection to your roots and heritage.

The nuclear family, this special team of parents and kids, has played a starring role in societies for ages. It’s like a tree that’s grown and changed with time, still standing strong and offering a safe and loving place for kids to grow. But, just like trees face storms, nuclear families have their challenges too.

Understanding the nuclear family is like piecing together a puzzle – looking at all the different pieces, the good and the tricky. It’s a really important way that people live together, and it helps mold who we become and how we view the world.

By diving into its history, how it functions, its ups, and downs, we get a clearer picture of its special role in our lives and the world.

Theories about the Nuclear Family

Diving into the world of theories and perspectives gives us a kaleidoscope of views on the nuclear family.

Over the years, many thinkers have explored this family structure, shedding light on its roles, functions, and impact on society and individuals. Let’s explore some of these intriguing theories and see what they tell us about the nuclear family!

Functionalism

The Functionalism theory, developed by Emile Durkheim in the early 20th century, looks at the nuclear family like a crucial puzzle piece in society.

According to this theory, each family has specific roles and functions that keep society running smoothly, just like how our body parts work together to keep us healthy.

Durkheim, and later Talcott Parsons , another influential sociologist, believed that the nuclear family performs essential functions like raising and educating children, providing emotional support, and contributing to economic stability.

In this view, the nuclear family is like a mini-society, a school where kids learn values, norms, and culture. It's where children first understand what’s right and wrong, shaping their characters and preparing them to be good members of society.

Additionally, the nuclear family is seen as an economic unit, with parents working to provide and kids eventually growing up to join the workforce.

Conflict Theory

Conflict Theory , introduced by thinkers like Karl Marx and later developed by Max Weber, offers a different lens. It views society as a stage where groups struggle for power and resources.

In this theory, the nuclear family is seen as a reflection of inequalities in society, with family members playing different roles and sometimes experiencing imbalance and conflict.

This theory sheds light on how power dynamics within the family can mirror broader societal inequalities. It questions the balance of power between men and women, parents and children, and how family structures can either challenge or uphold societal norms.

For example, it explores how traditional gender roles within the nuclear family might impact women’s opportunities and how families can either support or resist societal changes.

Symbolic Interactionism

Delving into Symbolic Interactionism , introduced by George Herbert Mead and later expanded by Herbert Blumer, we explore how individuals in a family interact and assign meanings to their relationships.

This theory is like looking at family life through a microscope, focusing on small, everyday interactions and how they shape our understanding of family roles and relationships.

In the context of the nuclear family, Symbolic Interactionism explores how family members communicate, how they define their roles, and how they create a shared family identity.

It looks at the symbols and meanings attached to ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘sibling’, and how these roles are interpreted and lived out. For instance, it might examine how a father’s role is seen as the provider and how this perception influences family interactions and expectations.

Social Exchange Theory

Social Exchange Theory , developed by George Homans in the 1950s and expanded by Peter Blau and Richard Emerson, views relationships as a sort of barter system.

It suggests that individuals seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs in their relationships, including family ties. The nuclear family, in this light, is seen as a network of relationships where members exchange resources, support, and care, aiming for a balance of give-and-take.

This theory helps us understand how family members negotiate responsibilities, support each other, and seek rewards in their relationships. It looks at how parents and children, husbands and wives, navigate the balance of giving and receiving, and how this dynamic influences family cohesion and satisfaction.

Feminist Theory

Feminist Theory , with roots in the works of thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir and later contributions by Betty Friedan and bell hooks, critically examines gender roles and inequalities within the family.

It shines a spotlight on how traditional family structures can uphold patriarchal norms and explores how families can be spaces for both empowerment and subordination.

In the realm of the nuclear family, Feminist Theory scrutinizes the division of labor, power dynamics, and opportunities for men and women.

It advocates for equality within family relationships and challenges traditional norms that might limit individuals based on gender. It’s like questioning who does the dishes and why, and exploring how families can break free from limiting roles and expectations.

Economic Models

Lastly, economic models of the family take a practical approach, viewing the family as a unit of production and consumption.

Developed by economists like Gary Becker in the 1970s and 1980s, these models analyze how families make decisions about work, spending, and resource allocation. They explore how families adapt to economic pressures, how they invest in their children’s education, and how they plan for the future.

In the context of the nuclear family, economic models examine how parents balance work and family life, how they prioritize spending, and how they plan for their children’s futures.

It’s like looking at the family as a mini-economy, exploring how they manage resources, make investments, and navigate the financial landscape.

Modern Theories on Nuclear Families and Diverse Structures

In recent years, our understanding of what a nuclear family can be has transformed, opening up new ways of thinking and welcoming a spectrum of family structures.

Modern theories of nuclear families emphasize inclusivity, diversity, and the evolving nature of family life.

Queer Theory and Same-Sex Marriages

Queer Theory , stemming from the work of thinkers like Judith Butler and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in the late 20th century, challenges traditional ideas about gender and sexuality.

It invites us to think outside the box when it comes to family structures, celebrating diversity and questioning norms.

In the landscape of nuclear families, Queer Theory illuminates the experiences of same-sex couples and their families. It explores how these families navigate societal norms, build strong relationships, and create loving environments for children.

Same-sex marriages, legally recognized in many countries around the world, have reshaped the definition of nuclear families, showcasing that love, commitment, and care are at the heart of family life, regardless of gender.

Blended Family Dynamics

Modern theories also explore the dynamics of blended families, where parents bring children from previous relationships into a new family unit. These theories delve into how family members build connections, navigate challenges, and create a harmonious family life.

Blended families add a layer of complexity to the nuclear family model, as they combine different family histories, traditions, and relationships. Understanding blended family dynamics helps us appreciate the adaptability and resilience of families, as they blend traditions, navigate relationships, and build strong bonds.

Childfree Families

Another modern perspective focuses on childfree families, where couples consciously choose not to have children. This viewpoint explores the motivations, experiences, and societal perceptions of childfree couples, acknowledging the diversity of family choices.

Childfree families challenge traditional expectations of parenthood and open up discussions about individual choice, fulfillment, and the different ways of building a meaningful life.

Recognizing childfree families as a valid family structure broadens our understanding of the many ways individuals create love, support, and commitment.

Dual-Career Families

The rise of dual-career families, where both partners pursue professional careers, has also shaped modern theories on nuclear families. These theories explore how families balance work and family life, share responsibilities, and support each other’s goals.

Dual-career families reflect the changing roles of men and women, the aspirations of individuals, and the adaptability of family structures. Understanding the dynamics of dual-career families provides insights into the evolving nature of family roles, relationships, and aspirations.

The Nuclear Family in Different Cultures

Examining the concept of the nuclear family across different cultures is like embarking on a fascinating journey around the world. E

ach culture, with its unique traditions, values, and social norms, adds a distinctive flavor to the nuclear family model, highlighting both commonalities and differences.

Western Cultures

In Western cultures, like in the United States and Europe, the nuclear family is often seen as the cornerstone of society. It’s like a building block, shaping individual identities and contributing to the larger community.

Here, the emphasis is often on individualism, independence, and the pursuit of personal goals.

In these cultures, nuclear families often live separately from extended families, valuing privacy and autonomy.

Children are encouraged to become independent and self-reliant, with education playing a pivotal role in preparing them for adulthood.

The concept of marriage has also evolved to include same-sex couples, reflecting changing societal norms and values.

Asian Cultures

Venturing into Asian cultures, we find a different perspective. Countries like China, Japan, and India often place a strong emphasis on collectivism, interdependence, and respect for tradition.

While nuclear families are common, there is often a close-knit connection with the extended family.

In these cultures, family values such as filial piety, respect for elders, and maintaining family harmony play a significant role.

Family members are expected to support each other, and children often live with their parents until marriage.

Additionally, arranged marriages are still prevalent in some Asian cultures, with families playing a central role in match-making.

African Cultures

Exploring African cultures, we discover a rich tapestry of family structures and values. In many African societies, the concept of family extends beyond the nuclear unit to include a broader network of relatives and community members.

In this communal setting, raising children is often a collective responsibility, with the proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” encapsulating this ethos.

Extended families and communities play a crucial role in providing support, instilling values, and fostering a sense of belonging. The emphasis is often on cooperation, mutual support, and maintaining strong family ties.

Middle Eastern Cultures

In the Middle East, family is central to social structure and cultural identity. The nuclear family is valued, but there is a strong connection with extended family members, reflecting the importance of kinship and family solidarity.

In these cultures, traditions, and religious values significantly influence family roles and relationships. Respect for elders, adherence to family norms, and the importance of marriage and procreation are common themes.

Families tend to be patriarchal, with men often holding decision-making roles, while women are primarily responsible for childcare and household duties.

Latin American Cultures

In Latin American cultures, family is a vibrant and essential aspect of life. Like a colorful tapestry, the family is interwoven with traditions, celebrations, and a strong sense of unity.

The nuclear family is important, but so is the extended family, forming a close and supportive network.

In these cultures, family members often live close to each other, and there is a strong sense of loyalty and mutual support.

Traditional gender roles are prevalent, but there is also a growing trend towards equality and shared responsibilities within the family.

Celebrations and gatherings are integral to family life, reinforcing bonds and creating cherished memories.

Journeying through different cultures provides a panoramic view of the nuclear family, revealing its diverse manifestations and adaptations.

Whether shaped by individualism or collectivism, tradition or modernity, each culture adds its unique brushstrokes to the portrait of the nuclear family.

Understanding these cultural variations enriches our appreciation of the universality and adaptability of the nuclear family concept, a testament to its enduring significance in human societies.

Comparing Nuclear Family to Other Family Structures

In the diverse world of family structures, each type is like a unique plant in a garden, with its way of growing, blooming, and contributing to the ecosystem.

Comparing the nuclear family to other family structures helps us appreciate the variety in the garden of family life and understand how each type meets the needs of its members in its way.

Extended Family

Firstly, let’s look at the extended family, which is like a big, spreading tree with many branches. Unlike the nuclear family, which consists of parents and their children, extended families include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and sometimes even more relatives!

Living in such a family can feel like being part of a big, bustling community, with lots of people around to share experiences, offer help, and provide companionship.

Extended families offer a strong support system, with family members often living close by or under the same roof. This close-knit network can be especially helpful in times of need, with relatives stepping in to help with childcare, financial support, or just a listening ear.

However, living in a larger family can also mean less privacy and more opinions to consider when making decisions.

Single-Parent Family

Next, we have the single-parent family, which is like a resilient plant that finds a way to thrive even in challenging conditions.

In this family structure, one parent takes on the role of both caregiver and provider, juggling responsibilities and ensuring the well-being of the children. Life in a single-parent family can be full of love and closeness, but it can also be challenging, with one parent balancing many tasks.

Single-parent families might face financial challenges and time constraints, but they also foster strong bonds and a sense of independence.

Children in these families often learn responsibility early on and develop a close relationship with their parent. The smaller family size allows for individual attention and adaptability to meet each member’s needs.

Childless Families

In the garden of family life, childless families are like flowers that don’t produce seeds but still add beauty and diversity to the landscape.

Couples in childless families have chosen not to have children, focusing on their relationship, careers, hobbies, and other life goals. This family structure offers flexibility, freedom, and the opportunity to pursue individual and joint aspirations.

Childless families can invest time and resources in their interests, careers, and each other, fostering a close and fulfilling relationship.

However, they might also face societal expectations and misconceptions about their choice to remain childless.

Nevertheless, childless families are a testament to the diversity of family life and the validity of different life choices.

Blended Families

Blended families, formed when parents bring together children from previous relationships, are like gardens where different types of plants are grown together.

This family structure offers a chance for new beginnings, fostering relationships between stepparents, stepsiblings, and half-siblings. Navigating relationships in blended families can be complex, but it can also lead to a rich and rewarding family life.

Blended families require time, patience, and communication to build strong bonds and navigate differences.

The diversity within the family can lead to a richer and more inclusive family experience, with members learning from each other’s backgrounds and perspectives.

Like a garden with a mix of plants, a blended family can be a harmonious and vibrant place, where each member contributes to the family’s well-being.

Exploring different family structures sheds light on the myriad ways individuals create loving, supportive environments.

Whether in the close-knit setting of the nuclear family, the bustling community of the extended family, the resilient single-parent family, the flexible childless family, or the diverse blended family, each structure offers unique experiences and lessons.

Appreciating this diversity helps us understand the many forms of family life and the common threads of love, support, and belonging that connect them all.

Nuclear Families and Mental Health

Exploring the intricate world of psychology through the lens of various case studies and research reveals compelling insights into the impact of the nuclear family on individuals.

From understanding mental health dynamics to exploring correlations with criminal behavior, these studies offer a multifaceted perspective on the influence of family structure.

Attachment Theory and Child Development

One of the foundational studies in psychology, conducted by John Bowlby and further developed by Mary Ainsworth in the mid-20th century, delved into attachment theory .

This theory examines the bond between children and their primary caregivers (usually parents), focusing on the nuclear family.

The researchers found that a child’s attachment style could profoundly impact their mental health and interpersonal relationships as they grow.

Bowlby and Ainsworth came up with four attachment styles:

• Secure Attachment: This style is characterized by a sense of safety and security. Securely attached children feel confident to explore the world, knowing they can return to a safe base. They tend to develop higher self-esteem, better relationships, and more robust mental health.
• Insecure-Avoidant Attachment: Children with this style may avoid closeness and emotional connection with their caregivers. They tend to be more independent and may struggle with forming intimate relationships later in life.
• Insecure-Anxious Attachment: These children often exhibit anxiety and uncertainty. They may be clingy and overly dependent on their caregivers, fearing abandonment.
• Disorganized Attachment: This style is characterized by a lack of a clear attachment behavior, and these children might act disoriented or exhibit contradictory behaviors. It often arises from situations of neglect or abuse.

They also identified a few factors that can influence the development of these attachment styles:

• Sensitivity and Responsiveness: The caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness to a child’s needs are crucial in forming a secure attachment. Consistent, loving, and attentive care fosters a sense of security in children.
• Reliability: A caregiver’s reliability and availability contribute to the development of attachment styles. Children who can depend on their caregivers to meet their needs are more likely to develop secure attachments.
• Stress and Trauma: Exposure to stress, trauma, or inconsistency in early childhood can influence attachment styles. Children who experience such conditions are more likely to develop insecure or disorganized attachments.
• Temperament: The child’s innate temperament also plays a role. Some children might be more adaptable and resilient, while others may be more sensitive and reactive, influencing their attachment formation.

Attachment styles can have a lasting impact on an individual’s life, influencing their approach to relationships, self-esteem, and coping mechanisms.

Securely attached individuals are more likely to form healthy, balanced relationships and exhibit emotional resilience. In contrast, those with insecure attachment styles might face challenges in building trust, managing emotions, and maintaining relationships.

Therapeutic Interventions: Attachment-based therapy focuses on addressing and altering attachment patterns. It can be particularly beneficial for individuals with insecure or disorganized attachment styles, helping them develop healthier relationships, improve self-esteem, and enhance emotional regulation.

Attachment theory offers profound insights into the formative bonds formed within the nuclear family and their lasting impact on an individual’s development and well-being.

Understanding the different attachment styles, their influencing factors, and long-term effects provides a comprehensive view of the intricate relationship between early childhood experiences and subsequent life outcomes.

Recognizing the significance of secure attachments and the potential for therapeutic interventions contributes to a deeper appreciation of the pivotal role of the nuclear family in shaping individuals.

The Impact of Parental Involvement on Academic Achievement

Diana Baumrind ’s seminal research in the 1960s identified different parenting styles within nuclear families and their impact on children’s academic achievement and behavior.

She categorized parenting into authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and neglectful, examining how each style influenced children’s development.

• Authoritative Parenting: This style combines warmth and firmness, fostering a supportive environment while setting clear boundaries. Authoritative parents encourage open communication, provide rationale for rules, and offer consistent discipline. Children raised in this environment often exhibit higher academic achievement, better emotional regulation, social competence, and a balanced sense of autonomy.
• Authoritarian Parenting: Authoritarian parents are strict, demanding, and expect obedience without explanation. This style may lead to children who are obedient and proficient but may struggle with self-esteem, social competence, and may experience higher levels of unhappiness and stress.
• Permissive Parenting: Permissive parents are nurturing and accepting but make few demands and set limited boundaries. Children raised in this environment might struggle with self-control and self-regulation, performing less well academically and exhibiting behavioral problems.
• Neglectful Parenting: Neglectful parents are uninvolved, indifferent, and emotionally unresponsive. Children with neglectful parents are likely to face a myriad of developmental issues, including academic underachievement, behavioral problems, and poor mental health.

The impact of parenting styles and parental involvement on children’s academic achievement has ripple effects throughout their life. Success in academia often translates to better career opportunities, higher self-esteem, and improved overall well-being.

Moreover, individuals who have experienced supportive parenting are likely to replicate positive parenting practices with their children.

Educational and parental interventions can mitigate the effects of less effective parenting styles. Parenting programs aim to enhance parenting skills, improve parent-child relationships, and foster environments conducive to child development and academic achievement.

Family Structure and Juvenile Delinquency

Various studies have explored the correlation between family structure and juvenile delinquency. A common focus has been comparing children from single-parent families with those from nuclear families.

Research generally indicates that children from stable, well-functioning nuclear families generally exhibit lower rates of delinquency compared to those from single-parent families.

While it’s crucial to consider socio-economic factors and the quality of parent-child relationships, research suggests that the structure and stability of a nuclear family can play a protective role against juvenile delinquency.

Studies on Same-Sex Parenting

In recent years, research has shifted towards understanding the dynamics and outcomes of children raised in LGBTQ+ nuclear families.

Several studies have compared the mental health, social adjustment, and academic achievement of children raised by same-sex couples with those raised by opposite-sex couples.

The consensus from multiple studies indicates that children raised in LGBTQ+ families fare just as well in these aspects as their counterparts from heterosexual families.

The quality of parenting and family relationships are more significant predictors of children’s well-being than the parents’ sexual orientation.

Economic Stress and Family Dynamics

Economic stress can put a strain on the nuclear family, impacting relationships and individuals’ mental health.

Studies have investigated how financial difficulties, unemployment, and socio-economic status influence family dynamics, parental behavior, and children’s outcomes.

Families facing economic stress may experience increased tension, conflict, and disruption. However, strong family bonds, effective communication, and coping mechanisms can mitigate the adverse effects of financial strain on family members.

In weaving together the varied threads of information, theories, research studies, and real-life examples, we have embarked on a comprehensive exploration of the nuclear family, unveiling its multifaceted nature, evolution, and impact on individual members and society at large.

The nuclear family, characterized by its core unit of parents and children, serves as a cornerstone for many societies, influencing values, norms, and the development of its members.

We delved into the history and evolution of the nuclear family, tracing its roots and transformations across eras and cultural landscapes. The examination of diverse family structures across different cultures illuminated the adaptability and universality of familial bonds, while also highlighting the unique manifestations of the nuclear family in various societies.

A thorough exploration of theoretical perspectives, from the foundational works of Talcott Parsons to the modern discourses on same-sex families, enriched our understanding of the nuclear family's role and significance.

These theories, each with its unique lens, offered insights into the economic, sociological, and psychological dimensions of family life.

The comparison between nuclear and other family structures, complemented by detailed research findings, shed light on the distinct advantages and challenges associated with different family forms.

Through this, we gained a nuanced perspective on the importance of adaptability, support networks, and targeted interventions in fostering balanced development for children, regardless of their family structure.

The examination of psychological research and case studies provided a deeper understanding of the impact of family dynamics on individual well-being and development.

The exploration of attachment theory and the influence of parental involvement on academic achievement underscored the pivotal role of the family unit in shaping the academic, social, and emotional facets of a child’s life.

Finally, in reflecting on the diverse narratives, theories, and research studies, we recognize the inherent complexity and diversity of family life. The nuclear family, while a prevalent and influential structure, is but one piece of the intricate mosaic of family forms.

It is essential to appreciate the variety of familial experiences and continue exploring the ever-evolving dynamics of family life in our changing world.

The nuclear family remains a significant and influential structure, shaping the lives of its members and the fabric of societies.

Through continuous exploration, understanding, and adaptability, we can celebrate the diversity of family forms and work towards fostering supportive, inclusive environments for all families, nuclear and beyond.

Related posts:

• Social Institutions (Definition + 7 Examples)
• Golden Child Syndrome (Definition + Examples)
• Attachment Styles Theory (Free Test)
• John Bowlby Biography - Contributions To Psychology
• Mary Ainsworth (Biography)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

December 23, 2013

The real roots of the nuclear family.

• The nuclear family wasn't born after the Industrial Revolution--it predominated in England even in the 13th century. Tweet This
• The nuclear family is more adaptable and more child-centered than the traditional extended family clan. Tweet This

Though much of the public seems unaware of it, family scholars believe that—generally speaking—children are best off growing up with their two married parents. These are the children most likely to get the education crucial for maintaining a middle-class life in an advanced economy, to remain stably employed, and to marry and raise their own children to go on and do the same.

But it is not well understood  why  the married couple—or nuclear family—works so well for kids. The most intriguing explanation I’ve seen can be found in a little-known 2002 book by the sociologist Brigitte Berger:  The Family in the Modern Age . It recalls an old-fashioned era of sociology. There are no charts, regressions, or metrics; it is, rather, an exposition of economic, social, and demographic history. Yet it manages to anticipate and explain what today’s empirically grounded sociologists have repeatedly discovered about families and child wellbeing.

And so to Berger’s history: Not so long ago, family scholars labored under the assumption, half-Marxist, half-“functionalist,” that before the Industrial Revolution, the extended family was the norm in the Western world. There was more than a little romanticism associated with this view: extended families were imagined to have lived in warm, cohesive rural communities where men and women worked together on farms or in small cottage industries. That way of life, went the thinking, ended when industrialization wrenched rural folk away from their cottages and villages into the teeming, anonymous city, sent men into the factories, and consigned women to domestic drudgery. Worse, by upending the household economy, the Industrial Revolution seriously weakened the family. The nuclear family, it was believed, was evidence of family decline.

The nuclear family was the dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.

But by the second half of the twentieth century, one by one these assumptions were overturned. First to go was the alleged prevalence of the extended family. Combing through English parish records and other demographic sources, historians like Peter Laslett and Alan MacFarlane discovered that the nuclear family—a mother, father and child(ren) in a “simple house,” as Laslett put it—was the dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.

Rather than remaining in or marrying into the family home, as was the case in Southern Europe and many parts of Asia and the Middle East, young couples in England were expected to establish their own household. That meant that men and women married later than in other parts of the world, only after they had saved enough money to set up an independent home. By the time they were ready to tie the knot, their own parents were often deceased, making multi-generational households a relative rarity.

Far from being weaker than an extended family clan, Berger shows, the ordinary nuclear family was able to adapt superbly to changing economic and political realities. In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence. The young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving.

These habits were of little use to the idle, landed rich who were wedded to, and defined by, the ancestral property: think  Downton Abbey . Similarly, in extended families, a newly married couple was required to move in with the larger maternal or paternal clan, and to work the family land or maintain the family trade. Under those circumstances, people, particularly women, married young, generally before 20. Between their youth and dependence, the couple was not capable of becoming effective strivers in a changing economy.

Another less appreciated advantage to the nuclear family: it was uniquely child-centered.

These observations are not unique to  The Family in the Modern Age . But Berger finds another less appreciated advantage to the nuclear family: it was uniquely child-centered. In societies that rely on extended families, young women had plenty of time to have five or more children. The older brides of northwest Europe, on the other hand, had fewer fertile years ahead of them and smaller families, which enabled them to provide more focused attention on each child. Their children became part of a household already steeped in an ethos of hard work, future-mindedness, and ingenuity. This prepared them to take advantage of the new modes of labor introduced by the Industrial Revolution, which would eventually create an urbanized middle class.

Over time, with the increasing complexity of the labor market and the arrival of mass schooling, forward-thinking, child-centered parents were best equipped to organize themselves around what Berger calls “the family’s great educational mission.” Extended and clan families under the control of an older generation would be less adaptive since grandparents were more likely to bring up baby the old-fashioned way; larger families, meanwhile, tended to encourage older children to take charge of their younger siblings.

So how does all of this help us understand today’s debates about married couple vs. single-parent families? Researchers find that children growing up with two married parents are more likely to develop “soft skills” like self-control and perseverance that are more crucial than ever to school and labor-market success. Some of this could be chalked up to the logistical problems faced by a single parent.

But if we follow the logic of Berger’s history, another explanation presents itself: the children of married couples are internalizing their parents’ bourgeois aspirations and child-centeredness, both of which lie deep in the bones of the institution they have chosen to enter. Contemporary parents continue to marry late—at least those who do marry—and only after they are equipped to teach their kids the skills that they themselves have already learned. Their parenting style can be described as “concerted cultivation”: they devote great time and attention to developing their children’s skills. Single parents tend to be younger, less-educated, and more inclined to believe in the child’s “natural growth,” to use another of  Annette Lareau’s  terms.

Helicopter parents with their obsessive interest in their children’s physical, emotional, and cognitive development are the latest, if occasionally absurd, personification of values with strong historical roots. But, as it has for centuries now, their child-centeredness and future-oriented planning appears to be paying off.

Related Posts

Who cheats more the demographics of infidelity in america, eight reasons women stay in abusive relationships, male sexlessness is rising but not for the reasons incels claim, counterintuitive trends in the link between premarital sex and marital stability, the u.s. divorce rate has hit a 50-year low, does having children make people happier in the long run, join the ifs mailing list.

Sign up for our mailing list to receive ongoing updates from IFS.

© 2024 Institute for Family Studies

• Our Mission
• Books & Articles
• Get Married
• Success Sequence
• Public Education

Interested in learning more about the work of the Institute for Family Studies? Please feel free to contact us by using your preferred method detailed below.  

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 1502 Charlottesville, VA 22902

(434) 260-1048

[email protected]

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, contact Chris Bullivant ( [email protected] ).

We encourage members of the media interested in learning more about the people and projects behind the work of the Institute for Family Studies to get started by perusing our "Media Kit" materials.

The Nuclear Family Was No Mistake: A Response to David Brooks

We're growing more disconnected, but the nuclear familly isn't at fault..

Posted February 27, 2020 | Reviewed by Matt Huston

In a thought-provoking article covering an array of societal challenges, David Brooks declares that “ The Nuclear Family was a Mistake .” I share many of the concerns he articulates about social fragmentation, but I believe he errs by implying that—in a maelstrom of change and growing disconnection—the nuclear family is the villain in our story.

From the standpoint of biology, sociology, psychology, or of different faiths, it is widely accepted that little humans have advantages if they are looked after by two adults sharing a bond. Although scholars can argue the reasons why, and there are plenty of exceptions to the general case, a strong commitment between two parents is a fundamental good. That will often take the form of a nuclear family, which may or may not be further connected in a community. Further, I believe there is substantial evidence that the nuclear family has been around a lot longer than implied in Brook’s piece (e.g., see this brief overview by European historian, Peter Laslett). The nuclear family is one of the fundamental building blocks of family, extended families, and communities.

Brooks acknowledges the benefits of two-parent families and of marriage , refining his focus from the sweeping accusation of the title to detached nuclear families. Disconnection and isolation are his real targets, and those are deeply important problems. But, in his article, the nuclear family seems like a passenger along for the ride in a car leaving the scene of the crimes Brooks describes—when the car is driven by us. By us, I mean most all of us, motivated by our desires for autonomy and freedom.

In fact, Brooks states, “We’ve made life freer for individuals and more unstable for families.” That is a profound truth, and it describes what gets too little attention from Brooks. He says the market wants us to live in greater isolation, but maybe it’s us doing the wanting. He is especially disturbed that autonomy and separated living is so clearly displayed in countries with the most concentrated wealth. A lot of the problems we see may be caused by what most people want—even if those things also have downsides for individuals and society.

I remember being in a room of scholars 20 or more years ago when family historian Barbara Dafoe Whitehead argued that much of the increase in family fragmentation then observed was driven by growing affluence. She was not referring to wealth inequality but to the growing affluence across America that gave wings to autonomy.

Brooks gives the example of how many fewer elderly Americans now live with kin than in the past. An unasked question is, how many elderly Americans want to have less autonomy and live with their kin? Many elderly adults in America are isolated and at increased risk. More than a few want increased connection with family and a growing number simply have no kin . But many others cling to their autonomy and will fight to keep it until reality forces them to do otherwise. In the past, few people had the option to preserve autonomy in this way. Some forms of living that Brooks extols as better in the past were quite likely, and largely, driven by poverty, fear , and necessity.

I am not arguing that there is virtue in isolation and atomization. I do think we are losing, or letting go of, common spaces for connection in our lives. Many of us want what may not actually be best for us or those around us. Paul Amato and colleagues wrote an insightful book on the growing trend for couples to isolate and be Alone Together . It’s Bowling Alone for two. This trend toward isolation has many causes, and, as Brooks notes, the consequences are different for those with and without means. As Sarah Halpern-Meekin has written, those in poverty are not merely suffering from economic poverty but also from Social Poverty . She suggests this is a growing problem for all, with particular challenges for those struggling with economic hardship.

What do people seem to want? You can infer the most about what people truly desire when they have more options and fewer constraints. As a group, those with higher education and incomes—those with the most options—are now over-represented among those with stable marriages and nuclear families. Although it might have changed since they first wrote on the subject, Katherine Edin and Maria Kefalas found that the desire to marry exists among the poor despite barriers in reaching that goal. People have preferences, the expression of which is affected by their quality of opportunity.

Not only are those with more education choosing marriage, they are increasingly sorting into two-parent families with the best odds for a stable family life. Many scholars, including Andrew Cherlin and Brad Wilcox and Wendy Wang , have remarked on the resulting chasm between the haves and have nots. Not everyone wants marriage, and fewer adults than ever before desire to be parents, but those with the best options seem to be the most likely to choose a marriage-based, nuclear family. As Cherlin suggests and Brooks implies, this fact is becoming a multiplier of income and wealth inequality, but I do not think having fewer nuclear families is going to lead to having more extended families with connections. Brooks errs in making the nuclear family the fall guy for very real and complex problems in family inequality and individual opportunity.

I strongly agree with Brooks that isolation is winning out over community. Along with detailing various types of government efforts that he believes may help in the broader context, he brings his essay home by focusing on ways we can work toward creating more social connection, partly by forged families. This is, in part, the province of commitment on a personal level, where we can choose to connect and share our lives with others. While we naturally eschew constraints in favor of freedom, commitment is making a choice to give up some choices—it is choosing to be constrained for something better. There is more than one way to forge connectedness rooted in commitment.

Note: This essay is adapted slightly from one that was published as part of a series of article organized by the Institute of Family Studies in reaction to the article by Brooks.

Scott Stanley, Ph.D. , is a psychologist and a research professor at the University of Denver, where he conducts studies on marriage, cohabitation, and commitment.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

nuclear family

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• The Bowen Center for the Study of the Family - Nuclear Family Emotional Process
• BMC - Public Health - Factors associated with quality of life among joint and nuclear families: a population-based study
• Simply Psychology - Nuclear Family Functions In Sociology
• Academia - Joint and Nuclear Family

nuclear family , in sociology and anthropology , a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. Typically, but not always, the adults in a nuclear family are married. Although such couples are most often a man and a woman, the definition of the nuclear family has expanded with the advent of same-sex marriage . Children in a nuclear family may be the couple’s biological or adopted offspring.

Thus defined, the nuclear family was once widely held to be the most basic and universal form of social organization. Anthropological research, however, has illuminated so much variability of this form that it is safer to assume that what is universal is a “nuclear family complex” in which the roles of husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, and sister are embodied by people whose biological relationships do not necessarily conform to the Western definitions of these terms. In matrilineal societies, for example, a child may be the responsibility not of his biological genitor but of his mother’s brother, who fulfills the roles typical of Western fatherhood.

Closely related in form to the predominant nuclear-family unit are the conjugal family and the consanguineal family. As its name implies, the conjugal family is knit together primarily by the marriage tie and consists of mother, father, their children, and some close relatives. The consanguineal family, on the other hand, typically groups itself around a unilineal descent group known as a lineage , a form that reckons kinship through either the father’s or the mother’s line but not both. Whether a culture is patrilineal or matrilineal, a consanguineal family comprises lineage relatives and consists of parents, their children, and their children’s children. Rules regarding lineage exogamy , or out-marriage, are common in these groups; within a given community , marriages thus create cross-cutting social and political ties between lineages.

The stability of the conjugal family depends on the quality of the marriage of the husband and wife, a relationship that is more emphasized in the kinds of industrialized, highly mobile societies that frequently demand that people reside away from their kin groups. The consanguineal family derives its stability from its corporate nature and its permanence, as its relationships emphasize the perpetuation of the line.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
• v.376(1827); June 21, 2021

The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences

Rebecca sear.

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Associated Data

This article has no additional data.

The importance of social support for parental and child health and wellbeing is not yet sufficiently widely recognized. The widespread myth in Western contexts that the male breadwinner–female homemaker nuclear family is the ‘traditional’ family structure leads to a focus on mothers alone as the individuals with responsibility for child wellbeing. Inaccurate perceptions about the family have the potential to distort academic research and public perceptions, and hamper attempts to improve parental and child health. These perceptions may have arisen partly from academic research in disciplines that focus on the Western middle classes, where this particular family form was idealized in the mid-twentieth century, when many of these disciplines were developing their foundational research. By contrast, evidence from disciplines that take a cross-cultural or historical perspective shows that in most human societies, multiple individuals beyond the mother are typically involved in raising children: in evolutionary anthropology, it is now widely accepted that we have evolved a strategy of cooperative reproduction. Expecting mothers to care for children with little support, while expecting fathers to provide for their families with little support, is, therefore, likely to lead to adverse health consequences for mothers, fathers and children. Incorporating evidence-based evolutionary, and anthropological, perspectives into research on health is vital if we are to ensure the wellbeing of individuals across a wide range of contexts.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Multidisciplinary perspectives on social support and maternal–child health’.

1.  Introduction

To misquote John Donne ‘no woman is an island’, able to raise children alone. In evolutionary anthropology, it is now widely accepted that we are a species that practises cooperative reproduction: throughout human history, children have been raised by cooperative networks of individuals [ 1 , 2 ]. In Western contexts, this idea does not yet appear to be particularly widespread much beyond anthropology, either in academia, in popular culture or among policy-makers. Instead, the ‘traditional’ family is widely regarded to be a nuclear family, where the husband–wife unit is assumed to be economically autonomous and responsible for raising children with little help, with an extreme sexual division of labour in which men are solely responsible for ‘breadwinning’ and women ‘homemaking’. In reality, across most societies, the husband–wife unit is rarely autonomous, but is instead engaged in extensive cooperative relationships with other individuals, particularly other family members. These include extensive help with raising children. The male breadwinner–female homemaker division of labour is also unusual. While there is often a sexual division of labour, such that women and men do not have exactly the same roles (for example, women do typically spend more time in childcare), childcare is not the exclusive preserve of women in most societies and, even more so, productive labour is not the exclusive preserve of men.

Inaccurate assumptions about the ‘traditional’ human family matter because they are reflected in academic research, policy and health interventions, and popular discussions, meaning they have the potential to distort research, hamper attempts to improve health and wellbeing, and feed into problematic political narratives. These assumptions also spread into research and public health interventions in the Global South, given the loudness of the Global North's voice in these arenas. Such assumptions are particularly problematic because of the ease with which ‘traditional’ becomes ‘natural’ and ‘good’, despite endless repetition of the dangers of the naturalistic and is/ought fallacies. Behaviour that is ‘natural’ or that is typically performed is not necessarily always the ‘right’ behaviour, but moral judgements are frequently made about family form, likely because of the importance of family in human lives. To avoid hampering research, public health and policy, and misinforming popular culture, it is important, therefore, to promote an accurate picture of what the human family actually looks like worldwide, emphasizing the diversity of family forms in which children can be successfully raised.

2.  Where does the idea that the ‘traditional’ human family is a male breadwinner nuclear family come from?

If the male breadwinner nuclear family is a relatively unusual family form, then where does the idea that it is the ‘traditional’ family come from? Evolutionary researchers need to bear some responsibility for promoting this view. Social norms surrounding the family and gender roles undoubtedly have complex origins, but in popular discourse in the West, they are often given an evolutionary justification; for example, the male breadwinner–female homemaker family may be considered the ‘natural’ way of things because of the assumption that women are biologically designed to bear and raise children, while men provide for them. This view unfortunately does appear in some evolutionary research, particularly from the mid-to-late twentieth century. For example, ‘Man the Hunter’ was an influential conference and subsequent book in the 1960s which promoted a vision of an evolutionary past in which hunting by men and provisioning of women and children was of key importance in human evolution [ 3 ]. Lovejoy's aptly titled 1981 paper ‘The origin of man’ extrapolated this vision beyond male provisioning into the claim that female homemaking also had a long history: ‘the nuclear family …may have [its] ultimate origin long before the dawn of the Pleistocene’ [ 4 , p. 348]. There were always some voices in evolutionary social science emphasizing the importance of the extended family, and recent decades have seen an explosion of evolutionary anthropological literature providing evidence that male breadwinner nuclear families are far from ‘traditional’ (see the next section), but even in 2020, some evolutionary psychologists are still publishing papers that explicitly refer to this family form as ‘traditional’. Given that this idea is still being (inaccurately) promoted in some areas of the evolutionary behavioural sciences, it is not too surprising that there should still be a popular perception that the male breadwinner family is ‘traditional’.

Some social sciences also need to shoulder responsibility for promoting the view that the male breadwinner nuclear family is ‘traditional’. Research on the family by the economist Gary Becker, which has been highly influential far beyond economics, assumes the nuclear family is the organizational unit on which economic production is focused. In his widely read A treatise on the family , he explicitly attributed household specialization to biological differences between the sexes: ‘The most pervasive division [of labour] is between married women, who traditionally have devoted most of their time to childbearing and other domestic activities, and married men, who have hunted, soldiered, farmed, and engaged in other “market” activities’ [ 5 , p. 30]. He even referred to men in the household and women in the labour market as a ‘deviant division of labour’ [ 5 , p. 40], though he backtracked on biological differences as the cause of household specialization in domestic or market work in other writings [ 6 ]. Despite acknowledging the important economic contributions of children to the household in some societies, he also did not appear to be aware of the considerable support that mothers receive for childrearing: ‘over the years most households in Western and Eastern societies have been headed by married men and women who raise their own children’ [ 5 , p. 80].

In much of sociology and demography too, there seems to be a pervasive assumption that the male breadwinner nuclear family is the norm: changes in family structure that have happened in (some sections of) Western populations since the Second World War, such as increasing female labour force participation, childbearing outside of marriage and decreasing marriage rates, have been described as the ‘decline’ of the family [ 7 ] and ‘the earthquake that shuddered through the American family in the past 20 years’ [ 8 , p. 451]. While these ideas may have been partly influenced by Becker's views on the ‘traditional' nature of the male breadwinner nuclear family [ 5 ], they may also arise from work by sociologists such as Talcott Parsons. Parsons, while acknowledging that other family forms existed, concluded that the ‘isolated' male breadwinner nuclear family was best suited to (the most ‘natural’ in?) industrialized societies (e.g. [ 9 ]). These ideas about late twentieth century ‘declines' in the family led to concerns about mothers ‘abandoning’ their children by going out to work, though subsequently demographers were ‘perplexed’ that this did not seem to have the expected catastrophic consequences for child wellbeing [ 10 ]. McLanahan's widely cited ‘diverging destinies’ framework in demography, however, does argue that a shift away from ‘traditional’ marriages—of which the mainstay is ‘gender-role specialization’—is having adverse effects on children. Similar assumptions about the importance of mothers dedicating themselves exclusively to childrearing, influenced by Bowlby's mid-twentieth century evolutionary work on ‘attachment’, are made in psychology, where the responsibility for children's development and success is typically placed squarely in mothers' laps [ 11 ].

What all of these lines of research that emphasize the male breadwinner nuclear family have in common is that they arose shortly after the Second World War, as many academic disciplines burgeoned. It was during this time period that the idealization of the male breadwinner nuclear family reached its zenith in the West. This family form seems to have been deliberately promoted by some governments as a way to get women out of the labour force immediately after the Second World War in order to ensure jobs were available for returning servicemen [ 11 ]. This promotion was made easier by the rise of new forms of mass media such as television, and the rise of powerful media corporations, which allowed this family form to be stamped on the consciousness of academics and the general public alike [ 12 , 13 ]. Academic researchers responsible for some foundational work in various disciplines during this period may have drawn conclusions about what is the ‘traditional’ or ‘natural’ human family from the family arrangements in which they grew up and raised their own children, and that they saw represented in the media. These ideas have since been influential in the development of these academic disciplines. Further, the perverse incentives in academia that encourage academics to stay within their disciplinary lanes mean that there may be little interaction between disciplines that draw conclusions about the ‘traditional’ family from a particular context and time period and those that might have different perspectives on the family, such as anthropology or history. The next two sections review research from these latter disciplines to show that the male breadwinner nuclear family, to the extent that it exists at all, is likely relatively novel in human history.

3.  What does the ‘traditional’ human family actually look like?

A more accurate picture of the human family is one of flexibility. Anthropology, including evolutionary anthropology, has produced a large body of work on family structure and the division of labour within families from cultures worldwide. There are some features of the male breadwinner nuclear family that are common worldwide: the tendency to form pair-bonds between individuals who work together to raise children, and the tendency for women to devote more time to childrearing than men. But these pair-bonds are not always lifelong, exclusive or co-residential, and do not necessarily involve only the parents of the children [ 14 ]; nor are children always raised by their own parents [ 15 , 16 ]. Greater emphasis on childrearing among women also does not mean that exclusive female domesticity automatically follows. For mothers across species and in most human societies, ‘childrearing’ involves making sure children are fed, which, for our species, means women typically work in productive labour to produce food, alongside other family members. What is particularly missing from the ‘traditional’ view of the family is acknowledgement of cooperative relationships beyond the parents: the food that men and women produce is not necessarily used to feed their own children, but shared more widely with both extended family and other group members. The extended family and other group members also share other tasks needed to raise children successfully, such as direct childcare.

It is now widely accepted in evolutionary anthropology that humans have evolved a cooperative strategy of reproduction. In comparison with other apes, we humans bear a relatively large number of children in quick succession, and our children are dependent on adult provisioning for an unusually long time. This creates a heavy burden of care since mothers simultaneously have multiple dependent children—a burden mothers cannot manage alone, as other ape mothers tend to do. We are also a species that relies heavily on social learning, and other family and group members provide support for children to develop the skills necessary in adulthood, both for productive work and for raising children. These characteristics of our species mean that we adopt a reproductive strategy that involves an unusually high degree of investment from fathers, compared with other mammals. But paternal investment is not universal nor necessarily sufficient [ 17 ], so that typically multiple other individuals are also involved in raising children, though exactly who is involved in childraising varies between societies [ 1 , 18 – 21 ].

Evidence both for the significant contributions of women to the family diet and of a cooperative reproduction strategy come from data on production patterns across the life course, i.e. how much individuals of different sex and age contribute to the diet, in terms of number of calories produced. Across subsistence societies—those that are entirely or very largely self-sufficient in producing food—women typically contribute a substantial proportion of calories to the diet. On average, female contributions hover slightly below 50% [ 22 , 23 ], though these patterns do vary between populations: there are some societies in which women produce few calories, but there are also some in which women contribute the majority of food produced [ 24 – 27 ]. Analyses of how both production and consumption patterns vary across the life course also demonstrate that both sexes tend to remain net producers, producing more calories than they consume, until late in life [ 28 – 30 ]. The excess food they produce is then used to help support their existing children and grandchildren.

Such intergenerational support from the grandparental generation is common worldwide, and not just in terms of providing children with food. Grandparents provide a range of other types of support to their adult children and grandchildren, including direct childcare, and help with domestic work, as well as emotional support and advice. Aubel's reviews of the literature in lower- and middle-income countries illustrate the influential role that grandmothers and older women have as advisors and carers around the perinatal period and in child feeding [ 31 , 32 ]. Another recent literature review assessed the evidence for the impact of grandparental investment (measured by coresidence, caregiving, financial and other support) on grandchild outcomes (including physical health, socio-emotional wellbeing and cognitive development) [ 33 ]. These associations were quite heterogeneous, with the exception that studies on cognitive development tended to show beneficial associations between grandparental investment and child outcomes. An earlier literature review suggested that the presence of grandmothers, particularly maternal grandmothers, was associated with higher child survival in some settings [ 34 , 35 ].

These reviews on grandparents and child outcomes do need to be interpreted cautiously, as few studies on the topic have used methods that provide evidence for a causal association between grandparental presence or investment and grandchild outcomes (but see [ 36 , 37 ]). Associations are also not always positive, at least when public health metrics are used. For example, some studies have found that grandparental involvement tends to be positively associated with child BMI in high- or middle-income contexts, meaning that higher rates of ‘over-nutrition’ may be seen in such children. These findings could be interpreted as grandparents trying to support their children and grandchildren, even if these attempts are not in accord with public health recommendations (see also [ 38 , 39 ]). A further difficulty is that the non-maternal childcare literature often takes a narrow perspective, with a heavy focus on the grandmother—possibly influenced by the abundance of grandparents in the West, because of higher longevity (though grandparents are not a novel phenomenon: [ 40 ]). But our cooperative reproduction strategy is a flexible one, with mothers seeking help where available. If grandmothers are not available, mothers may turn to other carers instead, meaning that children without grandmothers may not appear to be any worse off than those with grandmothers [ 41 – 43 ]. Nevertheless, these reviews do present clear evidence that grandparents provide many different types of support to their children and grandchildren across a wide range of contexts worldwide, supporting the hypothesis that childraising requires cooperation in our species.

Despite the idealization of the nuclear family and emphasis on mother-as-carer in the West, cooperative reproduction is also seen in these societies. Recent research has shown that high proportions of grandparents in Europe provide childcare for their grandchildren [ 44 ], as well as emotional support, advice and transfers of financial resources [ 45 ]—support that has been shown to be sufficient to increase women's labour force participation [ 46 ]. Even in 1959, around the height of the idealization of the male breadwinner family, research that explored intergenerational relations concluded: ‘The answer to the question “The isolated nuclear family, 1959: fact or fiction?” is mostly fiction. Kin ties, especially intergenerational ones, have far more significance than we have been led to believe in the life processes of the urban [US] family’ [ 47 , p. 338].

If the extended family has been so consistently important, then again this begs the question of why is there so much idealization of the nuclear family in the West? Part of the answer may lie in some differences in how cooperative reproduction is practised in higher income, market-integrated populations compared with the subsistence societies humans have lived in for most of our history. In high-income populations, an important component of cooperative childraising involves state-provided or private childcare and schooling (Hughes et al . [ 48 ] highlight how the paid childcare sector is also rapidly growing in lower and middle-income countries). Formal education may not typically be perceived as ‘childcare’, but it provides parents with a safe and socially acceptable place to leave children, where they develop skills needed for adulthood, while parents can engage in productive work. Failure to recognize paid childcare or formal schooling as one plank in our strategy of cooperative reproduction may feed into the perception that parents are solely responsible for raising children. The COVID pandemic may shift these perceptions, as it has clearly highlighted, in their absence, the reliance of parents on schools and childcare facilities.

Intergenerational transfers are also somewhat different between contemporary high income and subsistence societies. In the former, older individuals support their families in many ways and private financial transfers still flow down generations, but older individuals often become economically inactive relatively early in life. The provision of state-provided pensions and healthcare means that net financial transfers flow up generations, once these public transfers are taken into account. This contrasts with subsistence societies, where older individuals remain net producers until near the end of their lives, meaning net transfers of resources flow down generations [ 29 ]. Another notable difference between cooperative reproduction as practised throughout most of human history and in contemporary high-income societies is the role of children. In high-income populations, children are expected to attend school rather than work, but in subsistence societies children make substantial contributions to the family economy by engaging in a range of subsistence and domestic work, including caring for younger siblings or relatives [ 49 – 53 ]. The economic inactivity of both children and the older generation in high-income populations may reinforce ideals about the married couple as the foundational family unit, responsible for caring for both children and their parents even if—in reality—the grandparental generation, at least, is still providing substantial support of various kinds for raising children.

Before moving on to the next section, it is worth noting that there may be some unexpected side effects to our cooperative strategy of reproduction. Hrdy [ 54 ] has suggested that the reason that humans and callitrichids (marmosets and tamarins) share the relatively unusual characteristic among primates of maternal infanticide is because both are cooperative breeders. In the absence of helpers, it may be better for mothers to end investment in a particular offspring and wait for a time when help is available to attempt to raise a child. Our cooperative strategy of reproduction might therefore help explain the contingent nature of mother love, as described by Hrdy [ 55 ], by anthropologists such as Scheper-Hughes [ 56 ] and by historians such as Badinter [ 57 ], whereby mothers do not always lavish unconditional love on their children, but might withdraw or reduce investment under some circumstances. Our cooperative strategy of reproduction also opens up the possibility of conflict within the family. If family members cooperate to raise children then this means that family resources are shared between family members, who may then compete over access to these resources [ 58 – 60 ]. It is important to remember that our cooperative reproductive strategy, though it does suggest supportive relationships are often seen between mothers and other family, does not paint an entirely rosy picture of unconditional love and devotion between all family members.

4.  Male breadwinning appears to be relatively novel in human history

So research in anthropology has presented clear evidence that the male breadwinner nuclear family is not the ‘traditional’ family form, in that, across societies, women mostly work and parents typically receive considerable support for childrearing. Nevertheless, there is variation between societies in exactly what the human family looks like, with some conforming a little more closely to the male breadwinner nuclear family model than others—though, as described above, even those that look more like isolated nuclear families typically receive a lot of ‘hidden’ support for raising children. Historical disciplines have contributed to this discussion by demonstrating that male breadwinning appears to be relatively novel in our history; the rise of male breadwinning seems to be associated with industrialization in Western Europe [ 61 – 64 ]. In most subsistence economies, economic contributions of women and children are vital to family success; the exceptions, where women contribute relatively few calories to the diet, typically involve cooperation between men to produce food [ 65 ]. Male breadwinning is a strategy that is often inefficient—wasting the potential economic contributions of women and children—and risky—given that death, incapacity or desertion of the breadwinner endangers the mother and children left behind, if they have no means to support themselves. In Europe, in recent centuries, a combination of increasing agricultural productivity, wealth extracted from colonies and the industrial revolution meant that market economies grew and standards of living rose. This made a male breadwinning strategy more feasible, since it relies on the breadwinner being able to bring in a sufficiently high and reliable flow of resources to support an entire family.

This broad brush overview does hide considerable variation in family structure in the industrializing West, though: in more economically disadvantaged regions and groups, male breadwinning may never have gained a strong foothold, because it requires a certain level of resources and security [ 66 ]. The tendency of academics to come from the kind of affluent families in which male breadwinning is feasible, incidentally, is likely another reason why some academic research is particularly fixated on this family form. Once established in those economically advantaged regions and families, historians have suggested that the male breadwinner norm was then exported to other parts of the world from the West [ 63 ]. In parts of Africa, for example, there is evidence that the male breadwinner norm was introduced by colonial authorities and by the Christian missionaries who accompanied colonization during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries [ 67 ]. Elsewhere, in South Asia, for example, industrialization may also have led to the emergence of a male breadwinner norm, but through a slightly different trajectory from that in Europe, with a progressive differentiation of men's and women's work and devaluation of women's work [ 68 ].

Changing economic conditions may well have been the catalyst for a shift towards male breadwinning in Western Europe, but there has been a long-standing debate as to whether some elements of the nuclear family form—notably residence patterns that involve nuclear families residing apart from extended family members—may have predated industrialization in this part of the world [ 69 – 71 ]. Henrich has recently contributed to this debate by arguing that the Christian church was responsible for unusual European marriage patterns which extend back several centuries, where couples tended to marry late and formed independent households after marriage. In particular, the Church banned polygyny and discouraged extended families and strong kinship networks ([ 72 ], but see [ 73 ]). This may have resulted in a shift towards nuclear families, and away from coresidence with extended family members, but these nuclear families were not ‘isolated’ in the sense that mothers and fathers provided, and cared, entirely for their own children. Domestic servants (hired helpers at the nest) were commonly employed in households in historical Europe, suggesting that support for childrearing from non-kin may have a relatively long history in Europe [ 74 ].

Returning to the catalyst of industrialization, this allowed not only sufficient income for a male breadwinner strategy to become more feasible, but also a clear public/private divide, as productive work increasingly took place outside the home. This meant a separation of ‘breadwinner’ and ‘homemaker’ roles, whereas in subsistence economies, work and home lives are typically more blurred [ 68 ]. This illustrates an important point about the ‘traditional male breadwinner nuclear family’ norm: it is associated not just with a particular division of labour within the household, but also with rigid gender roles [ 75 , 76 ]. This vision of the family is a patriarchal model, in which men's roles are firmly in the public sphere, and they have authority over wives and children; women's roles lie firmly in the private sphere. This model is also associated with idealization of a particular kind of childhood and of motherhood. Children in most societies contributed productively to the family economy [ 77 , 78 ], because their help was a necessary part of our cooperative reproduction strategy, but also because children's work both in raising younger children and in subsistence tasks allowed them to learn the skills needed for adulthood [ 79 , 80 ]. Perceptions of childhood changed during and after the industrial revolution, likely influenced by declining child mortality and the rise of formal education, associated with changing patterns of productive labour. The former meant that raising children successfully became a less stochastic process and so intensive investment in children may have had more of an impact in determining child success. The latter meant children were educated away from the home, so that they may have had less opportunity for contributing to the family economy.

As children's roles in the family changed with industrialization, so did women's. The emergence of the male breadwinner model pushed women into the home, where childhood was being re-interpreted as a period of consumption rather than production. Women's roles, therefore, became focused on being ‘good mothers’ who devoted their energies to caring for husbands and children [ 81 ] . Basu [ 81 ] considers that these new ideals of maternal self-sacrifice—which could be measured, for example, in reduced leisure time for women—also shifted power relations within the family, by ‘clamping down’ on women's autonomy. This is not to suggest that pre-industrial societies were paradises of female empowerment. Patriarchal families existed long before the industrial revolution. But some elements of women's status do seem to track their contributions to subsistence; various lines of evidence suggest that in those subsistence societies where women contribute more productive labour, they have higher status [ 82 ]: for example, higher nutritional status [ 83 ]. The male breadwinner nuclear family represents a family form in which women have little economic power and, potentially, reduced access to support from their families, suggesting the status of women may not be high in societies that idealize this family form.

5.  What are the implications of a male breadwinner isolated nuclear family norm for health and wellbeing?

So, there is considerable evidence that the idea that the ‘traditional’ human family is an isolated nuclear family, in which mothers are solely responsible for childcare and fathers solely responsible for providing for their families, is a myth. Isolated nuclear families, who raise children without help beyond the parental unit, barely seem to exist at all, even in twentieth or twenty-first century Western societies, and male breadwinning is both rare and novel in our history. Myths about the ‘traditional’ family, and what ‘traditional’ maternal and paternal roles should look like, are likely to have real-world implications. The assumption that mothers are primarily responsible for childrearing, that they should sacrifice themselves to invest intensively and over a long period in their children, may put considerable pressure on women to behave in ways compatible with this difficult-to-attain, and novel, ideal of motherhood [ 11 ]. Particularly damaging may be the idea that mothers should be able to cope with relatively little support. Research has shown that new mothers in the UK spend a significant proportion of their time alone with their infants (one study found 38% of mothers spent more than 8 h a day alone, and 34% between 4 and 8 h [ 84 ]). This is a situation that appears to be less than desirable in a social species that relies on cooperation to raise children, and on social learning for developing skills in a wide range of behaviours including parenting. Such isolation and the expectation that mothers should cope with little support is not likely to provide ideal childrearing conditions for either mother or child: for example, prompting maternal guilt where mothers feel they are not living up to this ideal [ 85 , 86 ], increased rates of postnatal depression [ 87 ] and decreased breastfeeding [ 88 ] in the absence of support, and other negative effects on mother's wellbeing [ 89 ].

Assumptions about the adverse effect of the ‘breakdown’ of marriages, which idealize the nuclear family as the best way to raise children, and blame adverse child outcomes on the absence of such a family structure, have also led to government interventions aimed at persuading couples to marry rather than cohabit in the USA [ 90 ]. These interventions tend to focus on socioeconomically disadvantaged groups because such groups have lower rates of marriage than more advantaged groups. A belief underlying these interventions appears to be that if disadvantaged groups can be made to form marital relationships that mirror the family structure of advantaged groups, then their disadvantage will melt away. Such interventions have attracted criticism, because a more effective way of reducing ‘bad family outcomes’ is likely to be to tackle economic disadvantage itself, rather than a marker of disadvantage such as cohabitation [ 91 ]. These marriage interventions also do not work.

Public health initiatives around maternal and child health in lower- and middle-income countries typically also assume a default nuclear family structure in which mothers are largely responsible for the health of their children—this excludes vital support structures such as grandmothers (see [ 92 ]). There are even some perceptions in global health that grandmothers are the ‘guardians of tradition’ [ 93 ] and that, if they have a role at all, it is a role that has the potential for negative maternal and health outcomes, given that the advice of older women may contradict that of public health professionals. This echoes some of the findings from the literature on grandparental investment, which suggests that input from grandparents may not always result in child outcomes that would be approved of by a public health professional. But even if older women's advice does contradict that of public health professionals, they are typically very influential in decisions around maternal and child health, which suggests it is even more important to incorporate older women into public health interventions [ 31 ]. The positive results in the handful of studies that have incorporated grandmothers and older women in public health initiatives suggest this would be a fruitful avenue for improving maternal and child health [ 93 – 96 ], and mental health (Dixon Chibanda's ‘Friendship Bench’ is perhaps the best known example of a successful intervention employing ‘grandmothers’ [ 97 , 98 ]).

Ideologies around the family and ‘traditional’ gender roles feed into political ideologies that promote hierarchies of male dominance over women. Online fora have facilitated the spread of misogynistic movements, including Mens' Rights Activist groups and Incels (involuntary celibates), which are collectively referred to as the ‘manosphere’. These movements use and misuse evolutionary psychology as their theoretical justification, and draw on supposedly biological arguments that women are ‘designed’ to bear and raise children while men are ‘designed’ to do pretty much everything else in society [ 99 , 100 ]. These movements have led to fatal terrorist attacks [ 101 , 102 ]. These ideologies not only present a terrorist threat, but also do not seem to benefit the men who adopt them, given such ideologies sometimes promote ‘men going their own way’ and removing themselves from (female) society [ 103 ]. The cooperative nature of our species suggests that such isolationism may not suit our evolved preferences [ 104 ]. At a less extreme level, the male breadwinner norm promotes ideals of male independence and isolation from others, since it assumes that men should have the ability to entirely provision a wife and children without support, which may feed into gender norms and socialization that have been popularly referred to as ‘toxic masculinity’. These include emphasis on male dominance and self-reliance, and are considered to be detrimental to men, women and children [ 105 ].

Finally, despite the belief in some circles that intensive mothering, and lengthy, dependent childhoods, is optimal for children, the little research on the impact of intensive mothering does not find clear and conclusive evidence that such parenting has substantial positive effects on children [ 106 ]. Such childhoods may even fail to allow children to develop some of the skills they need to succeed in adult life [ 107 ]. Children and adolescents typically lack opportunities to develop parenting skills in Western societies, for example, as they are no longer involved in caring for younger children. Hrdy also cautions us that, if we are a species adapted to a strategy of cooperative reproduction, then mothers raising children with little support from others, and keeping children dependent on mothers for lengthy periods, may hamper children's abilities to develop the social, cognitive and emotional skills they need to succeed in adult society:

If empathy and understanding develop only under particular rearing conditions, and if an ever-increasing proportion of the species fails to encounter those conditions but nevertheless survives to reproduce, it won't matter how valuable the underpinnings for collaboration were in the past. Compassion and the quest for emotional connection will fade away as surely as sight in cave-dwelling fish. [ 1 , p. 239]

6.  Conclusion

Humans are a social species, and our success, our ability to thrive in almost all environments across the globe, is likely related to our cooperative nature [ 108 ]. Hrdy [ 1 , 109 ] suggests that our strategy of cooperative reproduction may even have led to cooperation in other spheres and affected our cognitive evolution, thereby underpinning our success as a species. Contemporary Western society seems in danger of forgetting this, however, and perhaps of encouraging such memory loss in other contexts. Or at least, there is significant idealization of the isolated nuclear family as the ‘traditional’ family in the West, even when mothers do in fact receive support with childcare. It may be the rigid gender roles and stereotypes that are associated with this idealization of the nuclear family that are particularly problematic. Gender roles that expect mothers to be very largely responsible for childcare and men to be able to support families without help may lead to beliefs about what the household division of labour and parenting strategies ‘should’ be and discourage mothers and fathers from adopting strategies that are best suited to their own situations, and from fully accessing all the support they need. A vision of parenting, family life and childhood that both recognizes the cliché that ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ and also recognizes that this ‘village’ can encompass considerable diversity may be necessary in order for women, men and children to thrive.

Data accessibility

Competing interests.

I declare I have no competing interests.

This work was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, grant ID 61426.

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Guides & How To’s
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology Theorists
• General Sociology
• Social Policy
• Social Work
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Dance
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Sport
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Emotion
• Sociology of Family & Relationships
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Knowledge
• Sociology of Language
• Sociology of Law
• Sociology of Anime
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of TV
• Sociology of Migration
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Social Movements
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of the Life Course
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Sociology of Travel & Tourism
• Urban Sociology
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

The Nuclear Family

Table of Contents

Historical context of the nuclear family, theoretical perspectives on the nuclear family, functional roles of the nuclear family, criticisms of the nuclear family.

• Contemporary Relevance of the Nuclear Family

The concept of the nuclear family has been a cornerstone in sociological discussions, primarily within the contexts of family structures, socialization, and societal norms . The term “nuclear family” traditionally refers to a family unit consisting of two parents and their biological children living together. This essay will delve into the historical context, theoretical frameworks, functional roles, criticisms, and contemporary relevance of the nuclear family, providing a comprehensive understanding suitable for an undergraduate audience.

Early Origins

The origins of the nuclear family can be traced back to pre-industrial societies, where extended family structures were more common. However, the nuclear family as a distinct social unit became more pronounced during the industrial revolution. This period marked a significant shift in family structures, influenced by the changing economic landscape.

Industrialization and Urbanization

The industrial revolution brought about urbanization and the need for a mobile workforce. As a result, the extended family units, which were predominant in agrarian societies, began to fragment. The nuclear family emerged as a more functional unit in urban settings, where smaller households were easier to maintain and more adaptable to the demands of industrial work schedules.

From a functionalist perspective, the nuclear family is seen as a fundamental building block of society. Talcott Parsons , a prominent functionalist sociologist, argued that the nuclear family performs essential functions that contribute to societal stability. These functions include socialization of children, emotional support, and the stabilization of adult personalities. The nuclear family is viewed as a unit that adapts to the needs of an industrial society, providing a stable environment for its members.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists, such as Friedrich Engels , critique the nuclear family from a different angle. Engels argued that the nuclear family emerged alongside private property and capitalism, serving to perpetuate class inequalities . The family unit is seen as a site of power dynamics and economic disparity, where the roles within the family reflect broader societal hierarchies. This perspective highlights how the nuclear family can reinforce social stratification and limit individual freedoms.

Symbolic interactionists focus on the micro-level interactions within the nuclear family. This perspective emphasizes the meanings and definitions that family members attach to their roles and relationships. According to symbolic interactionism , the nuclear family is not a static institution but is constantly shaped and reshaped through daily interactions. This approach highlights the importance of understanding the subjective experiences of family members and how these experiences influence family dynamics.

Socialization

One of the primary functions of the nuclear family is the socialization of children. Socialization is the process through which individuals learn the norms, values , and behaviors necessary for functioning in society. Within the nuclear family, parents play a crucial role in transmitting cultural norms and values to their children, preparing them for participation in the broader social world.

Emotional Support

The nuclear family provides a source of emotional support and stability for its members. This support is essential for the psychological well-being of individuals. The intimate relationships within a nuclear family offer a sense of belonging and security, which can be vital in navigating the complexities of modern life.

Economic Cooperation

Economically, the nuclear family functions as a cooperative unit. Traditionally, the division of labor within the nuclear family has been based on gender roles, with men typically taking on the role of breadwinner and women managing the household. However, these roles have evolved over time, with increasing numbers of dual-income households and more fluid gender roles .

Unlock Exclusive Insights!

The rest of this article is reserved for our lovely members. To read the rest of the article, please consider joining our sociology community today to gain:

Login Join Now

• Ad-Free Reading: Enjoy all our articles without advertising distractions.
• In-Depth Articles: Comprehensive analyses and detailed explorations of pressing sociological issues.
• Full Access to All Articles: Access the complete versions of all our articles.
• Add YOUR Voice!: Access to commenting on all articles.

Subscription Offer:

Subscribe now for just £1 a week for the first 13 weeks, and then £29 per 3 months thereafter.

Please note: All articles are currently being moved to subscription only. Subscribe today to unlock full access!

Mr Edwards has a PhD in sociology and 10 years of experience in sociological knowledge

Related Articles

Matrilineal Societies: An Overview

Matrilineality is a system of lineage in which descent is traced through the maternal line. This contrasts with patrilineal systems,...

Symbolic Interactionist View of Family: Understanding the Dynamics and Significance

Explore the key concepts of symbolic interactionism and its view of family dynamics. Learn about symbols, meanings, and social interactions...

Ethnicity: A Overview

Falsification in Sociology

Epistemological Anarchy: An Overview

Get the latest sociology.

Would you be interested in enrolling in courses from Easy Sociology?

Recommended

The Beveridge Report: A Landmark in Sociology

Altruism: An Overview and Explanation in Sociology

24 hour trending.

The Importance of Cultural Integration: Fostering Unity and Diversity

The functionalist perspective on gender in sociology, the concept and implications of cultural diffusion, pierre bourdieu’s symbolic violence: an outline and explanation, the symbolic interactionist view of education: a detailed outline and explanation.

Easy Sociology makes sociology as easy as possible. Our aim is to make sociology accessible for everybody. © 2023 Easy Sociology

© 2023 Easy Sociology

The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable

Rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated—and it remains the stablest environment in which to raise children.

The nuclear family is disintegrating—or so Americans might conclude from what they watch and read. The quintessential nuclear family consists of a married couple raising their children. But from Oscar-winning Marriage Story ’s gut-wrenching portrayal of divorce or the Harvard sociologist Christina Cross’s New York Times op-ed in December, “The Myth of the Two-Parent Home,” discounting the importance of marriage for kids , one might draw the conclusion that marriage is more endangered than ever—and that this might not be such a bad thing.

Meanwhile, the writer David Brooks recently described the post–World War II American concept of family as a historical aberration—a departure from a much older tradition in which parents, grandparents, siblings, and cousins all look out for the well-being of children. In an article in The Atlantic bearing the headline “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” Brooks argued that the “nuclear family has been crumbling in slow motion for decades.” He sees extended families and what he calls “forged families”—single parents, single adults, and others coming together to support one another and children—as filling the vacuum created by the breakdown of the nuclear family.

David Brooks: The nuclear family was a mistake

Yet the search for alternate forms of family has two major flaws. First, there’s evidence indicating that the nuclear family is, in fact, recovering. Second, a nuclear family headed by two loving married parents remains the most stable and safest environment for raising children.

There are, of course, still reasons for legitimate concern about the state of the American family. Marriage today is less likely to anchor family life in many poor and working-class communities. While a majority of college-educated men and women between 18 and 55 are married, that’s no longer true for the poor (only 26 percent are married) and the working class (39 percent). What’s more, children from these families are markedly less likely to live under the same roof as their biological parents than their peers from better-off backgrounds are.

But there is also ample good news—especially for kids.

Today, the divorce rate is down , having fallen by more than 30 percent since peaking around 1980, in the wake of the divorce revolution. And, since the Great Recession, out-of-wedlock births are now dipping as well . Less divorce and less nonmarital childbearing means that more children are being raised in stable, married families. Since 2014, the share of kids in intact families has begun to climb , reversing a decades-long trend in the opposite direction. And as Brooks noted—citing research that one of us conducted at the University of Virginia —the nuclear family headed by married parents remains a personal ideal even among men and women who harbor no moral objections to alternative family structures.

None of this suggests that scholars and social commentators are wrong to extol the role extended families can play in improving children’s lives. In her New York Times article raising questions about the importance of the two-parent home, Cross hypothesized that living closer to extended family may actually be helping protect black children “against some of the negative effects associated with parental absence from the home.” And, in Brooks’s evocative telling, the alternatives to the nuclear family hold enormous promise: “Americans are hungering to live in extended and forged families,” arrangements that “allow more adults and children to live and grow under the loving gaze of a dozen pairs of eyes, and be caught, when they fall, by a dozen pairs of arms.”

Grandparents, for example, are sharing homes with children and grandchildren; single adults and single parents are forging novel alliances on websites like CoAbode, where, according to Brooks, “single mothers can find other single mothers interested in sharing a home.” These emerging arrangements not only afford people more freedom to choose their own ties that bind, but they also promise to fill the void left in the absence of a strong nuclear family.

Read: The age of grandparents is made of many tragedies

There’s no question that “a dozen pairs of arms” can make lighter work of family life. Society should applaud those who step up to try to rescue adults and children left adrift in a nation where, despite promising trends, many children still grow up outside an intact two-parent family.

But Americans should not presume that society can successfully replace families headed by married parents with models oriented more around kith and kin. Caution is especially warranted as extended families and communities struggle to foster upward mobility or to raise the next generation successfully in circumstances where the family once anchored by marriage has broken down in their midst.

It turns out that the relationship between nuclear families and larger communities is more symbiotic than substitutionary, more interdependent than interchangeable. Whatever the merits of extended or other nonnuclear forms of family life, research has yet to show that they are entirely equipped to shoulder the unique role of a child’s two parents.

Today, most multigenerational households—which include grandparents, parents, and children—contain only one parent. This often occurs because a mother has moved in with her own parent (or the reverse) following a divorce or breakup. According to the sociologist Wendy Wang, 65 percent of multigenerational families include a single parent. But research reveals mixed outcomes for such households.

Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and Gary Sandefur of the University of Wisconsin have found that the average child raised by a “mother and grandmother is doing about the same as the average child raised by a single mother” on outcomes such as dropping out of high school or having a teen birth. And in the absence of both parents, children raised by their extended kin, such as an aunt or uncle, are significantly more likely to have, in the words of one study , “higher levels of internalizing problems”—including loneliness and sadness—compared to their peers raised by married parents. As for other emerging forms of family, such as forged families, there are well-founded reasons for skepticism about the role unrelated adults might play in raising a child. Over the years, study after study has detailed the many possible downsides to introducing unrelated adults, especially men, into children’s lives without the presence of those children’s married parents.

This is because, sadly, adults who are unrelated to children are much more likely to abuse or neglect them than their own parents are. One federal report found that children living in a household with an unrelated adult were about nine times more likely to be physically, sexually, or emotionally abused than children raised in an intact nuclear family. All this is to say that, for kids, it matters if all the pairs of arms raising them include—first and foremost—those of their own parents.

The positive effects of stable marriage and stable nuclear families also spill over. Neighborhoods, towns, and cities are more likely to flourish when they are sustained by lots of married households. The work of the Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson tells us that neighborhoods with many two-parent families are much safer. In his own words : “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor[s] of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.”

Read: What you lose when you gain a spouse

His Harvard colleagues, the economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, have drawn similar conclusions about the relationship between the health of the American dream and the presence of two-parent families in a community. Working with a team of scholars, they found that black boys are more likely to achieve upward economic mobility if there are more black fathers in a neighborhood—and more married couples , as well. And for poor children of all races, Chetty and his team have found that the fraction of children with single parents in a given community is the strongest and most robust predictor of economic mobility—or its absence. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are less likely to move up. In other words, it takes a village—but of married people—to raise the odds that a poor child will have a shot at the American dream.

To be sure, the isolated nuclear family detached from all social support is simply not workable for most people. Married couples raising children—as well as other family forms—are more likely to thrive when they are embedded in strong networks of friends, family, community, and religious congregations .

Likewise, communities are stronger and safer when they include lots of committed married couples. It’s good news, then, that the share of children being raised by their own married parents is on the rise. Extended kin can (and sometimes must) play a greater role in meeting children’s needs. But as any parent knows, when it comes to an inconsolable child, even a “dozen pairs of arms” from the village don’t quite compare to the warm and safe embrace of Mom or Dad.

Nuclear Family Functions In Sociology

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A nuclear family is a family unit consisting of an adult male and female and dependent children. It is regarded by some sociologists (in particular functionalists) as the basic universal form of family structure.

The (white) nuclear family is sometimes referred to as the cereal packet family, because of its frequent portrayal by advertisers as the norm.

The concept of the nuclear family is thought to have arisen in the Western world during the Industrial Revolution, when families left farms and moved to small towns and cities for work. During this time, young people began to delay marriage and childbearing, living instead with their parents until they had established a career.

Functionalists such as Parsons suggest that the nuclear family replaced the extended family as the dominant form in industrial societies because it provided a better “fit”, and more closely matched the needs of society.

Despite the fact that by 2000 only 21% of all house holds consisted of a married or cohabiting couple with dependent children, the notion of the nuclear family remains central to family ideology.

Sociologists and politicians of the New Right frequently suggest that many social problems in Britain stem from the fact that not enough children are being brought up in stable, two-parent families.

Key Takeaways

• A nuclear family is a family consisting of of 2 generations, husband and wife and immature children who constitute a unit from the rest of the community.
• The term “nuclear family” is commonly used in the United States, where it was first coined by the sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1955. It has been suggested that the nuclear family is a universal human social grouping.
• Nuclear family is not universal, the structure of the family changes as the needs of the society changes. Pre-industrial families were extended families with multiple generations living together, where as post industrial families needed to be
• However, some scholars argue that the nuclear family is not a natural or inevitable human institution but rather a product of specific historical and cultural circumstances.
• In sociology, the nuclear family has been historically treated as the basic unit of social organization, but this has come into question over the past several decades, as the structure of families has become more and more diverse.

Functions of the Nuclear Family

Marxists believe that the family is a tool of capitalism and its main function is to maintain capitalism and reinforce social inequalities.

According to Marxism, the monogamous nuclear family emerged with capitalism. Before capitalism, traditional and tribal societies were classless and did not have private property.

Instead, property was collectively owned, and this was reflected in family structures.

An isolated nuclear family means that men can confirm whether a child belongs to them and ensure that wealth remains in the family through private inheritance.

Ultimately, however, this arrangement served to reproduce inequality. As the children of the rich grew into wealth, the children of the poor remained. Thus, the nuclear family served to benefit the bourgeois more than the proletariat.

A nuclear family system, one in which nuclear families live by themselves independent from the families they grew up in, is thought to be particularly well adopted to the needs of the American, and many other western economies, for a fluid and mobile labor market (Sussman, 1958).

Patriarchal Ideology

Feminists are critical of the family as a social institutions. They believe that the family is a tool of female oppression and in particular the nuclear family serves the needs of men rather than women.

This is through issues such as unequal division of domestic labour and domestic violence.

Some feminists view the function of the nuclear family as a place where patriarchal values are learned by individuals, which in turn add to the patriarchal society .

Young girls may be socialized to believe that inequality and oppression is a normal part of being a woman and boys are socialized to believe that they are superior and have authority over women.

Feminists often believe that the nuclear family teaches children gender roles which translate to gender roles in wider society.

For instance, girls may learn to accept that being a housewife is the only possible or acceptable role for women. Some feminists also believe that the division of labor is unequal in nuclear families, with women and girls accepting subservient roles in the household.

Murdock: Four Universal Residual Functions

Murdock (1949) claimed that the nuclear family performs four functions that benefit society because they reduce the potential for chaos and conflict and consequently bring about relatively well ordered, structured and predictable societies

Socialization : The family is the primary socializing agent for children. Parents teach their children the norms and values of society.

Economic stability : The family provides economic stability for its members. In many families, both parents work to earn an income.

Reproductive/Procreative : The nuclear family provides new members of society, without which society would cease to exist.

Sexual relationships : The family as an institution also regulates sexual behavior. Many societies, for example, have historically forbidden sex outside the family-creating bond of marriage.

Primary Socialization

According to Parsons (1951), although the nuclear family performs functions that are reduced in comparison to what it did in the past, it is still the only institution that can perform the core functions of primary socialization and the stabilization of adult personalities.

Primary socialization refers to the early period in a person”s life where they learn and develop themselves through interactions and experiences around them. This results in a child learning the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture.

The Stabilization of Adult Personalities

The stabilization of adult personalities, otherwise known as “warm bath theory,” emphasizes the emotional security found within marital relationships.

This stabilization serves to balance out the stresses and strains of life faced by most adults.

In addition, the stabilization of adult personalities within marriage allows adults to act on the child-like dimension of their personality by playing with their children, using their toys, and so forth (Parsons, 1951).

Another factor that aids the stabilization of adult personalities is the sexual division of labor within nuclear families.

Within isolated nuclear families, people are allocated particular roles in order to allow the unit to function correctly. There are the aforementioned expressive and instrumental roles (Parsons, 1951).

Instrumental and Expressive Roles

Murdock argued that nuclear families consist of instrumental and expressive roles . Instrumental roles provide financial support and establish family status, while expressive roles involve providing emotional support and physical care.

In a 20th-century view of the nuclear family, the father is typically the head of the household and is responsible for providing for the family financially. The mother is typically responsible for taking care of the home and raising the children.

Parsons suggested that children needed to grow up in a family in which the instrumental and expressive roles are performed by the respective parents if the children were to develop “stable adult personalities”.

Parsons’ understanding of expressive and instrumental roles was derived from, and constituted a reflection of, middle-class American society in the 1950s.

Disadvantages of the Nuclear Family

Postmodernists have called the nuclear family an inherently fragile structure, prosporous only in a time marked by especially easy to come by home ownership and economic progress during the post-war boom.

Proponents of this view argue that the nuclear family is beset by a number of serious problems. They point to high rates of divorce and single parenthood, as well as to the difficulty many families have in maintaining close relationships (Bengtson, 2001).

Even dynamics as common as sibling rivalry and parent-child differences can place tension on a small family with little contact with other members of an extended family. The lack of a support network can make it difficult for nuclear families to deal with problems, leading to further isolation and feelings of loneliness or helplessness (Bengtson, 2001).

For children in particular, growing up in a nuclear family can be quite difficult. With both parents working full-time, many kids feel neglected or abandoned. In some cases, this can lead to serious behavioral problems.

However, not all families are functional. Some families may be considered dysfunctional due to a variety of factors such as alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness, physical abuse, or simply a lack of love and communication.

When a family is dysfunctional, it can have a negative impact on the individuals involved as well as on society as a whole. Children from dysfunctional families are more likely to experience problems in school, mental health issues, and substance abuse problems. They may also be more likely to engage in criminal activity (Bertrand, 1962).

Additionally, children in nuclear families often don not have the benefit of learning from extended family members such as grandparents or cousins. They also miss out on the opportunity to develop close relationships with those relatives.

Researchers have denied the functionality of the nuclear family – in the sense of being isolated and socially mobile – since the 1960s (Cervantes, 1965).

Indeed, the family is not an isolated unit but one that is linked to other families through marriage, blood ties, and friendship networks. The family functions within a community of kin and neighbors where information, cultural values, and material resources are exchanged (Friedlander, 1963).

Even though the nuclear family has its own private domain – the home – its members cannot avoid interacting with people outside the immediate family. In reality, then, the nuclear family is embedded in a web of social relations.

The structure of the nuclear family has also been critiqued on economic grounds. Critics argue that the nuclear family is an inefficient way to organize society because it requires duplicating services that could be provided more efficiently by the government or businesses.

For example, instead of each family having its own washing machine, all the families in a neighborhood could share a laundromat. Similarly, daycare, eldercare, and schooling could be provided more efficiently on a community-wide basis rather than by individual families.

The nuclear family is also criticized for being too small to meet all an individual”s needs. In particular, it is argued that the nuclear family cannot provide the same level of emotional support as a larger extended family.

Additionally, because the nuclear family is so small, it is often unable to provide adequate financial support to its members during times of need. This can lead to feelings of insecurity and anxiety, particularly among children and older adults (Bengtson, 2001).

The nuclear family has been declining in prevalence since the late 20th century as a result of factors such as increased divorce rates, cohabitation, single-parent households, and same-sex marriage.

Economic stressors  such as the Great Recession, stagnating wages, and the inflation of housing prices have also contributed to the decline of the nuclear family through reducing access to isolated housing.

Multigenerational, non-nuclear households are on the rise as a way to reduce costs and the burden of childcare distributed to one person in the household.

The rise of women in the workforce has also lessened a need for defined nuclear family roles, as there is less need for a husband to be the sole breadwinner. Another explanation is that people are delaying marriage and childbearing until later  in life, allowing them to develop deeper ties within their birth families and communities. The median age of first marriage in the United States has risen from 20 for women and 23 for men in 1950 to 27 for women and 29 for men in 2018 (Hemez, 2020).

Alternative Family Structures

Non-nuclear families can take on many different forms, including single-parent households, same-sex parents, adoptive parents, childless couples, blended families, and more.

There are a variety of reasons why a family may not be considered nuclear. In some cases, one or both parents may be absent due to death, divorce, or other circumstances. In other instances, the family may simply choose not to live together in a traditional nuclear arrangement.

There are many advantages to non-nuclear families. For example, single-parent households often provide a more nurturing and supportive environment for children than two-parent homes, especially in cases where the family would have otherwise been affected by abuse.

Same-sex parents can provide role models of healthy relationships for their children, and adoptive parents often create tightly-knit bonds with their children that are just as strong as any biological connection.

One historical example of a non-nuclear family is the extensive nuclear family, which is common in many cultures around the world. In an extended family, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all live together in one household.

This arrangement provides support and stability for all members of the family, and offers a built-in network of caretakers for children. Increasingly over the past few decades, a new family structure is taking shape: grandparents raising their grandchildren.

This may be necessary when parents are not available to care for their children, such as by mental or medical or substance abuse issues.

Althusser, L., & Balibar, E. (1970). Reading Capital (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work published 1968) Brown, H. (2012). Marx on gender and the family: A critical study (Vol. 39). Brill.

Bales, R. F., & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and interaction process. Routledge.

Bell, N. W. and E. F. Vogel (eds.) (1968). A Modern Introduction to the Family. Glencoe: Free Press.

Bengtson, V. L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: the increasing importance of multigenerational bonds: the burgess award lecture. Journal of marriage and family, 63 (1), 1-16.

Bertrand, A. L. (1962). School attendance and attainment: Function and dysfunction of school and family social systems. Social Forces, 40 (3), 228-233.

Cervantes, L. F. (1965). Family background, primary relationships, and the high school dropout. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 218-223.

Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2014). Introduction: The field of social movement studies.

Friedlander, F. (1963). Underlying sources of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47 (4), 246.

Gamache, S. J. (1997). Confronting nuclear family bias in stepfamily research. Marriage & Family Review, 26 (1-2), 41-69.

Hemez, P. (2020). Distributions of age at first marriage, 1960-2018. Family Profiles, FP-20, 9.

Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure . Macmillan.

Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of the contemporary United States. American anthropologist, 45 (1), 22-38.

Parsons, T. (1959). The Social Structure of the Family, in Ruth Anshen (ed.), The Family:Its Functions and Destiny . Harper.

Stern, B. J. (1948). Engels on the Family. Science & Society , 42-64.

Sussman, M. B. (1958). The isolated nuclear family: Fact or fiction. Soc. Probs. , 6, 333.

Zelditch, M. (1955). Role differentiation in the nuclear family: A comparative study. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, 307-351.

Nuclear Families, Childhood

Cite this chapter.

• Gary W. Peterson &
• Hilary A. Rose  

56 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Families with a mother and father who reside together with biologically related children remain a common setting for socializing school-age youngsters in our society. A much debated, but common presumption in the existing scholarship is that these nuclear families are the optimal environments for children against which the efficacy of all other types of families are measured ( Popenoe, 1993 , Popenoe, 1996 ). Observers frequently identify the potential advantages of nuclear families as: (a) parents mutually supporting each other in child-rearing, (b) parents sharing the responsibilities of child-rearing by structuring a division of labor (e.g., traditional or egalitarian role divisions), (c) parents and children profiting from long-term, biologically-based ties that provide continuous support and guidance, and (d) parents and children benefiting from the socioeconomic advantages provided by two adult wage earners. Although the actual realization of these advantages varies widely among nuclear families, this type of family structure has often been studied in reference to how it protects children from developing problem behaviors and how it fosters children’s healthy development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Family Backgrounds: Great Variety But Also Marked Differences In Life Conditions

Many Children, Many Risks? Listening to the Voices of Families with Many Children from the Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Community in Israel

From Voluntarily Childless to Childfree: Sociohistoric Perspectives on a Contemporary Trend

Allen, K.R., Fine, M.A., & Demo, D. (2000). An overview of family diversity: Controversies, questions, and values. In D.H. Demo, K.R. Allen & M.A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 1–14). New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Amato, P.R., & Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent-child relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 52, 347–360.

Avenevoli, S., Sessa, F.M., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Family structure, parenting practices, and adolescent adjustment: An ecological examination. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp. 65–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the Child Development Project: Early findings from an ongoing multi-site demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research , 11, 16–35.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. American Psychologist , 35, 639–652.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition. In PA. Cowan & M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 111–163). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bluestone, C., & Tamis-Lemonda, C.S. (1999). Correlates of parenting styles in predominantly working- and middle-class African American mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 61, 881–893.

Bowlby, J.A. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development . New York: Basic Books.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burgess, E.W. (1926). The family as a unity of interacting personalities. The Family , 7, 3–9.

Catalano, R.F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Newcomb, M.D., & Abbott, R.D. (1996). Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance use: A test of the social development model. Journal of Drug Issues , 26, 429–455.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chao, R. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development , 65, 1111–1119.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992). A developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct disorder: The FAST track program. Development and Psychopathology , 4, 509–527.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999a). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 67, 631–647.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999b). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 67, 648–657.

Coontz, S. (1991). The way we never were . New York: Basic Books.

Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families . New York: Basic Books.

Demo, D.H., & Cox, M.J. (2000). Families with young children: A review of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 62, 876–895.

Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Garmezy & R. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and development in children (pp. 43–84). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Garmezy, N. (1985). Stress-resistant children: The search for protective factors. In J.E. Stevenson (Ed.), Recent research in developmental psychopathology (pp. 213–233). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., & Miller, J.Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implica for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin , 112, 64–105.

Hogue, A., & Liddle, H.A. (1999). Family-based preventive intervention: An approach to preventive substance use and antisocial behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 69, 278–293.

Kelley, M.L., Power, T.G., & Wimbush, D.D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income black mothers. Child Development , 63, 573–582.

Lerner, R. (1995). America’s youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs and policies . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, M. (1994). Growing up with a single parent . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do . Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 35, 1171–1190.

Osmond, M.W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories: The social construction of gender in families and society. In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R.W. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K.Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 591–623). New York: Plenum.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Parsons, T. (1944). The social structure of the family. In R.N. Anshen (Ed.), The family: Its function and destiny (pp. 173–201). New York: Harper.

Patterson, G.R., & Capaldi, D.M. (1991). Antisocial parents: Unskilled & vulnerable. In P.A. Cowan & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 195–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Peterson, G.W. (1995). Autonomy and connectedness in family. In R.D. Day, K.R. Gilbert, B.H. Settles, & W.R.Burr (Eds.), Research and theory in family science (pp. 20–41). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.

Peterson, G.W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing parents and children in families. In M. Sussman & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 471–507). New York: Plenum Press.

Peterson, G.W., & G.K. Leigh (1990). The family and social competence in adolescence. In G. Adams & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Developing social competency in adolescence: Advances in adolescent development (pp. 97–138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Petraitis, J., Flay B., & Miller, T.Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 177, 67–86.

Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960–1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 55(3) 527–555.

Popenoe, D. (1996). Life without father: Compelling new evidence that fatherhood and marriage are indispensable for the good of children and society . New York: Free Press.

Price, C.A., & Rose, H.A. (2000). Caregiving over the life course of families. In S.J. Price, P.C. McKenry, & M.J. Murphy (Eds.), Families across time: A life course perspective (pp. 145–159). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., & Lepper, H.S. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused prevention interventions: One-year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 67, 975–984.

Reid, J.B., Eddy, J.M., Fetrow, R.A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology , 27, 483–517.

Rollin, S.A., Anderson, C.W., & Buncher, R.M. (1999). Coping in children and adolescents: A prevention model for helping kids avoid or reduce at-risk behavior. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Learning to cope: Developing as a person in complex societies (pp. 299–321). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of Community Psychology , 24, 719–748.

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998). Direct and indirect latent- variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preven- tative interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 66, 385–399.

Stacey, J. (1993). Is the sky falling? Journal of Marriage and the Family , 55, 555–559.

Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethinking family values in the postmodern age . Boston: Beacon Press.

Teachman, J.D. (2000). Diversity of family structure: Economic and social influences. In D.H. Demo, K.R. Allen, & M.A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 32–58). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tremblay, R.E., Pagani-Kurtz, L., Masse, L.C., Vitaro, F., & Pihl, R.O. (1995). A bimodal preventive intervention for disruptive kindergarten boys: Its impact through mid-adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 63, 560–568.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Peterson, G.W., Rose, H.A. (2003). Nuclear Families, Childhood. In: Gullotta, T.P., et al. Encyclopedia of Primary Prevention and Health Promotion. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0195-4_104

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0195-4_104

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4613-4961-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-4615-0195-4

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

The Real Roots Of The Nuclear Family

Though much of the public seems unaware of it, family scholars believe that—generally speaking—children are best off growing up with their two married parents. These are the children most likely to get the education crucial for maintaining a middle-class life in an advanced economy, to remain stably employed, and to marry and raise their own children to go on and do the same.

But it is not well understood why the married couple—or nuclear family—works so well for kids. The most intriguing explanation I’ve seen can be found in a little-known 2002 book by the sociologist Brigitte Berger: The Family in the Modern Age . It recalls an old-fashioned era of sociology. There are no charts, regressions, or metrics; it is, rather, an exposition of economic, social, and demographic history. Yet it manages to anticipate and explain what today’s empirically grounded sociologists have repeatedly discovered about families and child wellbeing.

And so to Berger’s history: Not so long ago, family scholars labored under the assumption, half-Marxist, half-“functionalist,” that before the Industrial Revolution, the extended family was the norm in the Western world. There was more than a little romanticism associated with this view: extended families were imagined to have lived in warm, cohesive rural communities where men and women worked together on farms or in small cottage industries. That way of life, went the thinking, ended when industrialization wrenched rural folk away from their cottages and villages into the teeming, anonymous city, sent men into the factories, and consigned women to domestic drudgery. Worse, by upending the household economy, the Industrial Revolution seriously weakened the family. The nuclear family, it was believed, was evidence of family decline.

The nuclear family was the dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.

But by the second half of the twentieth century, one by one these assumptions were overturned. First to go was the alleged prevalence of the extended family. Combing through English parish records and other demographic sources, historians like Peter Laslett and Alan MacFarlane discovered that the nuclear family—a mother, father and child(ren) in a “simple house,” as Laslett put it—was the dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.

Rather than remaining in or marrying into the family home, as was the case in Southern Europe and many parts of Asia and the Middle East, young couples in England were expected to establish their own household. That meant that men and women married later than in other parts of the world, only after they had saved enough money to set up an independent home. By the time they were ready to tie the knot, their own parents were often deceased, making multi-generational households a relative rarity.

Far from being weaker than an extended family clan, Berger shows, the ordinary nuclear family was able to adapt superbly to changing economic and political realities. In fact, the family arrangement so common to England helps explain why it and other nations of northwest Europe were the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution, the launching ground for modern affluence. The young nuclear family had to be flexible and mobile as it searched for opportunity and property. Forced to rely on their own ingenuity, its members also needed to plan for the future and develop bourgeois habits of work and saving.

These habits were of little use to the idle, landed rich who were wedded to, and defined by, the ancestral property: think Downton Abbey . Similarly, in extended families, a newly married couple was required to move in with the larger maternal or paternal clan, and to work the family land or maintain the family trade. Under those circumstances, people, particularly women, married young, generally before 20. Between their youth and dependence, the couple was not capable of becoming effective strivers in a changing economy.

Another less appreciated advantage to the nuclear family: it was uniquely child-centered.

These observations are not unique to The Family in the Modern Age . But Berger finds another less appreciated advantage to the nuclear family: it was uniquely child-centered. In societies that rely on extended families, young women had plenty of time to have five or more children. The older brides of northwest Europe, on the other hand, had fewer fertile years ahead of them and smaller families, which enabled them to provide more focused attention on each child. Their children became part of a household already steeped in an ethos of hard work, future-mindedness, and ingenuity. This prepared them to take advantage of the new modes of labor introduced by the Industrial Revolution, which would eventually create an urbanized middle class.

Over time, with the increasing complexity of the labor market and the arrival of mass schooling, forward-thinking, child-centered parents were best equipped to organize themselves around what Berger calls “the family’s great educational mission.” Extended and clan families under the control of an older generation would be less adaptive since grandparents were more likely to bring up baby the old-fashioned way; larger families, meanwhile, tended to encourage older children to take charge of their younger siblings.

So how does all of this help us understand today’s debates about married couple vs. single-parent families? Researchers find that children growing up with two married parents are more likely to develop “soft skills” like self-control and perseverance that are more crucial than ever to school and labor-market success. Some of this could be chalked up to the logistical problems faced by a single parent.

But if we follow the logic of Berger’s history, another explanation presents itself: the children of married couples are internalizing their parents’ bourgeois aspirations and child-centeredness, both of which lie deep in the bones of the institution they have chosen to enter. Contemporary parents continue to marry late—at least those who do marry—and only after they are equipped to teach their kids the skills that they themselves have already learned. Their parenting style can be described as “concerted cultivation”: they devote great time and attention to developing their children’s skills. Single parents tend to be younger, less-educated, and more inclined to believe in the child’s “natural growth,” to use another of Annette Lareau’s terms.

Helicopter parents with their obsessive interest in their children’s physical, emotional, and cognitive development are the latest, if occasionally absurd, personification of values with strong historical roots. But, as it has for centuries now, their child-centeredness and future-oriented planning appears to be paying off.

Further Reading

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

• Public Safety
• Publications
• Research Integrity
• Press & Media

EIN #13-2912529

• Previous Issue
• Previous Article
• Next Article

Beyond the Nuclear Family: Trends in Children Living in Shared Households

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Natasha V. Pilkauskas , Christina Cross; Beyond the Nuclear Family: Trends in Children Living in Shared Households. Demography 1 December 2018; 55 (6): 2283–2297. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0719-y

Download citation file:

• Reference Manager

Using data from the 1996–2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation and the 2009–2016 American Community Survey, we examine trends in U.S. children living in shared households (living with adults beyond their nuclear (parent/parent’s partner/sibling) family). We find that although the share of children who lived in a shared household increased over this period, the rise was nearly entirely driven by an increase in three-generation/multigenerational households (coresident grandparent(s), parent(s), and child). In 1996, 5.7 % of children lived in a three-generation household; by 2016, 9.8 % did likewise—more than a 4 percentage point increase. More economically advantaged groups (older, more educated mothers, married households) experienced the largest percentage increase in three-generation coresidence, although correlates of coresidence remained largely stable. Decomposition analyses suggest that the rise in Social Security receipt and changes in parental relationship status (less marriage, more single parenthood) most strongly explained the increase in three-generation households. Given the dramatic rise in three-generation households, more research is needed to understand the consequences of these living arrangements for children, their parents, and their grandparents.

Client Account

Sign in via your institution.

Advertisement

Citing articles via

Email alerts, related articles, related topics, related book chapters, affiliations.

• About Demography
• Editorial Board
• For Authors
• Rights and Permissions Inquiry
• Online ISSN 1533-7790
• Print ISSN 0070-3370
• Copyright © 2024
• Duke University Press
• 905 W. Main St. Ste. 18-B
• Durham, NC 27701
• (888) 651-0122
• International
• +1 (919) 688-5134
• Information For
• Advertisers
• Book Authors
• Booksellers/Media
• Journal Authors/Editors
• Journal Subscribers
• Prospective Journals
• Licensing and Subsidiary Rights
• View Open Positions
• email Join our Mailing List
• catalog Current Catalog
• Accessibility
• Get Adobe Reader

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 28 January 2021

Factors associated with quality of life among joint and nuclear families: a population-based study

• Fahad Saqib Lodhi 1 , 2 ,
• Unaib Rabbani 3 ,
• Adeel Ahmed Khan 4 ,
• Owais Raza 5 ,
• Kourosh Holakouie-Naieni 2 ,
• Mehdi Yaseri 2 ,
• Umer Farooq 6 &
• Ali Montazeri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5198-9539 7 , 8  

BMC Public Health volume  21 , Article number:  234 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

22 Citations

Metrics details

Advantages and disadvantages associated with joint and nuclear family systems can affect quality of life (QOL). However, there is scarcity of literature about QOL among joint and nuclear family systems. This study aimed to assess the factors associated with QOL in joint and nuclear family systems.

We conducted a population based cross sectional study in all 52 Union Councils (UCs) of District Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan from March 2015 to August 2015. Multistage cluster sampling technique was used to select participants from both nuclear and joint family houses. The validated Urdu version of World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF) was used to assess quality of life among participants. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the associations of different socio demographic variables with QOL among both family systems. Also a multilevel linear regression using backward analysis to obtain final model for each domain was performed to find out the variables that are associated with QOL score in each of family systems.

A total of 2063 participants were included in this study (51.0% joint family, 49.0% nuclear family) with the response rate of 97.4%. In multiple linear regression analysis of each domain for joint and nuclear family systems, rural residence compared to urban ( p  < 0.001), being female ( p  < 0.001), older age ( p  < 0.001), having comorbidity ( p  < 0.001) and lower socioeconomic status ( p  < 0.001) were found to be a strong predictor of poorer QOL. Furthermore, social capital ( p  < 0.001) had a positive effect on joint and nuclear family QOL scores.

This study was the first of its kind which determined the factors of QOL in joint and nuclear families using the validated Urdu version of WHOQOL-BREF in Pakistan. Male gender, urban residence, younger age, higher socioeconomic status and social capital were positive predictors of QOL score while older age and presence of illness were associated with lower QOL scores among both family systems.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

In general family is one of the fundamental units of societies and takes care of the diverse needs of people [ 1 ]. It is also one of the basic sources of providing care to all of its members. Because of this fact elderly persons of the house occupy respectful position in Asian culture. Family system encourages the life of individuals in all aspects which enables them to live happy and productive life [ 2 ]. Culture has been shown to regulate the family network by building family type, family size and form [ 3 , 4 ] and the family functioning by defining barriers, cooperation rules, connection patterns, adequate practices, regulation and ranking in the family [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ].

Family is a social group of one or more parents and their children. Family systems refer to members and their interrelationship (structure) with each other. There are different classifications of family systems [ 8 , 9 ]. Most commonly used classification has two types i.e. joint and nuclear family systems [ 10 ]. A nuclear family system is defined as ‘a two generation family consisting of a father and mother and children or a single, possibly widow, parent and his/her children’ [ 11 ]. Similarly, joint or extending family is defined as ‘three or more generations lived together with both vertical and lateral extension having a single line of authority, either patrilineal or matrilineal’ [ 11 ]. A number of advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of family has been reported such as social support, protection during crises, physical space, autonomy a freedom of decision making [ 12 ].

Extent of these systems varies from countries to countries and within countries as well. Traditionally Pakistan had joint family system and bonding within a family. Like other Asian countries, over the time, balance is shifting towards nuclear family system in Pakistan [ 13 ]. Multiple factors are responsible for this shifting trend from joint to nuclear system. These include; financial pressures, decreasing living space, movement for job and rapid urbanization [ 13 ]. It also seems to be an outcome of increasing prosperity. This trend is faster in urban areas than rural areas. The superiority of one of these systems is a matter of debate these days. The researchers are on a quest for evidence based information regarding the current debate about the quality of life of an individual, based on a family system [ 14 ].

In Pakistan, a large number of the aged people depend on their family especially on their children or grandchildren for physical, communal and financial support [ 2 ] which is more convenient in joint families. It was recommended by Mason (1992) that urbanization is expected to negatively affect the family’s capacity and willingness for care of the elderly and it will also decrease the chances of living grown up children with their parents [ 15 ]. Studies from Asian countries have shown that most of the help for the elderly people comes from their home by their children/grandchildren [ 16 , 17 ].

Limited studies have been conducted on different study populations that have assessed the predictors of quality of life. A study conducted among elderly population in India reported that occupation, higher income, 60–69 years age group, staying with partner and absence of co-morbidity were found to be the determinants of better QOL [ 18 ]. Studies from Kuwait and Lebanon also reported that female gender, older age, social disadvantage, and presence of anxiety/ depression were associated with poor QOL [ 19 , 20 ]. Although all of the works done before were on health-related QOL all around the world, there are no such study exploring the predictors of quality of life of people who live in nuclear or joint family system. Our study presented the predictors of quality of life scores in joint and nuclear family systems in Pakistani general population.

Study design and setting

We conducted a population based cross sectional study in all 52 Union Councils of District Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, Pakistan from March 2015 to August 2015. We recruited 2063 participants for our study. Abbottabad is the main district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan having more than 1.2 million population living in 52 union councils. The primary language spoken here is Hindko (used by 94% of the rural population and 75% of urban residents) followed by Urdu which is also spoken and understood in rural & urban areas [ 21 ].

Sample size

We used the Statulator, an online statistical calculator for sample size determination [ 22 ]. Assuming a standard deviation of 12 units (derived from pilot study) and a design effect (DEFF) of 2, the study would require a sample size of 969 for each group (i.e. a total sample size of 1938, assuming equal group sizes), to achieve a power of 90% at 5% significance level (two sided) for detecting a true difference of 2.5 points in quality of life score between joint and nuclear family systems.

Sampling procedure

Participants were selected from all union councils (UCs) of District Abbottabad. Multistage cluster sampling technique was employed in this study. Each union council was further divided into several blocks called Mohallah. We did proportionate sampling according to the 1998 population census [ 23 ] of UCs for the selection of Mohallah & on the next stage households. In the first stage we randomly selected these blocks (Mohallah) in each of the UC from a list by using simple random sampling technique. In the next stage we selected households in that selected block by using a random sampling technique again. The total number of houses selected in each block was also proportional to the population size of respective block. For the selection of family type, from the list of household of each block, we made a list of joint & nuclear family system households and enrolled equal number of houses from both family types. A simple random sampling technique was used for the selection of person (≥18 years) from each house. Simple random sampling was done by applying the lottery method for selecting the ≥18 year’s participant for the study. The inclusion criteria used for selection of individual were age greater than 18 years and permanent resident of union council for at least 5 years. Guests and temporary residents were excluded from the study.

We used the World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brief version (WHOQOL-BREF) for measuring quality of life. It is in public domain and contains 26-items that covers four domains of QOL (psychological 6 items, physical 7 items, social relationships 3 items and environmental 8 items). Each question scored on a scale from one to five, with high score indicating good QOL with the exception of three questions, which include pain and discomfort, need for medical treatment and negative feelings [ 24 ]. The seven items included in the physical health domain were mobility, daily life activities, pain, sleep, functional capacity and energy. The psychological domain measured negative thinking, self-image, positive approach, self-esteem, mindset, ability to learn, memory, consolidation, religion and the psychic conditions. Questions such as social support, sex-life and personal relationship come under the social relationship domain. The environmental health domain contains questions on financial assets, security, health and social services, living in natural environment, opportunities for advance learning experience, relaxation, and natural environment (air, noise, pollution and transportation) [ 25 ]. The total raw score for these four dimensions were transformed into 0 to 100 scale according to the standard procedure defined in WHO QOL user manual [ 24 ], and then analysis of this reconstruct score was done. Psychometric properties and validation of this WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire was done in the national language “Urdu”. The Cronbach’s alpha for each of four domains were 0.78, 0.71, 0.73 and 0.65, respectively [ 26 ]. To assess the feasibility and clarity of the items, a pilot study was conducted on 30 individuals conveniently selected from the study area.

We also developed a structured demographic questionnaire which included variables such as age, gender, marital status, type of family (joint and nuclear), residence type (urban and rural), house ownership (owner, not owner), respondent education (no education, madrassa, can read/write, primary- up to grade 5, secondary education-up to grade 12 and tertiary-up to grade 16 or above), working status (employed, unemployed and retired).

The socio-economic characteristics were assessed by taking household conditions, sources of drinking water, sanitation facilities, availability of electricity, housing facilitates, possession of durable goods, mean of transport, inventory of house hold and personal items such as chairs, clocks, buckets, radios, television sets, fans, stoves or cookers, cars, and telephones. This list was composed of 21 such items used in the Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2013 [ 27 ]. Wealth index was measured by an index constructed from principle component analysis (PCA) [ 28 ] of items indicating ownership of household durables and dwelling characteristics.

The World Bank’s Social Capital Integrated Questionnaire (SC-IQ) was also used to study social capital among families. It is an open-domain questionnaire and consists of 27 questions in six domains [ 29 ]. Of these five questions on overall trust, trust in local government, trust in central government, community cooperation and safety at home were selected and used in this study. These questions were translated by the research team into Urdu and then back translated into English by independent bilingual expert to assess the validity of the translation. The internal consistency of the items as assessed by the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be acceptable (alpha = 0.64). The concurrent validity as assessed by correlation between the trust subscale of the SC-IQ and the social relationship of the WHOQOL-BREF showed satisfactory result (r = 0.74).

Data collection

One-day training session was conducted for administering the questionnaires prior to data collection for lady health workers of all UCs by principal investigator. In 1994, Pakistan’s Ministry of Health (MOH) implemented the Lady Health Worker Program (LHWP) as part of a national strategy to reduce poverty and improve health by bringing health services to the doorsteps of underserved communities. Lady health workers are out reach health workers who provide preventive and health promotion services specially for maternal and child health issues [ 30 ]. The questionnaire was administered through face to face interviews in the households by trained lady health workers of that union council. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, interviews were conducted in an independent room or area separate from other members of the family.

Statistical analysis

The data was analyzed using the Stata version 13.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA). First, we conducted descriptive analyses such as frequencies, proportions and means. Then, we carried out univariate linear regression analyses with domain scores as dependent and other variables as independent variables. Next, in the multivariate analysis, we included all independent variables and used stepwise backward approach to eliminate variables with a p value > 0.05. Finally, multi-level analysis was performed with two –level continuous random intercept model with individuals nested within clusters was applied to explore the variability explained by individuals and cluster level variables taking the correlated nature of data into account. P -value of < 0.05 was considered as significant.

Demographic characteristic of study participants

A total of 2116 households were approached. Of these, 56 refused (non-response 2.64%) to participate in this study giving a total number of 2063 [1053 (51.04%) belonged to joint family system and 1010 (48.6%) to nuclear family]. Younger (18–30 years) and elderly (> 50 years) were more in joint families (39%) and (20%) respectively compared to (20%) and (10%) in nuclear families. Educational status of the participants was comparable in two groups as proportions of individuals with no education were 15.5% and 15.7 in joint and nuclear families respectively. Majority were living in their own houses 849 (80.5%) in joint and 750 (74.3%) in nuclear family. A higher proportion of the participants (80.5%) in joint family groups owned a house compared to (71%) in nuclear family group. Proportions of employed persons were (56.5%) in joint families and (56.1%) in nuclear families. Higher proportion of the participant were satisfied in living in joint family system (87.5%) compared to (81%) in nuclear family system (Table  1 ).

Joint family system WHO QOL-BREF scores

Table  2 shows mean score of WHOQOL-BREF scores of participants in joint families. Those living in the urban areas, had significantly higher scores in all four dimensions. Male had higher scores in physical and psychological domains compared to females. However, no differences were observed in relationship and environmental domains. Younger age group < 30 years had higher scores than elderly > 50 years of age. Divorced had highest scores in physical and psychological domains while married had highest scores in relationship domain. No significant differences were observed in environment domain between different categories of marital status. Lack of education, presence of any physical disability or disease, unemployment, lower socio-economic status and low social capital were associated with lower scores in all domains.

Multivariate linear regression model for joint family system

Table  3 shows the results of the multivariate linear regression model for joint family system. In multivariate model, rural residence was negatively associated with physical, psychological and environmental domains QOL scores and there was 4.59 units [95% CI: − 7.77 to − 1.41], 3.54 units [95% CI: − 6.44 to − 0.63] and 5.32 units [95% CI: − 8.75 to - 1.89] reduction when changing from urban to rural ( P  = 0.001) respectively. There was no significant association with relationship domain. Female gender was also negatively associated with QOL scores in physical, psychological and social relationship domains − 3.94 units [95% CI: − 5.88 to − 0.01], − 3.10 units [95% CI: − 4.7 to − 1.47] and − 0.11 units [95% CI:-3.06 to- 0.84] respectively, and no significant association was observed in environmental health domain. Increasing age was negatively associated with QOL scores. One-decade increase in age lead to 0.22 units [95% CI: − 0.29 to − 0.19], 0.11 units [95% CI: − 0.2 to - 0.05] and 0.12 units [95% CI: − 0.19 to − 0.05] reduction in scores of physical, psychological and relationship domains respectively. Presence of disease was also significantly associated as scores declined with the presence of disease in physical and psychological domains. However, there was no significant association of disease status with relationship and environment domains. Socio-economic status also had a significant association as a change in SES from high to low resulted in a reduction of QOL scores in all the domains. Similarly increase in social capital was also positively associated with QOL scores in all four domains.

Nuclear family system WHOQOL-BREF scores

The mean score of each domain among different subgroups in joint family system is presented in Table  4 . Pattern of differences between the subgroups in nuclear family system was similar to joint family system. The mean of all four domains was significantly higher among those living in urban areas. Male had higher scores than female. Younger age people < 30 years of age had significantly higher scores than elderly in physical domain only. There were no significant differences in other three domains with respect to age. House ownership did not affect the QOL scores in any of the domain. Significant differences in scores were observed across different marital status strata. Those with no education generally had lower scores than others. Presence of any disease or disability significantly reduced the QOL scores. Compared with working/employed subjects, unemployed subjects had lower QOL scores. Participants with higher socioeconomic status, and social capital levels had higher QOL scores in all domains.

Multivariate linear regression model for nuclear family system

Table  5 presents the results of the multivariate linear regression model for nuclear family syste. In multivariate model, rural residence was negatively associated with physical − 2.55 units [95% CI: − 5.42 to − 0.33], psychological − 1.90 units [95% CI: − 4.9 to − 1.13] and environmental domains − 3.69 units [95% CI: − 7.27 to − 0.09]. Female gender was also negatively associated with QOL scores in physical, psychological and social relationship domains − 2.64 units [95% CI: − 4.59 to − 0.68], − 3.56 units [95% CI: − 5.5 to − 1.65] and − 1.92 units [95% CI: − 3.91 to − 0.07] respectively, no significant association was observed in environmental health domain. Increasing age was negatively associated with QOL scores. One-decade increase in age lead to 0.27 units [95% CI: − 0.35 to − 0.20], 0.15 units [95% CI: − 0.2 to − 0.06] and 0.12 units [95% CI: − 0.05 to − 0.12] reduction in scores of physical, psychological and relationship domains respectively. Presence of disease or disability led to significant decline in the QOL in physical domains. However, there was no significant association of disease and disability with QOL scores in other domains. QOL scores significantly declined with changing socio-economic status from high to low in all four domains. Social capital was also positively associated with QOL scores in all the domains.

Our study is one of its kinds to assess the predictors of QOL domains in joint and nuclear families in Pakistan. We found that male gender, urban residence, younger age, higher socio-economic status and social capital were positive predictors in both types of family systems. Increasing age and presence of illness were associated with lower QOL scores in joint and nuclear families. Predictors were similar in for all domains of QOL across two types of families with few exceptions.

Family type has been reported to affect the mental and social wellbeing. A study from India reported that adolescents from joint family have better mental health compared to nuclear family [ 31 ]. Another study from India found no difference in the QOL scores between joint and nuclear family types except for social relationship domain where scores were significantly high for those living in nuclear families [ 18 ]. One study from Pakistan reported that elderly living in joint families had better social support and quality of life than those in nuclear families [ 32 ]. Another study from Japan reported that couples living as couples did not have any significant difference in the perceived physical and mental health while they were more likely to have severe hypertension compared to those in extended families [ 33 ].

Our study found higher scores for males in all four domains of QOL. This finding is similar to a study from India where females had lower scores [ 18 ]. A study from Kuwait also reported negative association of female gender with QOL scores [ 19 ]. A study from Iran also found that there were significant association between QOL and greatly varied by socio-demographic variables including gender [ 34 ]. These findings indicate that family members even within same family have different views about the family environment which could affect their QOL [ 35 ] and that of female members.

Ageing is associated with physical and mental changes in the body which affects the health and QOL. We found that increasing age was associated with decrease in the QOL scores in all domains except environmental domain in both types of families. Other studies have also reported similar association of age with QOL scores [ 18 , 36 ]. With the increasing life expectancy countries will experience increasing proportion of elderly population. This calls for reorientations of systems and services to ensure healthy elderly.

Our study found significant association of socio-economic status with QOL scores in both types of families. Socio-economic status is associated with availability of resources and access to services which ultimately affect QOL. Studies on different populations have shown positive association of higher socio-economic status with higher scores in different domains of QOL [ 18 , 34 , 36 ]. Likewise, social capital was also associated with higher QOL scores in all domains a finding similar to studies from China and Malaysia [ 37 , 38 ].

We found that presence of diseases was associated with lower scores in physical and psychological domains in joint families and with physical domain in nuclear families. Presence of any physical deformity or illness affect the physical and psychological health. Studies have consistently shown negative association of QOL with presence of diseases [ 19 , 36 , 39 ]. A study reported that people with mental and physical illness had significantly lower scores than healthy people in all three domains of QOL life except environmental domain [ 40 ].

We did not find any significant difference in the predictors of QOL among both family types. Our findings are interesting in a way that it is considered that QOL differs in both family systems and their predictors would also be different. There is a need to do further studies to explore this finding.

Our study is one of its kinds from Pakistan to assess the levels and predictors of QOL in joint and nuclear families from the randomly selected general population. We used robust statistical procedures and performed multi-level analysis to draw conclusions. However certain limitations need to be considered while interpreting the results of this study. First our sample was drawn from a single city which may limit the generalizability of our results. Second, questionnaire was administered by the interviewer which could introduce social desirability bias in the response. To minimize this, we ensured privacy during interviews and no other household member was allowed in the interview room. Thirdly, this was a cross-sectional study and temporal associations could not be ascertained with certainty and we cannot say surely whether the predictors of our study preceded the quality of life.

Our study determined the levels and predictors of QOL scores of individuals in joint and nuclear families using validated WHO QOL BREF. Predictors were similar across both types of families. Male gender, urban residence, younger age, higher socio-economic status and social capital were positive predictors of QOL score while increasing age and presence of illness were associated with lower QOL scores among both family systems. These findings call for policy actions such as women empowerment, improvement in facilities in rural areas and poverty alleviation to improve quality of life. We also recommend further studies in different segments of population to further characterize the predictors of QOL.

Availability of data and materials

Corresponding author will provide all the relevant data used in this study upon request.

Abbreviations

Quality of life

World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire Brief version

Standard deviation

Beta coefficient

Confidence Interval

Reference group

Social Capital Integrated Questioners

Bahadur A, Dhawan N. Social value of parents and children in joint and nuclear families. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol. 2008;34:74–80.

Google Scholar  

Itrat A, Taqui AM, Qazi F, Qidwai W. Family systems: perceptions of elderly patients and their attendents presenting at a university hospital in Karachi. Pak J Pak Med Assoc. 2007;57(2):106–10.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McGill D. Cultural concepts for family therapy. Cult Perspect Fam Ther. 1983:108–21.

McGoldrick M, Giordano J, Garcia PN. Ethnicity and family therapy. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.

McGill DW. The cultural story in multicultural family therapy. Fam Soc. 1992;73(6):339–49.

Article   Google Scholar  

Minuchin S. Families and family therapy. London: Routledge; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Falicov CJ, Brudner-White L. The shifting family triangle: the issue of cultural and contextual relativity. In: Falicov CJ, editor. Cultural perspectives in family therapy. Rockville: Aspen Corporation; 1983. p. 51–67.

Kapadia KM. Marriage and family in India. 3rd ed. Bombay: Oxford University Press; 1966.

Caldwell JC, Reddy PH, Caldwell P. The causes of demographic change: experimental research in South India. Madison: Madison University Press; 1988.

Richard J, Banumati K, Rajakumar E. Family type and the aged. J Fam Welf. 1985;31(4):31–8.

Elliott S, Gray A. Family structures: a report for the New Zealand immigration service. Wellington: New Zealand Immigration Service; 2000.

Nighat A. Evaluation of the joint family system as a major cause of depression among married women of Sindh. Interdiscip J Contemp Res Bus. 2013;4(10):113–32.

Farooq A, Kayani AK, Ahmad K. Marriage and family structures in the rural Punjab a shift from conservative to contemporary patterns. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2015;35(5–6):306–24.

Bongaarts J. Household size and composition in the developing world in the 1990s. Popul Stud. 2001;55(3):263–79.

Mason KO. Family change and support of the elderly in Asia: what do we know? Asia-Pac Popul J. 1992;7(3):13–32.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Knodel J, Debavalya N. Social and economic support systems for the elderly in Asia: an introduction. Asia-Pac Popul J. 1992;7(3):5–12.

Hermalin AI, Chang M-C, Lin H-S, Lee M-L, Ofstedal MB. Patterns of support among the elderly in Taiwan and their policy implications. Research Report No. 90–4, Comparative Study of the Elderly in Asia. Population Studies Center. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 1990.

Thadathil S, Jose R, Varghese S. Assessment of domain wise quality of life among elderly population using WHO-BREF scale and its determinants in a rural setting of Kerala. Int J Curr Med Appl Sci. 2015;7(1):43–6.

Ohaeri JU, Awadalla AW, Gado OM. Subjective quality of life in a nationwide sample of Kuwaiti subjects using the short version of the WHO quality of life instrument. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009;44(8):693–701.

Sabbah I, Drouby N, Sabbah S, Retel-Rude N, Mercier M. Quality of life in rural and urban populations in Lebanon using SF-36 health survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):30.

Government of Pakistan. District Profile: Abbottabad. Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. Islamabad: Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority and Affiliates; 2007.

Dhand NK, Khatkar MS. Statulator: An online statistical calculator. Sample size calculator for comparing two independent means. 2014. Available online at: http://statulator.com/SampleSize/ss2M.html

Haq M, Mustafa U, Ahmad I. Household's willingness to pay for safe drinking water: a case study of Abbottabad district. Pak Dev Rev. 2007;46(4):1137–53.

Group TW. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(12):1569–85.

Organization WH. WHOQOL-BREF: introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment: field trial version, December 1996. 1996.

Lodhi FS, Raza O, Montazeri A, Nedjat S, Yaseri M, Holakouie-Naieni K. Psychometric properties of she Urdu version of the World Health Organization's quality of life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF). Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2017;31:129.

NIPS II. Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey 2012–13. Islamabad. 2013. http://www.nips.org.pk/abstract_files/PDHS%20Final%20Report%20as%20of%20Jan%202 2–2014.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov 2017.

Vyas S, Kumaranayake L. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2006;21(6):459–68.

Grootaert G, Narayan D, Nyhan Jones V, Woolcock M. Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire. World Bank Publications; 2004.

Khan A. Lady health workers and social change in Pakistan. Econ Political Wkly. 2011:28–31.

Panchal DR. Mental health and psychological well-being among adolescents of joint and nuclear family. Int J Technol Res Eng. 2013;7(4):431–4.

Naz S, Naz S, Gul S. Relationship between economic independence, social support and quality of life among elderly people. J Ind Acad Appl Psychol. 2014;40(2):255.

Turagabeci AR, Nakamura K, Kizuki M, Takano T. Family structure and health, how companionship acts as a buffer against ill health. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):61.

Nedjat S, Naieni KH, Mohammad K, Majdzadeh R, Montazeri A. Quality of life among an Iranian general population sample using the World Health Organization’s quality of life instrument (WHOQOL-BREF). Int J Public Health. 2011;56(1):55–61.

Chipuer HM, Villegas T. Comparing the second-order factor structure of the family environment scale across husbands' and wives' perceptions of their family environment. Fam Process. 2001;40(2):187–98.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Keyvanara M, Khasti BY, Zadeh MR, Modaber F. Study of the relationship between quality of life and socioeconomic status in Isfahan at 2011. J Educ Health Promot. 2015;4:92.

Gao B, Yang S, Liu X, Ren X, Liu D, Li N. Association between social capital and quality of life among urban residents in less developed cities of western China: a cross-sectional study. Medicine. 2018;97(4):e9656.

Hamdan H, Yusof F, Marzukhi MA. Social capital and quality of life in urban neighborhoods high density housing. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;153:169–79.

D’Souza MS, Karkada SN, Somayaji G. Factors associated with health-related quality of life among Indian women in mining and agriculture. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):9.

Ginieri-Coccossis M, Triantafillou E, Tomaras V, Liappas IA, Christodoulou GN, Papadimitriou GN. Quality of life in mentally ill, physically ill and healthy individuals: the validation of the Greek version of the World Health Organization quality of life (WHOQOL-100) questionnaire. Ann General Psychiatry. 2009;8(1):23.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was originated from the Ph.D. thesis of the first investigator at Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran. We also acknowledge the efforts and collaboration of Non-Communicable Diseases Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

This research was funded by International Campus Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Community Medicine, Women Medical and Dental College, Abbottabad, Pakistan

Fahad Saqib Lodhi

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Fahad Saqib Lodhi, Kourosh Holakouie-Naieni & Mehdi Yaseri

Family Medicine Academy, Qassim, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Unaib Rabbani

Saudi Board Program of Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Health, Mecca, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Adeel Ahmed Khan

School of Public Health, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

Community Medicine Department, Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad, Pakistan

Umer Farooq

Population Health Research Group, Health Metrics Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

Ali Montazeri

Faculty of Humanity Sciences, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FSL and AM conceptualized the study, conducted literature review, and drafted the manuscript. KHN and AM supervised the study. MY was the study advisor and contributed to analysis. UR, AAK, OR, and UF helped in data collection and provided input on the successive version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Montazeri .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences and by health and political administrative bodies of Abbottabad District, Pakistan. All participants provided written consent prior to the interview.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Lodhi, F.S., Rabbani, U., Khan, A.A. et al. Factors associated with quality of life among joint and nuclear families: a population-based study. BMC Public Health 21 , 234 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10265-2

Download citation

Received : 03 June 2020

Accepted : 19 January 2021

Published : 28 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10265-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Quality of life (QOL)
• Family system
• WHOQOL-BREF
• General population

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Latest Latest
• The West The West
• Sports Sports
• Opinion Opinion
• Magazine Magazine

Why the nuclear family might not be enough

Writing in the atlantic, david brooks calls for greater reliance on extended families. family experts say that’s a beginning..

By Jennifer Graham

SALT LAKE CITY — New York Times columnist David Brooks eulogized the nuclear family recently, saying the model of a married couple and their children living alone doesn’t work well for everyone and calling for greater reliance on extended family.

In the article , published on The Atlantic’s website, Brooks said the nuclear family has been good for the economically privileged, but “ravages the working-class and poor” who need the support that a sprawling family network provides. Such support acts as a shock absorber when things go wrong, and children benefit from the guidance of their relatives. “Multiple adults teach children right from wrong, how to behave toward others, how to be kind,” Brooks wrote.

If the bad news is that the nuclear family has become brittle, as Brooks said, the good news is that Americans are inching toward a system that worked well in generations past.

Twenty percent of Americans live in multigenerational homes today, compared to 12 percent in 1980, a change driven by young adults moving back in with their parents and seniors sharing homes with their kids, Brooks wrote.

And young adults are building family-like networks with people who aren’t relatives as “a new and more communal ethos is emerging, one that is consistent with 21st-century reality and 21st-century values,” he wrote. He cited a website where single mothers can connect with other single mothers to share housing, and also mentioned Salt Lake City’s The Other Side Academy, which helps connect felons with a community that acts as an extended family.

While Brooks’ overarching theme was the need for denser networks of familial support, his indictment of the nuclear family as a “catastrophe” that has led to broken families and loneliness was provocative, and on social media and elsewhere, reaction was swift and strong. On Twitter, Dr. Melody McCloud wrote, “It‘s not that the nuclear family is a mistake; it’s the crumbling of the nuclear family that’s a mistake. ... We need intact nuclear families.”

And the Institute for Family Studies, based in Charlottesville, Virginia, responded immediately with a weeklong online symposium to give family scholars a chance to respond to Brooks’ arguments.

Among them was Kay S. Hymowitz, the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, who wrote, “The disaster confronting less prosperous Americans is not the nuclear family, but the erosion of socioeconomic conditions that help them sustain lasting pair bonds.”

Here’s a summary of Brooks’ arguments, and how some leading family scholars have responded.

Honey, we shrunk the family

In the 19th century, almost all Americans worked on farms or in family businesses, and these lifestyles supported — even demanded — large, intertwined families, Brooks explained. “People needed a lot of labor to run these enterprises. It was not uncommon for married couples to have seven or eight children. In addition, there might be stray aunts, uncles and cousins, as well as unrelated servants, apprentices and farmhands.”

Industrialization eventually drove young Americans to work at factories in cities, where the nuclear family was born, along with its attendant mythology. By 1960, more than three-quarters of children were living with married parents, away from extended family. The economy was strong; divorce rates were down and fertility rates were up. The nuclear family seemed, for a brief, shining decade and a half, the Camelot of family units, a reputation that stuck even when circumstances changed. Only one-third of Americans currently live in a nuclear family.

In fact, Brooks wrote, “That 1950–65 window was not normal. It was a freakish historical moment when all of society conspired, wittingly and not, to obscure the essential fragility of the nuclear family.”

In their relative isolation, nuclear families afford individuals mobility and freedom, but deprive children of stability and a rich, important social tapestry. “Extended families have more people to share the unexpected burdens — when a kid gets sick in the middle of the day or when an adult unexpectedly loses a job,” Brooks wrote.

“A detached nuclear family, by contrast, is an intense set of relationships among, say, four people. If one relationship breaks, there are no shock absorbers. In a nuclear family, the end of the marriage means the end of the family as it was previously understood.”

As such, children are the ones who suffer most when the nuclear family disintegrates. Only about half of American children spend their childhood with both biological parents; 1 in 5 young adults have no contact with their fathers. And, Brooks writes, “American children are more likely to live in a single-parent household than children from any other country.”

Affluent families can more easily withstand negative events, he says, by essentially buying extended family with goods and services. The poor can’t. And the negative effects persist even after the children have grown. Brooks says that this broken ideal contributes to the problem of loneliness in the U.S. “Today’s crisis of connection flows from the impoverishment of family life,” he writes.

‘Bring back the big tables’

In interviews with the Deseret News and in responses published by the Institute for Family Studies, scholars said that Brooks’ article started an important conversation, but said there are other issues that deserve consideration.

Regarding The Atlantic’s provocative headline, “The Nuclear Family Was a Mistake,” W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, said, “It’s a mistake to think you can go it alone as a nuclear family.”

“In the last century, too many Americans have tried to go it alone. It’s certainly the case that many hands of kin and kith make the work of family life lighter.”

But Wilcox said Brooks’ prescription of “chosen” or “forged” families ignores the importance of marriage to a family and to the nation.

“His prescription seems to me fundamentally inadequate because it doesn’t recognize that children and communities are much more likely to thrive when marriage anchors them because marriage gives meaning, direction and purpose to families, and to kids in particular.

“We know, for instance, that kids who are being raised in multigenerational families with a single parent in the middle do about as poorly as kids being raised without a third generation. We know that kids being raised by uncles and aunts do worse than kids being raised by their own parents. His conclusion doesn’t really acknowledge that there’s something fundamental about being loved by, and loving, your parents in your own home, and when you don’t have that, there’s a fundamental sense of loss that a lot of kids experience.”

Stephanie Coontz, director of research at the Council on Contemporary Families and a history professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, wrote about idealized families in her 1992 book “The Way We Never Were.” She said Brooks does a little idealizing of his own in talking about the glories of large families in the 18th and 19th centuries, although he does acknowledge that the structure was no ideal for women for spent most of their days cooking and cleaning for a dozen people, or two dozen, or for the slaves and servants that supported these large households. But, she says, Brooks doesn’t go far enough.

 “His solution stresses the need to promote new forms of chosen kin, and I agree those are good. But in our huge country, with its regional disparities and growing segregation by race and class, local initiatives are not enough. We don’t just need a new family paradigm. We need a new social paradigm.”

Coontz said that economic factors weigh heavily on American families, both nuclear and extended, and that business models that bow to shareholder profits do so at the expense of families and communities. “While we’re thinking, let’s think about how we can begin to recognize that we’re all part of an interdependent society,” she said. “We need to rebuild not just the social safety net, but also the psychological sense that we’re all in this together.”

Without economic stability, Coontz said, marriage is not an option for many Americans. “In the midst of this growing inequality, the only people who can take the risk of marrying each other are those who are almost already there in terms of their emotional and economic security. Marriage can be tremendously helpful to those who have the emotional and economic security to make sure it will work, but in today’s society, where we have freedom, for better or for worse, to leave a marriage that does not satisfy us, it’s a risky endeavor for those who are under economic stress.”

Likewise, writing for the Institute for Family Studies symposium, Scott M. Stanley, a research professor at the University of Denver, noted the correlation between income and education and family stability. “As a group, those with higher education and incomes —those with the most options — are now overrepresented among those with stable marriages and nuclear families.”

And Stanley noted that a major obstacle blocking societal change is the vaunted American love of individualism, privacy and space, which Brooks acknowledges when he writes, “Family bonds are thicker, but individual choice is diminished. You have less space to make your own way in life.”

Moreover, nuclear families tend to perpetuate themselves. “People who grow up in a nuclear family tend to have a more individualistic mindset than people who grow up in a multigenerational extended clan,” Brooks wrote. “People with an individualistic mindset tend to be less willing to sacrifice self for the sake of the family, and the result is more family disruption.”

But that’s all the more reason for a movement to enlarge our most important and nurturing network, either biological or forged, according to Brooks. “For decades we have been eating at smaller and smaller tables, with fewer and fewer kin,” he says. “It’s time to find ways to bring back the big tables.”

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Why Britain Just Ended 14 Years of Conservative Rule

Last week, the center-left labour party won the british general election in a landslide..

Hosted by Natalie Kitroeff

Featuring Mark Landler

Produced by Rob Szypko ,  Nina Feldman and Will Reid

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Dan Powell ,  Diane Wong and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

For more than a decade, Britain has been governed by the Conservative Party, which pushed its politics to the right, embracing smaller government and Brexit. Last week, that era officially came to an end.

Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The Times, explains why British voters rejected the Conservatives and what their defeat means in a world where populism is on the rise.

On today’s episode

Mark Landler , the London bureau chief for The New York Times.

Background reading

Five takeaways from the British general election.

The Conservatives have run Britain for 14 years. How have things changed in that time?

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Natalie Kitroeff is the Mexico City bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. More about Natalie Kitroeff

Mark Landler is the London bureau chief of The Times, covering the United Kingdom, as well as American foreign policy in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He has been a journalist for more than three decades. More about Mark Landler

Advertisement

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Weekend Edition Sunday

• Latest Show

Sunday Puzzle

• Corrections

Listen to the lead story from this episode.

Former President Donald Trump is safe after an assassination attempt at his rally

by  Danielle Kurtzleben ,  Ayesha Rascoe

Politics chat: Biden campaign responds to shooting at Trump rally, impact on the RNC

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Mara Liasson

The GOP primary in Utah's largest Congressional district is going for a recall

by  Saige Miller

Investigations

Some guantanamo bay prisoners have still not gone to trial -- and might never.

by  Ayesha Rascoe ,  Sacha Pfeiffer

Some Guantanamo Bay prisoners are still on trial from the post-9/11 'war on terror'

The fbi and secret service are investigating the attack on former president trump.

by  Ryan Lucas ,  Ayesha Rascoe

The FBI and Secret Service are investigating the shooting of former president Trump

Central valley, where a quarter of the u.s.'s food is grown, faces extreme heat.

by  Esther Quintanilla

Beloved fitness personality Richard Simmons has died

Beloved fitness personality richard simmons of has died, the latest on the assassination attempt on former president trump.

by  Ayesha Rascoe

Sunday Puzzle NPR hide caption

Sunday Puzzle: A playful 'P' syllable challenge

by  Will Shortz

Author Interviews

Stephen graham jones on his novel 'i was a teenage slasher'.

by  Ryan Benk

The RNC will proceed as planned as Republican members of caucus respond to the news

Unpacking the political moment of the shooting at former president trump.

by  Domenico Montanaro ,  Ayesha Rascoe

The political moment of Trump shooting

Butler county, where trump was holding his rally, is a stronghold for his campaign, former fbi agent breaks down the investigation into the shooting at former president trump, inflation goes down, but the federal reserve is maintaining high interest rates, the music industry is coming for ai.

by  Bobby Allyn

Details are emerging in the assassination attempt on former President Trump

Soccer fans have a big sunday with finals for both the euros and copa america.

by  Becky Sullivan ,  Ayesha Rascoe

Remembering a pioneering sex therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer

Music interviews, pete lawrie winfield on his latest synth-pop album 'visitor'.

Searching for a song you heard between stories? We've retired music buttons on these pages. Learn more here.