essay on family function

Psychology Discussion

Essay on family: definition, function, social systems and changes | psychology.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Essay on ‘Family’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Family’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Family

Essay # 1. definition of family:.

It is a well-known fact that family is found everywhere and it is concomitant with group life. Society and State derive from a circle of intermarrying families banded together to satisfy their basic needs. Sociologically and historically, the family may be viewed as a group consisting of two or more parents and their children.

Such a view suggests itself because there have been great variations in the number of parties entering into the marriage union. Although the family is universal, no particular form of it is primary or inevitable. Like all other institutions, it is a social product subject to change and modification.

In response to varying conditions, different forms of the family have appeared from time to time. But in the present day world Patriarchal family organised under the system of monogamy is most prevalent institution. In such a kill-group that it is both an association and institution and very essential to the life of society.

Essay # 2. Function of Family:

It is an open secret that family plays an important role in the life of society. There is no other human group that dominates the life of the individuals, more than family. It is in the light of this hard fact that, Maciver says, “Of all the organizations, large or small, which society unfolds, none transcends the family in the intensity of its sociological significance. It influences the whole life of society in innumerable ways, and its changes, reverberate through the whole social structure. It is capable of endless variation and yet reveals a remarkable continuity und persistence through change.”

The family occupies a vital place in the working of social order and it is so because it performs certain characteristically significant functions. Davis has characterized the main social functions of the family in four divisions. These are reproduction, maintenance, placement and socialization of the young. It also performs individual functions but these are the corollary of its social functions.

However, Davis has said, “From a sociological point of view we are mainly concerned with the social functions and consequently we stress the four functions mentioned here as being the core functions with which the family is always and everywhere concerned. There may be great variation from one society to another in the precise manner and degree of fulfilment of the functions, but the four mentioned above seem to be the ones which universally require a family organization.”

Lundberg has also mentioned a number of basic functions of the family. In them he has included the regulation of sexual behaviour and reproduction, care and training of children, co-operation and division of labour and primary group satisfactions. Besides, there are many auxiliary functions as well.

Maciver divides the functions of the family into two categories. They are the essential and non-essential functions of the family. Under the essential he includes three functions- (i) Stable satisfaction of sex need, (ii) Production and rearing of children, and (iii) Provision of a home. Under the non­essential functions he mentions religious, educational, economic, health and recreation, which he says have now been transferred to specialized agencies in society.

In short, the various functions of the family can be mentioned in the following way:

1. Essential Functions of Family:

The essential functions of the family are those functions, which it has to perform exclusively. They can neither be shared with any other group nor can they be delegated to any other association. They are the functions, which in every age and in any form the family must perform and there can be no deviation from them.

Some of them are:

(i) Satisfaction of sex need

(ii) Provision of a home

(iii) Production and rearing of children.

They are in a way the primary functions of the family, for the doing of which some sort of family group has ever to remain in existence.

This fact is aptly testified by Reuben Hill in these words, “Family life is probably more than a social habit. The family may be viewed as a device for solving certain fundamental problem, which must be faced by any group of people who live and work together in a society. As a problem-solving device it has simplified the social life of many of its members. Through it sex partners are sorted out and their sex drives are harnessed and linked with the love sentiments to weld together conjugal units into which children can be born, cared for and reared to adulthood. Within it all the basic elemental needs are met and kept from becoming individual problems, which if left unsolved might demand collective action. It simplifies life to live in a family and that is true for adults as well as for children. Certain basic needs of affection, intimate response, recognition, personality, expression, growth and security are met through the family which are not met satisfactorily elsewhere.”

In view of these facts the important essential functions of the family can be explained in some detail in the following manner:

(i) Satisfaction of Sex Need:

This is the first essential function, which the family performs. Satisfaction of sex instinct brings the desire for life-long partnership among male and female. The satisfaction of sex instinct makes for normal personality. If sex instinct is suppressed, it may produce personality maladjustments and disrupt social relations.

The modern family can satisfy this instinct in greater degree and in a better way than the traditional family. In the old family the sexual act was combined with reproduction and the fear of pregnancy as a result of intercourse prevented the couple to satisfy their sex urge. But in modern family the task of sexual satisfaction has been eased by the invention of contraceptives and other methods of birth-control.

It has now become a primary function of the modern family. According to Reed, “The fundamental function of the family is to regulate and gratify sexual needs. Manu accepts sexual satisfaction besides production as the aim of family. Vatsyayan also regards sexual satisfaction as the primary objective of the family.

(ii) Provision of Home:

The desire for a home is a powerful incentive for men as well as women after marriage. Man after the hard toil of the day returns home where in the midst of his wife and children he sheds off his fatigue.

Though, in modern times there are hotels and clubs which also provide recreation to the man but the joy that a man feels within the congenial circle of women, parents and children stands far above the momentary pleasure, which is provided by club and hotel. In spite of these re-creative agencies the home is still the heaven and sanctuary where its members find comfort and affection.

(iii) Production and Rearing of Children:

The inevitable result of sexual satisfaction is procreation. The task on race perpetuation has always been an important function of the family. It is an institution par excellence for the production and rearing of children. The function of child-rearing is better performed today than in the past because now more skill and knowledge are devoted to the care of the unborn and new-born children.

The infant death rate has shown a market declare. In the achievement of this result specialized agencies like nursing child welfare centres have come to the aid of the family. A close study of the available statistical data reveals that the number of illegitimate children is falling down, the practice of prostitution is vanishing away and the number of marriages is increasing rapidly.

It is a pointer to the fact that the function of procreation of race is only performed through family. In most human societies of the world the child is believed to be the nucleus of the family. Procreation perpetuates the family. It increases the population of the country.

(iv) Protection and Care of the Young:

It is another essential function of the family and it may be said to be a corollary of its sexual and procreative functions. According to Groves the protection and care of children is one necessary function of the family. The human child is the most helpless and weak being. A family is needed in order to maintain its existence and to ensure its coordinated and balanced development.

Its balanced development is achieved with difficulty and that too with the care of the parents and other family members. It is right that in the modern age this function of the family is losing much of its past significance and it is being handed over to the subsidiary agencies. But all the same it still continues to be one of the essential functions of the family and the Indian families are particularly known for this function.

(v) Provision of Psychological Satisfaction and Security :

Another fundamental and universal function of the family is to meet the psychological needs of its members. Ogburn has included affectional functions in the necessary or vital functions of the family. According to Groves it is the functions of the family to provide opportunities for the establishment of intimate relations.

Burgess and Lock have written, “Mutual affection is becoming the essential basis of marriage and family:” The individual receives affection, sympathy, love and psychological security in the family. The relations between man and woman in the family are not exclusively physical. Profound conjugal affection for each other is generated in husband and wife by working together in the family and by sharing each other’s joys and sorrows.

An all-around development of individual is not possible in the absence of family love. The family has an important part to play especially in the development of the child’s personality. Ralph Linton has written that merely the satisfaction of bodily needs is not sufficient for the proper development of the infant.

2. Non-Essential Functions of the Family :

The non-essential functions of the family are those functions which it performed in the traditional society but which it is giving up one by one in the modern times. These functions are being either delegated to the subsidiary agencies or they can be shared with other groups.

They are no longer the exclusive function of the family but still in some societies the family is associated with them in some form or the other. The Indian society is one such example where the family despite so many modifications and being placed under limits has been laying its claims on the so-called non-essential functions along with the essential functions.

Some of the non­essential functions of the family can be enumerated in the following order:

i. An Economic Unit:

A very important non-essential function of the family is that it serves as an economic unit. In the traditional family most of the goods for consumption were made at home. The members of the family were all engaged in the family occupation. The ancient Hindu joint family served as a sort of mutual insurance society. It was a unit of production and the centre of economic activities.

However, in the present time the importance of family as an economic unit has been lessened because most of its economic activities have been taken over by some outside agencies. The members of the modern family do not work together as they did in the old family.

They are engaged in different activities outside the come. Moreover the family has not even remained the unit of production as most the goods for consumption including even the food are purchased ready-made from the market.

But with all these shifts in the family as an economic unit, it has not been reduced to a passive body. This is to say that the old pattern has not been destroyed, it has been merely changed. In the family one or the other profession is still carried on though of a different sort and in a different atmosphere. In the West the family might have lost much of its role as an economic unit but in India it still to a certain extent continues to perform this traditional function.

ii. Centre of Religious Activities:

Another non-essential function, which the family performs is of a religious character. It is a centre for the religious training of the children who learn from their parents various religious virtues. In the old family, different religious practices like idol worship, yagya, religious discourses and sermons by pandits were carried on which made the outlook of the children religious in India. The modern family, however, does not observe religious practices and has become secular in outlook.

iii. Centre of Education:

One more function performed in the family is the education of children. The family is an important education agency. The child learns the first letters under the guidance of parents though today he learns them in a nursery-school. The traditional family was the centre of vocational education because the children from the early childhood were associated with the family task.

The modern family has delegated the task of vocational education to technical institutes and colleges. But despite all this the role of the family as a center of education has not vanished completely and in a somewhat modified form it still continues to perform some of the educational functions.

For instance, it is even now in and through family that the people learn their social habits and moral virtues. It is in no way an in significant function for which the Indian families are conspicuously known and popular.

iv. Guardian of Culture:

The family keeps the culture of society, alive. It moulds its members according to the social culture. The children are educated in the various aspects of culture from their infancy. The family creates such an environment for them that they learn to live and behave in acccordance with their culture.

The elderly members of the family impart training in matters of conduct, thinking religion and ethics etc. to the children. The family is aptly described as the maker and guardian of Culture.

v. Centre of Recreation:

The old family provided recreation to its members. They used to sing and dance together and visit the family relations. In modern times family relationship is individual rather than collective. The present forms of recreation such as bridge tennis carrom and movies, provide for only individual or couple participation.

Moreover, recreation is now had in club or hotel rather than in home. In this way> there has also occurred a shift in the recreational functions of-the family. However, it needs be said that in countries like India having close ties of ancient culture the family is still acting as a centre of recreation at least in the rural areas.

It is clear from the foregoing facts that there has come about a great change in the functions of the family whereas about a hundred years back the family was more of a community, it has become today more of an association. The very importance of the family has been loosened. It is no longer a home for recreation of its members, a school of education for children or a centre for their religious training.

Many family duties, which were performed formerly by the parents have now been transferred to external agencies. The functions of a modern family are very much limited both in their number and extent. Even the task of procreation has suffered a setback. Of course the task of satisfaction of sex need is better performed, by modern family.

In short, the family has lost some of its former functions. It is to be, however, remembered that though there is a loss of functions the family is not going to perish. There are certain functions for this performance of which no human society can do without family. Thus it may be said in the end that despite its structural and functional changes, the family still plays a significant role in social strength and social solidarity.

Essay # 3. Family as a Social System:

It is customary to regard family as a social system. In fact there are many kinds of social systems and these are composed of variety of elements. So far as family is concerned, it fulfils many of the conditions, which go to make it a social system. It is for this reason that family is characterised as being a perfect social system and this notion fully holds good at least in the case of joint family.

Defining social system Talcott Parsons writes, “The social system is composed of the patterned interaction of members. It consists of interaction of a plurality of individual actors, whose relations to each other are mutually oriented through the definition and mediation of a pattern of structured and shared symbols and expectations.”

Similarly C.P. Loomis is also of the opinion, “Sociologists frame of reference is inter action, characterised by patterned social relation that display in their uniformities social elements articulated by social processes, the dynamics of which account for the emergence, maintenance and change of social system.”

When these observations are applied on family, it becomes clear that the family is contained in a number of elements, which are found in every social system. These are some of those elements of which most family groups consist and on the basis of which family is entitled to be called a social system.

Every family consists of a number of persons and all of them have a certain status. This status of the members of a family is normally determined on the basis of age and sex. But sometimes learning and occupation also have some effect in this matter. The status of parents is always higher than that of the children.

Similarly in a family sons enjoy better status than daughters. Status helps in making gradation in the position of the different members of their family and their social relations are determined in accordance with their position.

Since father’s status in the family is the highest of all, he is authorised to perform all the family responsibilities. The eldest son being next in importance to his father automatically obtains the same position after his father’s death.

All the members of the family perform a certain role and it is by this means that the working of the family is made possible. The roles that the different persons perform are determined and conditioned by the status that they hold in the family. In fact every status has a correspondent role attached to it.

Role is the outward manifestation of the status and, thus both of them go together. Every member of the family while performing his role keeps in view his status in the family and does the things accordingly.

The role maintains the balance of status system and thereby keeps intact the structure of the family. Since, there are a variety of status differing from person to person, so there are a number of roles varying from person to person according to his status.

For Instance, the role of parents in the family is quite different from that of the children but it needs be said that the functioning of the family can go well only if all of its members perform their respective roles properly.

3. Privilege:

In a social system every unit is gifted with a certain kind of privileges. These privileges also go with the roles that they perform and the status that they hold in a social structure. It is through the enjoyment of privileges that a unit is enabled to do its responsibilities nicely under all circumstance. It is this element that gives stability and continuity to a social system. The same thing can be said in the case of family as well. The members of the family are always in the enjoyment of certain privileges according to their status. It is by the exercise of these privileges enjoyed by the members that structure and functioning of the family remain intact.

4. Necessities and Aims:

Every social system consists of the needs, aims and ends of the people. They are related to the level of cultural and economic progress of the society. Sometimes they are also concerned with the social development of the people. Men have some basic needs and the fulfilment of them is the chief aim of a social system. For realization of these aims a social system has to set before it its certain ideals and ends.

In this way needs and alms play a vital role in the efficient working of any social system. Family as a social system is concerned with fulfilling some-physical and social needs of the people. There are some basic needs like sex impulse, procreation of race and the provision of home, which cannot be met elsewhere except in the family.

These needs aim at ensuring good life to the people. It is right that in the modern times many of the functions of the family have been taken over by some other associations, but all the same there are some primary functions which must be performed in the family in all civilized societies.

5. Sanctions:

The sanctions determined by the social values and Ideals play in important part in the field of human conduct. The social sanctions make a distinction between what is right and what is wrong in the activities and behaviour of the individuals. Society permits its members to do certain things and forbids them to do others and thereby lays down a standard for the general conduct of its members.

The members are allowed to do only those things, which are beneficial for the life and stability of the social order. In this way sanctions also help a lot in the strengthening of a social system. They maintain discipline and orderly conditions in it. This element is found in abundance in the working of the family as well. There are some set rules and codes of behaviour which are binding on the members and which they cannot ignore easily.

Thus the family as a social system depends largely for its life and sound working on a set of rules, which operate in the form of social sanctions. The more active and forceful are these social sanctions, the more solid and the longer lasting will be the structure of the family. This is why in the past families were more integrated and well-disciplined because there was more force behind the social sanctions.

In every social system there exists a supreme power which acts as a controlling figure in it. It, on the one hand, resolves the conflicts of different units and on the other, keeps intact the unity of that social system. The family as a social system vests its supreme power in the father or husband who supervises and controls the activities of other members.

There can be no challenge or disobedience to the command of the head of the family. Only such families last long in which there is unity of command and a well-knit controlling power.

7. Ideal Principles:

The family, as a social system, derives its life out of the inter-relations and inter-actions of its members. Every member of the family has a special function to do and a particular role to play for its well-being. There is great need of making. It certain that all the members of the family do their part well. For this purpose there exists some ideal principles. These principles maintain solidarity and balance in the family. These principles are in the form on unwritten maxim and are based on common consent. They are so vital to the social life that they cannot be set aside easily and in their absence a good family life cannot be made possible.

8. Sentiments:

Sentiments occupy an important place in a social system. The sentiments especially influence collective life. It is under their influence that an individual gives preference to collective interest over his own individual gain. They develop general working patterns of different groups, which afford stability and uniformity to a social system.

Family as a social system gives expression to a number of sentiments. The chief among these are a sentiment of love, the sentiment of co-operation, sentiment of sympathy and the sentiment of respect. These sentiments form the be all and end all of family life.

Thus it is clear from the above facts that family is truly a social system because it contains most of the basic elements of a social system. It is right that in the modern times family is undergoing great changes. As a result of this fact it is feared that family may not lose in course of time, its character of being a social system.

But such doubts appear to be unfounded because there are so many elements of social system, which cannot vanish from family. Thus in the end it can be said that family is definitely a social system with this much exception that it has been more apparent in a joint family.

Essay # 4. Changes in the Modern Family:

It is a well-known fact that change is the Law of Nature. There is no human organisation on social institution which has remained uniform and static at all times and under all circumstances. It has to move and change with the changing conditions, or it is apt to become obsolete and go out of existence. This rule is fully applicable on the age-old institution of family as well. The family as it is now is much different from what it was a few generations ago.

Several changes have taken place in its nature and structure with the result that it has undergone an overall transformation. Whereas about a century back the family was more of a community, it has become today more of an association.

According to Ogburn and Nimcoff, “The family has changed a good deal in the past and has assumed many different forms and functions. The family has proved to be a very resilient and flexible institution. Despite radical changes in form and function, the family has continued to exist in every society known to us.”

It points to the fact that in the recent times many changes have occurred in the family and some of them may briefly be mentioned here.

Referring to some of the changes occurred in the modern family and the forces bringing about them Davis writes, “Modern civilization characterized by an elaborate industrial technology, a high degree of urbanization, and a great amount of geographical and social ability, has sheered away the extended kingship bonds. The role effective kinship group is now the immediate family and even this unit has lost in size and function. True, the immediate family has gamed in importance by being freed from the control of extended kindred, but it has declined in importance in other ways.”

It is clear from this statement that in the modern time a large number of changes have occurred in the organization and working have the family and several factors has been operating to bring about these changes.

Some of the more important changes in family life need be mentioned here in order to reveal its present position:

(i) To begin with, the joint family system is declining and in its place single-family system is coming into prominence. Unlike the large family of traditional society the modern families are small in size. They consist of the husband, wife and their minor children. This is of course the first and the fundamental change that has occurred in the structure of family.

(ii) In the modern time there has occurred a change in the mutual relation of parents and children. The control of parents over their children has lessened a great deal and now the family discipline is not as tight as it was in the ancient families. The children have become less obedient to their parents and they are very particular about their freedoms and rights.

(iii) There has taken place a change in the mutual relation of husband and wife in the family. Unlike old times women have become independent and self-reliant in many ways. Now that the women have gamed equal fights with men, their mutual relationship has undergone much change. Mowrer has correctly written of modern woman that ‘she is no longer the drudge and slave of other days.’

(iv) The modern family is no longer a permanent association. It is precarious and can be rendered void at any time. Marriage has been reduced to a mere social contract, which it is not difficult to break in the event of even the slightest friction. According to Maciver, “The Modern family in comparison with the ancient and medieval families is very weak and unstable.”

(v) There has come about a good deal of change in the extent of family functions. Many of the functions which family performed previously are no longer under its care. They have been transferred to several external agencies. The family has ceased to be an economic as well as social unit. When compared with the family of medieval times, the functions of the modern family are few. All but gone are its economic educational, religious and protective functions. They have been transferred to the State, the church, the school, and industry.

(vi) The modern family is under less religious control. It has been replaced by legal control. With the decline of the Influence of religion the family morals have also become comparatively loose. The modern family has become secular in outlook and it has given up many of its religious activities.

(vii) The rigidity traditionally associated with marital and sexual relationships no longer characterizes the modern family. The use of contraceptive and means of birth control has rendered the size of the family very small. There is not much affinity among the blood relations of the family. In this way the relations in the family have become more formal and mechanical in Nature.

(viii) The family seems to be coming on the verge of disorganization. The number of divorces is on the increase. The control, which the family exercises over the individual is being lessened rapidly. Thus the family has undergone a good deal of transformation in the present century.

Factors Responsible for Changes in the Family :

It is clear from the foregoing facts that a large number of changes have occurred in the structure of family. This process has not completed yet and is liable to continue till indefinitely even in the unknown future. There is not one but many factors which are working at the root of all these changes.

Referring to some of these factors Jay Rumney and Joseph Maier write, “The modern family which is still essentially patriarchal in character has been shorn of much of its power. The State is tending to become a super-parent, having arrogated to itself much of the patriarch’s authority. Profound economic changes since the Industrial Revolution have deprived the family of its economic functions as a unit of production. It is now mainly a unit of consumption. The new economy, requiring the use of womanpower opened up new occupations to women, they became economically in dependent of their husbands. The political and economic emancipation of woman as well as periods of prolonged unemployment undermined the authority of the father, especially if his earnings were surpassed by those of his wife and children. A new morality emerged in conflict with the traditional moral standards. Large families became rare. Urbanization led to a wide dissemination of contraceptive knowledge. The small independent if it, consisting of parents and one or two offspring became the rule.”

Thus, lit short, some of the causes and factors of family changes may be explained in the following order:

1. Impact of Industrialization:

The first important factor bringing about changes in the structure of family has been the force of industrialization. The Industrial Revolution substituted the power machine for the manual tool. As new techniques of production advanced they shelved the old family of its economic functions. New factories with heavy machines have been set up which have taken both the work and the workers out of the family.

Now cloth is produced not on the family handloom but in the textile mill. Thousands of workers who are drawn out of home are required to work in the factory. Not only males but females also have begun to go to the factory for work. The work of women has become specialized like that of men. They instead of being busy with the multifarious tasks of the family have started going to workshops and factories for work.

As a result of it women have become as good the earning members of the family as men. This earning power of the women has made them free from dependence on men. In this way industrialization has greatly affected the character of modern family. As Maciver says, ” The family has changed from a production to consumption unit.”

2. Decline of Religious Control:

The modern family has become secular in its outlook because of the decline of the force of religions. Marriage has become a civil contract rather than a religious sacrament. It can be broken at any time. The authority of religion over the conditions of marriage and divorce has suffered a great decline.

Divorce is a frequent occurrence in modern family while in traditional family it was a rare phenomenon. Religion has been a great uniting and solidifying factor in the, family. And with the loss of its force the family is bound to undergo disintegration.

3. Effect of Urbanism:

An inevitable result of industrialization has been the, growth of urbanism. Urbanism has materially affected not merely the size of the home but also the essentials of the family life. It has substituted legal controls for informal controls and has brought the family into competition with specialized agencies. The result is that many of the family functions have been taken over by the external agencies.

For example, the educational, health and recreational functions of the family are now performed by schools, hospitals and recreational centres respectively. Under the joint force of industrialization and urbanization the family has ceased to be a social as well as economic unit. The joint family system is vanishing and in its place the single-family system is becoming the order of the day. It has even affected the mutual relations of the different members of the family.

To quote Davis,” It has forced individuals to co-operate with countless person who are not kinsmen. It has also encouraged them to join special interest groups thus drawing them out of the unspecialized and heterogeneous family with its wide sex and age differences.” In this way urbanism and industrialization have caused considerable modifications in the structure of family.

4. Effect of Changing Mores:

The mores concerning family life are constantly changing and this factor has. Also greatly affected the organization of family. Now the mutual relations of different members of the family have undergone remarkable change and it is all the result of changing mores. According to Maciver and Page “The basis of husband wife relationship in the family is no longer domination but co­operation”.

Previously everywhere, the wife was dominated by the husband and so the family stability survived because of the unity of command. But with the removal of this dominance the family organization has been exposed to powerful perils. Thus as a result of all these factors the family organization is not stable and it is undergoing quick modifications. But notwithstanding all these facts the family still continues to be a strategic social Institution.

5. Social Mobility:

The critics are of the opinion that social mobility has cut still deeper into the family organization. In so far as individuals improve their class status by virtue of their own achievement rather than by birth, an intrinsic function of the family is lost to it.

In this connection Davis writes, “In a completely open society where all vertical positions were filled purely by individual accomplishment, there could scarcely be a family organization; each family member would tend to find himself in a different. Social stratum, from the others, and the invidious sentiments thus brought into the family circle would prove incompatible with family sentiment.”

The organizations of the family can remain intact only if its members feel dependent on it for their personal advance in life. If this requirement is fulfilled by some external factors, it adversely affects the family organization. This is exactly what is happening in the present society, people do not feel themselves so much. Attached to family because so many external factors are on their disposal to help them in their individual development.

Essay # 5. Sociology Significance of the Family:

The family is by far the most important primary group in society. Historically it has been transformed from a more or less self-contained unity into a definite and limited organization of minimum size, consisting primarily of the original contracting parties: On the other hand it continues to serve as a total community for the lives born within it, gradually relinquishing this character as they grow toward adulthood. The family more profoundly than any other organization, exists only as a process.

Referring to the sociological of the family Maciver and Page opine, “Of all the organizations, large or small, which society unfolds, none transcends the family in the intensity of its sociological significance. It influences the whole life of society in innumerable ways, and its changes reverberate through the whole social structure. It is capable of endless variation and yet reveals a remarkable continuity and persistence through change”.

Thus, in short, family is the first and foremost organ of society and this fact can be proved by the following arguments:

1. Universal in Character:

The family is the most nearly universal of all social forms. It is found in all societies, at all stages of social development, and exists far below the human level, among a myriad species of animals. Almost every human being is or has been a member of some family. There is no other social group that can equal family in this matter.

2. Formative Influence:

Family is also significant because it exerts the profoundest formative influence on the life of the individuals. It is the earliest social environment of man’s life and plays a vital role in moulding it. No other organization can compete with family in this respect. According to Maciver, “In particular it moulds the character of the individual by the impression both of organic and of mental habits”.

Its influence in infancy determines the personality structure of the individual. It is largely from his parents that the child receives his physical inheritance and mental training, on the basis of which he leads the whole of his life. It is well-said by a critic, “To be well-born is to possess the greatest of all gifts. To be ill-born there is nothing which this world can afford that will be adequate compensation for the lack of good heredity.” Thus family has come to surpass all other social organizations in the matter of formative influence on human personality.

3. Nuclear Position in the Social Structure:

Family is the nucleus of all the social organizations. Frequently in the simpler societies, as well as in the more advanced types of patriarchal society the whole social structure is built of family units. Only in the higher complex civilizations does the family cease to fulfill this function, but even in them the local community, as well as its divisions of social classes tends to remain unions of families. One of the first definitions ever given of a community made it “a union of families” and for the local community the definition, with some qualification, still holds today.

4. Performance of Basic Functions:

The significance of the family as a social institution may be measured by the number of basic functions it performs. Compared with the family of medieval times, the functions of the modern family are few. All but gone are its economic, educational, religious and protective functions. They have been transferred to the State, the church, the school and industry. Notwithstanding the loss of functions, the family remains a strategic social institution. It is our parents that first cure us of our natural wildness, and break in us the spirit of independency we are all born with.

It is to them that we owe the first rudiments of our submission and to the honour and deference which children pay to parents all societies are obliged for the principle of human obedience, writes Mandeville.

In addition to performing this all-important function of socializing the individual, the family regulates sexual relationships, provides for the affectional needs of its members, makes possible the prolonged care, which children require and transmits the values of the culture.

It remains a powerful agent of social and political control and economic differentiation. Children generally stay in the social class to which their parents belonged. They inherit both the property and the cultural advantages, which its possession offers.

5. Proper Organization of Society Dependent upon Family:

Proper social organization largely depends upon sound organization of families. If in a particular society families disintegrate, that society can never be safe and sooner or later it is found to meet its doom. This is why at all times one major cause of social disorganization has been family disorganization.

Families develop the characters of the members of the society. In the opinion of ADLER, a man’s role in the family determines his role in society. There is no exaggeration in calling family a cornerstone of society.

6. An Important Agency of Social Control:

Family is an important agency of social control. Family controls sex passions in society. A strict control over sex relationships is necessary for maintaining the order otherwise society will disintegrate. In all cultures, family exercises some degree of control over the unmarried members from falling into bad habits.

No parents would like their children to adopt the career of crime. The children under the influence of their parents drop bad habits and learn good habits. In the making of great men families have always played a major role. In this way the making of a good citizen in society depends upon the parents.

7. Family is the Conveyer of Culture:

The family not only moulds character and personality of the individuals, but it also imparts its culture to them. It is while living in the family that the child acquires knowledge about the culture of society. It is an efficient vehicle for the transmission of culture from one generation to another. It is a very good socializing agency that makes the people social and cultured beings.

According to Deway and Tufts, “The family is a social agency for the education and protection of the race.” It is through family that the individuals come to know the customs, traditions, social values and cultural background of their community. Family provides them knowledge and understanding of the past or d thereby prepares them to live well in the future. Thus in all these ways family plays a vital role in the field of preservation and transmission of social culture.

8. Family is Vital to the Process of Socialization :

Another point of significance of family is that it plays a vital role in the process of socialization of the individuals. Merrill is of the opinion that family is an enduring association of parent and offspring whose primary functions are the socialization of the child and the satisfaction of the members.

It is in the family that child learns all good and human qualities like sincerity, sympathy, self-submission, conscious­ness of responsibility and so forth. It is the character developed in the family, which helps the child in becoming an important and responsible member of society.

F. J. Wright was quite correct in saying that in every family, the child gets an opportunity for free expression of thoughts and developing his entire personality. It has been conclusively proved that the proper development of the child is impossible without a good environment in the family. The tendencies and habits, which he acquires in the family remain with him for the whole of his life.

It is in view of this fact that Freud says, “The view-point of a child towards the senior in the family determines his attitude and viewpoint towards the elders in society.” Thus it is obvious that ‘family is the cradle of social virtues and no other social group contributes more than family in the process of socializing the individuals. Confucius remarked quite correctly that if you want to improve society, improve its families. Society will improve automatically when the families improve.”

It is clear from the above account that family is the most important social institution. No other human organization can overshadow it in the matter of sociological significance. This fact is true not only from the structural view-point, but also from the functional stand-point.

There are some functions of the family, which no other group can undertake successfully. There are some clear uses of the family, which no one can derive from any other group. Without family the process of socialization would remain incomplete, the task of preserving and transmitting culture to posterity would be half done and there would be no organization to safeguard their social and cultural values. Its significance also lies in the fact of its being the oldest and universal human organization.

It is even the parent of society whose structure is raised on the foundations of family. If family were to vanish, it would expose the whole human race to the horrors of complete decay. The present changes in the family need not be taken to mean the signal of its possible downfall in the future; it is rather a process of its adjustment to the current needs and the changing times. Family in the past has remained an indispensable social system and it is sure to continue as such in the future as well.

Thus on account of its strategic position the family more than any other group exerts persistent, intimate and far reaching influence on the habits, attitudes and social experiences of the people. It plays the foremost role in the formation of personality. It occupies a key place in social organization.

Related Articles:

• Difference between Modern Family and Traditional Family | Psychology
• Social Development in Children: 6 Factors | Psychology
• Group: Definition, Types and Dynamics | Social Psychology
• Dependence Process of a Child | Essay | Child | Social Psychology

Essay , Psychology , Family , Essay on Family

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

15.2 Sociological Perspectives on the Family

Learning objective.

• Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories.

Sociological views on today’s families generally fall into the functional, conflict, and social interactionist approaches introduced earlier in this book. Let’s review these views, which are summarized in Table 15.1 “Theory Snapshot” .

Table 15.1 Theory Snapshot

Social Functions of the Family

Recall that the functional perspective emphasizes that social institutions perform several important functions to help preserve social stability and otherwise keep a society working. A functional understanding of the family thus stresses the ways in which the family as a social institution helps make society possible. As such, the family performs several important functions.

First, the family is the primary unit for socializing children . As previous chapters indicated, no society is possible without adequate socialization of its young. In most societies, the family is the major unit in which socialization happens. Parents, siblings, and, if the family is extended rather than nuclear, other relatives all help socialize children from the time they are born.

One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children. In most societies the family is the major unit through which socialization occurs.

Colleen Kelly – Kids Playing Monopoly Chicago – CC BY 2.0.

Second, the family is ideally a major source of practical and emotional support for its members. It provides them food, clothing, shelter, and other essentials, and it also provides them love, comfort, help in times of emotional distress, and other types of intangible support that we all need.

Third, the family helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction . All societies have norms governing with whom and how often a person should have sex. The family is the major unit for teaching these norms and the major unit through which sexual reproduction occurs. One reason for this is to ensure that infants have adequate emotional and practical care when they are born. The incest taboo that most societies have, which prohibits sex between certain relatives, helps minimize conflict within the family if sex occurred among its members and to establish social ties among different families and thus among society as a whole.

Fourth, the family provides its members with a social identity . Children are born into their parents’ social class, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth. As we have seen in earlier chapters, social identity is important for our life chances. Some children have advantages throughout life because of the social identity they acquire from their parents, while others face many obstacles because the social class or race/ethnicity into which they are born is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Beyond discussing the family’s functions, the functional perspective on the family maintains that sudden or far-reaching changes in conventional family structure and processes threaten the family’s stability and thus that of society. For example, most sociology and marriage-and-family textbooks during the 1950s maintained that the male breadwinner–female homemaker nuclear family was the best arrangement for children, as it provided for a family’s economic and child-rearing needs. Any shift in this arrangement, they warned, would harm children and by extension the family as a social institution and even society itself. Textbooks no longer contain this warning, but many conservative observers continue to worry about the impact on children of working mothers and one-parent families. We return to their concerns shortly.

The Family and Conflict

Conflict theorists agree that the family serves the important functions just listed, but they also point to problems within the family that the functional perspective minimizes or overlooks altogether.

First, the family as a social institution contributes to social inequality in several ways. The social identity it gives to its children does affect their life chances, but it also reinforces a society’s system of stratification. Because families pass along their wealth to their children, and because families differ greatly in the amount of wealth they have, the family helps reinforce existing inequality. As it developed through the centuries, and especially during industrialization, the family also became more and more of a patriarchal unit (see earlier discussion), helping to ensure men’s status at the top of the social hierarchy.

Second, the family can also be a source of conflict for its own members. Although the functional perspective assumes the family provides its members emotional comfort and support, many families do just the opposite and are far from the harmonious, happy groups depicted in the 1950s television shows. Instead, and as the news story that began this chapter tragically illustrated, they argue, shout, and use emotional cruelty and physical violence. We return to family violence later in this chapter.

Families and Social Interaction

Social interactionist perspectives on the family examine how family members and intimate couples interact on a daily basis and arrive at shared understandings of their situations. Studies grounded in social interactionism give us a keen understanding of how and why families operate the way they do.

Some studies, for example, focus on how husbands and wives communicate and the degree to which they communicate successfully (Tannen, 2001). A classic study by Mirra Komarovsky (1964) found that wives in blue-collar marriages liked to talk with their husbands about problems they were having, while husbands tended to be quiet when problems occurred. Such gender differences seem less common in middle-class families, where men are better educated and more emotionally expressive than their working-class counterparts. Another classic study by Lillian Rubin (1976) found that wives in middle-class families say that ideal husbands are ones who communicate well and share their feelings, while wives in working-class families are more apt to say that ideal husbands are ones who do not drink too much and who go to work every day.

Other studies explore the role played by romantic love in courtship and marriage. Romantic love , the feeling of deep emotional and sexual passion for someone, is the basis for many American marriages and dating relationships, but it is actually uncommon in many parts of the contemporary world today and in many of the societies anthropologists and historians have studied. In these societies, marriages are arranged by parents and other kin for economic reasons or to build alliances, and young people are simply expected to marry whoever is chosen for them. This is the situation today in parts of India, Pakistan, and other developing nations and was the norm for much of the Western world until the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Lystra, 1989).

Key Takeaways

• The family ideally serves several functions for society. It socializes children, provides practical and emotional support for its members, regulates sexual reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity.
• Reflecting conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict.
• Social interactionist understandings of the family emphasize how family members interact on a daily basis. In this regard, several studies find that husbands and wives communicate differently in certain ways that sometimes impede effective communication.

For Your Review

• As you think how best to understand the family, do you favor the views and assumptions of functional theory, conflict theory, or social interactionist theory? Explain your answer.
• Do you think the family continues to serve the function of regulating sexual behavior and sexual reproduction? Why or why not?

Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue-collar marriage . New York, NY: Random House.

Lystra, K. (1989). Searching the heart: Women, men, and romantic love in nineteenth-century America . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Tannen, D. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York, NY: Quill.

Sociology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Family, culture, and communication.

• V. Santiago Arias V. Santiago Arias College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University
•  and  Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.504
• Published online: 22 August 2017

Through the years, the concept of family has been studied by family therapists, psychology scholars, and sociologists with a diverse theoretical framework, such as family communication patterns (FCP) theory, dyadic power theory, conflict, and family systems theory. Among these theories, there are two main commonalities throughout its findings: the interparental relationship is the core interaction in the familial system because the quality of their communication or coparenting significantly affects the enactment of the caregiver role while managing conflicts, which are not the exception in the familial setting. Coparenting is understood in its broader sense to avoid an extensive discussion of all type of families in our society. Second, while including the main goal of parenting, which is the socialization of values, this process intrinsically suggests cultural assimilation as the main cultural approach rather than intergroup theory, because intercultural marriages need to decide which values are considered the best to be socialized. In order to do so, examples from the Thai culture and Hispanic and Latino cultures served to show cultural assimilation as an important mediator of coparenting communication patterns, which subsequently affect other subsystems that influence individuals’ identity and self-esteem development in the long run. Finally, future directions suggest that the need for incorporating a nonhegemonic one-way definition of cultural assimilation allows immigration status to be brought into the discussion of family communication issues in the context of one of the most diverse countries in the world.

• parental communication
• dyadic power
• family communication systems
• cultural assimilation

Introduction

Family is the fundamental structure of every society because, among other functions, this social institution provides individuals, from birth until adulthood, membership and sense of belonging, economic support, nurturance, education, and socialization (Canary & Canary, 2013 ). As a consequence, the strut of its social role consists of operating as a system in a manner that would benefit all members of a family while achieving what is considered best, where decisions tend to be coherent, at least according to the norms and roles assumed by family members within the system (Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2004 ). Notwithstanding, the concept of family can be interpreted differently by individual perceptions to an array of cultural backgrounds, and cultures vary in their values, behaviors, and ideas.

The difficulty of conceptualizing this social institution suggests that family is a culture-bound phenomenon (Bales & Parsons, 2014 ). In essence, culture represents how people view themselves as part of a unique social collective and the ensuing communication interactions (Olaniran & Roach, 1994 ); subsequently, culture provides norms for behavior having a tremendous impact on those family members’ roles and power dynamics mirrored in its communication interactions (Johnson, Radesky, & Zuckerman, 2013 ). Thus, culture serves as one of the main macroframeworks for individuals to interpret and enact those prescriptions, such as inheritance; descent rules (e.g., bilateral, as in the United States, or patrilineal); marriage customs, such as ideal monogamy and divorce; and beliefs about sexuality, gender, and patterns of household formation, such as structure of authority and power (Weisner, 2014 ). For these reasons, “every family is both a unique microcosm and a product of a larger cultural context” (Johnson et al., 2013 , p. 632), and the analysis of family communication must include culture in order to elucidate effective communication strategies to solve familial conflicts.

In addition, to analyze familial communication patterns, it is important to address the most influential interaction with regard to power dynamics that determine the overall quality of family functioning. In this sense, within the range of family theories, parenting function is the core relationship in terms of power dynamics. Parenting refers to all efforts and decisions made by parents individually to guide their children’s behavior. This is a pivotal function, but the quality of communication among people who perform parenting is fundamental because their internal communication patterns will either support or undermine each caregiver’s parenting attempts, individually having a substantial influence on all members’ psychological and physical well-being (Schrodt & Shimkowski, 2013 ). Subsequently, parenting goes along with communication because to execute all parenting efforts, there must be a mutual agreement among at least two individuals to conjointly take care of the child’s fostering (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004 ). Consequently, coparenting serves as a crucial predictor of the overall family atmosphere and interactions, and it deserves special attention while analyzing family communication issues.

Through the years, family has been studied by family therapists, psychology scholars, and sociologists, but interaction behaviors define the interpersonal relationship, roles, and power within the family as a system (Rogers, 2006 ). Consequently, family scholarship relies on a wide range of theories developed within the communication field and in areas of the social sciences (Galvin, Braithwaite, & Bylund, 2015 ) because analysis of communication patterns in the familial context offers more ecological validity that individuals’ self-report measures. As many types of interactions may happen within a family, there are many relevant venues (i.e., theories) for scholarly analysis on this subject, which will be discussed later in this article in the “ Family: Theoretical Perspectives ” section. To avoid the risk of cultural relativeness while defining family, this article characterizes family as “a long-term group of two or more people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties and who enact those ties through ongoing interactions providing instrumental and/or emotional support” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 5).

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the most relevant theories in family communication to identify frustrations and limitations with internal communication. Second, as a case in point, the United States welcomes more than 50 million noncitizens as temporary visitors and admits approximately 1 million immigrants to live as lawful residents yearly (Fullerton, 2014 ), this demographic pattern means that nearly one-third of the population (102 million) comes from different cultural backgrounds, and therefore, the present review will incorporate culture as an important mediator for coparenting, so that future research can be performed to find specific techniques and training practices that are more suitable for cross-cultural contexts.

Family: Theoretical Perspectives

Even though the concept of family can be interpreted individually and differently in different cultures, there are also some commonalities, along with communication processes, specific roles within families, and acceptable habits of interactions with specific family members disregarding cultural differences. This section will provide a brief overview of the conceptualization of family through the family communication patterns (FCP) theory, dyadic power theory, conflict, and family systems theory, with a special focus on the interparental relationship.

Family Communication Patterns Theory

One of the most relevant approaches to address the myriad of communication issues within families is the family communication patterns (FCP) theory. Originally developed by McLeod and Chaffee ( 1973 ), this theory aims to understand families’ tendencies to create stable and predictable communication patterns in terms of both relational cognition and interpersonal behavior (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2005 ). Specifically, this theory focuses on the unique and amalgamated associations derived from interparental communication and its impact on parenting quality to determine FCPs and the remaining interactions (Young & Schrodt, 2016 ).

To illustrate FCP’s focus on parental communication, Schrodt, Witt, and Shimkowski ( 2014 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 74 studies (N = 14,255) to examine the associations between the demand/withdraw family communication patterns of interaction, and the subsequent individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. The cumulative evidence suggests that wife demand/husband withdraw and husband demand/wife withdraw show similar moderate correlations with communicative and psychological well-being outcomes, and even higher when both patterns are taken together (at the relational level). This is important because one of the main tenets of FCP is that familial relationships are drawn on the pursuit of coorientation among members. Coorientation refers to the cognitive process of two or more individuals focusing on and assessing the same object in the same material and social context, which leads to a number of cognitions as the number of people involved, which results in different levels of agreement, accuracy, and congruence (for a review, see Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005 ); for example, in dyads that are aware of their shared focus, two different cognitions of the same issue will result.

Hereafter, the way in which these cognitions are socialized through power dynamics determined socially and culturally by roles constitutes specific interdependent communication patterns among family members. For example, Koerner and Fitzpatrick ( 2006 ) provide a taxonomy of family types on the basis of coorientation and its impact on communication pattern in terms of the degree of conformity in those conversational tendencies. To wit, consensual families mostly agree for the sake of the hierarchy within a given family and to explore new points of view; pluralistic families allow members to participate equally in conversations and there is no pressure to control or make children’s decisions; protective families maintain the hierarchy by making decisions for the sake of achieving common family goals; and laissez-faire families, which are low in conversation and conformity orientation, allow family members to not get deeply involved in the family.

The analysis of family communication patterns is quintessential for family communication scholarly work because it influences forming an individual’s self concept in the long run. As a case in point, Young and Schrodt ( 2016 ) surveyed 181 young adults from intact families, where conditional and interaction effects between communication patterns and conformity orientation were observed as the main predictors of future romantic partners. Moreover, this study concluded that FCPs and interparental confirmation are substantial indicators of self-to-partner confirmation, after controlling for reciprocity of confirmation within the romantic relationship. As a consequence, FCP influences children’s and young adults’ perceptions of romantic behavior (e.g., Fowler, Pearson, & Beck, 2010 ); the quality of communication behavior, such as the degree of acceptation of verbal aggression in romantic dyads (e.g., Aloia & Solomon, 2013 ); gender roles; and conflict styles (e.g., Taylor & Segrin, 2010 ), and parental modeling (e.g., Young & Schrodt, 2016 ).

This suggests three important observations. First, family is a very complex interpersonal context, in which communication processes, specific roles within families, and acceptable habits of interactions with specific family members interact as subsystems (see Galvin et al., 2004 ; Schrodt & Shimkowski, 2013 ). Second, among those subsystems, the core interaction is the individuals who hold parenting roles (i.e., intact and post divorced families); the couple (disregarding particular sexual orientations), and, parenting roles have a reciprocal relationship over time (Le, McDaniel, Leavitt, & Feinberg, 2016 ). Communication between parenting partners is crucial for the development of their entire family; for example, Schrodt and Shimkowski ( 2013 ) conducted a survey with 493 young adult children from intact (N = 364) and divorced families (N = 129) about perceptions of interparental conflict that involves triangulation (the impression of being in the “middle” and feeling forced to display loyalty to one of the parents). Results suggest that supportive coparental communication positively predicts relational satisfaction with mothers and fathers, as well as mental health; on the other hand, antagonist and hostile coparental communication predicted negative marital satisfaction.

Consequently, “partners’ communication with one another will have a positive effect on their overall view of their marriage, . . . and directly result[ing in] their views of marital satisfaction” (Knapp & Daly, 2002 , p. 643). Le et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate the reciprocal relationship between marital interaction and coparenting from the perspective of both parents in terms of support or undermining across the transition to parenthood from a dyadic perspective; 164 cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child were analyzed from pregnancy until 36 months after birth. Both parents’ interdependence was examined in terms of three variables: gender difference analysis, stability over time in marriage and coparenting, and reciprocal associations between relationship quality and coparenting support or undermining. The findings suggest a long-term reciprocal association between relationship quality and coparenting support or undermining in heterosexual families; the quality of marriage relationship during prenatal stage is highly influential in coparenting after birth for both men and women; but, coparenting is connected to romantic relationship quality only for women.

Moreover, the positive association between coparenting and the parents’ relationship relates to the spillover hypothesis, which posits that the positive or negative factors in the parental subsystem are significantly associated with higher or lower marital satisfaction in the spousal subsystem, respectively. Ergo, overall parenting performance is substantially affected by the quality of marital communication patterns.

Dyadic Power

In addition, after analyzing the impact of marital interaction quality in families on marital satisfaction and future parental modeling, it is worth noting that marital satisfaction and coparenting are importantly mediated by power dynamics within the couple (Halstead, De Santis, & Williams, 2016 ), and even mediates marital commitment (e.g., Lennon, Stewart, & Ledermann, 2013 ). If the quality of interpersonal relationship between those individuals who hold parenting roles determines coparenting quality as well, then the reason for this association lies on the fact that virtually all intimate relationships are substantially characterized by power dynamics; when partners perceive more rewards than costs in the relationship, they will be more satisfied and significantly more committed to the relationship (Lennon et al., 2013 ). As a result, the inclusion of power dynamics in the analysis of family issues becomes quintessential.

For the theory of dyadic power, power in its basic sense includes dominance, control, and influence over others, as well as a means to meet survival needs. When power is integrated into dyadic intimate relationships, it generates asymmetries in terms of interdependence between partners due to the quality of alternatives provided by individual characteristics such as socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics such as gender roles. This virtually gives more power to men than women. Power refers to “the feeling derived from the ability to dominate, or control, the behavior, affect, and cognitions of another person[;] in consequence, this concept within the interparental relationship is enacted when one partner who controls resources and limiting the behavioral options of the other partner” (Lennon et al., 2013 , p. 97). Ergo, this theory examines power in terms of interdependence between members of the relationship: the partner who is more dependent on the other has less power in the relationship, which, of course, directly impact parenting decisions.

As a case in point, Worley and Samp ( 2016 ) examined the balance of decision-making power in the relationship, complaint avoidance, and complaint-related appraisals in 175 heterosexual couples. Findings suggest that decision-making power has a curvilinear association, in which individuals engaged in the least complaint avoidance when they were relatively equal to their partners in terms of power. In other words, perceptions of one another’s power potentially encourage communication efficacy in the interparental couple.

The analysis of power in intimate relationships, and, to be specific, between parents is crucial because it not only relates to marital satisfaction and commitment, but it also it affects parents’ dyadic coping for children. In fact, Zemp, Bodenmann, Backes, Sutter-Stickel, and Revenson ( 2016 ) investigated parents’ dyadic coping as a predictor of children’s internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and prosocial behavior in three independent studies. When there is a positive relationship among all three factors, the results indicated that the strongest correlation was the first one. Again, the quality of the marital and parental relationships has the strongest influence on children’s coping skills and future well-being.

From the overview of the two previous theories on family, it is worth addressing two important aspects. First, parenting requires an intensive great deal of hands-on physical care, attention to safety (Mooney-Doyle, Deatrick, & Horowitz, 2014 ), and interpretation of cues, and this is why parenting, from conception to when children enter adulthood, is a tremendous social, cultural, and legally prescribed role directed toward caregiving and endlessly attending to individuals’ social, physical, psychological, emotional, and cognitive development (Johnson et al., 2013 ). And while parents are making decisions about what they consider is best for all family members, power dynamics play a crucial role in marital satisfaction, commitment, parental modeling, and overall interparental communication efficacy in the case of postdivorce families. Therefore, the likelihood of conflict is latent within familial interactions while making decisions; indeed, situations in which family members agree on norms as a consensus is rare (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990 ).

In addition to the interparental and marital power dynamics that delineates family communication patterns, the familial interaction is distinctive from other types of social relationships in the unequaled role of emotions and communication of affection while family members interact and make decisions for the sake of all members. For example, Ritchie and Fitzpatrick ( 1990 ) provided evidence that fathers tended to perceive that all other family members agree with his decisions or ideas. Even when mothers confronted and disagreed with the fathers about the fathers’ decisions or ideas, the men were more likely to believe that their children agreed with him. When the children were interviewed without their parents, however, the majority of children agreed with the mothers rather than the fathers (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990 ). Subsequently, conflict is highly present in families; however, in general, the presence of conflict is not problematic per se. Rather, it is the ability to manage and recover from it and that could be problematic (Floyd, 2014 ).

One of the reasons for the role of emotions in interpersonal conflicts is explained by the Emotion-in-Relationships Model (ERM). This model states that feelings of bliss, satisfaction, and relaxation often go unnoticed due to the nature of the emotions, whereas “hot” emotions, such as anger and contempt, come to the forefront when directed at a member of an interpersonal relationship (Fletcher & Clark, 2002 ). This type of psychophysical response usually happens perhaps due to the different biophysical reactive response of the body compared to its reaction to positive ones (Floyd, 2014 ). There are two dimensions that define conflict. Conflict leads to the elicitation of emotions, but sometimes the opposite occurs: emotions lead to conflict. The misunderstanding or misinterpretation of emotions among members of a family can be a source of conflict, as well as a number of other issues, including personality differences, past history, substance abuse, mental or physical health problems, monetary issues, children, intimate partner violence, domestic rape, or maybe just general frustration due to recent events (Sabourin, Infante, & Rudd, 1990 ). In order to have a common understanding of this concept for the familial context in particular, conflict refers to as “any incompatibility that can be expressed by people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 6). Thus, the concept of conflict goes hand in hand with coparenting.

There is a myriad of everyday family activities in which parents need to decide the best way to do them: sometimes they are minor, such as eating, watching TV, or sleeping schedules; others are more complicated, such as schooling. Certainly, while socializing and making these decisions, parents may agree or not, and these everyday situations may lead to conflict. Whether or not parents live together, it has been shown that “the extent to which children experience their parents as partners or opponents in parenting is related to children’s adjustment and well-being” (Gable & Sharp, 2016 , p. 1), because the ontology of parenting is materialized through socialization of values about every aspect and duty among all family members, especially children, to perpetuate a given society.

As the findings provided in this article show, the study of family communication issues is pivotal because the way in which those issues are solved within families will be copied by children as their values. Values are abstract ideas that delineate behavior toward the evaluation of people and events and vary in terms of importance across individuals, but also among cultures. In other words, their future parenting (i.e., parenting modeling) of children will replicate those same strategies for conflict solving for good or bad, depending on whether parents were supportive between each other. Thus, socialization defines the size and scope of coparenting.

The familial socialization of values encompasses the distinction between parents’ personal execution of those social appraisals and the values that parents want their children to adopt, and both are different things; nonetheless, familial socialization does not take place in only one direction, from parents to children. Benish-Weisman, Levy, and Knafo ( 2013 ) investigated the differentiation process—or, in other words, the distinction between parents’ own personal values and their socialization values and the contribution of children’s values to their parents’ socialization values. In this study, in which 603 Israeli adolescents and their parents participated, the findings suggest that parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values, and adolescents’ values have a specific contribution to their parents’ socialization values. As a result, socialization is not a unidirectional process affected by parents alone, it is an outcome of the reciprocal interaction between parents and their adolescent children, and the given importance of a given value is mediated by parents and their culture individually (Johnson et al., 2013 ). However, taking power dynamics into account does not mean that adolescents share the same level of decision-making power in the family; thus, socialization take place in both directions, but mostly from parents to children. Finally, it is worth noticing that the socialization of values in coparenting falls under the cultural umbrella. The next section pays a special attention to the role of culture in family communication.

The Role of Culture in Parenting Socialization of Values

There are many individual perceived realities and behaviors in the familial setting that may lead to conflict among members, but all of them achieve a common interpretation through culture; indeed, “all family conflict processes by broad cultural factors” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 46). Subsequently, the goal of this section is to provide an overview of the perceived realities and behaviors that exist in family relationships with different cultural backgrounds. How should one approach the array of cultural values influencing parental communication patterns?

An interesting way of immersing on the role of culture in family communication patterns and its further socialization of values is explored by Schwartz ( 1992 ). The author developed a value system composed of 10 values operationalized as motivational goals for modern society: (a) self-direction (independence of thought and action); (b) stimulation (excitement, challenge, and novelty); (c) hedonism (pleasure or sensuous gratification); (d) achievement (personal success according to social standards); (e) power (social status, dominance over people and resources); (f) conformity (restraint of actions that may harm others or violate social expectations); (g) tradition (respect and commitment to cultural or religious customs and ideas); (h) benevolence (preserving and enhancing the welfare of people to whom one is close); (i) universalism (understanding, tolerance, and concern for the welfare of all people and nature); and (j) security (safety and stability of society, relationships, and self).

Later, Schwartz and Rubel ( 2005 ) applied this value structure, finding it to be commonly shared among over 65 countries. Nevertheless, these values are enacted in different ways by societies and genders about the extent to which men attribute more relevance to values of power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and self-direction, and the opposite was found for benevolence and universalism and less consistently for security. Also, it was found that all sex differences were culturally moderated, suggesting that cultural background needs to be considered in the analysis of coparental communication when socializing those values.

Even though Schwartz’s work was more focused on individuals and societies, it is a powerful model for the analysis of the role of culture on family communication and parenting scholarships. Indeed, Schwartz et al. ( 2013 ) conducted a longitudinal study with a sample of 266 Hispanic adolescents (14 years old) and their parents that looked at measures of acculturation, family functioning, and adolescent conduct problems, substance use, and sexual behavior at five time points. Results suggest that higher levels of acculturation in adolescents were linked to poorer family functioning; however, overall assimilation negatively predicted adolescent cigarette smoking, sexual activity, and unprotected sex. The authors emphasize the role of culture, and acculturation patterns in particular, in understanding the mediating role of family functioning and culture.

Ergo, it is crucial to address the ways in which culture affects family functioning. On top of this idea, Johnson et al. ( 2013 ) observed that Western cultures such as in the United States and European countries are oriented toward autonomy, favoring individual achievement, self-reliance, and self-assertiveness. Thus, coparenting in more autonomous countries will socialize to children the idea that achievement in life is an outcome of independence, resulting in coparenting communication behaviors that favor verbal praise and feedback over physical contact. As opposed to autonomy-oriented cultures, other societies, such as Asian, African, and Latin American countries, emphasize interdependence over autonomy; thus, parenting in these cultures promotes collective achievement, sharing, and collaboration as the core values.

These cultural orientations can be observed in parents’ definitions of school readiness and educational success; for Western parents, examples include skills such as counting, recognizing letters, or independently completing tasks such as coloring pictures, whereas for more interdependent cultures, the development of obedience, respect for authority, and appropriate social skills are the skills that parents are expecting their children to develop to evaluate school readiness. As a matter of fact, Callaghan et al. ( 2011 ) conducted a series of eight studies to evaluate the impact of culture on the social-cognitive skills of one- to three-year-old children in three diverse cultural settings such as Canada, Peru, and India. The results showed that children’s acquisition of specific cognitive skills is moderated by specific learning experiences in a specific context: while Canadian children were understanding the performance of both pretense and pictorial symbols skillfully between 2.5 and 3.0 years of age, on average, Peruvian and Indian children mastered those skills more than a year later. Notwithstanding, this finding does not suggest any kind of cultural superiority; language barriers and limitations derived from translation itself may influence meanings, affecting the results (Sotomayor-Peterson, De Baca, Figueredo, & Smith-Castro, 2013 ). Therefore, in line with the findings of Schutz ( 1970 ), Geertz ( 1973 ), Grusec ( 2002 ), Sotomayor-Peterson et al. ( 2013 ), and Johnson et al. ( 2013 ), cultural values provide important leverage for understanding family functioning in terms of parental decision-making and conflict, which also has a substantial impact on children’s cognitive development.

Subsequently, cultural sensitivity to the analysis of the familial system in this country needs to be specially included because cultural differences are part of the array of familial conflicts that may arise, and children experience real consequences from the quality of these interactions. Therefore, parenting, which is already arduous in itself, and overall family functioning significantly become troublesome when parents with different cultural backgrounds aim to socialize values and perform parenting tasks. The following section provides an account of these cross-cultural families.

Intercultural Families: Adding Cultural Differences to Interparental Communication

For a country such as the United States, with 102 million people from many different cultural backgrounds, the presence of cross-cultural families is on the rise, as is the likelihood of intermarriage between immigrants and natives. With this cultural diversity, the two most prominent groups are Hispanics and Asians, particular cases of which will be discussed next. Besides the fact that parenting itself is a very complex and difficult task, certainly the biggest conflict consists of making decisions about the best way to raise children in terms of their values with regard to which ethnic identity better enacts the values that parents believe their children should embrace. As a result, interracial couples might confront many conflicts and challenges due to cultural differences affecting marital satisfaction and coparenting.

Assimilation , the degree to which a person from a different cultural background has adapted to the culture of the hostage society, is an important phenomenon in intermarriage. Assimilationists observe that children from families in which one of the parents is from the majority group and the other one from the minority do not automatically follow the parent from the majority group (Cohen, 1988 ). Indeed, they follow their mothers more, whichever group she belongs to, because of mothers are more prevalent among people with higher socioeconomic status (Gordon, 1964 ; Portes, 1984 ; Schwartz et al., 2013 ).

In an interracial marriage, the structural and interpersonal barriers inhibiting the interaction between two parents will be reduced significantly if parents develop a noncompeting way to communicate and solve conflicts, which means that both of them might give up part of their culture or ethnic identity to reach consensus. Otherwise, the ethnic identity of children who come from interracial marriages will become more and more obscure (Saenz, Hwang, Aguirre, & Anderson, 1995 ). Surely, parents’ noncompeting cultural communication patterns are fundamental for children’s development of ethnic identity. Biracial children develop feelings of being outsiders, and then parenting becomes crucial to developing their strong self-esteem (Ward, 2006 ). Indeed, Gordon ( 1964 ) found that children from cross-racial or cross-ethnic marriages are at risk of developing psychological problems. In another example, Jognson and Nagoshi ( 1986 ) studied children who come from mixed marriages in Hawaii and found that the problems of cultural identification, conflicting demands in the family, and of being marginal in either culture still exist (Mann & Waldron, 1977 ). It is hard for those mixed-racial children to completely develop the ethnic identity of either the majority group or the minority group.

The question of how children could maintain their minority ethnic identity is essential to the development of ethnic identity as a whole. For children from interracial marriage, the challenge to maintain their minority ethnic identity will be greater than for the majority ethnic identity (Waters, 1990 ; Schwartz et al., 2013 ) because the minority-group spouse is more likely to have greater ethnic consciousness than the majority-group spouse (Ellman, 1987 ). Usually, the majority group is more influential than the minority group on a child’s ethnic identity, but if the minority parent’s ethnicity does not significantly decline, the child’s ethnic identity could still reflect some characteristics of the minority parent. If parents want their children to maintain the minority group’s identity, letting the children learn the language of the minority group might be a good way to achieve this. By learning the language, children form a better understanding of that culture and perhaps are more likely to accept the ethnic identity that the language represents (Xin & Sandel, 2015 ).

In addition to language socialization as a way to contribute to children’s identity in biracial families, Jane and Bochner ( 2009 ) indicated that family rituals and stories could be important in performing and transforming identity. Families create and re-create their identities through various kinds of narrative, in which family stories and rituals are significant. Festivals and rituals are different from culture to culture, and each culture has its own. Therefore, exposing children to the language, rituals, and festivals of another culture also could be helpful to form their ethnic identity, in order to counter problems of self-esteem derived from the feeling of being an outsider.

To conclude this section, the parenting dilemma in intercultural marriages consists of deciding which culture they want their children to be exposed to and what kind of heritage they want to pass to children. The following section will provide two examples of intercultural marriages in the context of American society without implying that there are no other insightful cultures that deserve analysis, but the focus on Asian-American and Hispanics families reflects the available literature (Canary & Canary, 2013 ) and its demographic representativeness in this particular context. In addition, in order to acknowledge that minorities within this larger cultural background deserve more attention due to overemphasis on larger cultures in scholarship, such as Chinese or Japanese cultures, the Thai family will provide insights into understanding the role of culture in parenting and its impact on the remaining familial interaction, putting all theories already discussed in context. Moreover, the Hispanic family will also be taken in account because of its internal pan-ethnicity variety.

An Example of Intercultural Parenting: The Thai Family

The Thai family, also known as Krob Krua, may consist of parents, children, paternal and maternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, in-laws, and any others who share the same home. Thai marriages usually are traditional, in which the male is the authority figure and breadwinner and the wife is in charge of domestic items and the homemaker. It has been noted that Thai mothers tend to be the major caregivers and caretakers in the family rather than fathers (Tulananda, Young, & Roopnarine, 1994 ). On the other hand, it has been shown that Thai mothers also tend to spoil their children with such things as food and comfort; Tulananda et al. ( 1994 ) studied the differences between American and Thai fathers’ involvement with their preschool children and found that American fathers reported being significantly more involved with their children than Thai fathers. Specifically, the fathers differed in the amount of socialization and childcare; Thai fathers reported that they obtained more external support from other family members than American fathers; also, Thai fathers were more likely to obtain support for assisting with daughters than sons.

Furthermore, with regard to the family context, Tulananda and Roopnarine ( 2001 ) noted that over the years, some attention has been focused on the cultural differences among parent-child behaviors and interactions; hereafter, the authors believed that it is important to look at cultural parent-child interactions because that can help others understand children’s capacity to socialize and deal with life’s challenges. As a matter of fact, the authors also noted that Thai families tend to raise their children in accordance with Buddhist beliefs. It is customary for young Thai married couples to live with either the wife’s parents (uxorilocal) or the husband’s parents (virilocal) before living on their own (Tulananda & Roopnarine, 2001 ). The process of developing ethnicity could be complicated. Many factors might influence the process, such as which parent is from the minority culture and the cultural community, as explained in the previous section of this article.

This suggests that there is a difference in the way that Thai and American fathers communicate with their daughters. As a case in point, Punyanunt-Carter ( 2016 ) examined the relationship maintenance behaviors within father-daughter relationships in Thailand and the United States. Participants included 134 American father-daughter dyads and 154 Thai father-daughter dyads. The findings suggest that when quality of communication was included in this relationship, both types of families benefit from this family communication pattern, resulting in better conflict management and advice relationship maintenance behaviors. However, differences were found: American fathers are more likely than American daughters to employ relationship maintenance behaviors; in addition, American fathers are more likely than Thai fathers to use relationship maintenance strategies.

As a consequence, knowing the process of ethnic identity development could provide parents with different ways to form children’s ethnic identity. More specifically, McCann, Ota, Giles, and Caraker ( 2003 ), and Canary and Canary ( 2013 ) noted that Southeast Asian cultures have been overlooked in communication studies research; these countries differ in their religious, political, and philosophical thoughts, with a variety of collectivistic views and religious ideals (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism, Islam), whereas the United States is mainly Christian and consists of individualistic values.

The Case of Hispanic/Latino Families in the United States

There is a need for including Hispanic/Latino families in the United States because of the demographic representativeness and trends of the ethnicity: in 2016 , Hispanics represent nearly 17% of the total U.S. population, becoming the largest minority group. There are more than 53 million Hispanics and Latinos in the United States; in addition, over 93% of young Hispanics and Latinos under the age of 18 hold U.S. citizenship, and more than 73,000 of these people turn 18 every month (Barreto & Segura, 2014 ). Furthermore, the current Hispanic and Latino population is spread evenly between foreign-born and U.S.-born individuals, but the foreign-born population is now growing faster than the number of Hispanic children born in the country (Arias & Hellmueller, 2016 ). This demographic trend is projected to reach one-third of the U.S. total population by 2060 ; therefore, with the growth of other minority populations in the country, the phenomenon of multiracial marriage and biracial children is increasing as well.

Therefore, family communication scholarship has an increasing necessity to include cultural particularities in the analysis of the familial system; in addition to the cultural aspects already explained in this article, this section addresses the influence of familism in Hispanic and Latino familial interactions, as well as how immigration status moderates the internal interactions, reflected in levels of acculturation, that affect these families negatively.

With the higher marriage and birth rates among Hispanics and Latinos living in the United States compared to non-Latino Whites and African American populations, the Hispanic familial system is perhaps the most stereotyped as being familistic (Glick & Van Hook, 2008 ). This family trait consists of the fact that Hispanics place a very high value on marriage and childbearing, on the basis of a profound commitment to give support to members of the extended family as well. This can be evinced in the prevalence of extended-kind shared households in Hispanic and Latino families, and Hispanic children are more likely to live in extended-family households than non-Latino Whites or blacks (Glick & Van Hook, 2008 ). Living in extended-family households, most likely with grandparents, may have positive influences on Hispanic and Latino children, such as greater attention and interaction with loving through consistent caregiving; grandparents may help by engaging with children in academic-oriented activities, which then affects positively cognitive educational outcomes.

However, familism is not the panacea for all familial issues for several reasons. First, living in an extended-family household requires living arrangements that consider adults’ needs more than children’s. Second, the configuration of Hispanic and Latino households is moderated by any immigration issues with all members of the extended family, and this may cause problems for children (Menjívar, 2000 ). The immigration status of each individual member may produce a constant state of flux, whereas circumstances change to adjust to economic opportunities, which in turn are limited by immigration laws, and it gets even worse when one of the parents isn’t even present in the children’s home, but rather live in their home country (Van Hook & Glick, 2006 ). Although Hispanic and Latino children are more likely to live with married parents and extended relatives, familism is highly affected by the immigration status of each member.

On the other hand, there has been research to address the paramount role of communication disregarding the mediating factor of cultural diversity. For example, Sotomayor-Peterson et al. ( 2013 ) performed a cross-cultural comparison of the association between coparenting or shared parental effort and family climate among families from Mexico, the United States, and Costa Rica. The overall findings suggest what was explained earlier in this article: more shared parenting predicts better marital interaction and family climate overall.

In addition, parenting quality has been found to have a positive relationship with children’s developmental outcomes. In fact, Sotomayor-Peterson, Figueredo, Christensen, and Taylor ( 2012 ) conducted a study with 61 low-income Mexican American couples, with at least one child between three and four years of age, recruited from a home-based Head Start program. The main goal of this study was to observe the extent that shared parenting incorporates cultural values and income predicts family climate. The findings suggest that the role of cultural values such as familism, in which family solidarity and avoidance of confrontation are paramount, delineate shared parenting by Mexican American couples.

Cultural adaptation also has a substantial impact on marital satisfaction and children’s cognitive stimulation. Indeed, Sotomayor-Peterson, Wilhelm, and Card ( 2011 ) investigated the relationship between marital relationship quality and subsequent cognitive stimulation practices toward their infants in terms of the actor and partner effects of White and Hispanic parents. The results indicate an interesting relationship between the level of acculturation and marital relationship quality and a positive cognitive stimulation of infants; specifically, marital happiness is associated with increased cognitive stimulation by White and high-acculturated Hispanic fathers. Nevertheless, a major limitation of Hispanic acculturation literature has been seen, reflecting a reliance on cross-sectional studies where acculturation was scholarly operationalized more as an individual difference variable than as a longitudinal adaptation over time (Schwartz et al., 2013 ).

Culture and Family Communication: the “so what?” Question

This article has presented an entangled overview of family communication patterns, dyadic power, family systems, and conflict theories to establish that coparenting quality plays a paramount role. The main commonality among those theories pays special attention to interparental interaction quality, regardless of the type of family (i.e., intact, postdivorce, same-sex, etc.) and cultural background. After reviewing these theories, it was observed that the interparental relationship is the core interaction in the familial context because it affects children from their earlier cognitive development to subsequent parental modeling in terms of gender roles. Thus, in keeping with Canary and Canary ( 2013 ), no matter what approach may be taken to the analysis of family communication issues, the hypothesis that a positive emotional climate within the family is fostered only when couples practice a sufficient level of shared parenting and quality of communication is supported.

Nevertheless, this argument does not suggest that the role of culture in the familial interactions should be undersold. While including the main goal of parenting, which is the socialization of values, in the second section of this article, the text also provides specific values of different countries that are enacted and socialized differently across cultural contexts to address the role of acculturation in the familial atmosphere, the quality of interactions, and individual outcomes. As a case in point, Johnson et al. ( 2013 ) provided an interesting way of seeing how cultures differ in their ways of enacting parenting, clarifying that the role of culture in parenting is not a superficial or relativistic element.

In addition, by acknowledging the perhaps excessive attention to larger Asian cultural backgrounds (such as Chinese or Japanese cultures) by other scholars (i.e., Canary & Canary, 2013 ), an insightful analysis of the Thai American family within the father-daughter relationship was provided to exemplify, through the work of Punyanunt-Carter ( 2016 ), how specific family communication patterns, such as maintenance relationship communication behaviors, affect the quality of familial relationships. Moreover, a second, special focus was put on Hispanic families because of the demographic trends of the United States, and it was found that familism constitutes a distinctive aspect of these families.

In other words, the third section of this article provided these two examples of intercultural families to observe specific ways that culture mediates the familial system. Because one of the main goals of the present article was to demonstrate the mediating role of culture as an important consideration for family communication issues in the United States, the assimilationist approach was taken into account; thus, the two intercultural family examples discussed here correspond to an assimilationist nature rather than using an intergroup approach.

This decision was made without intending to diminish the value of other cultures or ethnic groups in the country, but an extensive revision of all types of intercultural families is beyond the scope of this article. Second, the assimilationist approach forces one to consider cultures that are in the process of adapting to a new hosting culture, and the Thai and Hispanic families in the United States comply with this theoretical requisite. For example, Whites recognize African Americans as being as American as Whites (i.e., Dovidio, Gluszek, John, Ditlmann, & Lagunes, 2010 ), whereas they associate Hispanics and Latinos with illegal immigration in the United States (Stewart et al., 2011 ), which has been enhanced by the U.S. media repeatedly since 1994 (Valentino et al., 2013 ), and it is still happening (Dixon, 2015 ). In this scenario, “ask yourself what would happen to your own personality if you heard it said over and over again that you were lazy, a simple child of nature, expected to steal, and had inferior blood? . . . One’s reputation, whether false or true, cannot be hammered, hammered, hammered, into one’s head without doing something to one’s character” (Allport, 1979 , p. 142, cited in Arias & Hellmueller, 2016 ).

As a consequence, on this cultural canvas, it should not be surprising that Lichter, Carmalt, and Qian ( 2011 ) found that second-generation Hispanics are increasingly likely to marry foreign-born Hispanics and less likely to marry third-generation or later coethnics or Whites. In addition, this study suggests that third-generation Hispanics and later were more likely than in the past to marry non-Hispanic Whites; thus, the authors concluded that there has been a new retreat from intermarriage among the largest immigrant groups in the United States—Hispanics and Asians—in the last 20 years.

If we subscribe to the idea that cultural assimilation goes in only one direction—from the hegemonic culture to the minority culture—then the results of Lichter, Carmalt, and Qian ( 2011 ) should not be of scholarly concern; however, if we believe that cultural assimilation happens in both directions and intercultural families can benefit both the host and immigrant cultures (for a review, see Schwartz et al., 2013 ), then this is important to address in a country that just elected a president, Donald Trump, who featured statements racially lambasting and segregating minorities, denigrating women, and criticizing immigration as some of the main tenets of his campaign. Therefore, we hope that it is clear why special attention was given to the Thai and Hispanic families in this article, considering the impact of culture on the familial system, marital satisfaction, parental communication, and children’s well-being. Even though individuals with Hispanic ancentry were in the United States even before it became a nation, Hispanic and Latino families are still trying to convince Americans of their right to be accepted in American culture and society.

With regard to the “So what?” question, assimilation is important to consider while analyzing the role of culture in family communication patterns, power dynamics, conflict, or the functioning of the overall family system in the context of the United States. This is because this country is among the most popular in the world in terms of immigration requests, and its demographics show that one out of three citizens comes from an ethnic background other than the hegemonic White culture. In sum, cultural awareness has become pivotal in the analysis of family communication issues in the United States. Furthermore, the present overview of family, communication, and culture ends up supporting the idea of positive associations being derived from the pivotal role of marriage relationship quality, such that coparenting and communication practices vary substantially within intercultural marriages moderated by gender roles.

Culture is a pivotal moderator of these associations, but this analysis needs to be tethered to societal structural level, in which cultural differences, family members’ immigration status, media content, and level of acculturation must be included in family research. This is because in intercultural marriages, in addition to the tremendous parenting role, they have to deal with cultural assimilation and discrimination, and this becomes important if we care about children’s cognitive development and the overall well-being of those who are not considered White. As this article shows, the quality of familial interactions has direct consequences on children’s developmental outcomes (for a review, see Callaghan et al., 2011 ).

Therefore, the structure and functioning of family has an important impact on public health at both physiological and psychological levels (Gage, Everett, & Bullock, 2006 ). At the physiological level, the familial interaction instigates expression and reception of strong feelings affecting tremendously on individuals’ physical health because it activates neuroendocrine responses that aid stress regulation, acting as a stress buffer and accelerating physiological recovery from elevated stress (Floyd & Afifi, 2012 ; Floyd, 2014 ). Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, and Kiecolt-Glaser ( 2006 ) found that a combination of supportive communication, humor, and problem-solving behavior in husbands predicts their wives’ cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)—both physiological factors are considered as stress markers (see 2006 ). On the other hand, the psychology of individuals, the quality of family relationships has major repercussions on cognitive development, as reflected in educational attainment (Sohr-Preston et al., 2013 ), and highly mediated by cultural assimilation (Schwartz et al., 2013 ), which affects individuals through parenting modeling and socialization of values (Mooney-Doyle, Deatrick, & Horowitz, 2014 ).

Further Reading

• Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice . Basic books.
• Arias, S. , & Hellmueller, L. (2016). Hispanics-and-Latinos and the US Media: New Issues for Future Research. Communication Research Trends , 35 (2), 4.
• Barreto, M. , & Segura, G. (2014). Latino America: How AmericaÕs Most Dynamic Population is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation . Public Affairs.
• Benish‐Weisman, M. , Levy, S. , & Knafo, A. (2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: the role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 614–620.
• Child, J. T. , & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication , 13 (1), 46–59.
• Canary, H. , & Canary, D. J. (2013). Family conflict (Key themes in family communication). Polity.
• Dixon, C. (2015). Rural development in the third world . Routledge.
• Dovidio, J. F. , Gluszek, A. , John, M. S. , Ditlmann, R. , & Lagunes, P. (2010). Understanding bias toward Latinos: Discrimination, dimensions of difference, and experience of exclusion. Journal of Social Issues , 66 (1), 59–78.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. , & Koerner, A. F. (2005). Family communication schemata: Effects on children’s resiliency. The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod , 115–139.
• Fullerton, A. S. (2014). Work, Family Policies and Transitions to Adulthood in Europe. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews , 43 (4), 543–545.
• Galvin, K. M. , Bylund, C. L. , & Brommel, B. J. (2004). Family communication: Cohesion and change . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Lichter, D. T. , Carmalt, J. H. , & Qian, Z. (2011, June). Immigration and intermarriage among Hispanics: Crossing racial and generational boundaries. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 241–264). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Koerner, A. F. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family conflict communication. The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice , 159–183.
• McLeod, J. M. , & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American behavioral scientist , 16 (4), 469–499.
• Sabourin, T. C. , Infante, D. A. , & Rudd, J. (1993). Verbal Aggression in Marriages A Comparison of Violent, Distressed but Nonviolent, and Nondistressed Couples. Human Communication Research , 20 (2), 245–267.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology , 25 , 1–65.
• Schrodt, P. , Witt, P. L. , & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs , 81 (1), 28–58.
• Stewart, C. O. , Pitts, M. J. , & Osborne, H. (2011). Mediated intergroup conflict: The discursive construction of “illegal immigrants” in a regional US newspaper. Journal of language and social psychology , 30 (1), 8–27.
• Taylor, M. , & Segrin, C. (2010). Perceptions of Parental Gender Roles and Conflict Styles and Their Association With Young Adults' Relational and Psychological Well-Being. Communication Research Reports , 27 (3), 230–242.
• Tracy, K. , Ilie, C. , & Sandel, T. (Eds.). (2015). International encyclopedia of language and social interaction . Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Tulananda, O. , Young, D. M. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Thai and American fathers’ involvement with preschool‐age children. Early Child Development and Care , 97 (1), 123–133.
• Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other . New York: Basic Books.
• Twenge, J. M. (2014). Generation Me—revised and updated: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before . New York: Simon and Schuster.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2014). Yearbook of immigration statistics: 2013 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.
• Valentino, N. A. , Brader, T. , & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among US Whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology , 34 (2), 149–166.
• Worley, T. R. , & Samp, J. (2016). Complaint avoidance and complaint-related appraisals in close relationships: A dyadic power theory perspective. Communication Research , 43 (3), 391–413.
• Xie, Y. , & Goyette, K. (1997). The racial identification of biracial children with one Asian parent: Evidence from the 1990 census. Social Forces , 76 (2), 547–570.
• Weigel, D. J. , & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). All marriages are not maintained equally: Marital type, marital quality, and the use of the maintenance behaviors. Personal Relationships , 6 , 291–303.
• Weigel, D. J. , & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). How couples maintain marriages: A closer look at self and spouse influences upon the use of maintenance behaviors in marriages. Family Relations , 48 , 263–269.
• Aloia, L. S. , & Solomon, D. H. (2013). Perceptions of verbal aggression in romantic relationships: The role of family history and motivational systems. Western Journal of Communication , 77 (4), 411–423.
• Arias, V. S. , & Hellmueller, L. C. (2016). Hispanics-and-Latinos and the U.S. media: New issues for future research. Communication Research Trends , 35 (2), 2–21.
• Bales, R. F. , & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and interaction process . Oxford: Routledge.
• Beach, S. R. , Barton, A. W. , Lei, M. K. , Brody, G. H. , Kogan, S. M. , Hurt, T. R. , . . ., Stanley, S. M. (2014). The effect of communication change on long‐term reductions in child exposure to conflict: Impact of the Promoting Strong African American Families (ProSAAF) program. Family Process , 53 (4), 580–595.
• Benish-Weisman, M. , Levy, S. , & Knafo, A. (2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: The role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 614–620.
• Braithwaite, D. O. , & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives . New York: SAGE.
• Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. , Fink, D. S. , & Buerkel, R. A. (1995). Communication in father-child dyad. In T. S. Socha , & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 63–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Caldera, Y. M. , Fitzpatrick, J. , & Wampler, K. S. (2002). Coparenting in intact Mexican American families: Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions , 107–131.
• Callaghan, T. , Moll, H. , Rakoczy, H. , Warneken, F. , Liszkowski, U. , Behne, T. , & Tomasello, M. (2011). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 1–20). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
• Canam, C. (1993). Common adaptive tasks facing parents of children with chronic conditions. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 18 , 46–53.
• Canary, H. , & Canary, D. (2013). Family conflict: Managing the unexpected . John Wiley & Sons.
• Canary, D. J. , & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs , 59 , 243–267.
• Canary, D. J. , & Zelley, E. D. (2000). Current research programs on relational maintenance behaviors. Communication Yearbook , 23 , 305–340.
• Chew, K. S. Y. , Eggebeen, D. , & Uhlenberg, P. R. (1989). American children in multiracial households. Sociological Perspectives , 32 (1), 65–85.
• Cohen, S. M. (1983). American modernity and Jewish identity . New York: Tavistock Publications.
• Cohen, S. M. (1988). American assimilation or Jewish revival? Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Dainton, M. , Stafford, L. , & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports , 7 , 88–97.
• Darus, H. J. (1994). Adult daughters’ willingness to communicate as a function of fathers’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness . Unpublished master’s thesis, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.
• Devenish, L. Y. (1999). Conflict within adult daughter-father relationships (PhD diss.), Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1999. Digital Dissertation Abstracts International , AAT 9944434.
• Dindia, K. , & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 4 , 143–158.
• Duffy, L. (1978). The interracial individuals: Self-concept, parental interaction, and ethnic identity. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
• Ellman, Y. (1987). Intermarriage in the United States: A comparative study of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups. Jewish Social Studies , 49 , 1–26.
• Feenery, J. A. , & Noller, P. (2013). Perspectives on studying family communication: Multiple methods and multiple sources.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. , & Badzinski, D. M. (1984). All in the family: Interpersonal communication in kin relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 687–736). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Fletcher, J. O. , & Clark, M. S. (2002). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Company.
• Floyd, K. (2014). Humans are people, too: Nurturing an appreciation for nature in communication research. Review of Communication Research , 2 , 1–29.
• Floyd, K. , & Afifi, T. D. (2012). Biological and physiological perspectives on interpersonal communication (pp.87–127). In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication . New York: SAGE.
• Floyd, K. , & Morman, M. T. (2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men’s affection with their own sons: Test of modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs , 67 , 347–361.
• Fowler, M. , Pearson, J. C. , & Beck, S. J. (2010). The influences of family communication patterns on adult children’s perceptions of romantic behaviors. Journal of Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota , 23 , 1–11.
• Friedrich, W. N. (1979). Predictors of the coping behavior of mothers of handicapped children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 47 , 1140–1141.
• Fus, X. , & Heaton, T. B. (2000). Status exchange in intermarriage among Hawaiians, Japanese, Filipinos, and Caucasians in Hawaii: 1983–1994. Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 31 (1), 45–61.
• Gable, S. , & Sharp, E. (2016). Parenting: Success requires a team effort . MOSapce.com. Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/51644/gh6129-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .
• Gage, J. D. , Everett, K. D. , & Bullock, L. (2006). Integrative review of parenting in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 38 (1), 56–62.
• Galvin, K. M. , Braithwaite, D. O. , & Bylund, C. L. (2015). Family communication: Cohesion and change . New York: Routledge.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays . Vol. 5019. New York: Basic Books.
• Glick, J. E. , & Van Hook, J. (2008). Through children’s eyes: Families and households of Latino children in the United States. (pp. 72–86). In H. Rodríguez , R. Sáenz , & C. Menjívar (Eds.), Latinas/os in the United States: Changing the Face of América . Boston: Springer US.
• Goldwasser, S. W. (1993). Relationships, mothers and daughters, fathers and daughters: A key to development to competence . Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361618).
• Gordon, A. I. (1964). Intermarriage . Boston: Beacon Press.
• Gordon, M. M. 1978. Human nature, class, and ethnicity . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gottman, J. M. , & Carrere, S. (1994). Why can’t men and women get along? Developmental roots and marital inequalities. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 203–254). New York: Academic Press.
• Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values. Handbook of Parenting , 5 , 143–167.
• Gudykunst, W. (1987). Cross-cultural comparisons. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847–889). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Halstead, V. , De Santis, J. , & Williams, J. (2016). Relationship power in the context of heterosexual intimate relationships: A conceptual development. Advances in Nursing Science , 39 (2), E31–E43.
• Hammer, C. S. , Tomblin, J. B. , Zhang, X. , & Weiss, A. L. (2001). Relationship between parenting behaviours and specific language impairment in children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders , 36 (2), 185–205.
• Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in context . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Harniss, M. K. , Epstein, M. H , Bursuck, W. D. , Nelson, J. , & Jayanthi, M. (2001). Resolving homework-related communication problems: Recommendations of parents of children with and without disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 17 , 205–225.
• Jane, J. , & Bochner, A. P. (2009). Imaging families through stories and rituals. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 513–538). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jognson, R. C. , & Nagoshi, C. T. (1986). The adjustment of offspring of within-group and interracial/intercultural marriages: A comparison of personality factor scores. Journal of Marriage and Family , 48 (2), 279–284.
• Johnson, D. J. (1992). Developmental pathways: Toward an ecological theoretical formulation of race identity in black-white biracial children. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 37–49). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Johnson, L. , Radesky, J. , & Zuckerman, B. (2013). Cross-cultural parenting: Reflections on autonomy and interdependence. Pediatrics , 131 (4), 631–633.
• Kinloch, P. , & Metge, J. (2014). Talking past each other: problems of cross cultural communication . Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.
• Kitano, H. , Yeung, W. T. , Chai, L. , & Hatanaka, H. (1984). Asian-American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 46 , 179–190.
• Kivisto, P. (2001). Illuminating social life: Classical and contemporary theory revisited . 2d. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Knapp, M. L. , & Daly, J. A. (Eds). (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Knuston, T. J. , Komolsevin, R. , Chatiketu, P. , & Smith, V. R. (2002). A comparison of Thai and U.S. American willingness to communicate. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research , 31 , 3–12.
• Koerner, A. F. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2012). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (pp. 129–144). New York: Routledge.
• Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns . Bangkok, Thailand: National Institute of Developmental Administration.
• Kwok, S. Y. , Cheng, L. , Chow, B. W. , & Ling, C. C. (2015). The spillover effect of parenting on marital satisfaction among Chinese mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 24 (3), 772–783.
• Lamb, M. E. (1987). Introduction: The emergent American father. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Le, Y. , McDaniel, B. T. , Leavitt, C. E. , & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic perspective Journal of Family Psychology , 30 (8), 918.
• Lennon, C. A. , Stewart, A. L. , & Ledermann, T. (2013). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 (1), 95–114.
• Leonard, L. S. (1982). The wounded woman: Healing the father-daughter relationship . Athens, OH: Shallow Press.
• Leonardi, P. M. (2003). Problematizing “new media”: Culturally based perceptions of cellphones, computers, and the Internet among United States Latinos. Critical Studies in Media Communication , 20 (2), 160–179.
• Lichter, D. T. , Qian, Z. , & Tumin, D. (2015). Whom do immigrants marry? Emerging patterns of intermarriage and integration in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 662 (1), 57–78.
• Lindlof, T. R. , & Taylor, B. C. (1995). Qualitative communication research method . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Lindlof, T. R. , & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods . 3d ed. New York: SAGE.
• Mann, E. , & Waldron, J. A. (1977). Intercultural marriage and childbearing. In W. S. Tseng , J. F. McDermott, Jr. , & T. W. Maretzki (Eds.), Adjustment in interracial marriage (pp. 88–92). Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii.
• Martin, M. M. , & Anderson, C. M. (1995). The father–young adult child relationship: Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly , 43 , 119–130.
• McCann, R. M. , Ota, H. , Giles, H. , & Caraker, R. (2003). Accommodation and nonaccommodation across the lifespan: Perspectives from Thailand, Japan, and the United States of America. Communication Reports , 16 , 69–92.
• Menjívar, C. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadoran immigrant networks in America . Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Miller, R. L. (1992). The human ecology of multiracial identity. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 24–36). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Mooney-Doyle, K. , Deatrick, J. A. , & Horowitz, J. A. (2014). Tasks and communication as an avenue to enhance parenting of children birth–5 years: An integrative review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing , 30 (1), 184–207.
• Morman, M. T. , & Floyd, K. (1999). Affectionate communication between fathers and young adult sons: Individual- and relational-level correlates. Communication Studies , 50 , 294–309.
• Nelsen, H. M. (1990). The religious identification of children of interfaith marriages. Review of Religious Research , 122–134.
• Ngai, M. M. (2014). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Noller, P. , & Callan, V. (1991). The adolescent in the family . New York: Routledge.
• Olaniran, B. A. , & Roach, K. D. (1994). Communication apprehension in Nigerian culture. Communication Quarterly , 42 , 379–389.
• Ortman, J. M. , Velkoff, V. A. , & Hogan, H. (2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States . Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1–28.
• Pearce, W. B. (2005). Communication management model. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 35–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Portes, A. (1984). The rise of ethnicity: Determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami. American Sociological Review , 49 , 383–397.
• Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2008). Father-daughter relationships: Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports , 25 (1), 23–33.
• Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2016). An examination of communication motives and relationship maintenance behaviors in Thai and US father-daughter relationships. Asian Communication Research , 13 (1), 157–179.
• Ritchie, D. L. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research , 17 (4), 523–544.
• Robles, T. F. , Shaffer, V. A. , Malarkey, W. B. , & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). Positive behaviors during marital conflict: Influences on stress hormones. Journal of social and Personal Relationships , 23 (2), 305–325.
• Rogers, L. E. (2006). Relational communication theory: an interactional family theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Roongrengsuke, S. , & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management in Thailand. In K. Leung , & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific (pp. 167–222). Singapore: John Wiley.
• Rosenthal, D. A. (1987). Ethnic identity development in adolescents. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 156–179). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Rubin, R. B. , Fernandez-Collado, C. , & Hernandez-Sampieri, R. (1992). A cross-cultural examination of interpersonal communication motives in Mexico and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 16 , 145–157.
• Rubin, R. B. , Perse, E. M. , & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research , 14 , 602–628.
• Sabourin, T. C. , Infante, D. A. , & Rudd, J. (1990). Verbal aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Health Communication Research , 20 (2), 245–267.
• Saenz, R. , Hwang, S , Aguirre, B. E. , & Anderson, R. N. (1995). Persistence and change in Asian identity among children of intermarried couples. Sociological Perspectives , 38 (2), 175–194.
• Scherer, K. R. (Eds.). (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication , 40 (1–2), 227–256.
• Schrodt, P. , & Shimkowski, J. R. (2013). Feeling caught as a mediator of co-parental communication and young adult children’s mental health and relational satisfaction with parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 (8), 977–999.
• Schutz, A. (1970). Alfred Schutz on phenomenology and social relations . Vol. 360. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Schutz, W. (1966). The interpersonal underworld . Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
• Schwartz, S. H. , & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 (6), 1010–1028.
• Schwartz, S. J. , Des Rosiers, S. , Huang, S. , Zamboanga, B. L. , Unger, J. B. , Knight, G. P. , . . ., Szapocznik, J. (2013). Developmental trajectories of acculturation in Hispanic adolescents: Associations with family functioning and adolescent risk behavior. Child development , 84 (4), 1355–1372.
• Shea, B. C. , & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent, and gender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies. Communication Monographs , 53 , 352–364.
• Shulman, S. , & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1997). Fathers and adolescents: Developmental and clinical perspectives . New York: Routledge.
• Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers? Developmental Review , 7 , 183–209.
• Simon, E. P. , & Baxter, L. A. (1993). Attachment-style differences in relationship maintenance strategies. Western Journal of Communication , 57 , 416–420.
• Sloper, P. (2001). Models of service support for parents of disabled children: What do we know? What do we need to know? Child: Care, Health, & Development , 25 (2), 85–99.
• Snyder, N. S. , Lopez, C. M. , & Padilla, A. M. (1982). Ethnic identity and cultural awareness among the offspring of Mexican interethnic marriages. Journal of Early Adolescence , 2 (3), 277–282.
• Socha, T. J. , & Stamp, G. H. (1995). Introduction. In T. J. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.). Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. ix–xvi). Mawwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Sohr-Preston, S. L. , Scaramella, L. V. , Martin, M. J. , Neppl, T. L. , Ontai, L. , & Conger, R. (2013). Parental SES, communication and children’s vocabulary development: A 3-generation test of the family investment model . Child Development , 84 (3), 1046–1062.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , De Baca, T. C. , Figueredo, A. J. , & Smith-Castro, V. (2013). Shared parenting, parental effort, and life history strategy: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 44 (4), 620–639.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , Figueredo, A. J. , Christensen, D. H. , & Taylor, A. R. (2012). Couples’ cultural values, shared parenting, and family emotional climate within Mexican American families. Family Process , 51 (2), 218–233.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , Wilhelm, M. S. , & Card, N. A. (2011). Marital relationship quality and couples’ cognitive stimulation practices toward their infants: Actor and partner effects of White and Hispanic parents. Early Child Development and Care , 181 (1), 103–122.
• Spickard, P. R. (1989). Mixed blood: Intermarriage and ethnic identity in twentieth-century America . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Sprague, R. J. (1999). The relationship of gender and topic intimacy to decisions to seek advice from parents. Communication Research Reports , 16 , 276–285.
• Stafford, L. , & Canary, D. L. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 8 , 217–242.
• Stafford, L. , & Dainton, M. (1995). Parent-child communication within the family system. In T. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Stafford, L. , Dainton, M. , & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristic. Communication Monographs , 67 , 306–323.
• Stamp, G. H. , & Shue, C. K. (2013). Twenty years of family research published in communication journals: A review of the perspectives, theories, concepts, and contexts. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 11–28). New York: Routledge.
• Stephan, C. W. , & Stephan, W. G. (1989). After intermarriage: Ethnic identity among mixed-heritage Japanese-Americans and Hispanics. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 51 , 507–519.
• Stevens, L. , Watson, K. , & Dodd, K. (2000). Supporting parents of children with communication difficulties: A model. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, Session , 2 (6), 70–74.
• Sullivan, P. (1998). “What are you?” Multiracial families in America. Our Children , 23 (5), 34–35.
• Tapanya, S. (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in Thailand. Parenting , 11 , 190–198.
• Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis . School of Population Health, University of Auckland.
• Trute, B. , (1990). Child and parent predictors of family adjustment in households containing young developmentally disabled children. Family Relations , 39 (3), 292–297.
• Tulananda, O. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (2001). Mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with preschoolers in the home in northern Thailand: relationships to teachers’ assessments of children’s social skills. Journal of Family Psychology , 15 (4), 676.
• Tulananda, O. , Young, D. M. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Thai and American fathers’ involvment with preschool-age children. Early Child Development and Care , 97 , 123–133.
• Van Egeren, L. A. , & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development , 11 (3), 165–178.
• Van Hook, J. , & Glick, J. E. (2006). Mexican migration to the United States and extended family living arrangements. In Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America , Los Angeles, CA.
• Ward, C. (2006). Acculturation, identity, and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 30 , 243–259.
• Waters, M. C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Weisner, T. S. (2014). Culture, context, and child well-being. In Handbook of child well-being (pp. 87–103). Boston: Springer.
• Xin, G. , & Sandel, T. L. (2015). The acculturation and identity of new immigrant youth in Macao. China Media Research , 11 (1), 112–125.
• Young, J. , & Schrodt, P. (2016). Family communication patterns, parental modeling, and confirmation in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly , 64 (4), 454–475.
• Zemp, M. , Bodenmann, G. , Backes, S. , Sutter-Stickel, D. , & Revenson, T. A. (2016). The importance of parents’ dyadic coping for children. Family Relations , 65 (2), 275–286.

Related Articles

• Military Families and Communication
• Family Communication
• Interpersonal Communication Across the Life Span
• Parent-Child Interaction
• Acculturation and Intergroup Communication
• Family Relationships and Interactions: An Intergroup Approach
• Critical Approaches to Motherhood
• News, Children, and Young People

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 01 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

The Functionalist Perspective on the Family

Functionalists focus on the positive functions of the nuclear family, such as secondary socialisation and the stabilisation of adult personalities.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on October 4, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Functionalists see the family as one of the essential building blocks for stable societies. They tend to to see the nuclear family as the ideal family for industrial societies and argue that it performs positive functions such as as socialising children and providing emotional security for parents.

There are two main Functionalist theorists of the family: George Peter Murdock and Talcott Parsons.

Murdock argued that the nuclear family was universal and that it performed four essential functions: stabilising the sex drive, reproduction, socialisation of the young and economic production. (Obviously this has been widely criticised!)

Parsons developed the Functional Fit Theory: In pre-industrial society families used to be extended, but with industrialisation families became nuclear because they fitted industrial society better.

The Functionalist Perspective on the Family: Overview

This post covers:

• The Functionalist view of society
• George Peter Murdock’s theory of the universal nuclear family
• Talcott Parsons’ Functional Fit Theory
• The possible positive functions of the family today
• Evaluations and criticisms of the Functionalist view of the family from other perspectives.

The Functionalist View of Society

Functionalists regard society as a system made up of different parts which depend on each other. Different institutions perform specific functions within a society to keep society going, in the same way as the different organs of a human body perform different functions in order to maintain the whole.

Functionalists see the family as a particularly important institution because it as the ‘basic building block’ of society which performs the crucial functions of socialising the young and meeting the emotional needs of its members. Stable families underpin social order and economic stability.

Before you go any further you might like to read this more in depth post ‘ Introduction to Functionalism ‘ post which covers the key ideas of Functionalism.

George Peter Murdock – Four essential functions of the nuclear family

George Murdock was an American Anthropologist who looked at 200 different societies and argued that the nuclear family was a universal feature of all human societies. In other words, the nuclear family is in all societies!

Murdock suggested there were ‘four essential functions’ of the nuclear family:

1. Stable satisfaction of the sex drive – within monogamous relationships, which prevents sexual jealousy. 2. The biological reproduction of the next generation – without which society cannot continue. 3. Socialisation of the young – teaching basic norms and values 4. Meeting its members economic needs – producing food and shelter for example.

Criticisms of Murdock

• Feminist Sociologists argue that arguing that the family is essential is ideological because traditional family structures typically disadvantage women.
• It is feasible that other institutions could perform the functions above.
• Anthropological research has shown that there are some cultures which don’t appear to have ‘families’ – the Nayar for example.

Talcott Parsons –  Functional Fit Theory

Parsons has a historical perspective on the evolution of the nuclear family. His functional fit theory is that as society changes, the type of family that ‘fits’ that society, and the functions it performs change. Over the last 200 years, society has moved from pre-industrial to industrial – and the main family type has changed from the extended family to the nuclear family. The nuclear family fits the more complex industrial society better, but it performs a reduced number of functions.

The extended family consisted of parents, children, grandparents and aunts and uncles living under one roof, or in a collection of houses very close to eachother. Such a large family unit ‘fitted’ pre-industrial society as the family was entirely responsible for the education of children, producing food and caring for the sick – basically it did everything for all its members.

In contrast to pre-industrial society, in industrial society (from the 1800s in the UK) the isolated “nuclear family” consisting of only parents and children becomees the norm. This type of family ‘fits’ industrial societies because it required a mobile workforce. The extended family was too difficult to move when families needed to move to find work to meet the requirements of a rapidly changing and growing economy. Furthermore, there was also less need for the extended family as more and more functions, such as health and education, gradually came to be carried out by the state.

I really like this brief explanation of Parson’s Functional Fit Theory:

Two irreducible functions of the family

According to Parsons, although the nuclear family performs reduced functions, it is still the only institution that can perform two core functions in society – Primary Socialisation and the Stabilisation of Adult Personalities.

Primary Socialisation

The nuclear family is still responsible for teaching children the norms and values of society known as Primary Socialisation.

An important part of socialisation according to Functionalists is ‘gender role socialisation. If primary socialisation is done correctly then boys learn to adopt the ‘instrumental role’ (also known as the ‘breadwinner role) – they go on to go out to work and earns money. Girls learn to adopt the ‘expressive role’ – doing all the ‘caring work’, housework and bringing up the children.

The stabilisation of adult personalities

The stabilisation of adult personalities refers to the emotional security which is achieved within a marital relationship between two adults. According to Parsons working life in Industrial society is stressful and the family is a place where the working man can return and be ‘de-stressed’ by his wife, which reduces conflict in society. This is also known as the ‘warm bath theory’.

Criticisms of Functional Fit Theory

• It’s too ‘neat’ – social change doesn’t happen in such an orderly manner:
• Laslett found that church records show only 10% of households contained extended kin before the industrial revolution. This suggests the family was already nuclear before industrialisation.
• Young and Wilmott found that Extended Kin networks were still strong in East London as late as the 1970s.

The Positive Functions of the Family: A summary

Functionalists identify a number of positive functions of the nuclear family, below is a summary of some of these and a few more.

• The reproduction of the next generation – Functionalists see the nuclear family as the ‘fundamental unit of society’ responsible for carrying that society on by biological reproduction
• Related to the above point one of the main functions is primary socialisation – teaching children the basic norms and values of society.
• This kind of overlaps with the above, but even during secondary socialisation, the family is expected to help educated children alongside the school.
• The family provides psychological security and security, especially for men one might say (as with the ‘warm bath theory’.)
• A further positive function is elderly care, with many families still taking on this responsibility.
• Murdock argued that monogamous relationships provide for a stable satisfaction of the sex drive – most people today still see committed sexual relationships as best.

Criticisms of the Functionalist perspective on the family

It is really important to be able to criticise the perspectives. Evaluation is worth around half of the marks in the exam!

Downplaying Conflict

Both Murdock and Parsons paint a very rosy picture of family life, presenting it as a harmonious and integrated institution. However, they downplay conflict in the family, particularly the ‘darker side’ of family life, such as violence against women and child abuse.

Being out of Date

Parson’s view of the instrumental and expressive roles of men and women is very old-fashioned. It may have held some truth in the 1950s but today, with the majority of women in paid work, and the blurring of gender roles, it seems that both partners are more likely to take on both expressive and instrumental roles

Ignoring the exploitation of women

Functionalists tend to ignore the way women suffer from the sexual division of labour in the family. Even today, women still end up being the primary child carers in 90% of families, and suffer the burden of extra work that this responsibility carries compared to their male partners. Gender roles are socially constructed and usually involve the oppression of women. There are no biological reasons for the functionalist’s view of separation of roles into male breadwinner & female homemaker. These roles lead to the disadvantages being experienced by women.

Functionalism is too deterministic

This means it ignores the fact that children actively create their own personalities. An individual’s personality isn’t pre-determined at birth or something they have no control in. Functionalism incorrectly assumes an almost robotic adoption of society’s values via our parents; clearly there are many examples where this isn’t the case.

A Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my A-Level Sociology Families and Households Revision Bundle :

The bundle contains the following:

• 50 pages of revision notes covering all of the sub-topics within families and households
• mind maps in pdf and png format – 9 in total, covering perspectives on the family
• short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers – 3 examples of the 10 mark, ‘outline and explain’ question.
•  9 essays/ essay plans spanning all the topics within the families and households topic.

Signposting and Related Posts

The Functionalist perspective on the family is usually the very first topic taught within the the families and households module.

It is usually followed and critiqued by the Marxist perspective on the family and Feminist Perspectives on the family.

References and Sources for Further Reading

Haralambos and Holborn (2013) – Sociology Themes and Perspectives, Eighth Edition, Collins. ISBN-10: 0007597479

Chapman et al (2015) A Level Sociology Student Book One, Including AS Level [Fourth Edition], Collins. ISBN-10: 0007597479

Robb Webb et al (2015) AQA A Level Sociology Book 1, Napier Press. ISBN-10: 0954007913

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

29 thoughts on “The Functionalist Perspective on the Family”

Thank you. it was very helpful and easy to understand and not boring at all.

Great stuff, much appreciated

I have use this work to get my marks thanks

Hi yes absolutely!

Yes absolutely – it’s a historical perspective!

This may sound like a stupid question but is all of this information up to date for the 2019-2020 exams?

This may sound like a stupid question but is this up to date for 2019-2020 exams?

You’re welcome!

clear information, thank you so much

thank you very much for this informative piece!

Absolutely banging mate!

YOU. ARE. A. LEGEND! Thank you so much, honestly, this is amazing.

You’re welcome, glad you found it useful!

very helpful!thanks!:)

Such an informative article

so useful thank you!!

Hello! So, in the spotlight of this perspective what would functionalists say about single parent families?

Very useful notes.

You are welcome!

Yes they are very good notes for my revision for my gcse and my mocks

GOOD NOTES THEY ARE VERY UNDERSTANDABLE

Very understanding idea

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Functionalist Perspective on the Family

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:

Functionalists view the family as a vital institution that performs essential functions for society. These include socializing children, providing emotional support, contributing to economic stability, and offering a sense of belonging for its members.

Key Takeaways

• Functionalists believe that the institutions that make up societies have roles beneficial and essential to them. Family is one example of such an institution.
• Functionalists perspectives on the family hold that families perform functions such as socializing children, providing emotional and practical support, regulating sexual activity and reproduction, and providing social identity.
• Prior to the Industrial Revolution, family members tended to perform productive tasks that were differentiated by sex and age. However, the emergence of factory labor shifted this dynamic, provoking families to serve complementary roles in providing support for workers.
• Murdock argued that 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.
• Parsons devised the functional fit theory of the family, and argued that nuclear families, although performing a narrower scope of functions than those of the past, were essential to socializing members and stabilizing adult personalities through the emotional security of marital relationships.

The Functionalist View of Society

Functionalism is what sociologists call a structural-consensus theory. By structural, sociologists mean that functionalists argue that there exists a social structure that shapes individual behavior through the process of socialization.

Functionalists believe that a successful society is based on value consensus , where people agree about shared norms and values . In this way, people can join forces in society to cooperate and work toward shared goals (Holmwood, 2005).

Functionalists posit that successful societies have a stable social structure in which different institutions perform unique functions that contribute to the maintenance of all of society. This is similar to how different organs in the body perform different functions to keep an animal alive.

Functionalists assume that each of these institutional organs does things that are beneficial, or even essential, for the individual and society.

Thus, the essence of the functionalist view of the family is that the family performs several essential functions for society.

Families socialize children, provide emotional and practical support for their members, regulate sexual activity and reproduction, and provide members with a social identity.

A corollary of this essentialist view of the family is the belief that a sudden or far-reaching change to family structure or processes threatens the stability of the institution of family in itself, potentially weakening society (Holmwood, 2005).

Functions of the Family in Pre-Industrial Society

Pre-industrial families (before factories) — meaning those from the 17th to 19th centuries — tended to have large numbers of children. Economies in pre-industrial society were dominated by family-based economies — what Siskind (1978) calls the kinship mode of production .

Typically, all family members worked at productive tasks differentiated by sex and age. The family itself would have consisted of a structure, such as a head of household, their spouse and children, the head’s parents and possibly ancillary relatives.

Together, this unit worked productively, producing the things needed to sustain the family’s survival. The kinship relation, in this time, represented a binding obligation to work for the subsistence of the family.

In the pre-industrial era, marriages were arranged largely for social and economic purposes, rather than for romantic love. Marriage served as a contractual agreement based on a specific division of labor.

Although people would generally attend to their assigned roles within family units, these tasks may have been flexible, depending on the needs of the family.

The tasks and the needs that the family structure could fulfill in pre-industrial society included:

Being a unit of production

Caring for the young, old sick and poor

The primary socialization and control of children

The education of children

Murdock’s Four Functions of the Nuclear Family

The nuclear family is a family that consists of 2 generations: a parental married couple and their kin.

In 1949, the sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual functions of the nuclear family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic.

Murdock considered the family to regulate sexual relations between adults, ensuring that they are controlled and socially acceptable. While Murdock did not deny the existence of sexual relationships outside of marriage, he considered family to be the socially legitimate sexual outlet for adults.

Murdock believed that stable satisfaction of the sex drive within monogamous heterosexual relationships would prevent sexual jealousy (Murdock, 1949).

2. Reproduction

This sexual function of the family gives way to reproduction, which, Murdock argues, is necessary for ensuring the survival of society.

3. Socialization

The family plays a vital role in training children for adult life. The family, as a primary agent of socialization and enculturation, teaches young children ways of thinking and behaving that follow social and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes.

Parents, through teaching their children manners and civility, reflect themselves in their offspring (Murdock, 1949).

4. Economic Needs

Additionally, parents teach children gender roles. Murdock argued that these gender roles are an important part of the economic function of the family.

Murdock thought of each family as having a division of labor that consists of instrumental and expressive roles . Instrumental roles are those that provide financial support and establish family status, which Murdock purported were taken on by men.

Expressive roles typically involve work inside of the family, providing emotional support and physical care for children.

Functionalists consider this gender differentiation of roles to be an essential part of the family, because they ensure that the family is well-balanced and coordinated. When family members move outside of these roles, Murdock believes that the family is thrown out of balance and at risk of collapse if not recalibrated.

For example, suppose a father decides to quit his job in favor of caring for children during the daytime. In that case, the mother must take on an instrumental role, such as getting paid employment, in order for the family to maintain balance and function (Murdock, 1949).

Parsons: Functions of the Nuclear Family

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.

1. Primary Socialization

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.

This socialization is important because it sets the groundwork for all future socialization. For example, if a child sees their mother denigrating a minority group, the child may then think that this behavior is acceptable, provoking them to continue to have this opinion about minority groups (Parsons, 1951).

Functionalists stress gender role socialization as a vital part of primary socialization. If primary socialization is done correctly, functionalists believe, boys learn to adopt the instrumental role in a family, provoking them to go to work and earn wages.

Meanwhile, girls learn to adopt an expressive role, provoking them to do care work, housework, and bring up children (Parsons, 1951).

2. The Stabilization of Adult Personalities

Parsons argued that the traditional family provides emotional support and stress relief for its adult members (particularly the husband after a workday).

This “warm bath” of relaxation helps maintain societal order by preventing disruptive behavior.

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).

Parsons: Functional Fit Theory

Talcott Parsons (1951) maintained a functional fit theory of the family and devised a historical perspective on the evolution of the nuclear family.

According to functional fit theory, the type of family that fits a society’s structure, and the functions it performs, change as societies change.

For example, from the 17th to 20th centuries, as Western societies industrialized, the main family type changed from the extended to the nuclear family.

The nuclear family is indicative of greater shifts in the structure of society, and how people subsisted within it. Labor becomes decentralized and specialized, with workers in industrial plants taking on small tasks.

The emergence of factories allowed items that were once made by hand or within families, such as canned goods and clothing, to be manufactured on a mass scale. The family unit no longer needed to account for the large undertaking of self-sufficiency.

Instead, instrumental family members could earn wages which other members could then use to buy necessities. As young children could not contribute to this wage system in the same way that they could to, say, a farm, the need for large families to carry out labor lessened.

Additionally, declining infant and childhood mortality gave rise to the expectation that most children would live to adulthood.

Out of these broad-level societal changes came the nuclear family, which suited more complex industrial society better, but performed a reduced number of functions. This smaller, nuclear family unit suited the need of industrial societies for a mobile workforce, one that could move to find work in a rapidly changing and growing economy.

Additionally, the need for extended family lessened as more and more functions, such as education and healthcare, were gradually subsumed by the state (Parsons, 1951).

Criticisms of the Functionalist Perspective on the Family

The possibility that other institutions could perform the functions of the family. For example, a school or workplace may provide daycare services, or government subsidies may help a family stay afloat instrumentally.

Murdock assumes that all nuclear families function well, ignoring families that are dysfunctional despite the presence of both instrumental and expressive roles.

Feminist sociologists posit that Murdock’s argument that the family is essential is ideological, and that traditional family structures typically disadvantage women.

Parson’s view of the instrumental and expressive roles of men and women may have applied during the 1950s, but is now out of date. Women now go out to work and the biological roles as set out by Parsons no longer apply as clearly.

Anthropological research shows that there are some cultures that do not fit the traditional model of the nuclear family. One such example is that of the Nair, a group of Indian Hindu castes, who lived historically in large family units called Tharavads that housed the descendants of one common female ancestor.

The marriage customs among this group have evoked much discussion and controversy among Indian jurists and social scientists (Panikkar, 1918).

Some functionalist sociologists disagree with Parson’s idea that the nuclear family only performs basic instrumental and expressive functions. Fletcher (1988), for example, argues that the family carries out three essential functions that no other social institution can.

These are the long-standing satisfaction of the sexual and emotional needs of parents, having and rearing children in a stable environment, and the provision of a common residence where all family members can return after work or school.

However, Fletcher argues that the family also retains its education, health, and welfare function. Child-rearing and socialization in families are made more effective by state institutions offering resources such as prenatal care, health clinics, doctors, social workers, schools and teachers, and housing officers.

He notes that most parents take primary responsibility for their children’s health – such as by teaching them hygiene and caring for and treating minor illnesses.

Additionally, parents can guide and encourage their children on an educational and occupational level, as well as provide material and welfare support, well beyond childhood. Children often reciprocate these supports when their parents enter old age.

Fletcher, while acknowledging that the nuclear family has largely lost its economic function of production, highlights that it has shifted into a major unit of consumption.

Families spend a large proportion of their income on home or family-oriented consumer goods.  Willmott and Young (1975) suggest that this can motivate family members to earn as much as possible.

Historians have suggested that Parson’s interpretation of the functions of the family was overly simplistic. These historians have noted the evidence suggesting that industrialization follows different historical patterns in different industrial societies.

For example, in Japan, industrialization stresses the importance of holding a job for life with the same company, and employees are encouraged to view their colleagues as part of an extended family. This extends the kinship network (Jansenns, 2002).

Chambers, D., & Gracia, P. (2021). A sociology of family life: Change and diversity in intimate relations . John Wiley & Sons.

Crano, W. D., & Aronoff, J. (1978). A cross-cultural study of expressive and instrumental role complementarity in the family. American Sociological Review , 463-471.

Fletcher, R. (1988). The Shaking of the Foundations: family and society . Routledge.

Holmwood, J. (2005). Functionalism and its Critics. Modern social theory: An introduction , 87-109.

Janssens, A. (2002). Family and social change: The household as a process in an industrializing community (No. 21). Cambridge University Press.

Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure .

Panikkar, K. M. (1918). Some Aspects of Nayar Life. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 48, 254-293.

Parsons, T. E., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action .

Siskind, J. (1978). Kinship and mode of production. American Anthropologist, 80 (4), 860-872.

Young, M., & Willmott, P. (1975). Michael Gordon,” The Symmetrical Family”(Book Review). Journal of Social History, 9 (1), 120.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.3: Sociological Perspectives on the Family

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 2076

Learning Objectives

• Summarize understandings of the family as presented by functional, conflict, and social interactionist theories.

Sociological views on today’s families generally fall into the functional, conflict, and social interactionist approaches introduced earlier in this book. Let’s review these views, which are summarized in Table 11.1.

Table 11.1 Theory Snapshot

Social Functions of the Family

Recall that the functional perspective emphasizes that social institutions perform several important functions to help preserve social stability and otherwise keep a society working. A functional understanding of the family thus stresses the ways in which the family as a social institution helps make society possible. As such, the family performs several important functions.

First, the family is the primary unit for socializing children . As previous chapters indicated, no society is possible without adequate socialization of its young. In most societies, the family is the major unit in which socialization happens. Parents, siblings, and, if the family is extended rather than nuclear, other relatives all help to socialize children from the time they are born.

Figure 11.3

One of the most important functions of the family is the socialization of children. In most societies the family is the major unit through which socialization occurs.

© Thinkstock

Second, the family is ideally a major source of practical and emotional support for its members. It provides them food, clothing, shelter, and other essentials, and it also provides them love, comfort, help in times of emotional distress, and other types of intangible support that we all need.

Third, the family helps regulate sexual activity and sexual reproduction . All societies have norms governing with whom and how often a person should have sex. The family is the major unit for teaching these norms and the major unit through which sexual reproduction occurs. One reason for this is to ensure that infants have adequate emotional and practical care when they are born. The incest taboo that most societies have, which prohibits sex between certain relatives, helps to minimize conflict within the family if sex occurred among its members and to establish social ties among different families and thus among society as a whole.

Fourth, the family provides its members with a social identity . Children are born into their parents’ social class, race and ethnicity, religion, and so forth. As we have seen in earlier chapters, social identity is important for our life chances. Some children have advantages throughout life because of the social identity they acquire from their parents, while others face many obstacles because the social class or race and ethnicity into which they are born is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Beyond discussing the family’s functions, the functional perspective on the family maintains that sudden or far-reaching changes in conventional family structure and processes threaten the family’s stability and thus that of society. For example, most sociology and marriage-and-family textbooks during the 1950s maintained that the male breadwinner–female homemaker nuclear family was the best arrangement for children, as it provided for a family’s economic and child-rearing needs. Any shift in this arrangement, they warned, would harm children and by extension the family as a social institution and even society itself. Textbooks no longer contain this warning, but many conservative observers continue to worry about the impact on children of working mothers and one-parent families. We return to their concerns shortly.

The Family and Conflict

Conflict theorists agree that the family serves the important functions just listed, but they also point to problems within the family that the functional perspective minimizes or overlooks altogether.

First, the family as a social institution contributes to social inequality in several ways. The social identity it gives to its children does affect their life chances, but it also reinforces a society’s system of stratification. Because families pass along their wealth to their children, and because families differ greatly in the amount of wealth they have, the family helps reinforce existing inequality. As it developed through the centuries, and especially during industrialization, the family also became more and more of a patriarchal unit (see earlier discussion), helping to ensure men’s status at the top of the social hierarchy.

Second, the family can also be a source of conflict for its own members. Although the functional perspective assumes the family provides its members emotional comfort and support, many families do just the opposite and are far from the harmonious, happy groups depicted in the 1950s television shows. Instead, and as the news story that began this chapter tragically illustrated, they argue, shout, and use emotional cruelty and physical violence. We return to family violence later in this chapter.

Families and Social Interaction

Social interactionist perspectives on the family examine how family members and intimate couples interact on a daily basis and arrive at shared understandings of their situations. Studies grounded in social interactionism give us a keen understanding of how and why families operate the way they do.

Some studies, for example, focus on how husbands and wives communicate and the degree to which they communicate successfully (Tannen, 2001).Tannen, D. (2001). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation . New York, NY: Quill. A classic study by Mirra Komarovsky (1964)Komarovsky, M. (1964). Blue-collar marriage . New York, NY: Random House. found that wives in blue-collar marriages liked to talk with their husbands about problems they were having, while husbands tended to be quiet when problems occurred. Such gender differences seem less common in middle-class families, where men are better educated and more emotionally expressive than their working-class counterparts. Another classic study by Lillian Rubin (1976)Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family . New York, NY: Basic Books. found that wives in middle-class families say that ideal husbands are ones who communicate well and share their feelings, while wives in working-class families are more apt to say that ideal husbands are ones who do not drink too much and who go to work every day.

Other studies explore the role played by romantic love in courtship and marriage. Romantic love , the feeling of deep emotional and sexual passion for someone, is the basis for many American marriages and dating relationships, but it is actually uncommon in many parts of the contemporary world today and in many of the societies anthropologists and historians have studied. In these societies, marriages are arranged by parents and other kin for economic reasons or to build alliances, and young people are simply expected to marry whoever is chosen for them. This is the situation today in parts of India, Pakistan, and other developing nations and was the norm for much of the Western world until the late 18th and early 19th centuries (Lystra, 1989).Lystra, K. (1989). Searching the heart: Women, men, and romantic love in nineteenth-century America . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

• The family ideally serves several functions for society. It socializes children, provides practical and emotional support for its members, regulates sexual reproduction, and provides its members with a social identity.
• Reflecting conflict theory’s emphases, the family may also produce several problems. In particular, it may contribute for several reasons to social inequality, and it may subject its members to violence, arguments, and other forms of conflict.
• Social interactionist understandings of the family emphasize how family members interact on a daily basis. In this regard, several studies find that husbands and wives communicate differently in certain ways that sometimes impede effective communication.

For Your Review

• As you think how best to understand the family, do you favor the views and assumptions of functional theory, conflict theory, or social interactionist theory? Explain your answer.
• Do you think the family continues to serve the function of regulating sexual behavior and sexual reproduction? Why or why not?

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Current Events
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Sociology Theorists
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Privacy Policy

The Functionalist View of Family in Sociology

In the field of sociology, the functionalist perspective provides a unique lens through which to understand the role and significance of the family in society. Functionalism is a theoretical framework that emphasizes the importance of social institutions, such as the family, in maintaining social order and stability. This perspective views the family as a vital component of society, serving various functions that contribute to the overall well-being and functioning of individuals and the larger community.

Overview of Functionalism

Functionalism , also known as structural functionalism, is a sociological theory developed by scholars such as Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons. It posits that society is a complex system made up of interrelated parts that work together to maintain social equilibrium. According to functionalists, social institutions, including the family , have specific functions that contribute to the smooth functioning and stability of society.

You might also like

Understanding Hypergamy in Sociology

Understanding bigamy in sociology, the functions of family.

The functionalist view of the family highlights several key functions that it fulfills within society:

1. Reproduction and Socialization

One of the primary functions of the family is to reproduce and socialize new members of society. Through the institution of marriage, families provide a socially accepted framework for procreation. Additionally, parents play a crucial role in socializing children, teaching them the norms , values, and behaviors necessary for their integration into society.

2. Economic Support

The family serves as an economic unit, providing financial support and resources to its members. Within the family, individuals contribute to the overall economic well-being through their work and income. This economic support ensures the fulfillment of basic needs, such as food, shelter, and clothing, and contributes to the overall stability of society.

3. Emotional Support

The family is a primary source of emotional support and nurturance for its members. This support system helps individuals cope with challenges, provides a sense of belonging and identity, and fosters emotional well-being. The emotional support within families contributes to the overall mental health and stability of individuals and society as a whole.

4. Social Control

The family plays a crucial role in maintaining social control and regulating behavior. Through socialization and the internalization of norms and values , families instill a sense of discipline and moral guidance in their members. This social control helps individuals conform to societal expectations, contributing to the overall order and stability of society.

5. Status Placement

The family also plays a role in determining an individual’s social status and position within society. Inheritance of social and economic resources, as well as social connections and networks, are often influenced by family ties. The family’s role in status placement contributes to the social stratification and hierarchy within society.

Critiques of the Functionalist View

While the functionalist view of the family provides valuable insights into its functions within society, it has also faced criticism. Critics argue that functionalism tends to idealize the family as a harmonious and stable institution, overlooking issues such as domestic violence, inequality, and the changing dynamics of modern families. Moreover, functionalism may neglect the agency and diversity of individuals and families, assuming a one-size-fits-all approach.

In conclusion, the functionalist view of the family provides a comprehensive understanding of its functions within society . From reproduction and socialization to economic and emotional support, the family plays a vital role in maintaining social order and stability. However, it is essential to recognize the limitations of this perspective and acknowledge the complexities and diversity of family structures and dynamics in contemporary society.

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

Related Stories

Learn about the concept of hypergamy in sociology and its implications on social dynamics, gender imbalances, and social inequality. Explore...

In the field of sociology, various aspects of human behavior and social structures are studied to understand the complexities of...

Understanding Birth Rate in Sociology

Learn about the concept of birth rate in sociology and its importance as a demographic indicator. Discover the factors influencing...

The Divorce Rate: Exploring its Causes, Consequences, and Solutions

Learn about the divorce rate in sociology, including its causes, consequences, and potential solutions. Understand the factors that contribute to...

The Functionalist View of Power in Sociology

The Symbolic Interactionist View of Identity in Sociology

Marxist Feminism: An Outline and Explanation in Sociology

Get the latest sociology, recommended.

Understanding Differential Educational Attainment in Sociology

Examples of ‘Affect’ in Sociology

Popular story.

The Functionalist Perspective on Gender in Sociology

Understanding clans in sociology, pierre bourdieu’s symbolic violence: an outline and explanation, what is a social actor exploring the concept in sociology, understanding social class inequality: a sociological perspective.

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

© 2023 Easy Sociology

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 27 August 2020

The relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy (parallel samples studies)

• Ali Zakiei 1 ,
• Hosna Vafapoor 2 ,
• Mostafa Alikhani 3 ,
• Vahid Farnia 3 &
• Farnaz Radmehr 3  

BMC Psychology volume  8 , Article number:  88 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

26k Accesses

15 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

General Self-efficacy is a key variable in clinical, educational, social, developmental, health and personality psychology that can affect the outcomes of people’s lives. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between family functions and personality traits with general self-efficacy among university students and the general population.

To conduct this two-part study, the first part was carried out on a sample of 500 students, and in the second part the study was repeated on a larger sample consisting of 1000 participants from the general population data were collected from the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE), Family Assessment Device (FAD), and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). The analysis was performed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Fisher’s z test and regression analysis.

The results of the present study revealed that all the subscales of family functions and all personality traits are significantly related to general self-efficacy among university students and general population ( p  < 0.001). But in the general population, there was no significant correlation between openness to experience with general self-efficacy) ( p  > 0.05). Furthermore, the results of regression analysis showed subscales of family functions and all personality traits together can predict 27 and 35% of the variance in general self-efficacy among university students and the general population, respectively.

Personality traits play a role in predicting general self-efficacy, but the personality trait of conscientiousness plays a greater role than other personality traits and also compared to family functioning, personality traits play a greater role in predicting general self-efficacy.

Peer Review reports

General self-efficacy is one of the interesting psychological issues for researchers. So that some consider self-efficacy as an important precondition for self-management in the process [ 1 ]. Some researchers have shown that general self-efficacy is an important predicting factor for academic achievement at various levels of education [ 2 ]. Furthermore, self-efficacy is one of the factors influencing health promotion, for example, it has an important role in reducing high-risk behaviors leading to HIV [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Moreover, it is also associated with behaviors such as oral health behaviors and smoking [ 6 , 7 ]. On the other hand, its relationship with depression, anxiety, and other mental health indicators have also been confirmed [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].

In the psychology literature, general self-efficacy is considered as a motivational construct and has been defined as a person’s belief in his abilities and competencies for the success of a particular assignment [ 11 , 12 ]. Self-efficacy beliefs mean confidence in our ability to organize, manage, and control life situations [ 13 ]. Bandura believes that the origins of self-efficacy are from early family experiences [ 13 ].

Family function or efficiency is a collaborative effort to the establishment and maintain the family balance. A family with an optimal function is an open system whose members are emotionally interconnected, but members have nevertheless been encouraged to expand their identities. Such a family is full of love and every family member is accepted unconditionally. As a result of this acceptance, the family can resolve conflicts and willingly respond to the request for help from members [ 14 ].

The family function in essence refers to the systemic characteristics of the family. In other words, family function means the ability of the family to protect the entire family system to keep pace with changes in life, to resolve conflicts, to reach union among members and success in discipline, compliance with the boundaries between individuals and the enforcement of the rules and principles governing the family institution. One of the important models in the field of family function is McMaster’s family pattern. This pattern was introduced by Epstein, Baldwin & Bishop in 1983 at McMaster University [ 15 ].

Family function evaluation according to this model is based on a system approach. The model utilizes a general systems theory approach in an attempt to describe the structure, organization, and transactional patterns of the family unit. The basic principles of this model include: the relationship between parts and components of the family with each other, the incomprehensibility of a component separate from other components of the family, the important role of structure and Interactive patterns of family in determining and shaping the behavior of family members [ 16 ]. Therefore, in this study, considering the comprehensiveness of this model, it was used.

Personality marks the relatively stable individual difference in physical appearance, behavior and experience of humans over time [ 17 ].

One of the most prominent personality models is the model of the five big personality factors [ 18 ], which is the dominant approach for representing the human trait structure today [ 19 ].

The big five personality factors include: neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Neuroticism refers to the vulnerability to emotional instability and self-consciousness. Openness to experience is characterized by the cognitive disposition to creativity and esthetics. Agreeableness and extraversion focus on the interpersonal relationship: Extraversion reflects the tendency to be gregarious, enthusiastic, assertive, and to seek excitement, whereas agreeableness refers to the tendency to be warm, kind, gentle, trusting, and reliable. Conscientiousness is understood as the tendency toward dutifulness and competence [ 20 ].

A review of previous studies shows that general self-efficacy and personality traits are strongly related. For example, the results of the study Judge & Ilies (2002) indicated that there was a negative correlation between general self-efficacy and neuroticism. Also, the results of this study showed that there were positive correlations between general self-efficacy and variables of extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness [ 21 ]. The results of another study indicated that, besides the four traits mentioned by Judge and Ilies (2002), agreeableness and general self-efficacy were significantly related, and neuroticism could negatively predict general self-efficacy [ 22 ]. Ebstrup et al. (2011) in their study, confirmed the findings of Judge and Ilies (2002) and showed that self-efficacy beliefs significantly predict the relationship between the four factors of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness [ 22 ].

For researchers, there is a question that self-efficacy is more influenced by personality traits or family factors? So far, no research has responded to this question. Responding to this question may help to a better understanding of this concept. On the other hand, it seems that to answer this important question, we need to study simultaneously (parallel), so that we can compare the results with each other.

A more comprehensive understanding of the interactions between family function and personality traits with self-efficacy seems necessary. There are claims in this regard that make the problem complicated and confusing. For example, some people believe that the impact of the life important persons (for example parents) in development of self - efficacy has been declared previously [ 23 , 24 ]. On the other hand, some researchers have confirmed that there is a relationship between self-efficacy and personality traits [ 22 ]. Their results showed that there is a relationship between all five big personality factors and self-efficacy [ 22 ].

Rationale and objectives

General Self-efficacy is a key variable in clinical, educational, social, growth, health and personality psychology that can affect the outcomes of people’s lives.

General self-efficacy plays a key role in academic achievement. The results of studies conducted on 23 countries worldwide indicated the fact that general self-efficacy and academic achievement have a positive relationship [ 25 ].

Considering the importance of self-efficacy in health, improving the performance and success of individuals in life and education, carrying out studies on self-efficacy among university students and other people seems necessary. Also, paying attention to the associated factors with general self-efficacy can help us to a better understanding of the matter of this concept. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between family functions and personality traits with general self-efficacy among university students and the general population.

In previous studies conducted in a statistical sample, personality and family variables were not investigated simultaneously. On the other hand, comparing correlations and impact coefficients in two statistically different age samples can help us better understand general self-efficacy.

Considering the importance of self-efficacy in daily life, and to allow for comparing the results between two different age groups, we have selected two distinct samples which made it possible to investigate and evaluate the relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy.

Also, this study was conducted to investigate the role of family functioning and personality traits in predicting general self-efficacy and we were looking for an answer to the question that which components of family functioning and personality traits play a greater role in predicting general self-efficacy?

Study design and participants

This correlational study included two parts. In the first part, the statistical population included all students at Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences in 2015. The age range of the participants was 18–27 years.

Sampling method in the first study, the random stratified sampling method was that each faculty was considered as a community category and within each category sampling was done by simple random sampling. Random selection of individuals in each faculty was done in such a way that first by throwing the dice and the number 4 came, the researcher selected the students who entered the faculty according to the multiple of 4 from the entrance of the university, and if desired and qualified Being entered into the study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the research. This process continued until the sample size was completed in each faculty. Thus, 500 people were selected as a sample from different faculties.

To determine the sample size, the Cochran’s sample size formula, depicted below, was used. Cochran’s Formula for estimating the size of the sample: \( n=\frac{Z_{1-\frac{\alpha }{2}}P\left(1-P\right)}{d^2} \) . (z = 1.96, d = 0.05, p  = 0.5). Based on this formula, the size of the sample was determined 350. Considering the possibility of a drop of participants and to decrease the second type error, the size of the sample for the study was determined 500.

Participants were asked to respond to the questionnaires. Detailed explanations on how to complete the questionnaires were provided by the researchers, and the participants were requested to ask for more clarification in case of encountering problems filling out the questionnaires. Further, the questionnaires were completed individually in the presence of the researchers. Finally, the questionnaires were collected and the obtained data were analyzed.

In the second part of the study, the statistical population included all individuals aged 20 to 60, have been living in Kermanshah City (Iran) for at least 5 years before the study and did not have the conditions for entering the student group.

For the second sample, 1000 participants were selected. Because of the lack of a list of the statistical population and the possibility to utilize random sampling (the most appropriate method in this study) two-stage cluster sampling was recognized. In this method, the city was first divided into six regions (the criterion was the municipal areas). After that, each area was divided into clusters and from each cluster, the samples were randomly selected.

Also, the random selection of individuals in each cluster was performed in this way that the researcher first stood on the main street of that area, and selected the passengers whose order of passing was according to the multiple of 4, then if they were willing, were included in the study according to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion.

Individuals volunteered to participate in this study and signed an informed consent form. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the information contained in the questionnaires. This study was registered in the Research Center of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences and approved by the local ethics committee.

Instruments

The data collection instruments were similar in both studies, and three questionnaires were used: the general self-efficacy scale (GSE), family assessment device (FAD), and the revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R).

The general self-efficacy scale

This 10-item psychometric scale with multiple choice questions (MCQ) was developed by Schwarzer, Jerusalem and Romek [ 26 ]. Moreover, each question can have a score of 1 to 4 (1 = not at all true, 2 = hardly true, 3 = moderately true, 4 = exactly true), and the total score of the questionnaire range from 10 to 40. Its Cronbach’s alpha and internal consistency coefficient have been reported to be .81–.91 [ 27 ]. This scale was normalized by Rajabi [ 28 ] in Iran (α = 0.82). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 for the first sample and 0.91 for the second one.

The family assessment device (FAD)

This 60-item scale was developed based on the McMaster model of family functions, and it measures the structural, occupational, and interactive characteristics of families. This model evaluates six dimensions of family function: 1- Problem-solving 2- Communication 3- Roles 4- Affective involvement 5- Behavior Control 6- Affective Response [ 29 ].

The response option for each statement was 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, and 4 = strongly disagree. After recoding positively oriented items, item scores were summed to obtain a total score, which could range from 60 to 240, with higher scores representing better functioning [ 30 ]. The scoring is based on the Likert spectrum, lower scores indicate healthier functioning. Furthermore, the reliability of the scale was reported .72–.92 [ 30 ]. The reliability and validity of this scale have been confirmed in various studies [ 31 ]. The FAD shows good reliability and validity, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient between 0.78 and 0.86 [ 32 ]. Also, Zadehmohamadi and Malekkhosravi (2006), by Cronbach’s alpha, the reliability coefficient for the total questionnaire 0.71 and the sub-scales, Problem-solving 0.72, Communication 0.70, Roles 0.71, Affective Involvement 0.73, Behavior Control 0.66, Affective Response 0.71 are reported [ 33 ]. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.86 for the first sample and 0.92 for the second one.

The revised NEO personality inventory

In the current study, the short form of the NEO Five Factor personality inventory was applied. In 1989, Costa and McCrae have designed the short form of the five factor inventory for measuring the five main personality traits, which included conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness, and extraversion. This questionnaire includes 60 items and only measures the five main personality traits. The procedure for developing this scale was such that using factor analysis, 12 questions with the highest factor weight for all five factors were selected to form the short form of the inventory [ 34 ]. The short form of the NEO Five Factor Inventory has been translated into many languages and has been validated many times. Roshanchsly et al. [ 35 ] and Pakdaman et al. [ 36 ], validated this inventory. The responses to the questions in this inventory are based on a five-option Likert spectrum ranging from “completely disagree = 5” to “completely agree = 1”. In the current study, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for the questionnaire on the first sample set was 0.79, while it was 0.66 for the second sample of the study. Furthermore, in the present study, the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O) were 0.71, 0.82, 0.86, 0.78, 0.75, respectively , for the students sample, and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience were 0.69, 0.80, 0.88, 0.71, and 0.70, respectively, for the general population. In a study, Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the scales were 0.84, 0.79, 0.74, 0.72, and 0.82 for N, E, O, A, and C respectively [ 37 ].

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used as mean and standard deviation. The One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed to evaluate the normal distribution of depression scores, personality traits, general self-efficacy, and family function. Pearson correlation coefficient test to investigate the relationship between personality traits and family function with general self-efficacy, Fisher’s z test to compare correlation coefficients and linear regression model to predict general self-efficacy (dependent variable) based on personality traits and family function (independents variable) were used. All analyses were performed using SPSS21 statistical software (JB39397R39KFC9) at a significant level of 5%.

The mean age in the students group (21.78 ± 2.28) was lower than the general population (33.49 ± 10.28) (Student’s t-test =25.18, < 0.001). In both groups, the majority of people were female, with a percentage of 58% in the student group and 55.8% in the general population, respectively. In Table  1 , the mean and standard deviations of the variables studied are in the whole sample.

To examine the relationship between family functions and personality traits with GSE in both groups selected for the study, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was employed.

The results of Table 2 showed that in both studies, there was a significant negative relationship between all family subscales and self-efficacy. This means that increasing self-efficacy is possible by reducing each of the subscales and the overall family function score.

In general, there was a significant negative relationship between total FAD and self-efficacy with a correlation coefficient of − 0.50 at the level of P  < 0.001 in the first study and with a correlation of − 42 at − 0 P < 0.001 in the second study (lower scores in FAD questionnaire indicate healthier functioning). On the other hand, only in the first study, there was a significant positive relationship between the openness to experience personality trait and self-efficacy ( p  < 0.05). Therefore, only among students increased the openness to experience personality by increasing self-efficacy. Also, the results showed that in the first and second studies, there was a significant positive relationship between the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness with self-efficacy. In that sense, that with the increase of each personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness), the level of self-efficacy increased. However, in both studies, the neuroticism personality trait with self-efficacy had a significant negative relationship with p  < 0.001 and this personality trait had a reverse effect on self-efficacy. Also, the results of Fisher test showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the correlations. Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between personality traits and self-efficacy was not influenced by the groups we studied.

In order to predict general self-efficacy based on family functions and personality traits, regression analysis was utilized (Table  3 ).

The results of the regression analysis of the first study showed that the subscales of family functions and personality traits together can predict 27% of the variance in general self-efficacy. Among the subscales of family functioning, the subscale of communication (− 0.15) and general functioning (− 0.18) could predict general self-efficacy. In addition, among the personality traits, neuroticism (− 0.14), extraversion (0.14), agreeableness (0.12) and conscientiousness (0.30) were able to predict general self-efficacy. These results showed that in the first study, the relationship between family function and personality traits of neuroticism had a significant role in decreasing self-efficacy, and personality traits of responsibility, extroversion and conscientiousness had a significant role in increasing self-efficacy.

Additionally, the results of enter method regression analysis indicated that among the predicting variables, conscientiousness can predict general self-efficacy the most. Also, in a separate regression analysis, in which the total score of family functions was entered into the equation, the results indicated that it could predict general self-efficacy with an effect size of − 0.15. Therefore, according to the results of analysis in the first study, it can be argued that conscientiousness plays the most prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy compared to all the other variables.

Furthermore, the results of the regression analysis in the second study revealed that the subscales of family functions and personality traits together could predict 35% of the variance in general self-efficacy. Among the subscales of family functioning, the subscales of communication, problem solving and general functioning were able to predict general self-efficacy. Additionally, neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness were able to predict general self-efficacy. The regression results also showed that in the second study, the relationship between subscales, Communication, Problem solving and General Functioning as well as personality traits of neuroticism have a significant and decreasing role in self-efficacy and also personality traits of responsibility, extroversion and conscientiousness have a significant and increasing role in self-efficacy.

Additionally, the results of enter method regression analysis indicated that among the predicting variables, conscientiousness can predict general self-efficacy the most. Also, in a separate regression analysis, in which the total score of family functions was entered into the equation, the results indicated that it could predict general self-efficacy with an effect size of − 0.20. So, according to the results of the analysis in the second study, it can be argued that conscientiousness played the most prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy compared to all the other variables.

Given that the status of the age variable in the second sample (the general publicatin) was different from that in the sample consisting of university students, it was decided that the role of age is to be controlled in the relationship between family function and personality traits and general self-efficacy (Table  4 ).

β Standardized coefficient in regression analyses.

The results of the analysis showed that, in the group aged under 30 years old, family functions and personality traits together were able to predict 47% of general self-efficacy, while this rate was equal to 29 and 53% in the 30–50 age range and the age group over 50 years old, respectively. Therefore, the highest impact of personality traits and family function on self-efficacy was in the age group above 50 and under the age group of 30 years.

The results depicted in Table 4 show that by controlling the age variable (split-half correlation), a significant relationship was found between all personality traits, except for openness to experience, and family functioning. Also, in the group aged less than 30 years old, the highest effect sizes belonged to general family functions and conscientiousness, respectively. Moreover, in the 30–50 age group, the highest effect size belonged to conscientiousness. In other words, conscientiousness played a prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy. As for the third age range, i.e. older than 50 years, agreeableness played a significant role in predicting general self-efficacy. Comparing the mean scores of general self-efficacy of the three age groups showed that there was no significant difference between these three groups with regards to general self-efficacy.

For controlling the role of age in predicting self-efficacy in the second sample, multiple regression analysis was used, and the results are presented in Table  5 . The results of the analysis showed that age had a moderating role in the relationship between variables.

Our findings revealed that there was a relationship between family functions and general self-efficacy in both studies. This means that the healthier functioning of the family, the higher the general self-efficacy of its members. These results were in line with the results of studies conducted by Hall [ 38 ]; Caprara et al. [ 39 ]; Hoeltje et al. [ 40 ]; Lotfinia et al. [ 41 ].

To explain the relationship between family functions and general self-efficacy, it is noteworthy that a healthy family with optimum functioning is supported by its members, and general self-efficacy can be strengthened by social support [ 42 ]. Additionally, families with optimum functioning boast parenting styles that can nurture self-efficacy beliefs [ 12 ]. Moreover, the most important explanation for this part of the results is Bandura’s perspective based on social learning the family is regarded as one of the crucial sources for imitation and mimicking of general self-efficacy, and parental behaviors and lifestyles are effective patterns for nurturing general self-efficacy [ 12 ].

The children of from families with proper functioning are free to have their say and are provided with the opportunity to express their thoughts on various issues and make suggestions when necessary. As a result, this feeling is bred that they will be able to find suitable solutions for problems, believe in their abilities, and experience higher efficacy. Also, children can express their strengths and weaknesses without any fear in dialogue and interaction-inducing atmosphere, resulting in strengthening one’s beliefs in their strengths, their ability to find solutions to their weaknesses, and their general self-efficacy.

The results of the present study suggested that the general family functions had the strongest correlation with general self-efficacy among all the components of family functions in both groups. The results also showed that there was a relationship between all personality traits and general self-efficacy in the first study, while in the second one, four personality traits and general self-efficacy were correlated, and no relationship was observed between openness to experience and general self-efficacy. In addition, the results of the present study indicated that conscientiousness had the strongest correlation with general self-efficacy in both groups.

Furthermore, the results of studies carried out by Judge and Ilies (2002), Caprara et al. (2005), Stroble et al. (2011),, Gerhardt et al. (2007), and McGeown et al. (2014) indicated that personality traits and general self-efficacy were correlated, which is consistent with the results of the present study [ 21 , 39 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. According to the results of the present study, it can be expressed that the higher neuroticism trait is accompanied with the lower general self-efficacy. Additionally, it can be stated that the more the features of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience are increased, the higher increased the general self-efficacy will be, and vice versa. Judge et al. (2007) and Saleem et al. (2011) concluded that self-efficacy was correlated with personality traits, especially neuroticism and extraversion [ 46 , 47 ]. Also, the results of a study on teachers showed that self-efficacy was positively correlated with conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness, whereas no relationship was observed between neuroticism and self-efficacy [ 48 ]. In this study, agreeableness and general self-efficacy were strongly related, and the reasons for the inconsistency of the results could be the sample size and the instrument employed for measuring general self-efficacy.

Also people with neuroticism display incompatibility when faced with tough conditions, and so they are not capable of managing and controlling situations, and have low self-esteem. Therefore, general self-efficacy is also low [ 48 ]. On the other hand, extroverts seek the support of others when faced with tough conditions because of their high flexibility [ 39 , 49 ]. They also receive the encouragement of others because of higher sociability, leading to placing more emphasis on one’s capabilities and competency [ 50 ]. Besides, extroverts tend to express their ideas and feelings, which is deemed a great source for general self-efficacy [ 12 ].

To better explain the relationship between general self-efficacy and openness to experience, it can be stated that one with this personality trait will be interested in experiencing new and unfamiliar things [ 51 ]. That is why they feel that they can handle academic tasks and assignments and feel bound to carry out their tasks, increasing their efforts because they believe in themselves which will help them reach general self-efficacy. Moreover, those who are open to experience tend to meet challenging situations and get less disappointed when faced with unexpected situations; rather, they embrace such situations and display this characteristic most of the time [ 50 ].

The results of the present study showed that conscientiousness and general self-efficacy were correlated, which is consistent with the results of studies carried out by Colquitt & Simmering (1998) and Jones & Green (2001). It can be argued that it is not unexpected that one with more conscientiousness will have more general self-efficacy because they probably believe in their abilities and limitations and select realizable goals for themselves. People with conscientiousness are characterized as being diligent, feeling duty bound, not giving up in the face of obstacles, and being goal-oriented. They also perform their tasks carefully, which will help them achieve success, that will in turn result in the formation of feelings of competence and general self-efficacy [ 52 , 53 ]. On the other hand, people with conscientiousness often work in groups, benefiting from the support of the group [ 49 ]. Therefore, the higher the level of one’s conscientiousness, the higher their general self-efficacy [ 21 ].

We suggested that there is a significant relationship between agreeableness and general self-efficacy among the students. However, in the general population (the second study), this relationship is not significant. To explain this finding of the study, we have to focus on the characteristics of the participants in the two samples since considering the age range of the students, agreeableness will be higher, and this trait is reduced when age increases.

The study results revealed that the subscales of family functions and personality traits together can predict between 27 and 35% of the general self-efficacy. These results explain that between 27 and 35% of the general self-efficacy is under the influence of family functions and personality traits, future researches can find other related variables.

Reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory which was introduced by Bandura [ 54 ] explains the relationships among the environment, self, and behavior. Our study is matching this theory, because we investigated the family function and personality traits, so we considered the environment (Family), self (personality traits), and behavior (general self- efficacy).

Our results revealed that conscientiousness played the most prominent role in predicting general self-efficacy compared to all other variables.

Given the values of the regression coefficients in the regression analysis, it can be concluded that general self-efficacy is more personality-oriented and is highly influenced by personality traits, which is in line with theories stressing that general self-efficacy is personality-oriented. On the other hand, this finding can be intriguing for psychologists and behavioral science researchers.

We concluded that after controlling the age variable, a significant relationship was found between family functions and all personality traits, except for openness to experience, among the general population. In addition, in the group aged less than 30 years old, the general family functions and conscientiousness had the strongest correlations with general self-efficacy, respectively. This result is inconsistent with the general findings of the present study, indicating the importance of family in this age range. Moreover, in the 30–50 age range, the highest effect size belonged to conscientiousness. In other words, conscientiousness plays an important role in predicting general self-efficacy, which is in line with the overall findings of the present study. As for the third age group, i.e. those over the age of 50, agreeableness plays a considerable role in predicting general self-efficacy. The role of the age should be considered to determine which factor has more influence on self-efficacy, however, general self-efficacy is not influenced by age since the results of our study showed that there was no relationship between age and general self-efficacy.

As a result, Annesi (2007) reported that no change in general self-efficacy was seen by changing age [ 55 ].

The results of this study led us to the conclusion that self-efficacy is influenced by personality traits and these traits are more influenced by genetics and nature. It is suggested that in future research, the contribution of each of the nature and nurture factors in the formation of self-efficacy be determined.

Limitations and strengths

Our study has several limitations. Due to the length of the research questionnaire questions, it may affect the accuracy of the participants’ answers. Therefore, it is suggested that shorter forms of these questionnaires be used in future research. Also, this research was conducted in one of the Kurdish cities of western Iran (Kermanshah), so the generalization of these results to other cultures and cities of Iran and the world should be cautious. Finally, the cross-sectional design was another limitation of the present study. It is recommended that longitudinal design be performed in the future. This study was conducted with a large sample conducted in western Iran. Also, participants were evaluated in the study sample by trained and experienced individuals.

Conclusions

This study again highlights the role and importance of personality traits for researchers and psychologists. Since general self-efficacy plays an essential role in psychosocial health and human progression. This leads us to realize that the effect of personality traits can be considered through self-efficacy on psychosocial health and performance. However, other studies need to investigate the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between personality traits and psychosocial health and performance.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

General Self-Efficacy Scale

Family Assessment Device

Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Multiple choice questions

Neuroticism

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Openness to experience

Baljani E, Rahimi J, Amanpour E, Salimi S, Parkhashjoo M. Effects of a nursing intervention on improving self-efficacy and reducing cardiovascular risk factors in patients with cardiovascular diseases. J Hayat. 2011;17(1):45–54.

Google Scholar  

Greene BA, Miller RB, Crowson HM, Duke BL, Akey KL. Predicting high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2004;29(4):462–82.

Wingo BC, Desmond RA, Brantley P, Appel L, Svetkey L, Stevens VJ, et al. Self-efficacy as a predictor of weight change and behavior change in the PREMIER trial. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013;45(4):314–21.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lee Y-H, Salman A, Fitzpatrick JJ. HIV/AIDS preventive self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, and risky sexual behavior in adolescents: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(5):653–60.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Rezaei M, Zakiei A, Reshadat S, Ghasemi SR. The role of individual and personality factors in controlling risky behaviours related to AIDS: proposing a causal model. Personal Ment Health. 2017;11(1):51–63.

Mizutani S, Ekuni D, Furuta M, Tomofuji T, Irie K, Azuma T, et al. Effects of self-efficacy on oral health behaviours and gingival health in university students aged 18-or 19-years-old. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39(9):844–9.

Sterling KL, Diamond PM, Mullen PD, Pallonen U, Ford KH, McAlister AL. Smoking-related self-efficacy, beliefs, and intention: assessing factorial validity and structural relationships in 9th–12th grade current smokers. Addict Behav. 2007;32(9):1863–76.

Caprara GV, Barbaranelli C, Pastorelli C, Cervone D. The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs to psychosocial outcomes in adolescence: predicting beyond global dispositional tendencies. Personal Individ Differ. 2004;37(4):751–63.

Bandura A, Locke EA. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(1):87–9.

Ghasemi R, Rajabi-Gilan N, Reshadat S, Zakiei A, Zangeneh A, Saedi S. The relationship of social support and self-efficacy with mental health and life satisfaction. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2017;27(147):228–39.

Mortan RA, Ripoll P, Carvalho C, Bernal MC. Effects of emotional intelligence on entrepreneurial intention and self-efficacy. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2014;30(3):97–104.

Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. NewYork: W.H. Freemn & Company; 1997.

Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. J Manag. 2012;38(1):9–44.

Kalmijn M, Uunk W. Regional value differences in Europe and the social consequences of divorce: A test of the stigmatization hypothesis. Soc Sci Res. 2007;36(2):447–68.

Boterhoven de Haan KL, Hafekost J, Lawrence D, Sawyer MG, Zubrick SR. Reliability and validity of a short version of the general functioning subscale of the McMasterFamily assessment device. Fam Process. 2015;54(1):116–23.

Epstein NB, Bishop DS, Levin S. The McMaster model of family functioning. J Marital Fam Ther. 1978;4(4):19–31.

Asendorpf JB. Persönlichkeitspsychologie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011.

McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. A five-factor theory of personality. In: John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA, editors. Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York: Guilford Press; 1999.

Roccas S, Sagiv L, Schwartz SH, Knafo A. The big five personality factors and personal values. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2002;28(6):789–801.

Shi J, Yao Y, Zhan C, Mao Z, Yin F, Zhao X. The relationship between big five personality traits and psychotic experience in a large non-clinical youth sample: the mediating role of emotion regulation. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:648.

Judge TA, Ilies R. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. J Appl Psychol. 2002;87(4):797–807.

Ebstrup JF, Eplov LF, Pisinger C, Jørgensen T. Association between the five factor personality traits and perceived stress: is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety Stress Coping. 2011;24(4):407–19.

Pajares F. Self-efficacy during childhoodand adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. 2006;5:339–67.

Astray-Caneda V, Busbee M, Fanning M. Social learning theory and prison work release programs. In: Plakhotnik MS, Nielsen SM, Pane DM, editors. Proceedings of the tenth annual College of Education & GSN research conference. Miami: Florida International University; 2013. p. 2–8.

Schwarzer R, Luszczynska A. Self-efficacy, adolescents’ risk-taking behaviors, and health. Self-efficacy Beliefs Adolescents. 2006;5:139–59.

Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M, Romek V. Russian version of the general self-efficacy scale. Foreign Psychology (Moskow). 1996;7:71–7.

Schwarzer R, Born A. Optimistic self-beliefs: assessment of general perceived self-efficacy in thirteen cultures. World Psychol. 1997;3(1–2):177–90.

Rajabi G. Reliability and validity of the general self-efficacy beliefs scale (gse-10) comparing the psychology students of shahid chamrin university and azad university of Marvdasht. New Thoughts Educ. 2006;2(1–2):111–22.

Miller IW, Ryan CE, Kietner GI, Bishop DS, Epstein NB. The McMaster approach to families: theory, assessment, treatment and research. J Fam Ther. 2000;21:168–89.

Georgiades K, Boyle MH, Jenkins JM, Sanford M, Lipman E. A multilevel analysis of whole family functioning using the McMaster family assessment device. J Fam Psychol. 2008;22(3):344.

Fogarty CT. Evaluating and treating families: the mcmaster approach. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;11(4):176.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nooripour R, Tamini BK, Abbaspour P, Alikhani M. Investigation of family functioning and parental tensioning in addicts. Int J Ment Heal Addict. 2016;14(1):82–5.

Zadehmohamadi A, Malek khosravi, G. Preliminary study of psychometric properties and validation of family assessment device (FAD). J Fam Res. 2006;2(5):69–89.

Garossifarshi M. New approaches in personality assessment application of factor analysis in personality. Tabriz: Daniel Press; 2002.

Roshanchsly R, Shaeiri M, Atryfrd M, Nikkhah A, Qaem-Maqami B, Rahimi-Rad A. Psychometric properties of “five-factor NEO personality inventory NEO-FFI”. J Daneshvar-Raftar. 2007;16:27–36.

Pakdaman S, Atashpoor B, Asgari A. The relationship between personality and academic achievement. J Iranian Psychologists. 1998;16:96–105.

Furnham A, Crump J. Personality correlates of passive-aggressiveness: a NEO-PI-R domain and facet analysis of the HDS Leisurely scale. J Mental Health (Abingdon, England). 2017;26(6):496–501.

Hall AS. Expanding academic and career self-efficacy: A family systems framework. J Counseling Development: JCD. 2003;81(1):33–9.

Caprara GV, Pastorelli C, Regalia C, Scabini E, Bandura A. Impact of adolescents’ filial self-efficacy on quality of family functioning and satisfaction. J Res Adolesc. 2005;15(1):71–97.

Hoeltje CO, Silbum SR, Garton AF, Zubrick SR. Generalized self-efficacy: family and adjustment correlates. J Clin Child Psychol. 1996;25(4):446–53.

Lotfinia H, Mohebb N, Abdoli E. A study of the relationship between self-efficacy and general health with family function on male high-school grade students. Instr Eval. 2013;23(6):41–54.

Lundberg CA, McIntire DD, Creasman CT. Sources of social support and self-efficacy for adult students. J Coll Couns. 2008;11(1):58–73.

Strobel M, Tumasjan A, Spörrle M. Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: self-efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-being. Scand J Psychol. 2011;52(1):43–8.

Gerhardt MW, Rode JC, Peterson SJ. Exploring mechanisms in the personality–performance relationship: mediating roles of self-management and situational constraints. Personal Individ Differ. 2007;43(6):1344–55.

McGeown SP, Putwain D, Simpson EG, Boffey E, Markham J, Vince A. Predictors of adolescents’ academic motivation: personality, self-efficacy and adolescents’ characteristics. Learn Individ Differ. 2014;32:278–86.

Judge TA, Jackson CL, Shaw JC, Scott BA, Rich BL. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92(1):107–27.

Saleem H, Beaudry A, Croteau A-M. Antecedents of computer self-efficacy: A studyof the role of personality traits and gender. Comput Hum Behav. 2011;27(5):1922–36.

Pandey N, Kavitha M. Relationship between Teachers’ personality traits and self efficacy: an empirical analysis of school teachers in Karaikal region. Pac Bus Rev Int. 2015;8(3):37–42.

Fredickson B. The role of positive emotionsin positive psychology. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):218–26.

Redmond B. Self-efficacy theory: Do I think that I can succeed in my work; 2010.

McCrae RR, Costa PT. Updating Norman’s “adequacy taxonomy”: intelligence and personality dimensionsin natural language and in questionnaires. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;49(3):710–21.

Colquitt JA, Simmering MJ. Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(4):654–65.

Jones J, Green B. The relationships among self-regulationmotivation and personality traits of college students. Division C: section 5. Holt: Reinhart & Winston; 2001.

Bandura A. Social cognitive theory. In: Vasta R, editor. Annals of child development. Six theories of child development, vol. 6. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1989. p. 1–60.

Annesi JJ. Relations of age with changes in self-efficacy and physical self-concept in preadolescents participating in a physical activity intervention during afterschool care. Percept Mot Skills. 2007;105(1):221–6.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Substance abuse prevention research center and clinical Research Development Unit (CRDU) of Imam Khomeini, Mohammad Kermanshahi and Farabi Hospital, University of Medical sciences, Kermanshah, Iran for their support, cooperation and assistance throughout the period of study.

This article is the result of the findings of the research project 95091that was approved and financed by Vice Chancellor for research and Research and Technology, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. The funder had a role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Sleep Disorders Research Center, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

Hosna Vafapoor

Substance Abuse Prevention Research Center, Health Institute, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

Mostafa Alikhani, Vahid Farnia & Farnaz Radmehr

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AZ, MA conceived, designed, evaluated, and drafted the manuscript, HF, FR Data collection, AZ conduct data analyses, VF, MA, FR, AZ interpreted findings and revised the manuscript, VF contributed to grammar editing, All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farnaz Radmehr .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

All participants gave their signed written informed consent. The Medical Research and Ethical Committee of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences (Kermanshah, Iran; registration No. IR.KUMS.REC. 1395.69) approved the study, which was performed under the ethical principles laid down in the seventh and current edition (2013) of the Declaration of Helsinki.

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.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., additional file 3., 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.

Zakiei, A., Vafapoor, H., Alikhani, M. et al. The relationship between family function and personality traits with general self-efficacy (parallel samples studies). BMC Psychol 8 , 88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00462-w

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2020

Accepted : 21 August 2020

Published : 27 August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00462-w

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

• General self-efficacy
• Personality traits
• Family functions

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

American Compass

• Compass Point
• The Edgerton Essays
• Talkin’ (Policy) Shop

• Globalization
• Financialization
• Understanding America

• Conservative Economics Family, community, and industry provide the foundation for our nation’s liberty and prosperity -->
• Productive Markets Family, community, and industry provide the foundation for our nation’s liberty and prosperity -->
• Supportive Communities Family, community, and industry provide the foundation for our nation’s liberty and prosperity -->
• Responsive Politics Family, community, and industry provide the foundation for our nation’s liberty and prosperity -->

• Annual Report

Family Form Follows Function

Effective family policy begins from the institution's ultimate roles and purposes., recommended reading.

It seems fitting that the best summation of contemporary policymakers’ approach to families was delivered by a dancing purple dinosaur :

A family is people and a family is love, that’s a family. They come in all different sizes and all different kinds, but mine’s just right for me.

As children’s programming goes, so goes the nation. Our policymakers prefer that no one feel left out, promoted, or discriminated against, and so “family policy” is too often just a gloss on the conventional progressive agenda with an ever-expanding definition of family – parents, kids, relatives, would-be parents, “ chosen families ,” roommates , the “ socially infertile ,” pets , and so on.

Indeed, without a definition of what actually constitutes a family, or an understanding of why it deserves special treatment, “family policy” turns out to be essentially an expensive commitment to nothing in particular. As the long-time policy scholar Allan Carlson observed , “If there can be no definition [of family] that excludes any form of human cohabitation, then what is a family policy trying to save, or restore, or strengthen, or help?”

It thus falls to conservatives to stress that family is more than a contract between two consenting adults, that the definition of the family must necessarily leave some on the outside. Certainly, few conservatives have the stomach for yet another beating in the culture war over “family values.” But that should not preclude pressing for a definition that is empirically grounded and conceptually clear, buttressed by economic and sociological research confirming conservatives’ intuition: that families matter for children, adults, and society.

A long tradition within the center-right – from Burke and Tocqueville to Nisbet and Moynihan to Quayle and Santorum – has stressed the importance of the family and the significance of its decline. It has understood the family in a sociological context: as an essential institution for instilling habits of self-giving and for bearing and rearing of children, as the vehicle by which, to paraphrase Hannah Arendt , the barbarians of each generation are brought into being and then civilized. But appreciating this economic and social role – as the locus of society’s literal regeneration – also means drawing clear lines. Family requires a sense of mutual obligation and procreation. Without these, it becomes an institution of convenience.

Just as our dominant cultural paradigm of autonomy has subsumed vows and responsibilities to desire and self-actualization, so too has marriage itself evolved. The “companionate marriage” of the twentieth century has given way to the “individualized marriage” of today. As tying the knot become a mark of prestige instead of a rite of passage, Andrew Cherlin notes, marriage has become less a cornerstone than a capstone. This evolution has benefited those with means to pursue such self-expression. But as Kay Hymowitz observes, it has been disaster for those without. Indeed, marriage rates among the college-educated have remained relatively steady, while those of the working class fall ever further.

“Family requires a sense of mutual obligation and procreation. Without these, it becomes an institution of convenience.”

Meanwhile, the evidence of the basic social and economic bases for the two-parent family remain. Marriage continues to instill norms of maturity and self-control, especially for men, who appear to work harder and more effectively after marriage, earning a significant marriage premium . Family structure continues to have tremendous importance for children’s well-being.

Children who grow up in single-parent households are more likely to grow up in environments with more stress and fewer financial assets , have lower incomes , lower educational attainment and less economic mobility , and are less likely to be married as adults. An academic journal (for whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I once interned as a research assistant,) published by the not-especially-conservative Brookings Institution and Princeton University encapsulated the growing conventional wisdom in 2015 :

Reams of social science and medical research convincingly show that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances.

To be fair, none of the research around marriage and family life is unassailable. Until ethics review boards approve experiments that randomly assign children to single parents or adults to placebo marriages, it will be difficult to say research is capturing the causal impact of being married or having two married parents. Even so, no one gets married because of a regression analysis.

Indeed, the real benefits of family life are immeasurable: the ways it shapes those within it, nudging them to subsume selfishness, lust, greed, and the other vices in pursuit of the good of the other. In his classic 1976 Harper’s essay , “The Family Out of Favor,” Michael Novak outlined this essential function of the family:

The family is the seedbed of economic skills, money habits, attitudes toward work, and the arts of financial independence. The family is a stronger agency of educational success than the school. The family is a stronger teacher of the religious imagination than the church…If infants are injured here, not all the institutions of society can put them back together.

Some benefits of family life are economic and social, yes – we provide daily bread and companionship for our loved ones – but the lessons it teaches us are also valuable for their own sake. We do not teach our children respect, kindness, and self-control for their instrumental, but for their intrinsic value. Indeed, family life is one of the few remaining institutions that operate outside the logic of the marketplace.

No one charges rent to a four-year-old or bills a parent for services rendered. Opportunities to inculcate the habits of self-sacrifice and devotion, of giving without expectation of reward, are few and far between in the modern meritocracy. (This, in passing, is why the nomenclature of a “parenting wage” is a misguided attempt to sell broader child benefits – parenting is certainly hard work, but it’s not a job.) We need children to be formed by more institutions, not fewer, who run to rhythms not set by the pace of post-industrial capitalism.

“Cultural and economic trends have transformed the ideal and logic of child-bearing from part of the base package of family life to an expensive add-on.”

But cultural and economic trends have transformed the ideal and logic of child-bearing from part of the base package of family life to an expensive add-on. The shift can be seen in public polling. In 1962, the share of American mothers who felt that “all married couples who can, ought to have children” stood at 84 percent. The next year, as Phillip Larkin informs us , sexual intercourse began, and not even two decades later, that same fraction was down to 43 percent . In polite company today, of course, the fraction would be far below that.

As children have become less common, a cultural feedback loop has kicked in. Kids are no longer expected parts of society; they are stricken from wedding invitations, forgotten about in street design, treated as unprofitable liabilities in the cities of the “creative class.” Such subtle anti-natalism has spread from the elite, who treat parenthood as one more lifestyle to try on between career changes, to the working class, for whom, according to the sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas , marriage “is no longer primarily about child-bearing and -rearing. Now marriage is primarily about adult fulfillment.”

We see the result in today’s low fertility rates. A society that treats child-bearing as simply one consumer option among many cedes too much to the hedonists. Stressing families’ procreative dimension provides a rationale for a family policy distinct from any other worthy economic policy goals. Conservatives are used to reminding society that children need families; they must now emphasize that families need children.

At the same time, progressive activists on the bleeding-edge of the zeitgeist want to diversify the family, not to bury it. Part of their critiques draw blood. There is nothing preordained about the white picket fence and 2.5 kids, and a post-industrial economy chews up extended families for lunch – upwardly-aspirational careers lead to moves, large families are penalized , and the (often messy) relationships between parents, relatives, and children are attenuated . The nuclear family of the 1950s, as David Brooks pointed out in The Atlantic , is in some ways the aberration from the more clan-like environment which was the norm for much of human history. Conservatives owe the former first lady an apology – it really does take a village.

“Conservatives are used to reminding society that children need families; they must now emphasize that families need children.”

But the deconstructivists have no intention of reifying the support of extended families or building multigenerational housing. They instead seek to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure” and to replace it with a new paradigm, pioneered by the LGBT community facing the scourge of AIDS in the 1980s: so-called “chosen families.” Of course, extrapolating from those extreme circumstances makes for a conceptual muddle. Such relationships were hardly chosen, but rather “forged” out of tragedy and suffering until they recreated elements of domestic life that provide support and solace. That the progressives now seek to ratify “chosen families” into law stresses, contra Barney, that family is more than just “people” and “love.” Even our language around marriage – mother-in-law, son-in-law – suggests the importance of legal structures to supplement the voluntary formation of a new family with bonds that mimic kinship as closely as possible.

If new arrangements can recreate some of the till-death-to-us-part ideals embodied in the traditional family, so much the better. That does not obviate the need for a social institution, codified in law and supported in public policy, intended to be the locus of childbirth and child-rearing, nor erase the fact that for most people, the tried-and-true institution of family life is the best chance to experience that level of commitment. The parent-child bond stretches and shapes us into varying roles across the life-cycle – provider, caretaker, nurturer, teacher, dependent – that are categorically different from choosing a committed roommate or joining a collective of like-minded individuals.

Progressives prefer to address policy at the level of the ethnic or social group; libertarians stress the unencumbered individual. Conservatives’ emphasis on family has often been heavy with cultural rhetoric but light on economic prescription. Such a strategy will no longer suffice. The biggest threat to families in the twenty-first century is neither the oppressive hand of the state nor the elusive reins of the culture, but the seductive capacity of the market to attenuate bonds of unchosen obligation. The family cannot be left exposed and expect to emerge unscathed.

Families used to have a near-monopoly on certain goods – long-term affection and companionship, procreation, efficiencies of scale. These all now face increasingly stiff competition. Individual fulfillment is now the name of the game, and the family’s core competencies can increasingly be outsourced – an app for your next sex partner, a surrogate to bear your next child, an educational system happy to relieve you of the duties of moral formation , and, in old age, a robot to change your bed pans. Without counterbalancing intervention, letting the market do what markets do best – isolating components, optimizing for efficiency, and sanding away the stickiness of non-monetizable goods like family and community – will continue to undermine the family.

So long as our shared understanding of family is essentially formless and detached from its social functions, we will struggle to justify anything but a laissez-faire attitude to family policy.  Family is the institution in which the next generation is born and bred by two parents, where young and old alike acquire habits of self-sacrifice, where we civilize our barbarians. Building a policy and legal framework that acknowledge and support that institution is the work that lies ahead.

Recommended Reading

Why Parents Need the Flexibility of Cash Payments More Than Universal Child Care

W. Bradford Wilcox cites the findings of American Compass’s 2021 Home Building Survey in a piece about why families prefer cash payments to subsidized child care programs.

We Need to Listen Better to Working-Class Parents

The Ethics and Public Public Policy Center’s Patrick T. Brown highlights the American Compass Child Tax Credit Survey in a discussion of what working-class parents want from family policy.

Is a New Entitlement Program the Solution for Working Families?

How does the Fisc stack up? Better than a universal child allowance, though I still have concerns.

Join our mailing list to receive our latest research, news, and commentary.

Subscribe to receive updates, previews, and more.

Essay on Importance of Family for Students and Children

500 words essay on importance of family.

In today’s world when everything is losing its meaning, we need to realize the importance of family more than ever. While the world is becoming more modern and advanced, the meaning of family and what stands for remains the same.

A family is a group of people who are related by blood or heritage. These people are linked not only by blood but also by compassion, love, and support. A person’s character and personality are shaped by his or her family. There are various forms of families in today’s society. It is further subdivided into a tight and extended family (nuclear family, single parent, step-family, grandparent, cousins, etc.)

Family – A synonym for trust, comfort, love, care, happiness and belonging. Family is the relationship that we share from the moment we are born into this world. People that take care of us and help us grow are what we call family, and they become lifelines for us to live. Family members have an important role in deciding an individual’s success or failure in life since they provide a support system and source of encouragement.

It does not matter what kind of family one belongs to. It is all equal as long as there are caring and acceptance. You may be from a joint family, same-sex partner family, nuclear family, it is all the same. The relationships we have with our members make our family strong. We all have unique relations with each family member. In addition to other things, a family is the strongest unit in one’s life.

Things That Strengthens The Family

A family is made strong through a number of factors. The most important one is of course love. You instantly think of unconditional love when you think of family. It is the first source of love you receive in your life It teaches you the meaning of love which you carry on forever in your heart.

Secondly, we see that loyalty strengthens a family. When you have a family, you are devoted to them. You stick by them through the hard times and celebrate in their happy times. A family always supports and backs each other. They stand up for each other in front of a third party trying to harm them proving their loyalty.

Most importantly, the things one learns from their family brings them closer. For instance, we learn how to deal with the world through our family first. They are our first school and this teaching strengthens the bond. It gives us reason to stand by each other as we share the same values.

No matter what the situation arises, your family will never leave you alone. They will always stand alongside you to overcome the hardships in life. If anyone is dealing with any kind of trouble, even a small talk about it to the family will make ones’ mind lighter and will give them a sense of hope, an inner sense of strength to fight those problems.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Importance of Family

One cannot emphasize enough on the importance of family. They play a great role in our lives and make us better human beings. The one lucky enough to have a family often do not realize the value of a family.

However, those who do not have families know their worth. A family is our source of strength. It teaches us what relationships mean. They help us create meaningful relationships in the outside world. The love we inherit from our families, we pass on to our independent relationships.

Moreover, families teach us better communication . When we spend time with our families and love each other and communicate openly, we create a better future for ourselves. When we stay connected with our families, we learn to connect better with the world.

Similarly, families teach us patience. It gets tough sometimes to be patient with our family members. Yet we remain so out of love and respect. Thus, it teaches us patience to deal better with the world. Families boost our confidence and make us feel loved. They are the pillars of our strength who never fall instead keep us strong so we become better people.

We learn the values of love, respect, faith, hope, caring, cultures, ethics, traditions, and everything else that concerns us through our families. Being raised in a loving household provides a solid foundation for anyone.

People develop a value system inside their family structure in addition to life lessons. They learn what their family considers to be proper and wrong, as well as what the community considers to be significant.

Families are the epicentres of tradition. Many families keep on traditions by sharing stories from the past over the years. This allows you to reconnect with family relatives who are no longer alive. A child raised in this type of household feels as if they are a part of something bigger than themselves. They’ll be proud to be a part of a community that has had ups and downs. Communities thrive when families are strong. This, in turn, contributes to a robust society.

Q.1 What strengthens a family?

A.1 A family’s strength is made up of many factors. It is made of love that teaches us to love others unconditionally. Loyalty strengthens a family which makes the members be loyal to other people as well. Most importantly, acceptance and understanding strengthen a family.

Q.2 Why is family important?

A.2 Families are very important components of society and people’s lives. They teach us a lot about life and relationships. They love us and treat us valuably. They boost our self-confidence and make us feel valued. In addition, they teach us patience to deal with others in a graceful and accepting manner.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Family Structure and Function

Cite this chapter.

• Janice L. Benson  

72 Accesses

4 Citations

What is special or different about the urban family, if anything? This chapter will attempt to answer this question in five ways. First, some definitions of terms are provided. Second, common types of families will be presented via selected 1980 census data, showing the composition of families and households in the United States as a whole and those in urbanized environments. Third, a theory will be presented that relates family structure historically to the way in which people make a living. This theory may justify the idea that there are unique organizational features found in the urban environment. Fourth, certain structural aspects of the families of the urban poor will be presented. The nuclear family, still the most common type of family household in rural or urban settings, will not be discussed as such because it is well-represented in other family practice textbooks. 1

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Ramsey C Jr, Lewis J: Family structure and functioning. In: Rakel R (ed). The Textbook of Family Practice. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, 1984, pp 21–40.

Google Scholar  

McGoldrick M, Pearce J, and Giordano J: Ethnicity and Family Therapy. Guildford, New York, 1982, pp 23–24, 45–50.

Wald E: The Remarried Family. Family Service Association of America, New York, 1981, pp 178–188.

Smilkstein G: The family APGAR: J Fam Pract 6:1231–1239, 1978.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Minuchin S, Montalvo B, Guerney B Jr et al.: Families of the Slums. Basic Books, New York, 1967, pp 232–233, 358.

Aponte H: Psychotherapy for the poor: an ecostructural approach to treatment. In:Erickson G, Hogan T (eds.). Family Therapy, An Introduction to Therapy and Technique, 2nd edit. Brooks/Cote, Monterey, California, 1981, pp 255–264.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census, 103rd edit: 1982–1983, U.S. Government Printing Office, pp 2–4, 45.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census, 103rd edit: 1982–1983, U.S. Government Printing Office, p 43.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: County and City Data Book, 1983, p 1, xxviii, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1983.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census, 103rd edit: 1982–1983, U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 43.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census, 103rd edit: 1982–1983, U.S. Government Printing Office, p 44.

Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Census, 103rd edit: 1982–1983, U.S. Government Printing Office, p 45.

Winch R: Toward a model of familial organization. In: Burr W, Hill R, Nye F, Reiss I (eds.). Contemporary Theories About the Family, Vol 1. The Free Press, New York, 1979, pp 162–179.

Blumberg R, Winch R: Societal complexity and familial complexity: evidence for the curvilinear hypothesis. Am J Sociology 77:898–920, 1971.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bott E: Conjugal roles and social networks. In: Coser R: The Family: Its Structure and Functions. 2nd edit. St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1974, pp 318–333.

Schneider D, Smith R: Class Differences and Sex Roles in American Kinship and Family Structure. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973, p 43.

Gans H: The Urban Villagers; Group and class in the life of Italian Americans. Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp 45–74.

Gutman H: The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom. 1750–1925. Pantheon Books, New York, 1976, pp 455–856.

Blumberg R, Garcia M: The political economy of the mother-child family. In: Lenero-Otero L: Beyond the Nuclear Family Model, Beverly Hills, California, Sage, 1977, pp 99–164.

DuBois WEB: The Negro American Family. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1970, pp 28, 36, 132.

Billingsley A, Giovanni J: Children of the Storm: Black Children and American Child Welfare. NY, Harcourt-Brace-Jovanovich, New York, 1972, pp 15–17, 21.

Bossard J, Boll E: The Large Family System. In: Minuchin S, Montalvo B, Guerney B Jr (eds.). University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1956.

Wilson H, Herbert G: Parents and Children in the Inner City. Routledge, Direct Editions, London, 1978, pp 180–186.

Billingsley A: Black Families in White America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968, p 156.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: County and City. Data Book, US Government Printing Office, 1983, p 4.

Ross H, Sawhill I: Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by Women, Wash. D.C., The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, 1975, pp 5, 77, 121.

Furstenberg F Jr: Unplanned Parenthood. Free Press, New York, 1974, p 1.

Stein H: Lessons of the Revolution: A Critical Event and the Contexts of Family Systems Medicine, Family Systems Medicine 1:31–36, 1983.

Doherty W, Baird M: Family Therapy and Family Medicine. The Guilford Press, New York, 1983, pp 11–28.

Scanzoni J: The Black Family in Modem Society. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1971, p 309.

Walter J, Leahy W, Dobbelaire A: Deprived Urban Youth: An economic and cross cultural analysis of the U.S., Columbia and Peru. Praeger, New York, 1975, pp 132–137.

Aldous J, Osmond M, Hicks M: Men’s work and men’s families. In: Contemporary Theories of the Family, Vol 1. The Free Press, New York, 1979, pp 227–256.

The Pope From Greenwich Village, film released 1984, MGM Studios.

Breunlin D, Barr W, Hill R, Nye F, Reiss I (eds.). Failure to thrive with no organic etiology. Int J Eating Disorders 2:25–49, 1983.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Family Practice, SUNY—Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, 11203, USA

Richard B. Birrer M.D., M.P.H.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Benson, J.L. (1987). Family Structure and Function. In: Birrer, R.B. (eds) Urban Family Medicine. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4624-4_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4624-4_3

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4612-9088-9

Online ISBN : 978-1-4612-4624-4

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

Defining Extended Family as a Phenomenon

This essay about the extended family explores its definition and the integral role it plays across different cultures and societies. Unlike the nuclear family, which typically includes parents and their children, the extended family encompasses a wider array of relatives such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. The essay highlights how extended families provide crucial social, economic, and emotional support, sharing resources and responsibilities that benefit all members. It discusses the evolution of these family structures in modern industrialized societies, where physical proximity may be less common but digital communication helps maintain strong familial bonds. The essay also examines the extended family’s role in childcare and eldercare, underscoring its importance in both traditional and contemporary settings. Overall, the extended family is portrayed as a dynamic institution that significantly influences individual development and community cohesion, adapting to cultural and socio-economic changes while continuing to provide support and continuity.

How it works

The notion of the extended family stands as a cornerstone in the examination of familial dynamics and societal frameworks across diverse cultural landscapes. Unlike the more narrowly defined nuclear family structure, which typically revolves around parental figures and their offspring, the extended family encompasses a broader array of kinship ties. This expansive familial constellation incorporates not only parents and children but also grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and sometimes even more remote relatives, bound together by ties of blood, marriage, or adoption.

Historically, extended families have served as linchpins in providing a multifaceted tapestry of social, economic, and emotional sustenance among its members. Particularly in non-Western societies, extended families often cohabit in communal dwellings or maintain intimate bonds, facilitating the pooling of resources, responsibilities, and living arrangements. Such a communal ethos fosters resilience and prosperity, particularly in cultures with agrarian or collective orientations.

The extended family structure transcends mere cohabitation, engendering profound interactions and relationships that shape individual conduct and cultural norms. Grandparents, for instance, assume pivotal roles in the upbringing of grandchildren, transmitting cultural mores and ancestral wisdom. This intergenerational exchange bequeaths a sense of continuity and heritage, enriching the familial tapestry.

In contemporary industrialized societies, the extended family’s function has metamorphosed amidst the currents of geographic mobility, economic exigencies, and the pursuit of personal aspirations. While physical proximity may wane, the bonds of extended kinship endure. Technological advancements, such as digital communication platforms, facilitate the maintenance of these connections across vast distances. Occasions like family reunions and milestone events serve as conduits for reaffirming familial ties and fostering communal solidarity.

Furthermore, the extended family serves as an indispensable bulwark, furnishing both emotional succor and material assistance. During crises or life transitions, such as unemployment or illness, extended kin often proffer aid and solace, mitigating the burdens of adversity. This safety net is instrumental in bolstering psychological resilience and financial stability, underscoring the extended family’s role as a bastion against life’s vicissitudes.

Moreover, the extended family assumes pivotal functions in caregiving, spanning both childcare and eldercare domains. In many cultural milieus, grandparents wield influence in child-rearing practices, providing invaluable guidance and enabling parental pursuit of vocations or education. Similarly, as populations age, extended kin often shoulder the mantle of primary caretakers for elderly relatives, embodying an ethos of filial duty and solidarity.

In summation, the extended family emerges as a dynamic and multifaceted institution, transcending conventional notions of kinship. It serves as a nexus of emotional, economic, and social sustenance, permeating the communal fabric and shaping individual trajectories. Despite variances in cultural and socio-economic contexts, the extended family remains a linchpin of societal cohesion, offering a broader support nexus than its nuclear counterpart. As societies evolve, so too will the contours and functions of extended kinship, attuning to emergent realities while upholding its timeless legacy of support and continuity.

Cite this page

Defining Extended Family As A Phenomenon. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/defining-extended-family-as-a-phenomenon/

"Defining Extended Family As A Phenomenon." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/defining-extended-family-as-a-phenomenon/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Defining Extended Family As A Phenomenon . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/defining-extended-family-as-a-phenomenon/ [Accessed: 1 May. 2024]

"Defining Extended Family As A Phenomenon." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/defining-extended-family-as-a-phenomenon/

"Defining Extended Family As A Phenomenon," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/defining-extended-family-as-a-phenomenon/. [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Defining Extended Family As A Phenomenon . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/defining-extended-family-as-a-phenomenon/ [Accessed: 1-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Theory — Theories Of Family Functioning: Family Of Origin

Theories of Family Functioning: Family of Origin

• Categories: Family Planning Family Values Theory

About this sample

Words: 1446 |

Published: Jun 17, 2020

Words: 1446 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Systems Theory

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1042 words

1 pages / 370 words

2 pages / 969 words

2 pages / 783 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Theory

Al-Fedaghi, S. (2012). A Conceptual Foundation for the Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication. International Journal of Soft Computing.Benz, A. (2012). Errors in Pragmatics. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information: The [...]

Nivaldo J. Tro. (2021). Chemistry: Structure and Properties. Pearson.

The scientific method is about ordinary people doing ordinary things that includes you me and other scientists in the world. It is how scientists gather new ideas or analyze information The scientific method is a process or step [...]

The general purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between feminist theories and the field of communication. I will use the feminist belief of challenging traditionally accepted ideas. As a basis for understanding, [...]

Lead prosecutors, by their exceptional nature, are hostile players in the legitimate framework. They will likely test, convict, and take a stab at equity. They are prosecutors; they make the main moves and start their ruckuses. [...]

Nursing theory is the framework that provide the understanding that some of the nursing world by grouping the theory into different categories. Nursing theories have a lot of impact on today’s nursing; they improve the nursing [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Pop Culture Happy Hour

• Performing Arts

Pop Culture

You know it when you see it: here are some movies that got sex scenes right.

Linda Holmes

It is a happy coincidence that our "What makes a good sex scene?" episode came out in the same week as Challengers, a film about a romance triangle in the tennis world starring Josh O'Connor, Zendaya and (not pictured) Mike Faist. Niko Tavernise/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures hide caption

It is a happy coincidence that our "What makes a good sex scene?" episode came out in the same week as Challengers, a film about a romance triangle in the tennis world starring Josh O'Connor, Zendaya and (not pictured) Mike Faist.

What makes a good sex scene? It can be easier spot bad sex, but Aisha Harris, Christina Tucker, Ronald Young, Jr. and I tried to focus on the good this week on Pop Culture Happy Hour. You can listen to our full conversation here. (We didn't originally plan for this episode to run the same week as our episode about Challengers , which is out in theaters now, but it's a happy coincidence, since that film has gotten a lot of attention — probably too much, relative to its other merits — for the sex scenes involving its three leads. It's really very good .)

Movie Reviews

Watch a tense romantic triangle play out on the tennis court in 'challengers'.

It's often very obvious when a sex scene is bad, just like when a sex scene in a book is bad. It can get so uncomfortable to watch that you have to leave the room (and not in a way that feels true to the story). One of my personal tells for a bad sex scene is when all I can think about is how hard the actors are trying to persuade me that the characters are having a good time. For example, there has been much good discussion in recent years about Showgirls being a more interesting and competent project than it originally got credit for, but in that one pool scene (if you know it, you know it), all I can see is the effort.

Lauren Bacall And The 'Sex? What Sex?' Kind Of Movie Sex

It's not always as clear which scenes are good . That's partly because they serve so many different functions, all of which look different, and all of which can be effective. Furthermore, you don't want to confuse whether a sex scene is used well in a film with whether it's hot to you personally, despite the fact that there is overlap between those considerations.

In the 'Last Dance,' Magic Mike leaves his thong-and-dance routine behind

Here's what I mean: When Aisha talks about the sequence near the beginning of Magic Mike's Last Dance , it's not irrelevant that the scene is, to her (and to me), hot. But it also makes sense in the context of the film and the franchise, partly because of the way it sets up the power dynamic between Mike (Channing Tatum) and Max (Salma Hayek Pinault). Mike is older now, he knows more, and the way he approaches a lap dance is actually different than in earlier movies.

And not all good sex scenes are hot in the same ways. The one I mentioned in the episode, from the romantic drama Love & Basketball , is sexy, yes. But it's also a scene between young adults (the talented basketball players Monica and Quincy, played by Sanaa Lathan and Omar Epps), and as such, it incorporates a tentativeness that's not present in Magic Mike's Last Dance , to say the least. As Ronald pointed out during our discussion, that sex scene is quite different from one that takes place later in Monica and Quincy's relationship, when they're older and know each other better. That certainly feels true to real life, but it's not always reflected in Hollywood films, where I would tentatively estimate that 90% of on-screen sex is more idealized and thus less intimate than real-life sex, in part because it isn't allowed to change over the course of a relationship.

Movie Interviews

'like it or not, we live in oppenheimer's world,' says director christopher nolan.

Even further from the hotness of the lap dance scene is Ronald's pick: the imagination of Kitty Oppenheimer (Emily Blunt) running wild in Oppenheimer. While her husband (Cillian Murphy) is being interrogated, she pictures him having sex with his mistress, Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh). It goes by quickly enough that it might seem like a Christopher Nolan flourish for flourish's sake, but it serves the purpose of letting you feel her pain over her husband's affair. Her relationship with Robert doesn't look especially romantic in the film, let alone sexually charged; she finds herself consumed by the idea that he was having hot sex with this other woman, and she locks eyes with her vision of a naked Tatlock and finds herself tormented. It's not really the intent of the scene to titillate the audience, just to give specificity to the shape of Kitty's preoccupation with the affair.

What makes a good sex scene?

Christina raised another really important point, which is that sex scenes also collide with viewers at very specific moments. Her example from Bound , and the scenes between Violet (Jennifer Tilly) and Corky (Gina Gershon), touches on (among other things) her own history. It's an underappreciated aspect of the sex-in-movies discourse: representation matters in these scenes as much as anywhere else. I always wish I saw more sex scenes in movies that featured a broader variety of body types; it's still really rare to see ones that feature anybody who is even average sized. This is one of the reasons I'm curious about the upcoming season of Bridgerton , which places its focus on the gorgeous and curvaceous Penelope (Nicola Coughlan).

Looking for 'nomance': Study finds teens want less sex in their TV and movies

Good sex scenes are like any other kind of good filmmaking, honestly: it comes down to execution with purpose and care, done relative to whatever the function of the scene might be.

Whether that's spiciness or conflict or relationship growth or (as in the case of Bound ) setting up a steamy neo-noir story that wouldn't be the same if it weren't hot as heck, form follows function, ideally.

This piece also appeared in NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter so you don't miss the next one, plus get weekly recommendations about what's making us happy.

Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts and Spotify .

Amazon CodeWhisperer is now called Q Developer and is expanding its functions

Pour one out for CodeWhisperer , Amazon’s AI-powered assistive coding tool. As of today, it’s kaput — sort of.

CodeWhisperer is now Q Developer , a part of Amazon’s Q family of business-oriented generative AI chatbots that also extends to the newly announced Q Business . Available through AWS, Q Developer helps with some of the tasks developers do in the course of their daily work, like debugging and upgrading apps, troubleshooting and performing security scans — much like CodeWhisperer did.

In an interview with TechCrunch, Doug Seven, GM and director of AI developer experiences at AWS, implied that CodeWhisperer was a bit of a branding fail. Third-party metrics reflect as much ; even with a free tier, CodeWhisperer struggled to match the momentum of chief rival GitHub Copilot , which has over 1.8 million paying individual users and tens of thousands of corporate customers. ( Poor early impressions surely didn’t help.)

“CodeWhisperer is where we got started [with code generation], b ut we really wanted to have a brand — and name — that fit a wider set of use cases,” Seven said. “You can think of Q Developer as the evolution of CodeWhisperer into something that’s much more broad.”

To that end, Q Developer can generate code including SQL, a programming language commonly used to create and manage databases, as well as test that code and assist with transforming and implementing new code ideated from developer queries.

Similar to Copilot, customers can fine-tune Q Developer on their internal codebases to improve the relevancy of the tool’s programming recommendations. (The now-deprecated CodeWhisperer offered this option, too.) And, thanks to a capability called Agents, Q Developer can autonomously perform things like implementing features and documenting and refactoring (i.e. restructuring) code.

Ask a request of Q Developer like “create an ‘add to favorites’ button in my app,” and Q Developer will analyze the app code, generate new code if necessary, create a step-by-step plan, and complete tests of the code before executing the proposed changes. Developers can review and iterate the plan before Q implements it, connecting steps and applying updates across the necessary files, code blocks and test suites.

“What happens behind the scenes is, Q Developer actually spins up a development environment to work on the code,” Seven said. “So, in the case of feature development, Q Developer takes the entire code repository, creates a branch of that repository, analyzes the repository, does the work that it’s been asked to do and returns those code changes to the developer.”

Image Credits: Amazon

Agents can also automate and manage code upgrading processes, Amazon says, with Java conversions live today (specifically Java 8 and 11 built using Apache Maven to Java version 17) and .NET conversions coming soon. “Q Developer analyzes the code — looking for anything that needs to be upgraded — and makes all those changes before returning it to the developer to review and commit themselves,” Seven added.

To me, Agents sounds a lot like GitHub’s Copilot Workspace , which similarly generates and implements plans for bug fixes and new features in software. And — as with Workspace — I’m not entirely convinced that this more autonomous approach can solve the issues surrounding AI-powered coding assistants.

An analysis of over 150 million lines of code committed to project repos over the past several years by GitClear found that Copilot was resulting in more mistaken code being pushed to codebases. Elsewhere, security researchers have warned that Copilot and similar tools can amplify existing bugs and security issues in software projects .

This isn’t surprising. AI-powered coding assistants seem impressive. But they’re trained on existing code, and their suggestions reflect patterns in other programmers’ work — work that can be seriously flawed. Assistants’ guesses create bugs that are often difficult to spot, especially when developers — who are adopting AI coding assistants in great numbers — defer to the assistants’ judgement.

In less risky territory beyond coding, Q Developer can help manage a company’s cloud infrastructure on AWS — or at least get them the info they need to do the managing themselves.

Q Developer can fulfill requests like “List all of my Lambda functions” and “list my resources residing in other AWS regions.” Currently in preview, the bot can also generate (but not execute) AWS Command Line Interface commands and answer AWS cost-related questions, such as “What were the top three highest-cost services in Q1?”

So how much do these generative AI conveniences cost?

Q Developer is available for free in the AWS Console, Slack and IDEs such as Visual Studio Code, GitLab Duo and JetBrains — but with limitations. The free version doesn’t allow fine-tuning to custom libraries, packages and APIs, and opts users into a data collection scheme by default. It also imposes monthly caps, including a maximum of five Agents tasks (e.g. implementing a feature) per month and 25 queries about AWS account resources per month. (It’s baffling to me that Amazon would impose a cap on questions one can ask about its own services, but here we are.)

The premium version of Q Developer, Q Developer Pro, costs $19 per month per user and adds higher usage limits, tools to manage users and policies, single sign-on and — perhaps most importantly — IP indemnity.

In many cases, the models underpinning code-generating services such as Q Developer are trained on code that’s copyrighted or under a restrictive license. Vendors claim that fair use protects them in the event that the model was knowingly or unknowingly developed on copyrighted code — but not everyone agrees. GitHub and OpenAI are being sued  in a  class action motion that accuses them of violating copyright by allowing Copilot to regurgitate licensed code snippets without providing credit.

Amazon says that it’ll defend Q Developer Pro customers against claims alleging that the service infringes on a third-party’s IP rights so long as they let AWS control their defense and settle “as AWS deems appropriate.”