16.6: Family Dynamics

Learning Objectives

1. Examine how families and the roles within them have evolved over time.
2. Identify different family structures.
3. Discuss the influence of sibling interactions on social and emotional development.
4. Differentiate between parenting styles and parenting strategies and the impact of each on children's development.

Changing Families in a Changing Society

The sociology of the family examines the family as an institution and a unit of socialization. Sociological studies of the family examine the demographic characteristics of its members, including family size, age, ethnicity, and gender, as well as the social class, economic level, and mobility of the family. Additionally, these studies consider the professions and education levels of the family members.

Currently, one of the most significant issues that sociologists study is the evolving roles of family members. Often, each member is limited by the traditional family's gender roles. These roles, such as the father as the breadwinner and the mother as the homemaker, are declining. Now, the mother is often the supplementary provider while still retaining the responsibilities of childrearing. In this scenario, females' role in the labor force is "compatible with the demands of the traditional family." Sociology studies the adaptation of males' roles to those of caregivers as well as providers. The gender roles are increasingly interwoven.

Diverse Family Forms

A single-parent family usually refers to a parent who has most of the day-to-day responsibilities in the raising of the child or children, who is not living with a spouse or partner, or who is not married. The dominant caregiver is the parent with whom the children reside the majority of the time. If the parents are separated or divorced, children live with their custodial parent and have visitation with their noncustodial parent. In Western society, following separation, a child typically ends up with the primary caregiver, usually the mother, and a secondary caregiver, usually the father. There is a growing community of single-parent-by-choice families in which a family is built by a single adult (through foster care, adoption, donor gametes and embryos, and surrogacy).

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): A single-parent family. Image is in the public domain.

Cohabitation is an arrangement where two people who are not married live together in an intimate relationship, particularly an emotionally and/or sexually intimate one, on a long-term or permanent basis. Today, cohabitation is a common pattern among people in the Western world. More than two-thirds of married couples in the U.S. say that they lived together before getting married.

Gay and lesbian couples are categorized as same-sex relationships. 21 After a Supreme Court ruling in 2015, all 50 states in the U.S. must recognize same-sex marriage; however, there are still some counties in several states that will not issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple.²²

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): A family with parents of the same sex. Image by Emily Walker is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): A family playing outside together. Image by Air Force Medical Service is in the public domain.

Sibling Relationships

Siblings spend a considerable amount of time together and offer a unique relationship that is not found with same-age peers or with adults. Siblings play an important role in the development of social skills. Cooperative and pretend play interactions between younger and older siblings can teach empathy, sharing, and cooperation (Pike, Coldwell, & Dunn, 2005) as well as negotiation and conflict resolution (Abuhatoum & Howe, 2013). However, the quality of sibling relationships is often influenced by the quality of the parent-child relationship and the child's psychological adjustment (Pike et al., 2005). For instance, more negative interactions between siblings have been reported in families where parents had poor patterns of communication with their children (Brody, Stoneman, & McCoy, 1994). Children who have emotional and behavioral problems are also more likely to have negative interactions with their siblings. However, the psychological adjustment of the child can sometimes reflect the parent-child relationship. Thus, when examining the quality of sibling interactions, it is often challenging to separate the effect of adjustment from the impact of the parent-child relationship.

While parents want positive interactions between their children, conflicts are inevitable, and some confrontations can be the impetus for growth in children’s social and cognitive skills. The sources of conflict between siblings often depend on their respective ages. Dunn and Munn (1987) found that over half of all sibling conflicts in early childhood involved disputes over property rights. By middle childhood, this begins to shift toward control over social situations, such as deciding which games to play, resolving disagreements about facts or opinions, or addressing rude behavior (Howe, Rinaldi, Jennings, & Petrakos, 2002). Researchers have also found that the strategies children use to deal with conflict change with age, but that the nature of the conflict also tempers this.

Abuhatoum and Howe (2013) found that coercive strategies (e.g., threats) were preferred when the dispute centered on property rights, while reasoning was more likely to be used by older siblings and in disputes regarding control over the social situation. However, younger siblings also use reasoning, frequently bringing up the concern of legitimacy (e.g., “You’re not the boss”) when in conflict with an older sibling. This is a common strategy employed by younger siblings and may be an adaptive approach for them to assert their autonomy (Abuhatoum & Howe, 2013). Some researchers have found that children who can use non-coercive strategies are more likely to have a successful resolution, whereby a compromise is reached and neither child feels slighted (Ram & Ross, 2008; Abuhatoum & Howe, 2013).

Not surprisingly, friendly relationships with siblings often lead to more positive interactions with peers. The reverse is also true. A child can also learn to get along with a sibling, with, as the song says, “a little help from my friends” (Kramer & Gottman, 1992). ²⁴

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): Siblings. Image by LEONARDO DASILVA is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Parenting Strategies and Techniques

Parenting strategies shape children's social, emotional, and cognitive development. Effective discipline fosters self-regulation and healthy relationships. Parenting discipline techniques can be categorized into positive and negative approaches, each with varying degrees of effectiveness.

Positive Discipline

Positive discipline strategies encourage cooperation and self-regulation by guiding children toward understanding appropriate behavior. These methods focus on teaching rather than punishing, promoting internalized moral development and emotional regulation (Gershoff et al., 2018).

1. Inductive Discipline – This strategy involves explaining to children why certain behaviors are wrong and how their actions affect others. Research suggests that inductive discipline promotes moral reasoning and empathy, enabling children to develop a sense of responsibility and exhibit prosocial behavior (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996). Children who experience inductive discipline tend to internalize moral values and show greater self-control compared to those subjected to punitive approaches (Grusec, 2011).
2. Command Strategy – This technique involves giving direct commands with an expectation of compliance. Parents use clear, firm, and developmentally appropriate instructions without coercion or excessive explanation (Kochanska et al., 2001). Research indicates that when commands are delivered consistently and respectfully, children are more likely to comply and develop a sense of autonomy and self-discipline (Eisenberg et al., 2005).
3. Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO) – This approach emphasizes a warm, reciprocal relationship between parents and children, where discipline is based on mutual trust and cooperation rather than control (Kochanska, 2002). Studies have found that children raised in mutually responsive environments exhibit higher levels of compliance, self-regulation, and moral internalization, as they feel valued and respected (Kochanska & Aksan, 2006).
4. Redirection – Instead of punitive measures, redirection involves guiding a child’s attention away from inappropriate behavior toward a more acceptable activity (Dunlap et al., 2006). This strategy is particularly effective for young children, as it helps them learn self-control without inducing shame or fear (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). Research suggests that redirection is most effective when paired with explanations, reinforcing the connection between actions and consequences (Landry et al., 2006).

Negative Discipline

Negative discipline approaches rely on punishment or coercion to manage behavior. While these strategies may yield immediate compliance, research suggests they can have long-term adverse effects on children’s emotional and social well-being (Gershoff & Grogan-Kaylor, 2016).

1. Power Assertion – This strategy involves using authority, physical force, or punishment to control a child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1996). Power assertion can include verbal reprimands, threats, and physical discipline. While it may produce immediate compliance, research indicates that it can lead to increased aggression, anxiety, and lower moral internalization (Gershoff et al., 2018). Children subjected to frequent power assertion may also develop a diminished sense of autonomy and struggle with self-regulation (Holden, 2020).
2. Love Withdrawal – This technique involves withholding affection, approval, or attention as a means of disciplining children (Hoffman, 2000). While it may discourage negative behavior, research suggests it can damage parent-child attachment and contribute to low self-esteem and anxiety (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Children disciplined through love withdrawal may comply out of fear rather than a genuine understanding of moral behavior (Grusec, 2011).

Parenting Styles

Diana Baumrind (1971) presents a model of parenting that encompasses four styles, characterized by two dimensions: demandingness (or expectations) and responsiveness.

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\). Parenting styles by responsiveness and demandingness. Image by Heather Carter is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Table \(\PageIndex{1}\). Parenting Styles- Characteristics and Child Outcomes

Parenting Style	Description	Characteristics	Potential Child Outcomes
Authoritative	A balanced approach with reasonable expectations, structure, and warmth.	- Strict yet reasonable rules - Open to negotiation - Discipline matches offense severity	- Develops self-discipline - High social competence - More independent and responsible
Authoritarian	A traditional model in which parents make strict rules and expect obedience.	- High maturity demands - Low warmth and communication - Little to no discussion allowed	- Fear rather than respect for parents - May become aggressive or bully peers - Lack of social competence
Permissive	Parents set few expectations and allow children to make their own rules.	- Warm and communicative - Low structure and discipline - Few behavioral expectations	- Lack of self-discipline - Struggles with boundaries - May feel insecure due to lack of limits
Uninvolved	Parents are disengaged, providing little support or expectations.	- Non-responsive and neglectful - Little to no demands on the child - Minimal emotional involvement	- Poor school performance - Struggles with peer relationships - Increased risk of behavioral issues (Gecas & Self, 1991)

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): A father interacting with his son who is drawing a picture. He could be portraying the style of a teacher-counselor or athletic coach. Image by U.S. Air Forces Central Command is in the public domain.

Cultural Influences on Parenting Styles

The impact of class and culture cannot be ignored when examining parenting styles. The two models of parenting described above assume that authoritative and athletic coaching styles are best because they are designed to help parents raise children who are independent, self-reliant, and responsible. These are qualities favored in “individualistic” cultures such as the United States, particularly by the white middle class. African-American, Hispanic, and Asian parents tend to be more authoritarian than non-Hispanic whites.

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): A family from a collectivistic culture. Image by the National Cancer Institute is in the public domain.

In “collectivistic” cultures, such as those in China or Korea, being obedient and compliant are highly valued behaviors. Authoritarian parenting has been a historical approach that reflects the cultural expectation for children to comply with authority in societies where family members’ cooperation is necessary for survival, as in the case of raising crops or rearing children. In such contexts, independence and striving to be self-sufficient often make little sense. However, in an economy where mobility is essential for finding jobs and where earnings are largely determined by education, raising a child to be independent is particularly important.

Working-class parents are more likely than middle-class parents to focus on obedience and honesty when raising their children. In a classic study on social class and parenting styles, Class and Conformity, Kohn (1977) explains that parents tend to emphasize qualities essential for their children's survival when parenting them. Working-class parents are rewarded for being obedient, reliable, and honest in their jobs. They are not paid to be independent or to question management; rather, they move up and are considered good employees if they show up on time, do their work as instructed, and can be relied upon by their employers. Consequently, these parents reward their children for honesty and obedience.

Middle-class parents who work as professionals are rewarded for taking initiative, being self-directed, and assertive in their jobs. They are required to get the job done without being told exactly what to do. They are asked to be innovative and to work independently. These parents encourage their children to have those qualities as well by rewarding independence and self-reliance. Parenting styles can reflect many elements of culture. ¹

References, Contributors and Attributions

18. Lifespan Development - Module 5: Early Childhood by Lumen Learning references Psyc 200 Lifespan Psychology by Laura Overstreet, licensed under CC BY 4.0

21. Children’s Development by Ana R. Leon is licensed under CC BY 4.0

22. Same-sex marriage by Wikipedia is licensed under CC BY SA 3.0

24. Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Abuhatoum, S., & Howe, N. (2013). Power in sibling conflict during early and middle childhood. Social Development, 22(4), 738-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12025

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 1–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030372

Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45(4), 405-414. https://doi.org/10.2307/585170

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & McCoy, J. K. (1994). Contributions of marital quality to the development of children’s social competence. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.71

Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Conroy, M., Smith, B. J., & Sowell, C. (2006). Prevention and intervention with young children's challenging behavior: Perspectives regarding current knowledge. Behavioral Disorders, 32(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290603200104

Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1987). Development of justification in disputes with mother and sibling. Developmental Psychology, 23(6), 791-798. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.6.791

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495-525. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208

Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(4), 453-469. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000191

Gershoff, E. T., Lansford, J. E., Sexton, H. R., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Sameroff, A. J. (2018). Longitudinal links between spanking and children’s externalizing behaviors in a national sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child Development, 89(3), 697-710. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12727

Grusec, J. E. (2011). Socialization processes in the family: Social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 243-269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650

Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press.

Holden, G. W. (2020). Parenting: A dynamic perspective. SAGE Publications.

Howe, N., Rinaldi, C. M., Jennings, M., & Petrakos, H. (2002). Noisy, aversive, and annoying: Narratives about sibling conflict. Early Education & Development, 13(4), 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1304_4

Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: Implications for early socialization. Child Development, 73(1), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00397

Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2006). Children’s conscience and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1587-1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00421.x

Krevans, J., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Parents' use of inductive discipline: Relations to children's empathy and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67(6), 3263-3277. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131778

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., & Guttentag, C. (2006). A responsive parenting intervention: The optimal timing across early childhood for impacting maternal behaviors and child outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 627-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627

Pike, A., Coldwell, J., & Dunn, J. F. (2005). Sibling relationships in early/middle childhood: Links with individual adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.4.523

Ram, A., & Ross, H. S. (2008). Conflict, negotiation, and humor in sibling relationships: Influences of temperament and family context. Child Development, 79(6), 1827-1841. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01226.x

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99-166). Wiley.

Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. Developments in Neuroscience, 15, 104-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.004