Measuring family boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Gabrielle Juteau, Susan L. Brown, Wendy D. Manning, Krista K. Westrick-Payne
{"title":"Measuring family boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies","authors":"Gabrielle Juteau,&nbsp;Susan L. Brown,&nbsp;Wendy D. Manning,&nbsp;Krista K. Westrick-Payne","doi":"10.1111/jomf.13068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Our study introduces a novel approach to gauging family boundary ambiguity using information obtained from just one household reporter. It also illuminates the strengths and challenges presented by parent pointers in federal surveys.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The prominence of boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies leads to significant measurement challenges, which take on greater salience as more children experience this family type.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Drawing on the 2019–2022 Current Population Survey (CPS), we assessed boundary ambiguity within cohabiting stepfamilies (<i>N</i> = 4133) by examining whether reporting the stepparent as the child's second parent differed by household reporter type: biological parent versus cohabiting partner. Logistic regressions showed the roles of sociodemographic, family, and child correlates of family boundary ambiguity by household reporter type.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies was high, with over 80% of reporters not identifying the cohabiting partner as the child's second parent. Parents more often experienced boundary ambiguity (91%) than did partners (68%). Parents with more economic resources than their partners were more likely to experience boundary ambiguity. Joint children were negatively related to boundary ambiguity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study shows most parents and partners in cohabiting stepfamilies do not view the partner as a second parent. It also reveals the ramifications of the CPS parent pointers that restrict respondents to reporting only two “parents,” tacitly reinforcing the two-biological parent norm.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Marriage and Family","volume":"87 3","pages":"1338-1353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jomf.13068","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Marriage and Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.13068","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Our study introduces a novel approach to gauging family boundary ambiguity using information obtained from just one household reporter. It also illuminates the strengths and challenges presented by parent pointers in federal surveys.

Background

The prominence of boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies leads to significant measurement challenges, which take on greater salience as more children experience this family type.

Method

Drawing on the 2019–2022 Current Population Survey (CPS), we assessed boundary ambiguity within cohabiting stepfamilies (N = 4133) by examining whether reporting the stepparent as the child's second parent differed by household reporter type: biological parent versus cohabiting partner. Logistic regressions showed the roles of sociodemographic, family, and child correlates of family boundary ambiguity by household reporter type.

Results

Boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies was high, with over 80% of reporters not identifying the cohabiting partner as the child's second parent. Parents more often experienced boundary ambiguity (91%) than did partners (68%). Parents with more economic resources than their partners were more likely to experience boundary ambiguity. Joint children were negatively related to boundary ambiguity.

Conclusion

This study shows most parents and partners in cohabiting stepfamilies do not view the partner as a second parent. It also reveals the ramifications of the CPS parent pointers that restrict respondents to reporting only two “parents,” tacitly reinforcing the two-biological parent norm.

Abstract Image

测量同居再婚家庭的家庭边界模糊
目的本研究介绍了一种新的方法来衡量家庭边界歧义仅从一个家庭报告获得的信息。它还阐明了联邦调查中父母指示所带来的优势和挑战。同居继家庭中边界模糊性的突出导致了显著的测量挑战,随着更多的孩子经历这种家庭类型,这种挑战变得更加突出。方法根据2019-2022年当前人口调查(CPS),我们通过检查将继父母报告为孩子的第二个父母是否因家庭报告类型(亲生父母与同居伴侣)而异,评估了同居继家庭(N = 4133)中的边界模糊性。Logistic回归显示了社会人口学、家庭和儿童相关因素对家庭边界模糊的影响。结果同居再婚家庭的界限模糊程度较高,超过80%的受访者不认为同居伴侣是孩子的第二父母。父母(91%)比伴侣(68%)更经常经历边界模糊。拥有更多经济资源的父母比他们的伴侣更有可能经历边界模糊。关节儿童与边界模糊负相关。本研究表明,大多数同居再婚家庭的父母和伴侣并不将伴侣视为第二父母。它还揭示了CPS父母指针的后果,该指针限制受访者只报告两个“父母”,默认强化了双亲生父母的规范。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years, Journal of Marriage and Family (JMF) has been a leading research journal in the family field. JMF features original research and theory, research interpretation and reviews, and critical discussion concerning all aspects of marriage, other forms of close relationships, and families.In 2009, an institutional subscription to Journal of Marriage and Family includes a subscription to Family Relations and Journal of Family Theory & Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信