Gabrielle Juteau, Susan L. Brown, Wendy D. Manning, Krista K. Westrick-Payne
{"title":"Measuring family boundary ambiguity in cohabiting stepfamilies","authors":"Gabrielle Juteau, Susan L. Brown, Wendy D. Manning, 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.
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.