discussion post

4 Society and Social
Interaction

Figure 4.1 Sociologists study how societies interact with the environment and how they use technology. (Photo courtesty of Garry Knight/flickr)

Learning Objectives
4.1. Types of Societies

• Describe the difference between preindustrial, industrial, and postindustrial societies

• Understand the role of environment on preindustrial societies

• Understand how technology impacts societal development

4.2. Theoretical Perspectives on Society
• Describe Durkhiem’s functionalist view of society

• Understand the conflict theorist view of society

• Explain Marx’s concepts of class and alienation

• Identify how symbolic interactionists understand society

4.3. Social Constructions of Reality
• Understand the sociological concept of reality as a social construct

• Define roles and describe their places in people’s daily interactions

• Explain how individuals present themselves and perceive themselves in a social context

Introduction to Society and Social Interaction
It was a school day, and Adriana, who was just entering eighth grade, woke up at 6:15 a.m. Before she got out of bed, she
sent three text messages. One was to Jenn, who last year had moved five states away to a different time zone. Even though

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 75

they now lived far apart, the two friends texted on and off every day. Now Adriana wanted to tell Jenn that she liked the
new boots in the photo that Jenn had posted on a social media site last night.

Throughout the day, Adriana used her smart phone to send fifty more texts, but she made no phone calls. She even texted
her mother in the next room when she had a question about her homework. She kept in close electronic contact with all of
her friends on a daily basis. In fact, when she wasn’t doing homework or attending class, she was chatting and laughing
with her friends via texts, tweets, and social media websites. Her smart phone was her main source of social interaction.

We can consider Adriana a typical teenager in the digital age—she constantly communicates with a large group of people
who are not confined to one geographical area. This is definitely one of the benefits of new forms of communication: it is
cheap and easy, and you can keep in touch with everyone at the same time. However, with these new forms of
communication come new forms of societal interaction.

As we connect with each other more and more in an online environment, we make less time to interact in person. So the
obvious question is this: are these forms of communication good developments in terms of social interaction? Or, if there
are negative effects, what will they be? As we shall see, our reliance on electronic communication does have
consequences. Beyond popularizing new forms of communication, it also alters the traditional ways in which we deal with
conflict, the way we view ourselves in relationship to our surroundings, and the ways in which we understand social
status.

4.1 Types of Societies

Figure 4.2 How does technology influence a society’s daily occupations? (Photo courtesy of Mo Riza/flickr)

Hunting and gathering tribes, industrialized Japan, Americans—each is a society. But what does this mean? Exactly what
is a society? In sociological terms, society refers to a group of people who live in a definable community and share the
same culture. On a broader scale, society consists of the people and institutions around us, our shared beliefs, and our
cultural ideas. Typically, more-advanced societies also share a political authority.

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski (1924–) defined societies in terms of their technological sophistication. As a society advances,
so does its use of technology. Societies with rudimentary technology depend on the fluctuations of their environments,
while industrialized societies have more control over the impact of their surroundings and thus develop different cultural
features. This distinction is so important that sociologists generally classify societies along a spectrum of their level of
industrialization—from preindustrial to industrial to postindustrial.

Preindustrial Societies
Before the Industrial Revolution and the widespread use of machines, societies were small, rural, and dependent largely on
local resources. Economic production was limited to the amount of labor a human being could provide, and there were few
specialized occupations. The very first occupation was that of hunter-gatherer.

Hunter-Gatherer

Hunter-gatherer societies demonstrate the strongest dependence on the environment of the various types of preindustrial
societies. As the basic structure of human society until about 10,000–12,000 years ago, these groups were based around
kinship or tribes. Hunter-gatherers relied on their surroundings for survival—they hunted wild animals and foraged for
uncultivated plants for food. When resources became scarce, the group moved to a new area to find sustenance, meaning

76 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

they were nomadic. These societies were common until several hundred years ago, but today only a few hundred remain in
existence, such as indigenous Australian tribes sometimes referred to as “aborigines,” or the Bambuti, a group of pygmy
hunter-gatherers residing in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Hunter-gatherer groups are quickly disappearing as the
world’s population explodes.

Pastoral

Changing conditions and adaptations led some societies to rely on the domestication of animals where circumstances
permitted. Roughly 7,500 years ago, human societies began to recognize their ability to tame and breed animals and to
grow and cultivate their own plants. Pastoral societies, such as the Maasai villagers, rely on the domestication of animals
as a resource for survival. Unlike earlier hunter-gatherers who depended entirely on existing resources to stay alive,
pastoral groups were able to breed livestock for food, clothing, and transportation, and they created a surplus of goods.
Herding, or pastoral, societies remained nomadic because they were forced to follow their animals to fresh feeding
grounds. Around the time that pastoral societies emerged, specialized occupations began to develop, and societies
commenced trading with local groups.

Where Societies Meet—The Worst and the Best
When cultures meet, technology can help, hinder, and even destroy. The Exxon Valdez oil spillage in Alaska nearly
destroyed the local inhabitant’s entire way of life. Oil spills in the Nigerian Delta have forced many of the Ogoni tribe
from their land and forced removal has meant that over 100,000 Ogoni have sought refuge in the country of Benin
(University of Michigan, n.d.). And the massive Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2006 drew great attention as it
occurred in what is the most developed country, the United States. Environmental disasters continue as Western
technology and its need for energy expands into less developed (peripheral) regions of the globe.

Of course not all technology is bad. We take electric light for granted in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the
developed world. Such light extends the day and allows us to work, read, and travel at night. It makes us safer and
more productive. But regions in India, Africa, and elsewhere are not so fortunate. Meeting the challenge, one
particular organization, Barefoot College, located in District Ajmer, Rajasthan, India, works with numerous less
developed nations to bring solar electricity, water solutions, and education. The focus for the solar projects is the
village elders. The elders agree to select two grandmothers to be trained as solar engineers and choose a village
committee composed of men and women to help operate the solar program.

The program has brought light to over 450,000 people in 1,015 villages. The environmental rewards include a large
reduction in the use of kerosene and in carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that the villagers are operating the projects
themselves helps minimize their sense of dependence.

Figure 4.3 Otherwise skeptic or hesitant villagers are more easily convinced of the value of the solar project when they realize that the
“solar engineers” are their local grandmothers. (Photo courtesy of Abri le Roux/flickr)

Horticultural

Around the same time that pastoral societies were on the rise, another type of society developed, based on the newly
developed capacity for people to grow and cultivate plants. Previously, the depletion of a region’s crops or water supply
forced pastoral societies to relocate in search of food sources for their livestock. Horticultural societies formed in areas
where rainfall and other conditions allowed them to grow stable crops. They were similar to hunter-gatherers in that they

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 77

largely depended on the environment for survival, but since they didn’t have to abandon their location to follow resources,
they were able to start permanent settlements. This created more stability and more material goods and became the basis
for the first revolution in human survival.

Agricultural

While pastoral and horticultural societies used small, temporary tools such as digging sticks or hoes, agricultural
societies relied on permanent tools for survival. Around 3000 B.C.E., an explosion of new technology known as the
Agricultural Revolution made farming possible—and profitable. Farmers learned to rotate the types of crops grown on
their fields and to reuse waste products such as fertilizer, which led to better harvests and bigger surpluses of food. New
tools for digging and harvesting were made of metal, and this made them more effective and longer lasting. Human
settlements grew into towns and cities, and particularly bountiful regions became centers of trade and commerce.

This is also the age in which people had the time and comfort to engage in more contemplative and thoughtful activities,
such as music, poetry, and philosophy. This period became referred to as the “dawn of civilization” by some because of the
development of leisure and humanities. Craftspeople were able to support themselves through the production of creative,
decorative, or thought-provoking aesthetic objects and writings.

As resources became more plentiful, social classes became more divisive. Those who had more resources could afford
better living and developed into a class of nobility. Difference in social standing between men and women increased. As
cities expanded, ownership and preservation of resources became a pressing concern.

Feudal

The ninth century gave rise to feudal societies. These societies contained a strict hierarchical system of power based
around land ownership and protection. The nobility, known as lords, placed vassals in charge of pieces of land. In return
for the resources that the land provided, vassals promised to fight for their lords.

These individual pieces of land, known as fiefdoms, were cultivated by the lower class. In return for maintaining the land,
peasants were guaranteed a place to live and protection from outside enemies. Power was handed down through family
lines, with peasant families serving lords for generations and generations. Ultimately, the social and economic system of
feudalism failed and was replaced by capitalism and the technological advances of the industrial era.

Industrial Society
In the eighteenth century, Europe experienced a dramatic rise in technological invention, ushering in an era known as the
Industrial Revolution. What made this period remarkable was the number of new inventions that influenced people’s daily
lives. Within a generation, tasks that had until this point required months of labor became achievable in a matter of days.
Before the Industrial Revolution, work was largely person- or animal-based, and relied on human workers or horses to
power mills and drive pumps. In 1782, James Watt and Matthew Boulton created a steam engine that could do the work of
twelve horses by itself.

Steam power began appearing everywhere. Instead of paying artisans to painstakingly spin wool and weave it into cloth,
people turned to textile mills that produced fabric quickly at a better price and often with better quality. Rather than
planting and harvesting fields by hand, farmers were able to purchase mechanical seeders and threshing machines that
caused agricultural productivity to soar. Products such as paper and glass became available to the average person, and the
quality and accessibility of education and health care soared. Gas lights allowed increased visibility in the dark, and towns
and cities developed a nightlife.

One of the results of increased productivity and technology was the rise of urban centers. Workers flocked to factories for
jobs, and the populations of cities became increasingly diverse. The new generation became less preoccupied with
maintaining family land and traditions and more focused on acquiring wealth and achieving upward mobility for
themselves and their families. People wanted their children and their children’s children to continue to rise to the top, and
as capitalism increased, so did social mobility.

It was during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of the Industrial Revolution that sociology was born. Life was
changing quickly and the long-established traditions of the agricultural eras did not apply to life in the larger cities. Masses
of people were moving to new environments and often found themselves faced with horrendous conditions of filth,
overcrowding, and poverty. Social scientists emerged to study the relationship between the individual members of society
and society as a whole.

It was during this time that power moved from the hands of the aristocracy and “old money” to business-savvy newcomers
who amassed fortunes in their lifetimes. Families such as the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts became the new power
players and used their influence in business to control aspects of government as well. Eventually, concerns over the
exploitation of workers led to the formation of labor unions and laws that set mandatory conditions for employees.

78 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Although the introduction of new technology at the end of the nineteenth century ended the industrial age, much of our
social structure and social ideas—like family, childhood, and time standardization—have a basis in industrial society.

Figure 4.4 John D. Rockefeller, cofounder of the Standard Oil Company, came from an unremarkable family of salesmen and menial laborers. By
his death at age 98, he was worth $1.4 billion. In industrial societies, business owners such as Rockefeller hold the majority of the power. (Photo
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Postindustrial Society
Information societies, sometimes known as postindustrial or digital societies, are a recent development. Unlike industrial
societies that are rooted in the production of material goods, information societies are based on the production of
information and services.

Digital technology is the steam engine of information societies, and computer moguls such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates
are its John D. Rockefellers and Cornelius Vanderbilts. Since the economy of information societies is driven by knowledge
and not material goods, power lies with those in charge of storing and distributing information. Members of a
postindustrial society are likely to be employed as sellers of services—software programmers or business consultants, for
example—instead of producers of goods. Social classes are divided by access to education, since without technical skills,
people in an information society lack the means for success.

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Society

Figure 4.5 Warren Buffett’s ideas about taxation and spending habits of the very wealthy are controversial, particularly since they raise questions
about America’s embedded system of class structure and social power. The three major sociological paradigms differ in their perspectives on these
issues. (Photo courtesy of Medill DC/flickr)

While many sociologists have contributed to research on society and social interaction, three thinkers form the base of
modern-day perspectives. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber developed different theoretical approaches to help
us understand the way societies function.

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 79

Émile Durkheim and Functionalism
As a functionalist, Émile Durkheim’s (1858–1917) perspective on society stressed the necessary interconnectivity of all of
its elements. To Durkheim, society was greater than the sum of its parts. He asserted that individual behavior was not the
same as collective behavior and that studying collective behavior was quite different from studying an individual’s actions.
Durkheim called the communal beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society the collective conscience. In his quest to
understand what causes individuals to act in similar and predictable ways, he wrote, “If I do not submit to the conventions
of society, if in my dress I do not conform to the customs observed in my country and in my class, the ridicule I provoke,
the social isolation in which I am kept, produce, although in an attenuated form, the same effects as punishment”
(Durkheim 1895). Durkheim also believed that social integration, or the strength of ties that people have to their social
groups, was a key factor in social life.

Following the ideas of Comte and Spencer, Durkheim likened society to that of a living organism, in which each organ
plays a necessary role in keeping the being alive. Even the socially deviant members of society are necessary, Durkheim
argued, as punishments for deviance affirm established cultural values and norms. That is, punishment of a crime reaffirms
our moral consciousness. “A crime is a crime because we condemn it,” Durkheim wrote in 1893. “An act offends the
common consciousness not because it is criminal, but it is criminal because it offends that consciousness” (Durkheim
1893). Durkheim called these elements of society “social facts.” By this, he meant that social forces were to be considered
real and existed outside the individual.

As an observer of his social world, Durkheim was not entirely satisfied with the direction of society in his day. His
primary concern was that the cultural glue that held society together was failing, and people were becoming more divided.
In his book The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim argued that as society grew more complex, social order
made the transition from mechanical to organic.

Preindustrial societies, Durkheim explained, were held together by mechanical solidarity, a type of social order
maintained by the collective consciousness of a culture. Societies with mechanical solidarity act in a mechanical fashion;
things are done mostly because they have always been done that way. This type of thinking was common in preindustrial
societies where strong bonds of kinship and a low division of labor created shared morals and values among people, such
as hunter-gatherer groups. When people tend to do the same type of work, Durkheim argued, they tend to think and act
alike.

In industrial societies, mechanical solidarity is replaced with organic solidarity, which is social order based around an
acceptance of economic and social differences. In capitalist societies, Durkheim wrote, division of labor becomes so
specialized that everyone is doing different things. Instead of punishing members of a society for failure to assimilate to
common values, organic solidarity allows people with differing values to coexist. Laws exist as formalized morals and are
based on restitution rather than revenge.

While the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is, in the long run, advantageous for a society, Durkheim noted
that it can be a time of chaos and “normlessness.” One of the outcomes of the transition is something he called social
anomie. Anomie—literally, “without law”—is a situation in which society no longer has the support of a firm collective
consciousness. Collective norms are weakened. People, while more interdependent to accomplish complex tasks, are also
alienated from each other. Anomie is experienced in times of social uncertainty, such as war or a great upturn or downturn
in the economy. As societies reach an advanced stage of organic solidarity, they avoid anomie by redeveloping a set of
shared norms. According to Durkheim, once a society achieves organic solidarity, it has finished its development.

Karl Marx and Conflict Theory
Karl Marx (1818–1883) is certainly among the most significant social thinkers in recent history. While there are many
critics of his work, it is still widely respected and influential. For Marx, society’s constructions were predicated upon the
idea of “base and superstructure.” This term refers to the idea that a society’s economic character forms its base, upon
which rests the culture and social institutions, the superstructure. For Marx, it is the base (economy) that determines what
a society will be like.

80 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Figure 4.6 Karl Marx asserted that all elements of a society’s structure depend on its economic structure.

Additionally, Marx saw conflict in society as the primary means of change. Economically, he saw conflict existing
between the owners of the means of production—the bourgeoisie—and the laborers, called the proletariat.

Marx maintained that these conflicts appeared consistently throughout history during times of social revolution. These
revolutions or “class antagonisms” as he called them, were a result of one class dominating another. Most recently, with
the end of feudalism, a new revolutionary class he called the bourgeoisie dominated the proletariat laborers. The
bourgeoisie were revolutionary in the sense that they represented a radical change in the structure of society. In Marx’s
words, “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly
facing each other—Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx and Engels 1848).

In the mid-nineteenth century, as industrialization was booming, industrial employers, the “owners of the means of
production” in Marx’s terms, became more and more exploitative toward the working class. The large manufacturers of
steel were particularly ruthless, and their facilities became popularly dubbed “satanic mills” based on a poem by William
Blake. Marx’s colleague and friend, Frederick Engels, wrote The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844,
which described in detail the horrid conditions.

Such is the Old Town of Manchester, and on re-reading my description, I am forced to admit that
instead of being exaggerated, it is far from black enough to convey a true impression of the filth, ruin,
and uninhabitableness, the defiance of all considerations of cleanliness, ventilation, and health
which characterise the construction of this single district, containing at least twenty to thirty thousand
inhabitants. And such a district exists in the heart of the second city of England, the first
manufacturing city of the world.

Add to that the long hours, the use of child labor, and exposure to extreme conditions of heat, cold, and toxic chemicals,
and it is no wonder that Marx and Engels referred to capitalism, which is a way of organizing an economy so that the
things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people
and companies rather than by the government, as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.”

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 81

(a)

(b)

Figure 4.7 Karl Marx (left) and Friedrich Engels (right) analyzed differences in social power between “have” and “have-not” groups. (Photo (a)
courtesy of Wikimedia Commons; Photo (b) courtesy of George Lester/Wikimedia Commons)

For Marx, what we do defines who we are. In historical terms, in spite of the persistent nature of one class dominating
another, some element of humanity existed. There was at least some connection between the worker and the product,
augmented by the natural conditions of seasons and the rise and fall of the sun, such as we see in an agricultural society.
But with the bourgeoisie revolution and the rise of industry and capitalism, the worker now worked for wages alone. His
relationship to his efforts was no longer of a human nature, but based on artificial conditions.

Marx described modern society in terms of alienation. Alienation refers to the condition in which the individual is isolated
and divorced from his or her society, work, or the sense of self. Marx defined four specific types of alienation.

Alienation from the product of one’s labor. An industrial worker does not have the opportunity to relate to the product he
labors on. Instead of training for years as a watchmaker, an unskilled worker can get a job at a watch factory pressing
buttons to seal pieces together. The worker does not care if he is making watches or cars, simply that the job exists. In the
same way, a worker may not even know or care what product to which he is contributing. A worker on a Ford assembly
line may spend all day installing windows on car doors without ever seeing the rest of the car. A cannery worker can spend
a lifetime cleaning fish without ever knowing what product they are used for.

Alienation from the process of one’s labor. A worker does not control the conditions of her job because she does not own
the means of production. If a person is hired to work in a fast food restaurant, she is expected to make the food the way she
is taught. All ingredients must be combined in a particular order and in a particular quantity; there is no room for creativity
or change. An employee at Burger King cannot decide to change the spices used on the fries in the same way that an
employee on a Ford assembly line cannot decide to place a car’s headlights in a different position. Everything is decided
by the bourgeoisie who then dictate orders to the laborers.

Alienation from others. Workers compete, rather than cooperate. Employees vie for time slots, bonuses, and job security.
Even when a worker clocks out at night and goes home, the competition does not end. As Marx commented in The
Communist Manifesto (1848), “No sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he
receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portion of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the
pawnbroker.”

Alienation from one’s self. A final outcome of industrialization is a loss of connectivity between a worker and her
occupation. Because there is nothing that ties a worker to her labor, there is no longer a sense of self. Instead of being able
to take pride in an identity such as being a watchmaker, automobile builder, or chef, a person is simply a cog in the
machine.

Taken as a whole, then, alienation in modern society means that an individual has no control over his life. Even in feudal
societies, a person controlled the manner of his labor as to when and how it was carried out. But why, then, does the
modern working class not rise up and rebel? (Indeed, Marx predicted that this would be the ultimate outcome and collapse
of capitalism.)

Another idea that Marx developed is the concept of false consciousness. False consciousness is a condition in which the
beliefs, ideals, or ideology of a person are not in the person’s own best interest. In fact, it is the ideology of the dominant
class (here, the bourgeoisie capitalists) that is imposed upon the proletariat. Ideas such as the emphasis of competition over

82 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

cooperation, or of hard work being its own reward, clearly benefit the owners of industry. Therefore, workers are less
likely to question their place in society and assume individual responsibility for existing conditions.

In order for society to overcome false consciousness, Marx proposed that it be replaced with class consciousness, the
awareness of one’s rank in society. Instead of existing as a “class in itself,” the proletariat must become a “class for itself”
in order to produce social change (Marx and Engels 1848), meaning that instead of just being an inert strata of society, the
class could become an advocate for social improvements. Only once society entered this state of political consciousness
would it be ready for a social revolution.

Figure 4.8 An assembly line worker installs car parts with the aid of complex machinery. Has technology made this type of labor more or less
alienating? (Photo courtesy of Carol Highsmith/Wikimedia Commons)

Max Weber and Symbolic Interactionism
While Karl Marx may be one of the best-known thinkers of the nineteenth century, Max Weber is certainly one of the
greatest influences in the field of sociology. Like the other social thinkers discussed here, he was concerned with the
important changes taking place in Western society with the advent of industrialization. And, like Marx and Durkheim, he
feared that industrialization would have negative effects on individuals.

Weber’s primary focus on the structure of society lay in the elements of class, status, and power. Similar to Marx, Weber
saw class as economically determined. Society, he believed, was split between owners and laborers. Status, on the other
hand, was based on noneconomic factors such as education, kinship, and religion. Both status and class determined an
individual’s power, or influence over ideas. Unlike Marx, Weber believed that these ideas formed the base of society.

Weber’s analysis of modern society centered on the concept of rationalization. A rational society is one built around logic
and efficiency rather than morality or tradition. To Weber, capitalism is entirely rational. Although this leads to efficiency
and merit-based success, it can have negative effects when taken to the extreme. In some modern societies, this is seen
when rigid routines and strict design lead to a mechanized work environment and a focus on producing identical products
in every location.

Another example of the extreme conditions of rationality can be found in Charlie Chaplin’s classic film Modern Times
(1936). Chaplin’s character performs a routine task to the point where he cannot stop his motions even while away from
the job. Indeed, today we even have a recognized medical condition that results from such tasks, known as “repetitive
stress syndrome.”

Weber was also unlike his predecessors in that he was more interested in how individuals experienced societal divisions
than in the divisions themselves. The symbolic interactionism theory, the third of the three most recognized theories of
sociology, is based on Weber’s early ideas that emphasize the viewpoint of the individual and how that individual relates
to society. For Weber, the culmination of industrialization, rationalization, and the like results in what he referred to as the
iron cage, in which the individual is trapped by institutions and bureaucracy. This leads to a sense of “disenchantment of
the world,” a phrase Weber used to describe the final condition of humanity. Indeed a dark prediction, but one that has, at
least to some degree, been borne out (Gerth and Mills 1918). In a rationalized, modern society, we have supermarkets
instead of family-owned stores. We have chain restaurants instead of local eateries. Superstores that offer a multitude of
merchandise have replaced independent businesses that focused on one product line, such as hardware, groceries,
automotive repair, or clothing. Shopping malls offer retail stores, restaurants, fitness centers, even condominiums. This
change may be rational, but is it universally desirable?

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 83

Making Connections: Big Picturethe

Figure 4.9 Cubicles are used to maximize individual workspace in an office. Such structures may be rational, but they are also isolating. (Photo
courtesy of Tim Patterson/flickr)

The Protestant Work Ethic
In a series of essays in 1904, Max Weber presented the idea of the Protestant work ethic, a new attitude toward work
based on the Calvinist principle of predestination. In the sixteenth century, Europe was shaken by the Protestant
Revolution. Religious leaders such as Martin Luther and John Calvin argued against the Catholic Church’s belief in
salvation through obedience. While Catholic leaders emphasized the importance of religious dogma and performing
good deeds as a gateway to Heaven, Protestants believed that inner grace, or faith in God, was enough to achieve
salvation.

John Calvin in particular popularized the Christian concept of predestination, the idea that all events—including
salvation—have already been decided by God. Because followers were never sure whether they had been chosen to
enter Heaven or Hell, they looked for signs in their everyday lives. If a person was hard-working and successful, he
was likely to be one of the chosen. If a person was lazy or simply indifferent, he was likely to be one of the damned.

Weber argued that this mentality encouraged people to work hard for personal gain; after all, why should one help the
unfortunate if they were already damned? Over time, the Protestant work ethic spread and became the foundation for
capitalism.

4.3 Social Constructions of Reality

Figure 4.10 Who are we? What role do we play in society? According to sociologists, we construct reality through our interactions with others. In
a way, our day-to-day interactions are like those of actors on a stage. (Photo courtesy of Jan Lewandowski/flickr)

84 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Until now, we’ve primarily discussed the differences between societies. Rather than discuss their problems and
configurations, we’ll now explore how society came to be and how sociologists view social interaction.

In 1966 sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote a book called The Social Construction of Reality. In it,
they argued that society is created by humans and human interaction, which they call habitualization. Habitualization
describes how “any action that is repeated frequently becomes cast into a pattern, which can then be … performed again in
the future in the same manner and with the same economical effort” (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Not only do we
construct our own society but we also accept it as it is because others have created it before us. Society is, in fact, “habit.”

For example, your school exists as a school and not just as a building because you and others agree that it is a school. If
your school is older than you are, it was created by the agreement of others before you. In a sense, it exists by consensus,
both prior and current. This is an example of the process of institutionalization, the act of implanting a convention or
norm into society. Bear in mind that the institution, while socially constructed, is still quite real.

Another way of looking at this concept is through W.I. Thomas’s notable Thomas theorem which states, “If men define
situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 1928). That is, people’s behavior can be
determined by their subjective construction of reality rather than by objective reality. For example, a teenager who is
repeatedly given a label—overachiever, player, bum—might live up to the term even though it initially wasn’t a part of his
character.

Like Berger and Luckmann in their description of habitualization, Thomas states that our moral codes and social norms are
created by “successive definitions of the situation.” This concept is defined by sociologist Robert K. Merton as a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Merton explains that with a self-fulfilling prophecy, even a false idea can become true if it is acted
upon. One example he gives is of a “bank run.” Say for some reason, a number of people falsely fear that their bank is
soon to be bankrupt. Because of this false notion, people run to their bank and demand all of their cash at once. As banks
rarely, if ever, have that much money on hand, the bank does indeed run out of money, fulfilling the customers’ prophecy.
Here, reality is constructed by an idea.

Symbolic interactionists offer another lens through which to analyze the social construction of reality. With a theoretical
perspective focused on the symbols (like language, gestures, and artifacts) that people use to interact, this approach is
interested in how people interpret those symbols in daily interactions. For example, we might feel fright at seeing a person
holding a gun, unless, of course, it turns out to be a police officer. Interactionists also recognize that language and body
language reflect our values. One has only to learn a foreign tongue to know that not every English word can be easily
translated into another language. The same is true for gestures. While Americans might recognize a “thumbs up” as
meaning “great,” in Germany it would mean “one” and in Japan it would mean “five.” Thus, our construction of reality is
influenced by our symbolic interactions.

Figure 4.11 The story line of a self-fulfilling prophecy appears in many literary works, perhaps most famously in the story of Oedipus. Oedipus is
told by an oracle that he will murder his father and marry his mother. In going out of his way to avoid his fate, Oedipus inadvertently fulfills it. Oedipus’s
story illustrates one way in which members of society contribute to the social construction of reality. (Photo courtesy of Jean-Antoine-Theodore Giroust/
Wikimedia Commons)

Roles and Status
As you can imagine, people employ many types of behaviors in day-to-day life. Roles are patterns of behavior that we
recognize in each other that are representative of a person’s social status. Currently, while reading this text, you are playing
the role of a student. However, you also play other roles in your life, such as “daughter,” “neighbor,” or “employee.” These
various roles are each associated with a different status.

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 85

Sociologists use the term status to describe the responsibilities and benefits that a person experiences according to their
rank and role in society. Some statuses are ascribed—those you do not select, such as son, elderly person, or female.
Others, called achieved statuses, are obtained by choice, such as a high school dropout, self-made millionaire, or nurse.
As a daughter or son, you occupy a different status than as a neighbor or employee. One person can be associated with a
multitude of roles and statuses. Even a single status such as “student” has a complex role-set, or array of roles, attached to
it (Merton 1957).

If too much is required of a single role, individuals can experience role strain. Consider the duties of a parent: cooking,
cleaning, driving, problem-solving, acting as a source of moral guidance—the list goes on. Similarly, a person can
experience role conflict when one or more roles are contradictory. A parent who also has a full-time career can experience
role conflict on a daily basis. When there is a deadline at the office but a sick child needs to be picked up from school,
which comes first? When you are working toward a promotion but your children want you to come to their school play,
which do you choose? Being a college student can conflict with being an employee, being an athlete, or even being a
friend. Our roles in life have a great effect on our decisions and who we become.

Presentation of Self
Of course, it is impossible to look inside a person’s head and study what role they are playing. All we can observe is
behavior, or role performance. Role performance is how a person expresses his or her role. Sociologist Erving Goffman
presented the idea that a person is like an actor on a stage. Calling his theory dramaturgy, Goffman believed that we use
“impression management” to present ourselves to others as we hope to be perceived. Each situation is a new scene, and
individuals perform different roles depending on who is present (Goffman 1959). Think about the way you behave around
your coworkers versus the way you behave around your grandparents versus the way you behave with a blind date. Even if
you’re not consciously trying to alter your personality, your grandparents, coworkers, and date probably see different sides
of you.

As in a play, the setting matters as well. If you have a group of friends over to your house for dinner, you are playing the
role of a host. It is agreed upon that you will provide food and seating and probably be stuck with a lot of the cleanup at
the end of the night. Similarly, your friends are playing the roles of guests, and they are expected to respect your property
and any rules you may set forth (“Don’t leave the door open or the cat will get out.”). In any scene, there needs to be a
shared reality between players. In this case, if you view yourself as a guest and others view you as a host, there are likely
to be problems.

Impression management is a critical component of symbolic interactionism. For example, a judge in a courtroom has many
“props” to create an impression of fairness, gravity, and control—like her robe and gavel. Those entering the courtroom
are expected to adhere to the scene being set. Just imagine the “impression” that can be made by how a person dresses.
This is the reason that attorneys frequently select the hairstyle and apparel for witnesses and defendants in courtroom
proceedings.

Figure 4.12 Janus, another possible “prop”, depicted with two heads, exemplifies war and peace. (Photo courtesy of Fubar Obfusco/Wikimedia
Commons)

Goffman’s dramaturgy ideas expand on the ideas of Charles Cooley and the looking-glass self. According to Cooley, we
base our image on what we think other people see (Cooley 1902). We imagine how we must appear to others, then react to

86 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

achieved

status:

agricultural societies:

alienation:

anomie:

ascribed status:

bourgeoisie:

capitalism:

class consciousness:

collective conscience:

false consciousness:

feudal societies:

habitualization:

horticultural societies:

hunter-gatherer societies:

industrial societies:

information societies:

institutionalization:

iron cage:

looking-glass self:

mechanical solidarity:

organic solidarity:

pastoral societies:

proletariat:

this speculation. We don certain clothes, prepare our hair in a particular manner, wear makeup, use cologne, and the
like—all with the notion that our presentation of ourselves is going to affect how others perceive us. We expect a certain
reaction, and, if lucky, we get the one we desire and feel good about it. But more than that, Cooley believed that our sense
of self is based upon this idea: we imagine how we look to others, draw conclusions based upon their reactions to us, and
then we develop our personal sense of self. In other words, people’s reactions to us are like a mirror in which we are
reflected.

Chapter Review

Key Terms
the status a person chooses, such as a level of education or income

societies that rely on farming as a way of life

an individual’s isolation from his society, his work, and his sense of self

a situation in which society no longer has the support of a firm collective consciousness

the status outside of an individual’s control, such as sex or race

the owners of the means of production in a society

a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as
land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

the awareness of one’s rank in society

the communal beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society

a person’s beliefs and ideology that are in conflict with her best interests

societies that operate on a strict hierarchical system of power based around land ownership and
protection

the idea that society is constructed by us and those before us, and it is followed like a habit

societies based around the cultivation of plants

societies that depend on hunting wild animals and gathering uncultivated plants for
survival

societies characterized by a reliance on mechanized labor to create material goods

societies based on the production of nonmaterial goods and services

the act of implanting a convention or norm into society

a situation in which an individual is trapped by social institutions

our reflection of how we think we appear to others

a type of social order maintained by the collective consciousness of a culture

a type of social order based around an acceptance of economic and social differences

societies based around the domestication of animals

the laborers in a society

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 87

rationalization:

role conflict:

role performance:

role strain:

role-set:

roles:

self-fulfilling prophecy:

social integration:

society:

status:

Thomas theorem:

a belief that modern society should be built around logic and efficiency rather than morality or
tradition

a situation when one or more of an individual’s roles clash

the expression of a role

stress that occurs when too much is required of a single role

an array of roles attached to a particular status

patterns of behavior that are representative of a person’s social status

an idea that becomes true when acted upon

how strongly a person is connected to his or her social group

a group of people who live in a definable community and share the same culture

the responsibilities and benefits that a person experiences according to his or her rank and role in society

how a subjective reality can drive events to develop in accordance with that reality, despite being
originally unsupported by objective reality

Section Summary

4.1 Types of Societies
Societies are classified according to their development and use of technology. For most of human history, people lived in
preindustrial societies characterized by limited technology and low production of goods. After the Industrial Revolution,
many societies based their economies around mechanized labor, leading to greater profits and a trend toward greater social
mobility. At the turn of the new millennium, a new type of society emerged. This postindustrial, or information, society is
built on digital technology and nonmaterial goods.

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Society
Émile Durkheim believed that as societies advance, they make the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity. For
Karl Marx, society exists in terms of class conflict. With the rise of capitalism, workers become alienated from themselves
and others in society. Sociologist Max Weber noted that the rationalization of society can be taken to unhealthy extremes.

4.3 Social Constructions of Reality
Society is based on the social construction of reality. How we define society influences how society actually is. Likewise,
how we see other people influences their actions as well as our actions toward them. We all take on various roles
throughout our lives, and our social interactions depend on what types of roles we assume, who we assume them with, and
the scene where interaction takes place.

Section Quiz

4.1 Types of Societies
1. Which of the following fictional societies is an example of a pastoral society?

a. The Deswan people, who live in small tribes and base their economy on the production and trade of textiles
b. The Rositian Clan, a small community of farmers who have lived on their family’s land for centuries
c. The Hunti, a wandering group of nomads who specialize in breeding and training horses
d. The Amaganda, an extended family of warriors who serve a single noble family

2. Which of the following occupations is a person of power most likely to have in an information society?
a. Software engineer
b. Coal miner
c. Children’s book author
d. Sharecropper

88 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

3. Which of the following societies were the first to have permanent residents?
a. Industrial
b. Hunter-gatherer
c. Horticultural
d. Feudal

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Society
4. Organic solidarity is most likely to exist in which of the following types of societies?

a. Hunter-gatherer
b. Industrial
c. Agricultural
d. Feudal

5. According to Marx, the _____ own the means of production in a society.
a. proletariat
b. vassals
c. bourgeoisie
d. anomie

6. Which of the following best depicts Marx’s concept of alienation from the process of one’s labor?
a. A supermarket cashier always scans store coupons before company coupons because she was taught to do it that

way.
b. A businessman feels that he deserves a raise, but is nervous to ask his manager for one; instead, he comforts

himself with the idea that hard work is its own reward.
c. An associate professor is afraid that she won’t be given tenure and starts spreading rumors about one of her

associates to make herself look better.
d. A construction worker is laid off and takes a job at a fast food restaurant temporarily, although he has never had

an interest in preparing food before.

7. The Protestant work ethic is based on the concept of predestination, which states that ________.
a. performing good deeds in life is the only way to secure a spot in Heaven
b. salvation is only achievable through obedience to God
c. no person can be saved before he or she accepts Jesus Christ as his or her savior
d. God has already chosen those who will be saved and those who will be damned

8. The concept of the iron cage was popularized by which of the following sociological thinkers?
a. Max Weber
b. Karl Marx
c. Émile Durkheim
d. Friedrich Engels

9. Émile Durkheim’s ideas about society can best be described as ________.
a. functionalist
b. conflict theorist
c. symbolic interactionist
d. rationalist

4.3 Social Constructions of Reality
10. Mary works full-time at an office downtown while her young children stay at a neighbor’s house. She’s just learned
that the childcare provider is leaving the country. Mary has succumbed to pressure to volunteer at her church, plus her
ailing mother-in-law will be moving in with her next month. Which of the following is likely to occur as Mary tries to
balance her existing and new responsibilities?

a. Role strain
b. Self-fulfilling prophecy
c. Status conflict
d. Status strain

11. According to Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, society is based on ________.
a. habitual actions
b. status
c. institutionalization

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 89

d. role performance

12. Paco knows that women find him attractive, and he’s never found it hard to get a date. But as he ages, he dyes his hair
to hide the gray and wears clothes that camouflage the weight he has put on. Paco’s behavior can be best explained by the
concept of ___________.

a. role strain
b. the looking-glass self
c. role performance
d. habitualization

Short Answer

4.1 Types of Societies
1. In which type or types of societies do the benefits seem to outweigh the costs? Explain your answer, and cite social and
economic reasons.

2. Is Gerhard Lenski right in classifying societies based on technological advances? What other criteria might be
appropriate, based on what you have read?

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Society
3. Choose two of the three sociologists discussed here (Durkheim, Marx, Weber), and use their arguments to explain a
current social event such as the Occupy movement. Do their theories hold up under modern scrutiny?

4. Think of the ways workers are alienated from the product and process of their jobs. How can these concepts be applied
to students and their educations?

4.3 Social Constructions of Reality
5. Draw a large circle, and then “slice” the circle into pieces like a pie, labeling each piece with a role or status that you
occupy. Add as many statuses, ascribed and achieved, that you have. Don’t forget things like dog owner, gardener, traveler,
student, runner, employee. How many statuses do you have? In which ones are there role conflicts?

6. Think of a self-fulfilling prophecy that you’ve experienced. Based on this experience, do you agree with the Thomas
theorem? Use examples from current events to support your answer as well.

Further Research

4.1 Types of Societies
The Maasai are a modern pastoral society with an economy largely structured around herds of cattle. Read more about the
Maasai people and see pictures of their daily lives here: http://openstaxcollege.org/l/The-Maasai
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/The-Maasai)

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Society
One of the most influential pieces of writing in modern history was Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist
Manifesto. Visit this site to read the original document that spurred revolutions around the world:
http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Communist-Party (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Communist-Party)

4.3 Social Constructions of Reality
TV Tropes is a website where users identify concepts that are commonly used in literature, film, and other media.
Although its tone is for the most part humorous, the site provides a good jumping-off point for research. Browse the list of
examples under the entry of “self-fulfilling prophecy.” Pay careful attention to the real-life examples. Are there ones that
surprised you or that you don’t agree with? http://openstaxcollege.org/l/tv-tropes (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/tv-tropes)

References

4.0 Introduction to Society and Social Interaction
Maasai Association. “Facing the Lion.” Retrieved January 4, 2012 (http://www.maasai-association.org/lion.html
(http://www.maasai-association.org/lion.html) ).

90 Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/The-Maasai

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/The-Maasai

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/Communist-Party

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/tv-tropes

http://www.maasai-association.org/lion.html

http://www.maasai-association.org/lion.html

4.1 Types of Societies
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 2005. “Israel: Treatment of Bedouin, Including Incidents of Harassment,
Discrimination or Attacks; State Protection (January 2003–July 2005)”, Refworld, July 29. Retrieved February 10, 2012
(http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/440ed71325.html (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/440ed71325.html) ).

Kjeilen, Tore. “Bedouin.” Looklex.com. Retrieved February 17, 2012 (http://looklex.com/index.htm (http://looklex.com/
index.htm) ).

University of Michigan. n.d. “The Curse of Oil in Ogoniland”. Retrieved January 2, 2015
(http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/cases_03-04/Ogoni/Ogoni_case_study.htm).

4.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Society
Durkheim, Émile. 1960 [1893]. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by George Simpson. New York: Free Press.

Durkheim, Émile. 1982 [1895]. The Rules of the Sociological Method. Translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.

Engels, Friedrich. 1892. The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.

Geographia. 1998. “The Bedouin Way.” Geograpia.com. Retrieved January 4, 2012 (http://www.geographia.com/egypt/
sinai/bedouin02.htm (http://www.geographia.com/egypt/sinai/bedouin02.htm) ).

Gerth, H. H., and C. Wright Mills. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1998 [1848]. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin Group.

4.3 Social Constructions of Reality
Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Cooley, Charles H. 1902. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Merton, Robert K. 1957. “The Role-Set: Problems in Sociological Theory.” British Journal of Sociology 8(2):110–113.

Thomas, W.I., and D.S. Thomas. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf.

2A4B6A8A10A12B

Chapter 4 | Society and Social Interaction 91

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/440ed71325.html

http://looklex.com/index.htm

http://looklex.com/index.htm

http://www.geographia.com/egypt/sinai/bedouin02.htm

http://www.geographia.com/egypt/sinai/bedouin02.htm

14 Marriage and
Family

Figure 14.1 What constitutes a family nowadays? (Photo courtesy of Michael/flickr)

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 307

Learning Objectives
14.1. What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?

• Describe society’s current understanding of family

• Recognize changes in marriage and family patterns

• Differentiate between lines of decent and residence

14.2. Variations in Family Life
• Recognize variations in family life

• Understand the prevalence of single parents, cohabitation, same-sex couples, and unmarried individuals

• Discuss the social impact of changing family structures

14.3. Challenges Families Face
• Understand the social and interpersonal impact of divorce

• Describe the social and interpersonal impact of family abuse

Introduction to Marriage and Family
Rebecca and John were having a large church wedding attended by family and friends. They had been living together their
entire senior year of college and planned on getting married right after graduation.

Rebecca’s parents were very traditional in their life and family. They had married after college at which time Rebecca’s
mother was a stay-at-home mother and Rebecca’s father was a Vice President at a large accounting firm. The marriage was
viewed as very strong by outsiders.

John’s parents had divorced when John was five. He and his younger sister lived with his financially struggling mother.
The mother had a live-in boyfriend that she married when John was in high school. The Asian step father was helpful in
getting John summer jobs and encouraged John to attend the local community college before moving to the four-year
university.

Rebecca’s maid of honor, Susie, attended college with Rebecca but had dropped out when finding out she was pregnant.
She chose not to marry the father and was currently raising the child as a single parent. Working and taking care of the
child made college a remote possibility.

The best man, Brad, was in and out of relationships. He was currently seeing a woman with several children of different
parentage. The gossip had this relationship lasting about the same amount of time as all the previous encounters.

Rebecca and John had a gay couple as ushers. Steve and Roger had been in a monogamous relationship for almost ten
years, had adopted a minority daughter and were starting a web-based business together. It was obvious they both adored
their child, and they planned on being married at a Washington destination ceremony later in the year.

This scenario may be complicated, but it is representative of the many types of families in today’s society.

Between 2006 and 2010, nearly half of heterosexual women (48 percent) ages fifteen to forty-four said they were not
married to their spouse or partner when they first lived with them, the report says. That’s up from 43 percent in 2002, and
34 percent in 1995 (Rettner 2013). The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the number of unmarried couples has grown from
fewer than one million in the 1970s to 8.1 million in 2011. Cohabitating, but unwed, couples account for 10 percent of all
opposite-sex couples in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). Some may never choose to wed (Gardner 2013).
With fewer couples marrying, the traditional U.s. family structure is becoming less common.

308 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

14.1 What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?

(a)
(b)

Figure 14.2 The modern concept of family is far more encompassing than in past decades. What do you think constitutes a family? (Photo (a)
courtesy Gareth Williams/flickr; photo (b) courtesy Guillaume Paumier/ Wikimedia Commons)

Marriage and family are key structures in most societies. While the two institutions have historically been closely linked in
U.S. culture, their connection is becoming more complex. The relationship between marriage and family is an interesting
topic of study to sociologists.

What is marriage? Different people define it in different ways. Not even sociologists are able to agree on a single meaning.
For our purposes, we’ll define marriage as a legally recognized social contract between two people, traditionally based on
a sexual relationship and implying a permanence of the union. In practicing cultural relativism, we should also consider
variations, such as whether a legal union is required (think of “common law” marriage and its equivalents), or whether
more than two people can be involved (consider polygamy). Other variations on the definition of marriage might include
whether spouses are of opposite sexes or the same sex and how one of the traditional expectations of marriage (to produce
children) is understood today.

Sociologists are interested in the relationship between the institution of marriage and the institution of family because,
historically, marriages are what create a family, and families are the most basic social unit upon which society is built.
Both marriage and family create status roles that are sanctioned by society.

So what is a family? A husband, a wife, and two children—maybe even a pet—has served as the model for the traditional
U.S. family for most of the twentieth century. But what about families that deviate from this model, such as a single-parent
household or a homosexual couple without children? Should they be considered families as well?

The question of what constitutes a family is a prime area of debate in family sociology, as well as in politics and religion.
Social conservatives tend to define the family in terms of structure with each family member filling a certain role (like
father, mother, or child). Sociologists, on the other hand, tend to define family more in terms of the manner in which
members relate to one another than on a strict configuration of status roles. Here, we’ll define family as a socially
recognized group (usually joined by blood, marriage, cohabitation, or adoption) that forms an emotional connection and
serves as an economic unit of society. Sociologists identify different types of families based on how one enters into them.
A family of orientation refers to the family into which a person is born. A family of procreation describes one that is
formed through marriage. These distinctions have cultural significance related to issues of lineage.

Drawing on two sociological paradigms, the sociological understanding of what constitutes a family can be explained by
symbolic interactionism as well as functionalism. These two theories indicate that families are groups in which
participants view themselves as family members and act accordingly. In other words, families are groups in which people
come together to form a strong primary group connection and maintain emotional ties to one another over a long period of
time. Such families may include groups of close friends or teammates. In addition, the functionalist perspective views
families as groups that perform vital roles for society—both internally (for the family itself) and externally (for society as
a whole). Families provide for one another’s physical, emotional, and social well-being. Parents care for and socialize
children. Later in life, adult children often care for elderly parents. While interactionism helps us understand the subjective
experience of belonging to a “family,” functionalism illuminates the many purposes of families and their roles in the
maintenance of a balanced society (Parsons and Bales 1956). We will go into more detail about how these theories apply
to family in.

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 309

Challenges Families Face
People in the United States as a whole are somewhat divided when it comes to determining what does and what does not
constitute a family. In a 2010 survey conducted by professors at the University of Indiana, nearly all participants (99.8
percent) agreed that a husband, wife, and children constitute a family. Ninety-two percent stated that a husband and a wife
without children still constitute a family. The numbers drop for less traditional structures: unmarried couples with children
(83 percent), unmarried couples without children (39.6 percent), gay male couples with children (64 percent), and gay
male couples without children (33 percent) (Powell et al. 2010). This survey revealed that children tend to be the key
indicator in establishing “family” status: the percentage of individuals who agreed that unmarried couples and gay couples
constitute a family nearly doubled when children were added.

The study also revealed that 60 percent of U.S. respondents agreed that if you consider yourself a family, you are a family
(a concept that reinforces an interactionist perspective) (Powell 2010). The government, however, is not so flexible in its
definition of “family.” The U.S. Census Bureau defines a family as “a group of two people or more (one of whom is the
householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together” (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). While this
structured definition can be used as a means to consistently track family-related patterns over several years, it excludes
individuals such as cohabitating unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples. Legality aside, sociologists would argue
that the general concept of family is more diverse and less structured than in years past. Society has given more leeway to
the design of a family making room for what works for its members (Jayson 2010).

Family is, indeed, a subjective concept, but it is a fairly objective fact that family (whatever one’s concept of it may be) is
very important to people in the United States. In a 2010 survey by Pew Research Center in Washington, DC, 76 percent of
adults surveyed stated that family is “the most important” element of their life—just one percent said it was “not
important” (Pew Research Center 2010). It is also very important to society. President Ronald Regan notably stated, “The
family has always been the cornerstone of American society. Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each
succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation of our freedoms” (Lee 2009). While
the design of the family may have changed in recent years, the fundamentals of emotional closeness and support are still
present. Most responders to the Pew survey stated that their family today is at least as close (45 percent) or closer (40
percent) than the family with which they grew up (Pew Research Center 2010).

Alongside the debate surrounding what constitutes a family is the question of what people in the United States believe
constitutes a marriage. Many religious and social conservatives believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a
woman, citing religious scripture and the basics of human reproduction as support. Social liberals and progressives, on the
other hand, believe that marriage can exist between two consenting adults—be they a man and a woman, or a woman and
a woman—and that it would be discriminatory to deny such a couple the civil, social, and economic benefits of marriage.

Marriage Patterns
With single parenting and cohabitation (when a couple shares a residence but not a marriage) becoming more acceptable
in recent years, people may be less motivated to get married. In a recent survey, 39 percent of respondents answered “yes”
when asked whether marriage is becoming obsolete (Pew Research Center 2010). The institution of marriage is likely to
continue, but some previous patterns of marriage will become outdated as new patterns emerge. In this context,
cohabitation contributes to the phenomenon of people getting married for the first time at a later age than was typical in
earlier generations (Glezer 1991). Furthermore, marriage will continue to be delayed as more people place education and
career ahead of “settling down.”

One Partner or Many?

People in the United States typically equate marriage with monogamy, when someone is married to only one person at a
time. In many countries and cultures around the world, however, having one spouse is not the only form of marriage. In a
majority of cultures (78 percent), polygamy, or being married to more than one person at a time, is accepted (Murdock
1967), with most polygamous societies existing in northern Africa and east Asia (Altman and Ginat 1996). Instances of
polygamy are almost exclusively in the form of polygyny. Polygyny refers to a man being married to more than one
woman at the same time. The reverse, when a woman is married to more than one man at the same time, is called
polyandry. It is far less common and only occurs in about 1 percent of the world’s cultures (Altman and Ginat 1996). The
reasons for the overwhelming prevalence of polygamous societies are varied but they often include issues of population
growth, religious ideologies, and social status.

While the majority of societies accept polygyny, the majority of people do not practice it. Often fewer than 10 percent (and
no more than 25–35 percent) of men in polygamous cultures have more than one wife; these husbands are often older,
wealthy, high-status men (Altman and Ginat 1996). The average plural marriage involves no more than three wives. Negev
Bedouin men in Israel, for example, typically have two wives, although it is acceptable to have up to four (Griver 2008).

310 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

As urbanization increases in these cultures, polygamy is likely to decrease as a result of greater access to mass media,
technology, and education (Altman and Ginat 1996).

In the United States, polygamy is considered by most to be socially unacceptable and it is illegal. The act of entering into
marriage while still married to another person is referred to as bigamy and is considered a felony in most states. Polygamy
in the United States is often associated with those of the Mormon faith, although in 1890 the Mormon Church officially
renounced polygamy. Fundamentalist Mormons, such as those in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints (FLDS), on the other hand, still hold tightly to the historic Mormon beliefs and practices and allow polygamy in
their sect.

The prevalence of polygamy among Mormons is often overestimated due to sensational media stories such as the Yearning
for Zion ranch raid in Texas in 2008 and popular television shows such as HBO’s Big Love and TLC’s Sister Wives. It is
estimated that there are about 37,500 fundamentalist Mormons involved in polygamy in the United States, Canada, and
Mexico, but that number has shown a steady decrease in the last 100 years (Useem 2007).

U.S. Muslims, however, are an emerging group with an estimated 20,000 practicing polygamy. Again, polygamy among
U.S. Muslims is uncommon and occurs only in approximately 1 percent of the population (Useem 2007). For now
polygamy among U.S. Muslims has gone fairly unnoticed by mainstream society, but like fundamentalist Mormons whose
practices were off the public’s radar for decades, they may someday find themselves at the center of social debate.

Figure 14.3 Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of Mormonism, is said to have practiced polygamy. (Photo courtesy of public domain/Wikimedia
Commons)

Residency and Lines of Descent
When considering one’s lineage, most people in the United States look to both their father’s and mother’s sides. Both
paternal and maternal ancestors are considered part of one’s family. This pattern of tracing kinship is called bilateral
descent. Note that kinship, or one’s traceable ancestry, can be based on blood or marriage or adoption. Sixty percent of
societies, mostly modernized nations, follow a bilateral descent pattern. Unilateral descent (the tracing of kinship through
one parent only) is practiced in the other 40 percent of the world’s societies, with high concentration in pastoral cultures
(O’Neal 2006).

There are three types of unilateral descent: patrilineal, which follows the father’s line only; matrilineal, which follows
the mother’s side only; and ambilineal, which follows either the father’s only or the mother’s side only, depending on the
situation. In partrilineal societies, such as those in rural China and India, only males carry on the family surname. This
gives males the prestige of permanent family membership while females are seen as only temporary members (Harrell
2001). U.S. society assumes some aspects of partrilineal decent. For instance, most children assume their father’s last
name even if the mother retains her birth name.

In matrilineal societies, inheritance and family ties are traced to women. Matrilineal descent is common in Native
American societies, notably the Crow and Cherokee tribes. In these societies, children are seen as belonging to the women
and, therefore, one’s kinship is traced to one’s mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and so on (Mails 1996). In
ambilineal societies, which are most common in Southeast Asian countries, parents may choose to associate their children
with the kinship of either the mother or the father. This choice maybe based on the desire to follow stronger or more

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 311

prestigious kinship lines or on cultural customs such as men following their father’s side and women following their
mother’s side (Lambert 2009).

Tracing one’s line of descent to one parent rather than the other can be relevant to the issue of residence. In many cultures,
newly married couples move in with, or near to, family members. In a patrilocal residence system it is customary for the
wife to live with (or near) her husband’s blood relatives (or family or orientation). Patrilocal systems can be traced back
thousands of years. In a DNA analysis of 4,600-year-old bones found in Germany, scientists found indicators of patrilocal
living arrangements (Haak et al 2008). Patrilocal residence is thought to be disadvantageous to women because it makes
them outsiders in the home and community; it also keeps them disconnected from their own blood relatives. In China,
where patrilocal and patrilineal customs are common, the written symbols for maternal grandmother (wáipá) are separately
translated to mean “outsider” and “women” (Cohen 2011).

Similarly, in matrilocal residence systems, where it is customary for the husband to live with his wife’s blood relatives
(or her family of orientation), the husband can feel disconnected and can be labeled as an outsider. The Minangkabau
people, a matrilocal society that is indigenous to the highlands of West Sumatra in Indonesia, believe that home is the
place of women and they give men little power in issues relating to the home or family (Joseph and Najmabadi 2003).
Most societies that use patrilocal and patrilineal systems are patriarchal, but very few societies that use matrilocal and
matrilineal systems are matriarchal, as family life is often considered an important part of the culture for women,
regardless of their power relative to men.

Stages of Family Life
As we’ve established, the concept of family has changed greatly in recent decades. Historically, it was often thought that
many families evolved through a series of predictable stages. Developmental or “stage” theories used to play a prominent
role in family sociology (Strong and DeVault 1992). Today, however, these models have been criticized for their linear and
conventional assumptions as well as for their failure to capture the diversity of family forms. While reviewing some of
these once-popular theories, it is important to identify their strengths and weaknesses.

The set of predictable steps and patterns families experience over time is referred to as the family life cycle. One of the
first designs of the family life cycle was developed by Paul Glick in 1955. In Glick’s original design, he asserted that most
people will grow up, establish families, rear and launch their children, experience an “empty nest” period, and come to the
end of their lives. This cycle will then continue with each subsequent generation (Glick 1989). Glick’s colleague, Evelyn
Duvall, elaborated on the family life cycle by developing these classic stages of family (Strong and DeVault 1992):

Table 14.1 Stage Theory This table shows one example of how a “stage”
theory might categorize the phases a family goes through.

Stage Family Type Children

1 Marriage Family Childless

2 Procreation Family Children ages 0 to 2.5

3 Preschooler Family Children ages 2.5 to 6

4 School-age Family Children ages 6–13

5 Teenage Family Children ages 13–20

6 Launching Family Children begin to leave home

7 Empty Nest Family “Empty nest”; adult children have left home

The family life cycle was used to explain the different processes that occur in families over time. Sociologists view each
stage as having its own structure with different challenges, achievements, and accomplishments that transition the family
from one stage to the next. For example, the problems and challenges that a family experiences in Stage 1 as a married
couple with no children are likely much different than those experienced in Stage 5 as a married couple with teenagers.
The success of a family can be measured by how well they adapt to these challenges and transition into each stage. While
sociologists use the family life cycle to study the dynamics of family overtime, consumer and marketing researchers have
used it to determine what goods and services families need as they progress through each stage (Murphy and Staples
1979).

As early “stage” theories have been criticized for generalizing family life and not accounting for differences in gender,
ethnicity, culture, and lifestyle, less rigid models of the family life cycle have been developed. One example is the family
life course, which recognizes the events that occur in the lives of families but views them as parting terms of a fluid

312 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Making Connections: Sociology in the Real World

course rather than in consecutive stages (Strong and DeVault 1992). This type of model accounts for changes in family
development, such as the fact that in today’s society, childbearing does not always occur with marriage. It also sheds light
on other shifts in the way family life is practiced. Society’s modern understanding of family rejects rigid “stage” theories
and is more accepting of new, fluid models.

The Evolution of Television Families
Whether you grew up watching the Cleavers, the Waltons, the Huxtables, or the Simpsons, most of the iconic families
you saw in television sitcoms included a father, a mother, and children cavorting under the same roof while comedy
ensued. The 1960s was the height of the suburban U.S. nuclear family on television with shows such as The Donna
Reed Show and Father Knows Best. While some shows of this era portrayed single parents (My Three Sons and
Bonanza, for instance), the single status almost always resulted from being widowed—not divorced or unwed.

Although family dynamics in real U.S. homes were changing, the expectations for families portrayed on television
were not. The United States’ first reality show, An American Family (which aired on PBS in 1973) chronicled Bill
and Pat Loud and their children as a “typical” U.S. family. During the series, the oldest son, Lance, announced to the
family that he was gay, and at the series’ conclusion, Bill and Pat decided to divorce. Although the Loud’s union was
among the 30 percent of marriages that ended in divorce in 1973, the family was featured on the cover of the March
12 issue of Newsweek with the title “The Broken Family” (Ruoff 2002).

Less traditional family structures in sitcoms gained popularity in the 1980s with shows such as Diff’rent Strokes (a
widowed man with two adopted African American sons) and One Day at a Time (a divorced woman with two teenage
daughters). Still, traditional families such as those in Family Ties and The Cosby Show dominated the ratings. The late
1980s and the 1990s saw the introduction of the dysfunctional family. Shows such as Roseanne, Married with
Children, and The Simpsons portrayed traditional nuclear families, but in a much less flattering light than those from
the 1960s did (Museum of Broadcast Communications 2011).

Over the past ten years, the nontraditional family has become somewhat of a tradition in television. While most
situation comedies focus on single men and women without children, those that do portray families often stray from
the classic structure: they include unmarried and divorced parents, adopted children, gay couples, and
multigenerational households. Even those that do feature traditional family structures may show less-traditional
characters in supporting roles, such as the brothers in the highly rated shows Everybody Loves Raymond and Two and
Half Men. Even wildly popular children’s programs as Disney’s Hannah Montana and The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
feature single parents.

In 2009, ABC premiered an intensely nontraditional family with the broadcast of Modern Family. The show follows
an extended family that includes a divorced and remarried father with one stepchild, and his biological adult
children—one of who is in a traditional two-parent household, and the other who is a gay man in a committed
relationship raising an adopted daughter. While this dynamic may be more complicated than the typical “modern”
family, its elements may resonate with many of today’s viewers. “The families on the shows aren’t as idealistic, but
they remain relatable,” states television critic Maureen Ryan. “The most successful shows, comedies especially, have
families that you can look at and see parts of your family in them” (Respers France 2010).

14.2 Variations in Family Life
The combination of husband, wife, and children that 99.8 percent of people in the United States believe constitutes a
family is not representative of 99.8 percent of U.S. families. According to 2010 census data, only 66 percent of children
under seventeen years old live in a household with two married parents. This is a decrease from 77 percent in 1980 (U.S.
Census 2011). This two-parent family structure is known as a nuclear family, referring to married parents and children as
the nucleus, or core, of the group. Recent years have seen a rise in variations of the nuclear family with the parents not
being married. Three percent of children live with two cohabiting parents (U.S. Census 2011).

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 313

Figure 14.4 More than one quarter of U.S. children live in a single-parent household. (Photo courtesy of Ross Griff/flickr)

Single Parents
Single-parent households are on the rise. In 2010, 27 percent of children lived with a single parent only, up from 25
percent in 2008. Of that 27 percent, 23 percent live with their mother and three percent live with their father. Ten percent
of children living with their single mother and 20 percent of children living with their single father also live with the
cohabitating partner of their parent (for example, boyfriends or girlfriends).

Stepparents are an additional family element in two-parent homes. Among children living in two-parent households, 9
percent live with a biological or adoptive parent and a stepparent. The majority (70 percent) of those children live with
their biological mother and a stepfather. Family structure has been shown to vary with the age of the child. Older children
(fifteen to seventeen years old) are less likely to live with two parents than adolescent children (six to fourteen years old)
or young children (zero to five years old). Older children who do live with two parents are also more likely to live with
stepparents (U.S. Census 2011).

In some family structures a parent is not present at all. In 2010, three million children (4 percent of all children) lived with
a guardian who was neither their biological nor adoptive parent. Of these children, 54 percent live with grandparents, 21
percent live with other relatives, and 24 percent live with nonrelatives. This family structure is referred to as the extended
family, and may include aunts, uncles, and cousins living in the same home. Foster parents account for about a quarter of
nonrelatives. The practice of grandparents acting as parents, whether alone or in combination with the child’s parent, is
becoming widespread among today’s families (De Toledo and Brown 1995). Nine percent of all children live with a
grandparent, and in nearly half those cases, the grandparent maintains primary responsibility for the child (U.S. Census
2011). A grandparent functioning as the primary care provider often results from parental drug abuse, incarceration, or
abandonment. Events like these can render the parent incapable of caring for his or her child.

Changes in the traditional family structure raise questions about how such societal shifts affect children. U.S. Census
statistics have long shown that children living in homes with both parents grow up with more financial and educational
advantages than children who are raised in single-parent homes (U.S. Census 1997). Parental marital status seems to be a
significant indicator of advancement in a child’s life. Children living with a divorced parent typically have more
advantages than children living with a parent who never married; this is particularly true of children who live with
divorced fathers. This correlates with the statistic that never-married parents are typically younger, have fewer years of
schooling, and have lower incomes (U.S. Census 1997). Six in ten children living with only their mother live near or
below the poverty level. Of those being raised by single mothers, 69 percent live in or near poverty compared to 45
percent for divorced mothers (U.S. Census 1997). Though other factors such as age and education play a role in these
differences, it can be inferred that marriage between parents is generally beneficial for children.

Cohabitation
Living together before or in lieu of marriage is a growing option for many couples. Cohabitation, when a man and woman
live together in a sexual relationship without being married, was practiced by an estimated 7.5 million people (11.5 percent
of the population) in 2011, which shows an increase of 13 percent since 2009 (U.S. Census 2010). This surge in
cohabitation is likely due to the decrease in social stigma pertaining to the practice. In a 2010 National Center for Health
Statistics survey, only 38 percent of the 13,000-person sample thought that cohabitation negatively impacted society

314 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

(Jayson 2010). Of those who cohabitate, the majority are non-Hispanic with no high school diploma or GED and grew up
in a single-parent household (U.S. Census 2010).

Cohabitating couples may choose to live together in an effort to spend more time together or to save money on living
costs. Many couples view cohabitation as a “trial run” for marriage. Today, approximately 28 percent of men and women
cohabitated before their first marriage. By comparison, 18 percent of men and 23 percent of women married without ever
cohabitating (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The vast majority of cohabitating relationships eventually result in marriage;
only 15 percent of men and women cohabitate only and do not marry. About one half of cohabitators transition into
marriage within three years (U.S. Census 2010).

While couples may use this time to “work out the kinks” of a relationship before they wed, the most recent research has
found that cohabitation has little effect on the success of a marriage. In fact, those who do not cohabitate before marriage
have slightly better rates of remaining married for more than ten years (Jayson 2010). Cohabitation may contribute to the
increase in the number of men and women who delay marriage. The median age for marriage is the highest it has ever
been since the U.S. Census kept records—age twenty-six for women and age twenty-eight for men (U.S. Census 2010).

Figure 14.5 As shown by this graph of marital status percentages among young adults, more young people are choosing to delay or opt out of
marriage. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and American Community Survey)

Same-Sex Couples
The number of same-sex couples has grown significantly in the past decade. The U.S. Census Bureau reported 594,000
same-sex couple households in the United States, a 50 percent increase from 2000. This increase is a result of more
coupling, the growing social acceptance of homosexuality, and a subsequent increase in willingness to report it. Nationally,
same-sex couple households make up 1 percent of the population, ranging from as little as 0.29 percent in Wyoming to
4.01 percent in the District of Columbia (U.S. Census 2011). Legal recognition of same-sex couples as spouses is different
in each state, as only six states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. The 2010 U.S. Census,
however, allowed same-sex couples to report as spouses regardless of whether their state legally recognizes their
relationship. Nationally, 25 percent of all same-sex households reported that they were spouses. In states where same-sex
marriages are performed, nearly half (42.4 percent) of same-sex couple households were reported as spouses.

In terms of demographics, same-sex couples are not very different from opposite-sex couples. Same-sex couple
households have an average age of 52 and an average household income of $91,558; opposite-sex couple households have
an average age of 59 and an average household income of $95,075. Additionally, 31 percent of same-sex couples are
raising children, not far from the 43 percent of opposite-sex couples (U.S. Census 2009). Of the children in same-sex
couple households, 73 percent are biological children (of only one of the parents), 21 percent are adopted only, and 6
percent are a combination of biological and adopted (U.S. Census 2009).

While there is some concern from socially conservative groups regarding the well-being of children who grow up in same-
sex households, research reports that same-sex parents are as effective as opposite-sex parents. In an analysis of 81
parenting studies, sociologists found no quantifiable data to support the notion that opposite-sex parenting is any better
than same-sex parenting. Children of lesbian couples, however, were shown to have slightly lower rates of behavioral
problems and higher rates of self-esteem (Biblarz and Stacey 2010).

Staying Single
Gay or straight, a new option for many people in the United States is simply to stay single. In 2010, there were 99.6
million unmarried individuals over age eighteen in the United States, accounting for 44 percent of the total adult
population (U.S. Census 2011). In 2010, never-married individuals in the twenty-five to twenty-nine age bracket

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 315

Making Connections: Sociological Research

accounted for 62 percent of women and 48 percent of men, up from 11 percent and 19 percent, respectively, in 1970 (U.S.
Census 2011). Single, or never-married, individuals are found in higher concentrations in large cities or metropolitan areas,
with New York City being one of the highest.

Although both single men and single women report social pressure to get married, women are subject to greater scrutiny.
Single women are often portrayed as unhappy “spinsters” or “old maids” who cannot find a man to marry them. Single
men, on the other hand, are typically portrayed as lifetime bachelors who cannot settle down or simply “have not found the
right girl.” Single women report feeling insecure and displaced in their families when their single status is disparaged
(Roberts 2007). However, single women older than thirty-five years old report feeling secure and happy with their
unmarried status, as many women in this category have found success in their education and careers. In general, women
feel more independent and more prepared to live a large portion of their adult lives without a spouse or domestic partner
than they did in the 1960s (Roberts 2007).

The decision to marry or not to marry can be based a variety of factors including religion and cultural expectations. Asian
individuals are the most likely to marry while African Americans are the least likely to marry (Venugopal 2011).
Additionally, individuals who place no value on religion are more likely to be unmarried than those who place a high value
on religion. For black women, however, the importance of religion made no difference in marital status (Bakalar 2010). In
general, being single is not a rejection of marriage; rather, it is a lifestyle that does not necessarily include marriage. By
age forty, according to census figures, 20 percent of women and 14 of men will have never married (U.S. Census Bureau
2011).

Figure 14.6 More and more people in the United States are choosing lifestyles that don’t include marriage. (Photo courtesy of Glenn Harper/flickr)

Deceptive Divorce Rates
It is often cited that half of all marriages end in divorce. This statistic has made many people cynical when it comes to
marriage, but it is misleading. Let’s take a closer look at the data.

Using National Center for Health Statistics data from 2003 that show a marriage rate of 7.5 (per 1000 people) and a
divorce rate of 3.8, it would appear that exactly one half of all marriages failed (Hurley 2005). This reasoning is
deceptive, however, because instead of tracing actual marriages to see their longevity (or lack thereof), this compares
what are unrelated statistics: that is, the number of marriages in a given year does not have a direct correlation to the
divorces occurring that same year. Research published in the New York Times took a different approach—determining
how many people had ever been married, and of those, how many later divorced. The result? According to this
analysis, U.S. divorce rates have only gone as high as 41 percent (Hurley 2005). Another way to calculate divorce
rates would be through a cohort study. For instance, we could determine the percentage of marriages that are intact
after, say, five or seven years, compared to marriages that have ended in divorce after five or seven years.
Sociological researchers must remain aware of research methods and how statistical results are applied. As illustrated,
different methodologies and different interpretations can lead to contradictory, and even misleading, results.

Theoretical Perspectives on Marriage and Family
Sociologists study families on both the macro and micro level to determine how families function. Sociologists may use a
variety of theoretical perspectives to explain events that occur within and outside of the family.

316 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Functionalism

When considering the role of family in society, functionalists uphold the notion that families are an important social
institution and that they play a key role in stabilizing society. They also note that family members take on status roles in a
marriage or family. The family—and its members—perform certain functions that facilitate the prosperity and
development of society.

Sociologist George Murdock conducted a survey of 250 societies and determined that there are four universal residual
functions of the family: sexual, reproductive, educational, and economic (Lee 1985). According to Murdock, the family
(which for him includes the state of marriage) regulates sexual relations between individuals. He does not deny the
existence or impact of premarital or extramarital sex, but states that the family offers a socially legitimate sexual outlet for
adults (Lee 1985). This outlet gives way to reproduction, which is a necessary part of ensuring the survival of society.

Once children are produced, the family plays a vital role in training them for adult life. As the primary agent of
socialization and enculturation, the family teaches young children the ways of thinking and behaving that follow social
and cultural norms, values, beliefs, and attitudes. Parents teach their children manners and civility. A well-mannered child
reflects a well-mannered parent.

Parents also teach children gender roles. Gender roles are an important part of the economic function of a family. In each
family, there is a division of labor that consists of instrumental and expressive roles. Men tend to assume the instrumental
roles in the family, which typically involve work outside of the family that provides financial support and establishes
family status. Women tend to assume the expressive roles, which typically involve work inside of the family which
provides emotional support and physical care for children (Crano and Aronoff 1978). According to functionalists, the
differentiation of the roles on the basis of sex ensures that families are well balanced and coordinated. When family
members move outside of these roles, the family is thrown out of balance and must recalibrate in order to function
properly. For example, if the father assumes an expressive role such as providing daytime care for the children, the mother
must take on an instrumental role such as gaining paid employment outside of the home in order for the family to maintain
balance and function.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theorists are quick to point out that U.S. families have been defined as private entities, the consequence of which
has been to leave family matters to only those within the family. Many people in the United States are resistant to
government intervention in the family: parents do not want the government to tell them how to raise their children or to
become involved in domestic issues. Conflict theory highlights the role of power in family life and contends that the
family is often not a haven but rather an arena where power struggles can occur. This exercise of power often entails the
performance of family status roles. Conflict theorists may study conflicts as simple as the enforcement of rules from parent
to child, or they may examine more serious issues such as domestic violence (spousal and child), sexual assault, marital
rape, and incest.

The first study of marital power was performed in 1960. Researchers found that the person with the most access to value
resources held the most power. As money is one of the most valuable resources, men who worked in paid labor outside of
the home held more power than women who worked inside the home (Blood and Wolfe 1960). Conflict theorists find
disputes over the division of household labor to be a common source of marital discord. Household labor offers no wages
and, therefore, no power. Studies indicate that when men do more housework, women experience more satisfaction in their
marriages, reducing the incidence of conflict (Coltrane 2000). In general, conflict theorists tend to study areas of marriage
and life that involve inequalities or discrepancies in power and authority, as they are reflective of the larger social
structure.

Symbolic Interactionism

Interactionists view the world in terms of symbols and the meanings assigned to them (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). The
family itself is a symbol. To some, it is a father, mother, and children; to others, it is any union that involves respect and
compassion. Interactionists stress that family is not an objective, concrete reality. Like other social phenomena, it is a
social construct that is subject to the ebb and flow of social norms and ever-changing meanings.

Consider the meaning of other elements of family: “parent” was a symbol of a biological and emotional connection to a
child; with more parent-child relationships developing through adoption, remarriage, or change in guardianship, the word
“parent” today is less likely to be associated with a biological connection than with whoever is socially recognized as
having the responsibility for a child’s upbringing. Similarly, the terms “mother” and “father” are no longer rigidly
associated with the meanings of caregiver and breadwinner. These meanings are more free-flowing through changing
family roles.

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 317

Interactionists also recognize how the family status roles of each member are socially constructed, playing an important
part in how people perceive and interpret social behavior. Interactionists view the family as a group of role players or
“actors” that come together to act out their parts in an effort to construct a family. These roles are up for interpretation. In
the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a “good father,” for example, was one who worked hard to provided
financial security for his children. Today, a “good father” is one who takes the time outside of work to promote his
children’s emotional well-being, social skills, and intellectual growth—in some ways, a much more daunting task.

14.3 Challenges Families Face
As the structure of family changes over time, so do the challenges families face. Events like divorce and remarriage
present new difficulties for families and individuals. Other long-standing domestic issues such as abuse continue to strain
the health and stability of today’s families.

Divorce and Remarriage
Divorce, while fairly common and accepted in modern U.S. society, was once a word that would only be whispered and
was accompanied by gestures of disapproval. In 1960, divorce was generally uncommon, affecting only 9.1 out of every
1,000 married persons. That number more than doubled (to 20.3) by 1975 and peaked in 1980 at 22.6 (Popenoe 2007).
Over the last quarter century, divorce rates have dropped steadily and are now similar to those in 1970. The dramatic
increase in divorce rates after the 1960s has been associated with the liberalization of divorce laws and the shift in societal
make up due to women increasingly entering the workforce (Michael 1978). The decrease in divorce rates can be
attributed to two probable factors: an increase in the age at which people get married, and an increased level of education
among those who marry—both of which have been found to promote greater marital stability.

Divorce does not occur equally among all people in the United States; some segments of the U.S. population are more
likely to divorce than others. According the American Community Survey (ACS), men and women in the Northeast have
the lowest rates of divorce at 7.2 and 7.5 per 1,000 people. The South has the highest rate of divorce at 10.2 for men and
11.1 for women. Divorce rates are likely higher in the South because marriage rates are higher and marriage occurs at
younger-than-average ages in this region. In the Northeast, the marriage rate is lower and first marriages tend to be
delayed; therefore, the divorce rate is lower (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

The rate of divorce also varies by race. In a 2009 ACS study, American Indian and Alaskan Natives reported the highest
percentages of currently divorced individuals (12.6 percent) followed by blacks (11.5 percent), whites (10.8 percent),
Pacific Islanders (8 percent), Latinos (7.8 percent) and Asians (4.9 percent) (ACS 2011). In general those who marry at a
later age, have a college education have lower rates of divorce.

318 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Table 14.2 Provisional number of divorces and annulments and rate: United States,
2000–2011 There has been a steady decrease in divorce over the past decade. (National
Center for Health Statistics, CDC)
1Excludes data for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota.
2Excludes data for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, and Louisiana.
3Excludes data for California, Hawaii, Indiana, and Oklahoma.
4Excludes data for California, Indiana, and Oklahoma.
5Excludes data for California, Indiana, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.
Note: Rates for 2001-2009 have been revised and are based on intercensal population
estimates from the 2000 and 2010 censuses. Populations for 2010 rates are based on the 2010
census.

Year Divorces and annulments Population Rate per 1,000 total population

20111 877,000 246,273,366 3.6

20101 872,000 244,122,529 3.6

20091 840,000 242,610,561 3.5

20081 844,000 240,545,163 3.5

20071 856,000 238,352,850 3.6

20061 872,000 236,094,277 3.7

20051 847,000 233,495,163 3.6

20042 879,000 236,402,656 3.7

20033 927,000 243,902,090 3.8

20024 955,000 243,108,303 3.9

20015 940,000 236,416,762 4.0

20005 944,000 233,550,143 4.0

So what causes divorce? While more young people are choosing to postpone or opt out of marriage, those who enter into
the union do so with the expectation that it will last. A great deal of marital problems can be related to stress, especially
financial stress. According to researchers participating in the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, couples
who enter marriage without a strong asset base (like a home, savings, and a retirement plan) are 70 percent more likely to
be divorced after three years than are couples with at least $10,000 in assets. This is connected to factors such as age and
education level that correlate with low incomes.

The addition of children to a marriage creates added financial and emotional stress. Research has established that
marriages enter their most stressful phase upon the birth of the first child (Popenoe and Whitehead 2007). This is
particularly true for couples who have multiples (twins, triplets, and so on). Married couples with twins or triplets are 17
percent more likely to divorce than those with children from single births (McKay 2010). Another contributor to the
likelihood of divorce is a general decline in marital satisfaction over time. As people get older, they may find that their
values and life goals no longer match up with those of their spouse (Popenoe and Whitehead 2004).

Divorce is thought to have a cyclical pattern. Children of divorced parents are 40 percent more likely to divorce than
children of married parents. And when we consider children whose parents divorced and then remarried, the likelihood of
their own divorce rises to 91 percent (Wolfinger 2005). This might result from being socialized to a mindset that a broken
marriage can be replaced rather than repaired (Wolfinger 2005). That sentiment is also reflected in the finding that when
both partners of a married couple have been previously divorced, their marriage is 90 percent more likely to end in divorce
(Wolfinger 2005).

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 319

Figure 14.7 A study from Radford University indicated that bartenders are among the professions with the highest divorce rates (38.4 percent).
Other traditionally low-wage industries (like restaurant service, custodial employment, and factory work) are also associated with higher divorce rates.
(Aamodt and McCoy 2010). (Photo courtesy of Daniel Lobo/flickr)

People in a second marriage account for approximately 19.3 percent of all married persons, and those who have been
married three or more times account for 5.2 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). The vast majority (91 percent) of
remarriages occur after divorce; only 9 percent occur after death of a spouse (Kreider 2006). Most men and women
remarry within five years of a divorce, with the median length for men (three years) being lower than for women (4.4
years). This length of time has been fairly consistent since the 1950s. The majority of those who remarry are between the
ages of twenty-five and forty-four (Kreider 2006). The general pattern of remarriage also shows that whites are more
likely to remarry than black Americans.

Marriage the second time around (or third or fourth) can be a very different process than the first. Remarriage lacks many
of the classic courtship rituals of a first marriage. In a second marriage, individuals are less likely to deal with issues like
parental approval, premarital sex, or desired family size (Elliot 2010). In a survey of households formed by remarriage, a
mere 8 percent included only biological children of the remarried couple. Of the 49 percent of homes that include children,
24 percent included only the woman’s biological children, 3 percent included only the man’s biological children, and 9
percent included a combination of both spouse’s children (U.S. Census Bureau 2006).

Children of Divorce and Remarriage

Divorce and remarriage can been stressful on partners and children alike. Divorce is often justified by the notion that
children are better off in a divorced family than in a family with parents who do not get along. However, long-term studies
determine that to be generally untrue. Research suggests that while marital conflict does not provide an ideal childrearing
environment, going through a divorce can be damaging. Children are often confused and frightened by the threat to their
family security. They may feel responsible for the divorce and attempt to bring their parents back together, often by
sacrificing their own well-being (Amato 2000). Only in high-conflict homes do children benefit from divorce and the
subsequent decrease in conflict. The majority of divorces come out of lower-conflict homes, and children from those
homes are more negatively impacted by the stress of the divorce than the stress of unhappiness in the marriage (Amato
2000). Studies also suggest that stress levels for children are not improved when a child acquires a stepfamily through
marriage. Although there may be increased economic stability, stepfamilies typically have a high level of interpersonal
conflict (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994).

Children’s ability to deal with a divorce may depend on their age. Research has found that divorce may be most difficult
for school-aged children, as they are old enough to understand the separation but not old enough to understand the
reasoning behind it. Older teenagers are more likely to recognize the conflict that led to the divorce but may still feel fear,
loneliness, guilt, and pressure to choose sides. Infants and preschool-age children may suffer the heaviest impact from the
loss of routine that the marriage offered (Temke 2006).

Proximity to parents also makes a difference in a child’s well-being after divorce. Boys who live or have joint
arrangements with their fathers show less aggression than those who are raised by their mothers only. Similarly, girls who
live or have joint arrangements with their mothers tend to be more responsible and mature than those who are raised by
their fathers only. Nearly three-fourths of the children of parents who are divorced live in a household headed by their
mother, leaving many boys without a father figure residing in the home (U.S. Census Bureau 2011b). Still, researchers
suggest that a strong parent-child relationship can greatly improve a child’s adjustment to divorce (Temke 2006).

There is empirical evidence that divorce has not discouraged children in terms of how they view marriage and family. A
blended family has additional stress resulting from yours/mine/ours children. The blended family also has a ex-parent that
has different discipline techniques. In a survey conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan, about three-
quarters of high school seniors said it was “extremely important” to have a strong marriage and family life. And over half

320 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

believed it was “very likely” that they would be in a lifelong marriage (Popenoe and Whitehead 2007). These numbers
have continued to climb over the last twenty-five years.

Violence and Abuse
Violence and abuse are among the most disconcerting of the challenges that today’s families face. Abuse can occur
between spouses, between parent and child, as well as between other family members. The frequency of violence among
families is a difficult to determine because many cases of spousal abuse and child abuse go unreported. In any case, studies
have shown that abuse (reported or not) has a major impact on families and society as a whole.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a significant social problem in the United States. It is often characterized as violence between
household or family members, specifically spouses. To include unmarried, cohabitating, and same-sex couples, family
sociologists have created the term intimate partner violence (IPV). Women are the primary victims of intimate partner
violence. It is estimated that one in four women has experienced some form of IPV in her lifetime (compared to one in
seven men) (Catalano 2007). IPV may include physical violence, such as punching, kicking, or other methods of inflicting
physical pain; sexual violence, such as rape or other forced sexual acts; threats and intimidation that imply either physical
or sexual abuse; and emotional abuse, such as harming another’s sense of self-worth through words or controlling
another’s behavior. IPV often starts as emotional abuse and then escalates to other forms or combinations of abuse
(Centers for Disease Control 2012).

Figure 14.8 Thirty percent of women who are murdered are killed by their intimate partner. What does this statistic reveal about societal patterns
and norms concerning intimate relationships and gender roles? (Photo courtesy of Kathy Kimpel/flickr)

In 2010, of IPV acts that involved physical actions against women, 57 percent involved physical violence only; 9 percent
involved rape and physical violence; 14 percent involved physical violence and stalking; 12 percent involved rape,
physical violence, and stalking; and 4 percent involved rape only (CDC 2011). This is vastly different than IPV abuse
patterns for men, which show that nearly all (92 percent) physical acts of IVP take the form of physical violence and fewer
than 1 percent involve rape alone or in combination (Catalano 2007). IPV affects women at greater rates than men because
women often take the passive role in relationships and may become emotionally dependent on their partners. Perpetrators
of IPV work to establish and maintain such dependence in order to hold power and control over their victims, making
them feel stupid, crazy, or ugly—in some way worthless.

IPV affects different segments of the population at different rates. The rate of IPV for black women (4.6 per 1,000 persons
over the age of twelve) is higher than that for white women (3.1). These numbers have been fairly stable for both racial
groups over the last ten years. However, the numbers have steadily increased for Native Americans and Alaskan Natives
(up to 11.1 for females) (Catalano 2007).

Those who are separated report higher rates of abuse than those with other marital statuses, as conflict is typically higher
in those relationships. Similarly, those who are cohabitating are more likely than those who are married to experience IPV
(Stets and Straus 1990). Other researchers have found that the rate of IPV doubles for women in low-income
disadvantaged areas when compared to IPV experienced by women who reside in more affluent areas (Benson and Fox
2004). Overall, women ages twenty to twenty-four are at the greatest risk of nonfatal abuse (Catalano 2007).

Accurate statistics on IPV are difficult to determine, as it is estimated that more than half of nonfatal IPV goes unreported.
It is not until victims choose to report crimes that patterns of abuse are exposed. Most victims studied stated that abuse had
occurred for at least two years prior to their first report (Carlson, Harris, and Holden 1999).

Sometimes abuse is reported to police by a third party, but it still may not be confirmed by victims. A study of domestic
violence incident reports found that even when confronted by police about abuse, 29 percent of victims denied that abuse
occurred. Surprisingly, 19 percent of their assailants were likely to admit to abuse (Felson, Ackerman, and Gallagher

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 321

2005). According to the National Criminal Victims Survey, victims cite varied reason why they are reluctant to report
abuse, as shown in the table below.

Table 14.3 This chart shows reasons that victims give for why
they fail to report abuse to police authorities (Catalano 2007).

Reason Abuse Is Unreported % Females % Males

Considered a Private Matter 22 39

Fear of Retaliation 12 5

To Protect the Abuser 14 16

Belief That Police Won’t Do Anything 8 8

Two-thirds of nonfatal IPV occurs inside of the home and approximately 10 percent occurs at the home of the victim’s
friend or neighbor. The majority of abuse takes place between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., and nearly half (42 percent)
involves alcohol or drug use (Catalano 2007). Many perpetrators of IVP blame alcohol or drugs for their abuse, though
studies have shown that alcohol and drugs do not cause IPV, they may only lower inhibitions (Hanson 2011). IPV has
significant long-term effects on individual victims and on society. Studies have shown that IPV damage extends beyond
the direct physical or emotional wounds. Extended IPV has been linked to unemployment among victims, as many have
difficulty finding or holding employment. Additionally, nearly all women who report serious domestic problems exhibit
symptoms of major depression (Goodwin, Chandler, and Meisel 2003).

Female victims of IPV are also more likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, suffer from eating disorders, and attempt suicide
(Silverman et al. 2001). IPV is indeed something that impacts more than just intimate partners. In a survey, 34 percent of
respondents said they have witnessed IPV, and 59 percent said that they know a victim personally (Roper Starch
Worldwide 1995). Many people want to help IPV victims but are hesitant to intervene because they feel that it is a
personal matter or they fear retaliation from the abuser—reasons similar to those of victims who do not report IPV.

Child Abuse

Children are among the most helpless victims of abuse. In 2010, there were more than 3.3 million reports of child abuse
involving an estimated 5.9 million children (Child Help 2011). Three-fifths of child abuse reports are made by
professionals, including teachers, law enforcement personal, and social services staff. The rest are made by anonymous
sources, other relatives, parents, friends, and neighbors.

Child abuse may come in several forms, the most common being neglect (78.3 percent), followed by physical abuse (10.8
percent), sexual abuse (7.6 percent), psychological maltreatment (7.6 percent), and medical neglect (2.4 percent) (Child
Help 2011). Some children suffer from a combination of these forms of abuse. The majority (81.2 percent) of perpetrators
are parents; 6.2 percent are other relatives.

Infants (children less than one year old) were the most victimized population with an incident rate of 20.6 per 1,000
infants. This age group is particularly vulnerable to neglect because they are entirely dependent on parents for care. Some
parents do not purposely neglect their children; factors such as cultural values, standard of care in a community, and
poverty can lead to hazardous level of neglect. If information or assistance from public or private services are available
and a parent fails to use those services, child welfare services may intervene (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services).

Figure 14.9 The Casey Anthony trial, in which Casey was ultimately acquitted of murder charges against her daughter, Caylee, created public
outrage and brought to light issues of child abuse and neglect across the United States. (Photo courtesy of Bruce Tuten/flickr)

322 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Making Connections: Social Policy & Debate

Infants are also often victims of physical abuse, particularly in the form of violent shaking. This type of physical abuse is
referred to as shaken-baby syndrome, which describes a group of medical symptoms such as brain swelling and retinal
hemorrhage resulting from forcefully shaking or causing impact to an infant’s head. A baby’s cry is the number one trigger
for shaking. Parents may find themselves unable to soothe a baby’s concerns and may take their frustration out on the child
by shaking him or her violently. Other stress factors such as a poor economy, unemployment, and general dissatisfaction
with parental life may contribute this type of abuse. While there is no official central registry of shaken-baby syndrome
statistics, it is estimated that each year 1,400 babies die or suffer serious injury from being shaken (Barr 2007).

Corporal Punishment
Physical abuse in children may come in the form of beating, kicking, throwing, choking, hitting with objects, burning,
or other methods. Injury inflicted by such behavior is considered abuse even if the parent or caregiver did not intend
to harm the child. Other types of physical contact that are characterized as discipline (spanking, for example) are not
considered abuse as long as no injury results (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2008).

This issue is rather controversial among modern-day people in the United States. While some parents feel that
physical discipline, or corporal punishment, is an effective way to respond to bad behavior, others feel that it is a form
of abuse. According to a poll conducted by ABC News, 65 percent of respondents approve of spanking and 50
percent said that they sometimes spank their child.

Tendency toward physical punishment may be affected by culture and education. Those who live in the South are
more likely than those who live in other regions to spank their child. Those who do not have a college education are
also more likely to spank their child (Crandall 2011). Currently, 23 states officially allow spanking in the school
system; however, many parents may object and school officials must follow a set of clear guidelines when
administering this type of punishment (Crandall 2011). Studies have shown that spanking is not an effective form of
punishment and may lead to aggression by the victim, particularly in those who are spanked at a young age (Berlin
2009).

Child abuse occurs at all socioeconomic and education levels and crosses ethnic and cultural lines. Just as child abuse is
often associated with stresses felt by parents, including financial stress, parents who demonstrate resilience to these
stresses are less likely to abuse (Samuels 2011). Young parents are typically less capable of coping with stresses,
particularly the stress of becoming a new parent. Teenage mothers are more likely to abuse their children than their older
counterparts. As a parent’s age increases, the risk of abuse decreases. Children born to mothers who are fifteen years old or
younger are twice as likely to be abused or neglected by age five than are children born to mothers ages twenty to twenty-
one (George and Lee 1997).

Drug and alcohol use is also a known contributor to child abuse. Children raised by substance abusers have a risk of
physical abuse three times greater than other kids, and neglect is four times as prevalent in these families (Child Welfare
Information Gateway 2011). Other risk factors include social isolation, depression, low parental education, and a history of
being mistreated as a child. Approximately 30 percent of abused children will later abuse their own children (Child
Welfare Information Gateway 2006).

The long-term effects of child abuse impact the physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing of a child. Injury, poor health,
and mental instability occur at a high rate in this group, with 80 percent meeting the criteria of one or more psychiatric
disorders, such as depression, anxiety, or suicidal behavior, by age twenty-one. Abused children may also suffer from
cognitive and social difficulties. Behavioral consequences will affect most, but not all, of child abuse victims. Children of
abuse are 25 percent more likely, as adolescents, to suffer from difficulties like poor academic performance and teen
pregnancy, or to engage in behaviors like drug abuse and general delinquency. They are also more likely to participate in
risky sexual acts that increase their chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (Child Welfare Information
Gateway 2006). Other risky behaviors include drug and alcohol abuse. As these consequences can affect the health care,
education, and criminal systems, the problems resulting from child abuse do not just belong to the child and family, but to
society as a whole.

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 323

ambilineal:

bigamy:

bilateral descent:

cohabitation:

extended

family:

family:

family life course:

family life cycle:

family of orientation:

family of procreation:

intimate partner violence (IPV):

kinship:

marriage:

matrilineal descent:

matrilocal residence:

monogamy:

nuclear family:

patrilineal descent:

patrilocal residence:

polyandry:

polygamy:

polygyny:

shaken-baby syndrome:

unilateral descent:

Chapter Review

Key Terms
a type of unilateral descent that follows either the father’s or the mother’s side exclusively

the act of entering into marriage while still married to another person

the tracing of kinship through both parents’ ancestral lines

the act of a couple sharing a residence while they are not married

a household that includes at least one parent and child as well as other relatives like grandparents,
aunts, uncles, and cousins

socially recognized groups of individuals who may be joined by blood, marriage, or adoption and who form an
emotional connection and an economic unit of society

a sociological model of family that sees the progression of events as fluid rather than as occurring
in strict stages

a set of predictable steps and patterns families experience over time

the family into which one is born

a family that is formed through marriage

violence that occurs between individuals who maintain a romantic or sexual
relationship

a person’s traceable ancestry (by blood, marriage, and/or adoption)

a legally recognized contract between two or more people in a sexual relationship who have an expectation
of permanence about their relationship

a type of unilateral descent that follows the mother’s side only

a system in which it is customary for a husband to live with the his wife’s family

the act of being married to only one person at a time

two parents (traditionally a married husband and wife) and children living in the same household

a type of unilateral descent that follows the father’s line only

a system in which it is customary for the a wife to live with (or near) the her husband’s family

a form of marriage in which one woman is married to more than one man at one time

the state of being committed or married to more than one person at a time

a form of marriage in which one man is married to more than one woman at one time

a group of medical symptoms such as brain swelling and retinal hemorrhage resulting
from forcefully shaking or impacting an infant’s head

the tracing of kinship through one parent only.

Section Summary

324 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

14.1 What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?
Sociologists view marriage and families as societal institutions that help create the basic unit of social structure. Both
marriage and a family may be defined differently—and practiced differently—in cultures across the world. Families and
marriages, like other institutions, adapt to social change.

14.2 Variations in Family Life
People’s concepts of marriage and family in the United States are changing. Increases in cohabitation, same-sex partners,
and singlehood are altering of our ideas of marriage. Similarly, single parents, same-sex parents, cohabitating parents, and
unwed parents are changing our notion of what it means to be a family. While most children still live in opposite-sex, two-
parent, married households, that is no longer viewed as the only type of nuclear family.

14.3 Challenges Families Face
Today’s families face a variety of challenges, specifically to marital stability. While divorce rates have decreased in the last
twenty-five years, many family members, especially children, still experience the negative effects of divorce. Children are
also negatively impacted by violence and abuse within the home, with nearly 6 million children abused each year.

Section Quiz

14.1 What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?
1. Sociologists tend to define family in terms of

a. how a given society sanctions the relationships of people who are connected through blood, marriage, or
adoption

b. the connection of bloodlines
c. the status roles that exist in a family structure
d. how closely members adhere to social norms

2. Research suggests that people generally feel that their current family is _______ than the family they grew up with.
a. less close
b. more close
c. at least as close
d. none of the above

3. A woman being married to two men would be an example of:
a. monogamy
b. polygyny
c. polyandry
d. cohabitation

4. A child who associates his line of descent with his father’s side only is part of a _____ society.
a. matrilocal
b. bilateral
c. matrilineal
d. patrilineal

5. Which of the following is a criticism of the family life cycle model?
a. It is too broad and accounts for too many aspects of family.
b. It is too narrowly focused on a sequence of stages.
c. It does not serve a practical purpose for studying family behavior.
d. It is not based on comprehensive research.

14.2 Variations in Family Life
6. The majority of U.S. children live in:

a. two-parent households
b. one-parent households
c. no-parent households
d. multigenerational households

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 325

7. According to the study cited by the U.S. Census Bureau, children who live with married parents grow up with more
advantages than children who live with:

a. a divorced parent
b. a single parent
c. a grandparent
d. all of the above

8. Couples who cohabitate before marriage are ______ couples who did not cohabitate before marriage to be married at
least ten years.

a. far more likely than
b. far less likely than
c. slightly less likely than
d. equally as likely as

9. Same-sex couple households account for _____ percent of U.S. households.
a. 1
b. 10
c. 15
d. 30

10. The median age of first marriage has ______ in the last fifty years.
a. increased for men but not women
b. decreased for men but not women
c. increased for both men and women
d. decreased for both men and women

14.3 Challenges Families Face
11. Current divorce rates are:

a. at an all-time high
b. at an all-time low
c. steadily increasing
d. steadily declining

12. Children of divorced parents are _______ to divorce in their own marriage than children of parents who stayed
married.

a. more likely
b. less likely
c. equally likely

13. In general, children in ______ households benefit from divorce.
a. stepfamily
b. multigenerational
c. high-conflict
d. low-conflict

14. Which of the following is true of intimate partner violence (IPV)?
a. IPV victims are more frequently men than women.
b. One in ten women is a victim of IPV.
c. Nearly half of instances of IPV involve drugs or alcohol.
d. Rape is the most common form of IPV.

15. Which type of child abuse is most prevalent in the United States?
a. Physical abuse
b. Neglect
c. Shaken-baby syndrome
d. Verbal mistreatment

Short Answer

14.1 What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?

326 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

1. According to research, what are people’s general thoughts on family in the United States? How do they view
nontraditional family structures? How do you think these views might change in twenty years?

2. Explain the difference between bilateral and unilateral descent. Using your own association with kinship, explain which
type of descent applies to you?

14.2 Variations in Family Life
3. Explain the different variations of the nuclear family and the trends that occur in each.

4. Why are some couples choosing to cohabitate before marriage? What effect does cohabitation have on marriage?

14.3 Challenges Families Face
5. Explain how financial status impacts marital stability. What other factors are associated with a couple’s financial
status?

6. Explain why more than half of IPV goes unreported? Why are those who are abused unlikely to report the abuse?

Further Research

14.1 What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?
For more information on family development and lines of descent, visit the New England Historical Genealogical
Society’s web site, American Ancestors, and find out how genealogies have been established and recorded since 1845.
http://openstaxcollege.org/l/American_Ancestors (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/American_Ancestors)

14.2 Variations in Family Life
For more statistics on marriage and family, see the Forum on Child and Family Statistics at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/
child_family_statistics (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/child_family_statistics) , as well as the American Community Survey,
the Current Population Survey, and the U.S. Census decennial survey at http://openstaxcollege.org/l/US_Census
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/US_Census) .

14.3 Challenges Families Face
To find more information on child abuse, visit the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services web site at
http://openstaxcollege.org/l/child_welfare (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/child_welfare) to review documents provided by
the Child Welfare Information Gateway.

References

14.0 Introduction to Marriage and Family
Gardner, Amanda. 2013. “More U.S. Couples Living Together Instead of Marrying, CDC Finds.” HealthDay.com.
Retrieved December 29, 2014 (ttp://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-
news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html (http://consumer.healthday.com/
public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-
cdc-finds-675096.html) ).

Rettner, Rachel. 2013. “More Couples Living Together Outside of Marriage.” MyHealthNewsDaily/Purch. Retrieved
December 29, 2014 (http://www.livescience.com/28420-cohabiting-marriage-cdc-report.html
(http://www.livescience.com/28420-cohabiting-marriage-cdc-report.html) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. “50 Million Children Lived with Married Parents in 2007.” July 28. Retrieved January 16,
2012 (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb08-115.html
(http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb08-115.html) )

Useem, Andrea. 2007. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting a Co-Wife.” Slate, July 24. Retrieved January 16, 2012
(http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html
(http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html) ).

14.1 What Is Marriage? What Is a Family?

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 327

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/American_Ancestors

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/child_family_statistics

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/child_family_statistics

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/US_Census

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/US_Census

http://openstaxcollege.org/l/child_welfare

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/more-u-s-couples-living-together-instead-of-marrying-cdc-finds-675096.html

http://www.livescience.com/28420-cohabiting-marriage-cdc-report.html

http://www.livescience.com/28420-cohabiting-marriage-cdc-report.html

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb08-115.html

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb08-115.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html

Altman, Irwin, and Joseph Ginat. 1996. Polygamous Families in Contemporary Society. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Cohen, Philip. 2011. “Chinese: Maternal Grandmothers, Outside Women.” FamilyInequality.com, Retrieved February 13,
2012 (http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/chinese-maternal-grandmothers-outside-women/
(http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/chinese-maternal-grandmothers-outside-women/) ).

Glezer, Helen. 1991. “Cohabitation.” Family Matters 30:24–27.

Glick, Paul. 1989. “The Family Life Cycle and Social Change.” Family Relations 38(2):123–129.

Griver, Simon. 2008. “One Wife Isn’t Enough … So They Take Two or Three.” The Jewish Chronicle Online, April 24.
Retrieved February 13, 2012 (http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/one-wife-isn’t-enough-so-they-take-two-or-
three (http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/one-wife-isn’t-enough-so-they-take-two-or-three) ).

Haak, Wolfgang et al. 2008. “Ancient DNA Reveals Male Diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean Route.”
Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences, November 17. Retrieved February 13, 2012 (http://www.pnas.org/
content/105/47/18226 (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226) ).

Harrell, Stevan. 2001. “Mountain Patterns: The Survival of Nuosu Culture in China.” Journal of American Folklore
114:451.

Jayson, Sharon. 2010. “What Does a ‘Family’ Look Like Nowadays?” USA Today, November 25. Retrieved February 13,
2012 (http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/marriage/2010-11-18-pew18_ST_N.htm
(http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/marriage/2010-11-18-pew18_ST_N.htm) ).

Joseph, Suad, and Afsaneh Najmabadi. 2003. “Kinship and State: Southeast Asia, East Asia, Australia and the Pacific.”
Pp. 351–355 in Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic Cultures: Family, Law, and Politics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill
Academic Publishers.

Lambert, Bernd. 2009. “Ambilineal Descent Groups in the Northern Gilbert Islands.” American Anthropologist
68(3):641–664.

Lee, Richard. 2009. The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America. Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson.

Mails, Thomas E. 1996. The Cherokee People: The Story of the Cherokees from Earliest Origins to Contemporary Times.
New York: Marlowe & Co.

Murdock, George P. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murphy, Patrick, and William Staples. 1979. “A Modernized Family Life Cycle.” Journal of Consumer Research
6(1):12–22.

Museum of Broadcast Communications. 2010. “Family on Television.” Retrieved January 16, 2012.

O’Neal, Dennis. 2006. “Nature of Kinship.” Palomar College. Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://anthro.palomar.edu/
kinship/kinship_2.htm (http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_2.htm) ).

Parsons, Talcott, and Robert Bales. 1955. Family Socialization and Interaction Process. London: Routledge.

Pew Research Center. 2010. “The Decline of Marriage and Rise of New Families.” November 18. Retrieved February 13,
2012 (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-marriage-rise-new-families (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-
marriage-rise-new-families) ).

Powell, Brian, Catherine Bolzendahl, Claudia Geist, and Lala Carr Steelman. 2010. Counted Out: Same-Sex Relations and
Americans’ Definitions of Family. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Respers France, Lisa. 2010. “The Evolution of the TV Family.” CNN, September 1. Retrieved February 13, 2012
(http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/
01/families.on.tv/index.html) ).

Ruoff, Jeffrey. 2002. An American Family: A Televised Life. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Strong, B., and C. DeVault. 1992. The Marriage and Family Experience. 5th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Current Population Survey (CPS).” Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/
population/www/cps/cpsdef.html (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html) ).

328 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

Chinese: Maternal grandmothers, outside women

Chinese: Maternal grandmothers, outside women

http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/one-wife-isn’t-enough-so-they-take-two-or-three

http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/one-wife-isn’t-enough-so-they-take-two-or-three

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/marriage/2010-11-18-pew18_ST_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/sex-relationships/marriage/2010-11-18-pew18_ST_N.htm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_2.htm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/kinship/kinship_2.htm

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-marriage-rise-new-families

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-marriage-rise-new-families

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/01/families.on.tv/index.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html

Useem, Andrea. 2007. “What to Expect When You’re Expecting a Co-Wife.” Slate, July 24. Retrieved January 16, 2012
(http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html
(http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html) ).

14.2 Variations in Family Life
Bakalar, Nicholas. 2010. “Education, Faith, and a Likelihood to Wed.” New York Times, March 22. Retrieved February 14,
2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/23stat.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/23stat.html) ).

Biblarz, Tim. J., and Judith Stacey. 2010. “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family
72:3–22.

Blood, Robert Jr. and Donald Wolfe. 1960. Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.

Coltrane, Scott. 2000. “Research on Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embeddedness of Routine
Family Work.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62:1209–1233.

Crano, William, and Joel Aronoff. 1978. “A Cross-Cultural Study of Expressive and Instrumental Role Complementarity
in the Family.” American Sociological Review 43:463–471.

De Toledo, Sylvie, and Deborah Edler Brown. 1995. Grandparents as Parents: A Survival Guide for Raising a Second
Family. New York: Guilford Press.

Hurley, Dan. 2005. “Divorce Rate: It’s Not as High as You Think.” New York Times, April 19. Retrieved February 14,
2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html)
).

Jayson, Sharon. 2010. “Report: Cohabiting Has Little Effect on Marriage Success.” USA Today, October 14. Retrieved
February 14, 2012 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-02-cohabiting02_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/
news/health/2010-03-02-cohabiting02_N.htm) ).

LaRossa, Ralph, and Donald Reitzes. 1993. “Symbolic Interactionism and Family Studies.” Sourcebook of Family
Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. New York: Plenum Press.

Lee, Gary. 1982. Family Structure and Interaction: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.

Roberts, Sam. 2007. “51% of Women Are Now Living Without a Spouse.” New York Times, January 16. Retrieved from
February 14, 2012 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?pagewanted=all0 (http://www.nytimes.com/
2007/01/16/us/16census.html?pagewanted=all0) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. “Children With Single Parents – How They Fare.” Retrieved January 16, 2012
(http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701 (http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701 ) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “American Community Survey (ACS).” Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/
acs/www/ (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Current Population Survey (CPS).” Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/
population/www/cps/cpsdef.html (http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being. Forum on Child and Family
Statistics. Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp
(http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp) ).

Venugopal, Arun. 2011. “New York Leads in Never-Married Women.” WNYC, December 10. Retrieved February 14, 2012
(http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/sep/22/new-york-never-married-women/ (http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/
wnyc-news-blog/2011/sep/22/new-york-never-married-women/) ).

Waite, Linda, and Lee Lillard. 1991. “Children and Marital Disruption.” American Journal of Sociology 96(4):930–953.

14.3 Challenges Families Face
Amato, Paul. 2000. “What Children Learn From Divorce.” Journal of Family Issues 21(8):1061–1086.

American Community Survey. 2011. “Marital Events of Americans: 2009.” The U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved January
16, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13 ) ).

Barr, Ronald. 2007. “What Is All That Crying About?” Bulletin of the Centres of Excellence for Children’s Wellbeing 6(2).

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 329

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2007/07/what_to_expect_when_youre_expecting_a_cowife.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-02-cohabiting02_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-02-cohabiting02_N.htm

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc1.asp

http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/sep/22/new-york-never-married-women/

http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/sep/22/new-york-never-married-women/

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-13

Benson, Michael, and Greer Fox. 2004. When Violence Hits Home: How Economics and Neighborhood Play a Role.
Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice.

Berlin, Lisa. 2009. “Correlates and Consequences of Spanking and Verbal Punishment for Low-Income White, African
American, and Mexican American Toddlers.” Child Development 80(5):1403–1420.

Carlson, M., S. Harris, and G. Holden. 1999. “Protective Orders and Domestic Violence: Risk Factors for Reabuse.”
Journal of Family Violence 14(2):205–226.

Catalano, S. 2007. Intimate Partner Violence in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Retrieved April 30, 2012 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvus (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
content/pub/pdf/ipvus ) ).

Centers for Disease Control. 2011. “National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.” Retrieved January 17, 2012
(http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_FactSheet-a (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/
NISVS_FactSheet-a ) ).

Centers for Disease Control. 2012. “Understanding Intimate Partner Violence.” Retrieved January 16, 2012
(http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv_factsheet-a (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/
ipv_factsheet-a ) ).

Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2006. “Long-Term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect.” U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/
long_term_consequences.cfm (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm) ).

Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2008. “What Is Child Abuse and Neglect.” U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm
(http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm) ).

Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2011. “Parental Substance Abuse.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors/parentcaregiver/substance.cfm
(http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors/parentcaregiver/substance.cfm) ).

Crandall, Julie. 2011. “Support for Spanking: Most Americans Think Corporal Punishment is OK.” ABCNews.com,
November 8. Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/spanking_poll021108.html
(http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/spanking_poll021108.html) ).

Elliot, Diana. 2010. “Embracing the Institution of Marriage: The Characteristics of Remarried Americans.” U.S. Census
Bureau.

Felson, R., J. Ackerman, and C. Gallagher. 2005. “Police Intervention and the Repeat of Domestic Assault.” Final report
for National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved
January 16, 2012 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=210301 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/
Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=210301) ).

George, R. M., and B. J. Lee. 1997. “Abuse and Neglect of the Children.” Pp. 205–230 in Kids Having Kids, edited by R.
Maynard. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Goodwin, S.N., S. Chandler, and J. Meisel. 2003. “Violence Against Women: The Role of Welfare Reform.” Final Report
to the National Institute of Justice.

Hanson, David. 2011. “Alcohol and Domestic Violence.” State University of New York. Retrieved January 16, 2012
(http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/
1090863351.html) ).

Kreider, Rose. 2006. “Remarriage in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau.

McKay, Stephen. 2010. “The Effects of Twins and Multiple Births on Families and Their Living Standards.” University of
Birmingham. Retrieved February 24, 2012 (http://www.tamba.org.uk/document ?id=268 (http://www.tamba.org.uk/
document ?id=268) ).

McLanahan, Sara, and Gary Sandefur. 1997. Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Michael, Robert. 1978. “The Rise in Divorce Rates, 1960–1974: Age-Specific Components.” Demography 15(2):177–182.

Popenoe, David. 2007. “The Future of Marriage in America.” University of Virginia/National Marriage Project/The State
of Our Unions. Retrieved January 16, 2012.

330 Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family

This OpenStax book is available for free at http://cnx.org/content/col11762/1.6

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvus

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipvus

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_FactSheet-a

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_FactSheet-a

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv_factsheet-a

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv_factsheet-a

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/whatiscan.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors/parentcaregiver/substance.cfm

http://www.childwelfare.gov/can/factors/parentcaregiver/substance.cfm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/spanking_poll021108.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/spanking_poll021108.html

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=210301

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=210301

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1090863351.html

http://www.tamba.org.uk/document ?id=268

http://www.tamba.org.uk/document ?id=268

Popenoe, David and Barbara D. Whitehead. 2001. “Top Ten Myths of Divorce University of Virginia/National Marriage
Project/The State of Our Unions.” Retrieved January 16, 2012.

Popenoe, David, and Barbara D. Whitehead. 2004. “Ten Important Research Findings on Marriage and Choosing a
Marriage Partner.” University of Virginia/National Marriage Project/The State of Our Unions. Retrieved January 16, 2012.

Roper Starch Worldwide. 1995. Domestic Violence: Views on Campus Survey. New York: Liz Claiborne.

Samuels, Bryan. 2011. “Strengthening Families and Communities.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved February 14, 2012 (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/guide2011/guide #page=29
(http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/guide2011/guide #page=29) ).

Silverman, J.G., A. Raj, L. A. Mucci, and J. E. Hathaway. 2001. “Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and
Associated Substance Abuse, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy and Suicide.” Journal of the
American Medical Association 286:572–579.

Stets, J. E., and M. A. Straus. 1990. “The Marriage License as a Hitting License: A Comparison of Assaults in Dating,
Cohabiting, and Married Couples.” Pp. 227–244 in Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations
to Violence in 8,145 Families, edited by M. A. Straus and R. J Gelles. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Temke, Mary W. 2006. “The Effects of Divorce on Children.” Durham: University of New Hampshire. Retrieved January
16, 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. “Remarriage in the United States.” Retrieved January 17, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/hhes/
socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster (http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-
remarriage-poster ) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. “Divorce Rates Highest in the South, Lowest in the Northeast, Census Bureau Reports.”
Retrieved January 16, 2012 (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/
cb11-144.html (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html) ).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. “Living Arrangements of Children: 2009.” Retrieved January 16, 2012
(http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126 ) ).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. 2011. Child Maltreatment. Retrieved February 14, 2012 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can) ).

Wolfinger, Nicholas. 2005. Understanding the Divorce Cycle. New York: Cambridge University Press.

2C4D6A8C10C12A14C

Chapter 14 | Marriage and Family 331

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/guide2011/guide #page=29

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/guide2011/guide #page=29

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/marital_status_living_arrangements/cb11-144.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can