research paper family problems

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

• A Research Guide
• Research Paper Topics

40 Family Issues Research Paper Topics

Read Also: The Best Research Paper Writing Service For Writing Research Papers

40 Marriage and Family Research Topics for any Taste

• Parental neglect. Is it enough for a kid to have food, clothes, and shelter to grow up healthy?
• Divorce and its consequences for all the family members. Minimizing the negative impact of divorce
• Toxic and narcissistic parents. Overcoming the trauma of a dysfunctional family
• To live up to the family expectation: what to do if they are too high for a human being?
• Family violence: where is the point of no return?
• Sexual abuse in the family. The strategy of escaping and organizations that can help
• Toxic and abusive relationship. The psychologies issues of breaking up with toxic partner
• Substance abuse in the family. It is always possible to save yourself, but is it possible to save the rest?
• War Veterans and their families. Do Vets the only ones there who need help?
• Accepting the LGBTQ+ member of the family
• Getting out of the closet: what is like to be an LGBTQ+person in a conservative family?
• Loss of a family member: stages of grief of children and adults. How to cope together?
• Religious conflicts in families: what to do and how to solve?
• Teenage delinquency: when it turns to be more than natural seeking independence?
• Fostering a child: what problems can the parents face?
• Generation gap. The difference in morals and culture. Is it normal?
• Living with senile family members: how to cope and avoid emotional burnout?
• Mentally challenged family members: how to integrate them into society?
• The importance of family support for people with disabilities
• Pregnancy and the first year of having a baby: do tiredness and depression make people bad parents?
• The types of relationship in the family: are they healthy and just unusual or something is harmful to family members?
• Life after disasters: how to put life together again? The importance of family support
• The issue of an older sibling. How to make every kid feel equally loved?
• Gender discrimination in families. Gender roles and expectations
• Multicultural families: how do their values get along?
• Children from previous marriages: how to help them accept the new family?
• Childhood traumas of parents: helping them not to transfer them to the next generation
• Every family can meet a crisis: how to live it through in a civilized way?
• Family counseling: why it is so important?
• Accidentally learned the secrets of the family: how to cope with unpleasant truth?
• Adultery: why it happens and what to do to prevent it?
• Career choice: how to save the relationships with the family and not inherit the family business?
• The transition to adult life: the balance between family support and letting the young adult try living their own life
• Unwanted activities: shall the family take warning or it is just trendy now?
• Returning of a family member from prison: caution versus unconditional love
• A family member in distress: what can you do to actually help when someone close to you gets in serious troubles?
• The absence of love. What to do if you should love someone but can’t?
• Ageism in families. Are older people always right?
• Terminal diseases and palliative care. How to give your family member a good life?
• Where can seek help the members of the dysfunctional families?

By clicking "Log In", you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We'll occasionally send you account related and promo emails.

Sign Up for your FREE account

Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics

Sociology of family is the area devoted to the study of family as an institution central to social life. The basic assumptions of the area include the universality of family, the inevitable variation of family forms, and the necessity of family for integrating individuals into social worlds. Family sociology is generally concerned with the formation, maintenance, growth, and dissolution of kinship ties and is commonly expressed in research on courtship and marriage, childrearing, marital adjustment, and divorce. These areas of research expanded in the twentieth century to encompass an endless diversity of topics related to  gender , sexuality, intimacy, affection, and anything that can be considered to be family related.

70 Sociology of Family Research Paper Topics

• American families
• Child custody and child support
• Cohabitation
• Conjugal roles and social networks
• Couples living apart together
• Divisions of household labor
• Dual earner couples
• Earner-carer model
• Families and childhood disabilities
• Family and community
• Family and household structure
• Family and population
• Family and religion
• Family conflict
• Family demography
• Family diversity
• Family migration
• Family planning
• Family planning, abortion, and reproductive health
• Family policy in Western societies
• Family size
• Family structure
• Family structure and child outcomes
• Family theory
• Family therapy
• Family violence
• History of family
• Men’s involvement in family
• Filial responsibility
• Grandparenthood
• Immigrant families
• Inequalities in marriage
• Infidelity and marital affairs
• Intermarriage
• Intimate union formation and dissolution
• Kinship systems and family types
• Later life marriage
• Lesbian and gay families
• Life course and family
• Lone parent families
• Love and commitment
• Marital adjustment
• Marital power/resource theory
• Marital quality
• Marriage and divorce rates
• Marriage, sex, and childbirth
• Maternalism
• Money management in families
• Non-resident parents
• Parental roles
• Same sex marriage/civil unions
• Sibling relationships during old age
• Sibling ties
• Stepfamilies
• Stepfathering
• Stepmothering
• Youth/adolescence

A recognizable, modern sociology of family emerged from several different family studies efforts of the nineteenth century. Early anthropologists speculated that family was a necessary step from savagery to civilization in human evolution. Concentrating on marital regulation of sexual encounters, and debating matriarchy versus patriarchy as the first enduring family forms, these explanations framed family studies in terms of kinship and defined comprehensive categories of family relations. In consideration of endogamy, exogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and monogamy, these efforts also fostered discussion of the best or most evolved family forms, with most commentators settling on patriarchy and monogamy as the high points of family evolution.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Nineteenth century sociologists such as Herbert Spencer and William Sumner adopted evolutionary views of family and made use of anthropological terms, but discussions of best family types gave way to considering the customs, conventions, and traditions of family life. The evolutionary view of family pushed sociology toward the pragmatic vision of the family as adaptable to surrounding social conditions. And sociology’s emphases on populations, societies, and the institutions embedded within them allowed the observation that American and European families were rapidly changing in response to the challenges of modern society.

Family and Household Structure

The family system of the United States is often characterized as consisting of nuclear-family households—that is, households consisting of no more than the parent(s) and dependent children, if any (Lee 1999). This is certainly true of the great majority of family households. In fact, there has never been a point in American history in which extended-family households predominated statistically (Ruggles 1994a; Seward 1978). In 1997 only about 4.1 percent of all families in the United States were ”related subfamilies”—a married couple or single parent with children living with a related householder (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 69). However, an analysis of census data from 1970 through 1990 by Glick and colleagues (1997) showed that the percentage of all households containing nonnuclear kin increased from 9.9 percent in 1980 to 12.2 percent in 1990, reversing a nearly century-long pattern of decline. In 1910 about 20 percent of the households of white families and 24 percent of those of black families contained nonnuclear kin (Ruggles 1994b). Apparently we have seen a long-term decline in the prevalence of extended-family households, very slightly counterbalanced by an increase in the 1980s; what happened in the 1990s is not yet known.

Not all of the of the households that do not contain extended families consist of the stereotypical nuclear family of two parents and their dependent children, however. There is great diversity among American families and households, and this diversity is increasing. Even over the relatively brief period from 1960 to 1998, substantial changes are apparent. The average size of both households and families decreased dramatically from 1960 to 1990, although they have both been stable in the 1990s. Many fewer households contain families and married couples in the late 1990s than in 1960, while the proportion of nonfamily households has more than doubled and the proportion of single-person households has nearly doubled. Female householders have increased substantially as a proportion of both all households and all families.

There are many factors responsible for these changes. To understand them, changes in marriage rates and age at marriage, divorce and remarriage rates, rates of nonmarital cohabitation, the departure of children from their parents’ homes, and the predilection of unmarried persons to live alone will be briefly examined. Each of these factors has affected family and household structure.

Marriage rates have declined considerably since 1960. This is not readily apparent from the ”crude” marriage rate (the number of marriages per 1,000 population) because this rate does not take the marital status or age distributions of the population into account. The crude marriage rate was artificially low in 1960 because, as a result of the postwar baby boom, a large proportion of the population consisted of children too young to marry. The rates per 1,000 unmarried women (for both ages 15 and over and ages 15 to 44) show the frequency of occurrence of marriage for persons exposed to the risk of marriage, and here there is clear evidence of decline. Some of this, however, is attributable to increases in the median age at first marriage, which declined throughout the twentieth century until about 1960, but has been increasing rapidly since 1970. As age at marriage increases, more and more people temporarily remain unmarried each year, thus driving the marriage rate down. The best evidence (Oppenheimer et al. 1997) indicates that a major cause of delayed marriage is the deteriorating economic circumstances of young men since the 1970s. Perhaps the improving economy of the later 1990s will eventually produce some change in this trend.

The rising divorce rate has also contributed greatly to the declining proportion of married-couple households and the increases in female householders and single-person households. The crude divorce rate rose from 2.2 per 1,000 in 1960 to 5.2 in 1980 (reaching peaks of 5.3 in both 1979 and 1981) but has declined modestly since then to 4.3 in 1996. The rate of divorce per 1,000 married women 15 and older followed a similar pattern, reaching a high of 22.6 in 1980 and declining to 19.5 in 1996. Some of this decline is illusory, because the large baby boom cohorts are aging out of the most divorce-prone years (Martin and Bumpass 1989). However, although the divorce rate remains high, it has not been increasing since 1980.

Sweeney (1997) notes that, for recent cohorts, about half of all marriages have involved at least one previously married partner. However, rates of remarriage after divorce have been declining steadily. Annual remarriage rates were 204.5 per 1,000 divorced men and 123.3 per 1,000 divorced women in 1970; by 1990 they had decreased to 105.9 for men and 76.2 for women (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998).

Decreasing marriage and remarriage rates and increasing divorce rates have combined to produce increases in single-person and single-parent households. This trend is mitigated, however, by the increasing prevalence of nonmarital heterosexual cohabitation. Evidence from the National Survey of Families and Households (Bumpass 1994; Waite 1995) shows that, in the early 1990s, nearly one-quarter of all unmarried adults aged 25 to 29 were cohabiting. This percentage declines with age, but still exceeded 20 percent for those in their late thirties. The National Survey of Family Growth found that, in 1995, more than 41 percent of all women aged 15 to 44 had cohabited or were currently cohabiting (National Center for Health Statistics 1997). Of course many of the women who had not cohabited at the time of the survey will do so in the future. The best estimates suggest that more than half of all couples who marry now cohabit prior to marriage; further, about 60 percent of all cohabiting unions eventuate in marriage (Bumpass 1994; Bumpass et al. 1991).

To a considerable extent the increase in cohabitation has offset the decline in marriage. This is particularly the case among blacks, for whom the decrease in marriage rates over the past several decades has been much more precipitous than it has been for whites (Raley 1996; Waite 1995). Although cohabiting unions are less stable than marriages, ignoring cohabitation results in substantial underestimates of the prevalence of heterosexual unions in the United States.

In spite of the increase in cohabitation, changes in marriage and divorce behavior have had substantial effects on household and family structure in the United States over the past four decades. Fewer people are marrying, those who marry are doing so at later ages, more married people are divorcing, and fewer divorced people are remarrying. This means that Americans are living in smaller households than they did in 1960, but there are more of them. The rate of growth in the number of households has substantially exceeded the rate of growth in the number of families. From 1960 to 1998 the number of households increased by more than 94 percent, while the increase in the number of families was only about 57 percent. Over the same time period, the total population of the United States increased by just under 50 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998). Our population, therefore, is distributed in a larger number of smaller households than was the case in 1960.

One cause of the decline in household size is decreased fertility. The fertility rate (number of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44) was 118.0 in 1960; by 1997 it had decreased to 65.0, although most of the decrease occurred prior to 1980 (National Center for Health Statistics 1999). The trend toward smaller households and families is reflective to some extent of decreases in the number of children per family.

A larger cause of the decrease in household size, however, is the proliferation of single-person households. Single-person households consist of three types of persons: the never-married, who are primarily young adults; the divorced and separated without coresident children, who are primarily young and middle-aged; and the widowed who live alone, who are primarily elderly. Each of these types has increased, but for somewhat different reasons. Each must therefore be examined separately.

Average ages at marriage have risen markedly since 1960, and the percentage of young adults who have never married has increased proportionately (Waite 1995). This has been accompanied by a long-term decline (since prior to World War II) in the average age of leaving the parental home (Goldscheider 1997). Prior to 1970 most of this decline was driven by decreasing ages at marriage, but since then it has reflected an increasing gap between leaving the family of orientation and beginning the family of procreation. More young adults are living independently of both parents and spouses. Some of them are cohabiting, of course, but increasing numbers are residing in either single-person or other nonfamily households (Goldscheider 1997; White 1994).

Since about 1970 there has been some increase in the proportion of young adults who live with their parents. This marks the reversal of a long-term decline in age at leaving home (White 1994). This is, in part, a by-product of increasing age at marriage. However, decreases in exits from parental homes to marriage have been largely offset by increases in exits to independent living, so this recent increase in young adults living with parents is actually very small (Goldscheider 1997). On the other hand, there is increasing evidence that the process of launching children has become much more complex than in previous years. Goldscheider (1997) also shows that the proportion of young adults who return to their parents’ homes after an initial exit has more than doubled from the 1930s to the 1990s; increases have been particularly striking since the early 1960s. This is a response, in part, to the rising divorce rate, but also an indication that it has gotten increasingly difficult for young adults, particularly young men, to make a living (Oppenheimer et al. 1997). Nonetheless, the proportion of young adults living independently of both parents and spouses continues to increase, contributing to the prevalence of nonfamily households.

The increase in divorce and decrease in remarriage have contributed to the rise in single-person households, as formerly married persons establish their own residences and, increasingly, maintain them for longer periods of time. They have also contributed to the rise in family households that do not contain married couples. Families headed by females (without husband present) increased from 10 percent of all families in 1960 to nearly 18 percent in 1998. Families headed by males (without wife present) also increased, from 2.8 percent of all families in 1960 to 5.5 percent in 1998. Among families with children under 18 in 1998, 20 percent were headed by women without spouses and 5 percent by men without spouses (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 70).

As a consequence of these changes plus the rise in nonmarital childbearing, the proportion of children under 18 living with both parents decreased from 88 percent in 1960 to 68 percent in 1997 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 84). In addition, there is a large race difference in the living arrangements of children. Only 35 percent of black children lived with both parents in 1997, compared to 75 percent of white children. More than half (52 percent) of all black children lived with their mothers only, as did 18 percent of white children. Further, 8 percent of black children and 3 percent of white children lived with neither parent. Some of these children are living with, and being cared for by, their grandparents (Pebley and Rudkin 1999). This raises the issue of the living arrangements of older persons.

A somewhat longer perspective is necessary to observe changes in the living arrangements of older persons. Ruggles (1994a) has shown that, in 1880, nearly 65 percent of all elderly whites and more than 57 percent of all elderly nonwhites lived with a child. Since about 18 percent of all older persons had no living children, Ruggles estimates that about 78 percent of whites and 70 percent of nonwhites who had children lived with a child. By 1980 the percentages living with children had decreased to 16 for whites and 29 for nonwhites. There is little evidence of major changes in the proportion living with children since 1980. Further, Ruggles (1996) found that only 6 percent of all elderly women and 3 percent of elderly men lived alone in 1880. By 1997 the percentages living alone had increased to 41 for women and 17 for men (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998, Table 50). The growth of single-person households among older people has been particularly rapid since about 1940.

Two sets of factors appear to be primarily responsible for the ”migration” of older people from typically sharing households with their children in the late nineteenth century to living alone (or with their spouses only) in the late twentieth century. First, the family life cycle was quite different in 1900 than today. People married a bit later (and markedly later than in the 1960s and early 1970s), had more children, and had children later in life. Consequently, a significant proportion of people in their sixties had unmarried children who simply had not yet left the parental home. Ruggles (1994a) shows that, in 1880, about 32 percent of all unmarried elders and 57 percent of the married resided with a never-married child. Of course many of these children may have remained home precisely in order to care for their aging parents. Unmarried elders were more likely to live with married children.

Second, economic factors played a major role. Social Security did not exist until 1940. In 1900, 85 percent of all men between the ages of 65 and 69 were in the labor force, as were 49 percent of all men 85 and over (Smith 1979). However, this option was much less available to women; the comparable proportions in the labor force were 12 and 6 percent. Many older persons, particularly women, had no means of support other than their children. Rates of coresidence of aging parents with their adult children have decreased as the prosperity of the elderly has increased; more can now afford to live independently.

However, Ruggles (1994a) found that wealthier older people were more likely to share a household with children than were poorer elders in the nineteenth century, and the majority of multigenerational families lived in households headed by the elderly parent(s). These facts suggest that adult children benefited economically from coresidence and that the possibility of inheriting a farm or business from aging parents may have motivated many adults to coreside with parents. Today coresidence is more common among poorer than wealthier people (Ruggles 1994a, 1996).

As of March 1998, 41 percent of all women aged 65 and older lived alone, as did 17 percent of all older men. These percentages increase to 53 percent and 22 percent for women and men, respectively, for those age 75 and over (U.S. Bureau of the Census Web site). The reason for this large gender difference, of course, is the difference in marital status between men and women. Among men 75 and over, nearly two-thirds are married and less than one-quarter are widowed; among women these figures are almost exactly reversed. According to 1980 census data, the proportion of all elderly persons living alone increases from 22 percent among those 65 to 69 to more than 41 percent in the 85-89 age category, then drops to 33 percent for those 90 and over (Coward et al. 1989), after which the modal category becomes living with children. Older persons who have lost their spouses through death are clearly exhibiting a tendency to live alone as long as possible, which for many of them extends into the latest years of life.

Older persons now constitute nearly 13 percent of the total population of the United States, compared to about 4 percent in 1900. With so many of them maintaining their own residences, either with their spouses or alone following widowhood, their contribution to the proliferation of small and single-person households is substantial.

If so many older persons lived with their children in the late nineteenth century, why were there so few extended-family households? Ruggles (1994a) shows that just under 20 percent of the households of whites contained extended families in both 1880 and 1900; this compares to less than 7 percent in 1980, but it was still very much a minority statistical pattern. There were three primary reasons. First, because of more limited life expectancies and relatively high fertility rates, there were proportionally few older people in the population, so where they lived made less difference to the nation’s household structure. Second, as noted above, many older persons lived with an unmarried child; unless other relatives are present, this arrangement constitutes a nuclear-family household regardless of the age of the parent. Third, while these cohorts of older persons typically had many children (an average of 5.4 per woman in 1880), these children did not live together as adults, so older persons could live with only one; their remaining children lived in nuclear families. Ruggles (1994a) estimates that more than 70 percent of all elders who could have lived with a child actually did so in 1880; the comparable percentage in 1980 was 16. In comparison to the last century, older persons today are much less likely to live with children and much more likely to live alone, contributing to the proliferation of small and single-person households.

To this point, factors that have contributed to long-term decreases in household and family size, and consequent increases in the numbers of households and families, have been elucidated. There is evidence of changes in these directions in all age segments of the population. These trends do not mean, however, that more complex family households are not part of the contemporary American experience.

As noted at the beginning of this entry, the United States has never been characterized by a statistical predominance of extended-family households, although it appears that the preference was for intergenerational coresidence in the form of stem families (families containing an older parent or parents and one of their married children) until the early years of the twentieth century. But extended family households do occur today. At any single point in time, they constitute less than 10 percent of all households (Glick et al. 1997; Ruggles 1994a). However, a dynamic perspective presents a somewhat different picture.

Beck and Beck (1989) analyzed the household compositions of a large sample of middle-aged women who were followed from 1969 to 1984. The presence of nonnuclear kin in their households was noted for specific years and was also calculated for the entire fifteen-year period. In 1984, when these women were between the ages of 47 and 61, only 8 percent of white married women and 20 percent of white unmarried women lived in households containing their parents, grandchildren, or other nonnuclear kin. The proportions were higher for comparable black women: 27 percent of the married and 34 percent of the unmarried. However, over the fifteen years covered by the survey, about one-third of all white women and fully two-thirds of the black women lived in a household containing extended kin at some point.

These and other data (Ruggles 1994a, 1994b) show that today blacks are more likely than whites to live in extended-family households. This was not the case until about 1940. What has happened is that the decrease in intergenerational coresidence since the late nineteenth century has been much steeper for whites than for blacks. This is probably connected to much lower rates of marriage among blacks; living in multigenerational households is much more common for unmarried than for married persons. It may also reflect the shift in the distribution of extended families from the wealthier to the poorer segments of the economic structure. Rather than serving as a means of ensuring inheritance and keeping wealth in the family, extended family living today is more likely to be motivated by a need to share and conserve resources.

The family and household structure of the United States has changed dramatically over the past century, in spite of the fact that our family system has remained nuclear in at least the statistical sense. More and more Americans are living in single-person households before, between, and after marriages. More are living in single-parent households. Collectively Americans are spending smaller proportions of their lives in families of any description than they did in the past (Watkins et al. 1987). However, they are more likely than ever before to live in nonmarital heterosexual unions, and many of them live in households that contain nonnuclear kin at some point in their lives. In fact, there is evidence (Glick et al. 1997) that the proportion of extended-family households increased between 1980 and 1990.

The growth of small and single-person households is in many ways indicative of the fact that more Americans can now afford to remain unmarried, leave unhappy marriages, and maintain their own residences in later life. The proliferation of households represents the proliferation of choices. The consequences of these choices remain to be seen.

References:

• Beck, Rubye W., and Scott H. Beck 1989 ‘‘The Incidence of Extended Households Among Middle-Aged Black and White Women: Estimates from a 15-Year Panel Study.’’ Journal of Family Issues 10:147–168.
• Bumpass, Larry L. 1994. ‘‘The Declining Significance of Marriage: Changing Family Life in the United States.’’ Paper presented at the Potsdam International Conference, ‘‘Changing Families and Childhood.’’
• Bumpass, Larry L., James A. Sweet, and Andrew J. Cherlin 1991 ‘‘The Role of Cohabitation in Declining Rates of Marriage.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 53:913–927.
• Coward, Raymond T., Stephen Cutler, and Frederick Schmidt 1989 ‘‘Differences in the Household Composition of Elders by Age, Gender, and Area of Residence.’’ The Gerontologist 29:814–821.
• Glick, Jennifer E., Frank D. Bean, and Jennifer V. W. Van Hook 1997 ‘‘Immigration and Changing Patterns of Extended Family Household Structure in the United States: 1970–1990.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:177–191.
• Goldscheider, Frances 1997 ‘‘Recent Changes in U.S. Young Adult Living Arrangements in Comparative Perspective.’’ Journal of Family Issues 18:708–724.
• Lee, Gary R. 1999 ‘‘Comparative Perspectives.’’ In Marvin B. Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson, eds., Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed. New York: Plenum.
• Martin, Teresa Castro, and Larry L. Bumpass 1989 ‘‘Recent Trends in Marital Disruption.’’ Demography 26:37–51.
• National Center for Health Statistics 1997 ‘‘Fertility, Family Planning, and Women’s Health: New Data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.’’ Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23, No. 19. Hyattsville, Md.: Public Health Service.
• National Center for Health Statistics 1999 ‘‘Births: Final Data for 1997.’’ National Vital Statistics Reports, series 47, no. 18. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.
• Oppenheimer, Valerie K., Matthijs Kalmijn, and Nelson Lim 1997 ‘‘Men’s Career Development and Marriage Timing During a Period of Rising Inequality.’’ Demography 34:311–330.
• Pebley, Anne R., and Laura L. Rudkin 1999 ‘‘Grandparents Caring for Grandchildren: What Do We Know?’’ Journal of Family Issues 20:218–242.
• Raley, R. Kelly 1996 ‘‘A Shortage of Marriageable Men? A Note on the Role of Cohabitation in Black–White Differences in Marriage Rates.’’ American Sociological Review 61:973–983.
• Ruggles, Steven 1994a ‘‘The Transformation of American Family Structure.’’ American Historical Review 99:103–128.
• Ruggles, Steven 1994b ‘‘The Origins of African American Family Structure.’’ American Sociological Review 59:136–151.
• Ruggles, Steven 1996 ‘‘Living Arrangements of the Elderly in the United States.’’ In Tamara K. Hareven, ed., Aging and Intergenerational Relations: Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
• Seward, Rudy R. 1978 The American Family: A Demographic History. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
• Smith, Daniel Scott 1979 ‘‘Life Course, Norms, and the Family System of Older Americans in 1900.’’ Journal of Family History 4:285–298.
• Sweeney, Megan M. 1997 ‘‘Remarriage of Women and Men After Divorce.’’ Journal of Family Issues 18:479–502.
• S. Bureau of the Census 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 118th ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• S. Bureau of the Census 1998 ‘‘Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998.’’ https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p20-514.pdf
• Waite, Linda J. 1995 ‘‘Does Marriage Matter?’’ Demography 32:483–507.
• Watkins, Susan Cotts, Jane A. Menken, and Jon Bongaarts 1987 ‘‘Demographic Foundations of Family Change.’’ American Sociological Review 52:346–358.
• White, Lynn 1994 ‘‘Coresidence and Leaving Home: Young Adults and Their Parents.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 20:81–102.

Browse other  Sociology Research Paper Topics .

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Family background issues as predictors of mental health problems for university students.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. study design and participants, 2.2. operational definitions, 2.3. dependent variable, 2.4. potential confounders, 2.5. statistical analysis, 2.5.1. description of demographic characteristics, 2.5.2. crude and multivariable analysis, 2.6. ethical approval, 3.1. demographic data, 3.2. problems of the students, 3.3. associations between family background issues and the severity of current problems concerning the students, 3.4. associations between family background issues and the types of current problems concerning the students, 4. discussion, 4.1. parental migration, 4.2. unfamiliarity with their parents, 4.3. financial issues, 4.4. infidelity of the parents, 4.5. communication issues in the family, 4.6. domestic violence, 4.7. family conflicts, 4.8. utilities of the predictors for approaching the patients, 4.9. strengths and limitations of this study, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Laursen, B.; Hartl, A.C. Understanding loneliness during adolescence: Developmental changes that increase the risk of perceived social isolation. J. Adolesc. 2013 , 36 , 1261–1268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Auerbach, R.P.; Alonso, J.; Axinn, W.G.; Cuijpers, P.; Ebert, D.D.; Green, J.G.; Hwang, I.; Kessler, R.C.; Liu, H.; Mortier, P.; et al. Mental disorders among college students in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Psychol. Med. 2016 , 46 , 2955–2970. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Bruffaerts, R.; Mortier, P.; Kiekens, G.; Auerbach, R.P.; Cuijpers, P.; Demyttenaere, K.; Green, J.G.; Nock, M.K.; Kessler, R.C. Mental health problems in college freshmen: Prevalence and academic functioning. J. Affect. Disord. 2018 , 225 , 97–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Kovess-Masfety, V.; Leray, E.; Denis, L.; Husky, M.; Pitrou, I.; Bodeau-Livinec, F. Mental health of college students and their non-college-attending peers: Results from a large French cross-sectional survey. BMC Psychol. 2016 , 4 , 20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kang, H.K.; Rhodes, C.; Rivers, E.; Thornton, C.P.; Rodney, T. Prevalence of mental health disorders among undergraduate university students in the United States: A review. J. Psychosoc. Nurs. Ment. Health Serv. 2021 , 59 , 17–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verger, P.; Guagliardo, V.; Gilbert, F.; Rouillon, F.; Kovess-Masfety, V. Psychiatric disorders in students in six French universities: 12-month prevalence, comorbidity, impairment and help-seeking. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2010 , 45 , 189–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pedrelli, P.; Nyer, M.; Yeung, A.; Zulauf, C.; Wilens, T. College students: Mental health problems and treatment considerations. Acad. Psychiatry 2015 , 39 , 503–511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ramón-Arbués, E.; Gea-Caballero, V.; Granada-López, J.M.; Juárez-Vela, R.; Pellicer-García, B.; Antón-Solanas, I. The prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress and their associated factors in college students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 7001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scott, K.M.; Lim, C.; Al-Hamzawi, A.; Alonso, J.; Bruffaerts, R.; Caldas-de-Almeida, J.M.; Florescu, S.; de Girolamo, G.; Hu, C.; de Jonge, P.; et al. Association of mental disorders with subsequent chronic physical conditions: World mental health surveys from 17 countries. JAMA Psychiatry 2016 , 73 , 150–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kerr, D.C.; Capaldi, D.M. Young men’s intimate partner violence and relationship functioning: Long-term outcomes associated with suicide attempt and aggression in adolescence. Psychol. Med. 2011 , 41 , 759–769. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dachew, B.A.; Bifftu, B.B.; Tiruneh, B.T.; Anlay, D.Z.; Wassie, M.A. Prevalence of mental distress and associated factors among university students in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis. J. Ment. Health 2019 , 28 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Z.; Cui, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Liang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Shang, L. The relationship between mental health problems and systemic family dynamics among high school and university students in Shaanxi province, China. Int. J. Public Health 2021 , 66 , 1603988. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kim, D.H.; Bassett, S.M.; So, S.; Voisin, D.R. Family stress and youth mental health problems: Self-efficacy and future orientation mediation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2019 , 89 , 125–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wu, H.; Cai, Z.; Yan, Q.; Yu, Y.; Yu, N.N. The impact of childhood left-behind experience on the mental health of late adolescents: Evidence from Chinese college freshmen. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021 , 18 , 2778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shi, J.; Chen, Z.; Yin, F.; Zhao, J.; Zhao, X.; Yao, Y. Resilience as moderator of the relationship between left-behind experience and mental health of Chinese adolescents. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2016 , 62 , 386–393. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Escobar, D.F.S.S.; Jesus, T.F.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; Noll, M. Family and school context: Effects on the mental health of Brazilian students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 , 17 , 6042. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bannink, R.; Broeren, S.; van de Looij-Jansen, P.M.; Raat, H. Associations between parent-adolescent attachment relationship quality, negative life events and mental health. PLoS ONE 2013 , 8 , e80812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bayram, N.; Bilgel, N. The prevalence and socio-demographic correlations of depression, anxiety and stress among a group of university students. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2008 , 43 , 667–672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Der-Karabetian, A.; Preciado, M. Mother-blaming among college students. Percept. Mot. Skills 1989 , 68 , 453–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, Y.; Yang, X.; Yang, Y.; Chen, L.; Qiu, X.; Qiao, Z.; Zhou, J.; Pan, H.; Ban, B.; Zhu, X.; et al. The role of family environment in depressive symptoms among university students: A large sample survey in China. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0143612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shen, A.C. Long-term effects of interparental violence and child physical maltreatment experiences on PTSD and behavior problems: A national survey of Taiwanese college students. Child Abuse Negl. 2009 , 33 , 148–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Miller-Perrin, C.L.; Perrin, R.D.; Kocur, J.L. Parental physical and psychological aggression: Psychological symptoms in young adults. Child Abuse Negl. 2009 , 33 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karatekin, C. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), stress and mental health in college students. Stress Health 2018 , 34 , 36–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wlodarczyk, O.; Schwarze, M.; Rumpf, H.-J.; Metzner, F.; Pawils, S. Protective mental health factors in children of parents with alcohol and drug use disorders: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017 , 12 , e0179140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Gallagher, R.P. National Survey of Counseling Center Directors 2010 ; The International Association of Counseling Centers, Inc.: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hosseinkhani, Z.; Hassanabadi, H.R.; Parsaeian, M.; Karimi, M.; Nedjat, S. Academic stress and adolescents mental health: A multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) study in northwest of Iran. J. Res. Health Sci. 2020 , 20 , e00496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rubin, M.; Kelly, B.M. A cross-sectional investigation of parenting style and friendship as mediators of the relation between social class and mental health in a university community. Int. J. Equity Health 2015 , 14 , 87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hu, X.; Cook, S.; Salazar, M.A. Internal migration and health in China. Lancet 2008 , 372 , 1717–1719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zou, P.; Siu, A.; Wang, X.; Shao, J.; Hallowell, S.G.; Yang, L.L.; Zhang, H. Influencing Factors of Depression among Adolescent Asians in North America: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2021 , 9 , 537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, J.; Wang, L.; Yao, Y.; Su, N.; Zhao, X.; Chen, F. Family impacts on self-esteem in Chinese college freshmen. Front. Psychiatry 2017 , 8 , 279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Pryor, L.; Strandberg-Larsen, K.; Nybo Andersen, A.M.; Hulvej Rod, N.; Melchior, M. Trajectories of family poverty and children’s mental health: Results from the Danish National Birth Cohort. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019 , 220 , 371–378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Castro, F.; Barrameda, M.; Dadivas, M.; Panganibam, E.; San José, A. Living within a Broken Vow: The Impact of Parental Infidelity among Late Adolescents in Establishing Romantic Relationships. Univers. J. Psychol. 2016 , 4 , 228–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Available online: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html. (accessed on 15 December 2022).
• Kataoka, Y.; Tsuchiya, K. The Communication Skills and Family Resources in the University Students: The Moderating Effect of Encoding Skills and Commitment to Family. Fam. J. 2020 , 1066480720966524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rhoades, G.K.; Wood, L.F. Family conflict and college-student social adjustment: The mediating role of emotional distress about the family. Couple Fam. Psychol. 2014 , 3 , 156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ponnet, K.; Wouters, E.; Goedemé, T.; Mortelmans, D. Family Financial Stress, Parenting and Problem Behavior in Adolescents: An Actor-Partner Interdependence Approach. J. Fam. Issues 2016 , 37 , 574–597. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Luvira, V.; Nonjui, P.; Butsathon, N.; Deenok, P.; Aunruean, W. Family Background Issues as Predictors of Mental Health Problems for University Students. Healthcare 2023 , 11 , 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030316

Luvira V, Nonjui P, Butsathon N, Deenok P, Aunruean W. Family Background Issues as Predictors of Mental Health Problems for University Students. Healthcare . 2023; 11(3):316. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030316

Luvira, Varisara, Pat Nonjui, Nisachon Butsathon, Phahurat Deenok, and Wilawan Aunruean. 2023. "Family Background Issues as Predictors of Mental Health Problems for University Students" Healthcare 11, no. 3: 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11030316

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

The Impact of Family Problems in the Academic Performance of HUMSS Grade 12 Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines

• Lyca S. Brian
• Nicole Ann M. Genavia
• John Estefano G. Gososo
• Norman M. Rosales Jr.
• Jessalyn L. Tapon
• Aarol Michael C. Valenzuela

Family as the basic unit of society plays a big role in the educational aspect of their family members. Although problems are inevitable inability to manage it may affect the behavior and the academic performance of the students. This study aimed to determine the effects of Family Problems to the academic performance of Grade 12 HUMSS Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines. This study will really help student to overcome their Family Problems and can identified what issues that they are facing right now. The researchers used Qualitative method and Descriptive Research Resign to obtain general overview of the topic that pertain to the impact of family problems in the academic performance of Grade 12 students. Survey Questionnaire was used to gather information needed to discuss the topic. Cluster sampling technique has been conducted in choosing the respondents. The study found out that family problems seriously affect the performance of the students in particular to their attendance and performance. Family problems that involve financial difficulties, relationship and bad habits are the contributing factors in the performance of the students. Lack of financial support impacts the student’s attendance and compliance with the school projects and activities. Students choose not to attend the class than to stay hunger one day in school. Family relationship on the other hand, impacts the student’s emotional level. It impacts to their focus in class. Wrong culture of the family brings out bad behavior and habit to the students. Family problems are inevitable and creates a big impact to the academic performances of the students. This awareness may help the teachers and parents to help the students who are encountering serious family problems to pursue their students despite those family issues and challenges. They have to develop a positive spirit and positive response in life.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Similar Articles

• Hazel Suzane Paulin , Kate Angel C. Dandasan, Lady Jane Delos Angeles, Rhaiven Rose Gipit, Monica Tolosa, Crystel-Joy S. Tamon, The Effects of Healthy Family Relationship to the Academic Performance of Grade 12 ABM Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines School Year 2018-2019 , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• Arriadna Barrientos, Courtney Love B. Bianzon, Jane M. Shakira, John Vincent L. Cao, Arthur Cristino, Jennylyn S. Soriano, Rujem C. Yaras, Effect of Family Issues on the Academic Performance of Grade 12 HUMSS Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines During the COVID-19 Pandemic , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 1D (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No1D_June2022
• Ma. Kristine Jane Soli Aurora, Joana May Gascon Bacus, Christine Joy Corioso, Zarlyn Naza Dulay, Mark Louie Macaspac Mendoza, Problems Encountered in Meeting Deadlines in Learning Management System by Grade 12 HUMSS Students at Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 1D (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No1D_June2022
• Lady Ann R. Delacruz, Cristine Joy B. Santos, Ivanna Francie G. Unay, Jimson Uy, Vangeline Vidal, Status of Academic Performance of Grade 12 HUMSS Working Students at Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 1D (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No1D_June2022
• Claramae Amores, Jenifer Lois Asis, Mark Genesis Baay, Sherilyn Barrera, John Laurence Bernabe, Ghone Quintinita, Challenges Faced by Senior High School Student Leaders Towards Academic Performance at Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 1D (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No1D_June2022
• Marce Janelle B. Besmonte, Rina Mae D. Bueno, Florence Nicole F. Morong, Lhea Mae L. Velmonte, Angelica L. Dela Fuente, Actors That Affect the Academic Performance of Selected Grade 12 General Academic Strand Students of Bestlink College of the Philippines A. Y. 2018-2019 , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• Ronie Anne Gal, Jeicel Macanas, Syries Jean Ty, Mariel Judilla, Jodan Duma, Crystel-Joy S. Tamon, The Impact of Family Conflicts in the Academic Performance of Grade 12 ABM Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines School Year 2018-2019 , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• Jonathan Monares, Jose Fernando Pallar, Gell Marvie Paquibot, Rodelio Tobias, Mary Grace Zabala, Challenges that Working Students Encounter that Affects the Academic Performance of the Selected Grade 12 HUMSS Working Students of Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 1D (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No1D_June2022
• Carlo Anhiel Bernardo, Patricia Mae Dagsa, Erika Guhilde, Rebecca Mendoza, Kent Owen Sorillano, The Effects of Parents – Students Relationship on the Academic Performance of Selected HUMSS Grade 12 Students in Bestlink College of the Philippines , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 1 No. 1 (2019): Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, Vol.1, No.1, March 2019
• Mary Jane P. Teves, Rosemarie S. Lubos, Mayeth D. Loveras, Arlene Vibal, The Impact of Computer Literacy on Student’s Academic Performance of BTVTED 3rd Year College Students of Bestlink College of the Philippines-Bulacan A.Y. 2021-2022 , Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research: Vol. 3 No. 1C (2022): AASg-BCP-JMRA_Vol3_No1C_June2022

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >   >>  

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Family Problems

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Pendidikan Agama Islam Follow Following
• Social Work Follow Following
• Cognitive Psychology Follow Following
• Social Psychology Follow Following
• Marital Counselling Follow Following
• Cultural Indicators and Cultivation Follow Following
• Televizyon Şiddeti Follow Following
• The Cultivation Effect of Violence in Television Progammes Follow Following
• Aile Içi Ilişkiler Follow Following
• Family Studies Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Family & Relationships

The experiences of u.s. adults who don’t have children.

Some 57% of adults under 50 who say they’re unlikely to ever have kids say a major reason is they just don’t want to. Among those ages 50 and older without kids, a smaller share (31%) cite this as a reason they never had them.

A growing share of U.S. husbands and wives are roughly the same age

On average, husbands and wives were 2.2 years apart in age in 2022, down from 2.4 years in 2000 and 4.9 years in 1880.

What’s new with you? What Americans talk about with family and friends

Nearly seven-in-ten Americans (69%) say they talk to their close friends and family a lot about what’s happening with them.

What do Americans think about fewer people choosing to have children?

The share of U.S. adults younger than 50 without children who say they are unlikely to ever have children rose from 37% in 2018 to 47% in 2023.

Some 57% of adults under 50 who say they are unlikely to have kids say a major reason is they just don’t want to. Among those ages 50 and older, 31% cite this as a reason.

Same-Sex Marriage Around the World

Sort through the more than 30 jurisdictions that have enacted laws allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Voters who support Biden and Trump have starkly different opinions on many issues, and these two groups are divided internally as well.

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in Europe

Majorities in most of the 27 places around the world surveyed in 2023 and 2024 say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Americans overwhelmingly say access to IVF is a good thing

Seven-in-ten Americans say in vitro fertilization access is a good thing. Just 8% say it is a bad thing, and 22% are unsure.

Teens and Video Games Today

85% of U.S. teens say they play video games. They see both positive and negative sides, from making friends to harassment and sleep loss.

Americans are less likely than others around the world to feel close to people in their country or community

A median of 83% across 24 nations surveyed say they feel close to other people in their country, while 66% of Americans hold this view.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• D’Vera Cohn (63)
• Gretchen Livingston (46)
• Richard Fry (34)
• Kim Parker (27)
• Juliana Menasce Horowitz (19)
• Michael Lipka (19)
• David Masci (17)
• Pew Research Center Staff (17)
• Monica Anderson (16)
• Wendy Wang (15)
• Tom Rosentiel (14)
• Anna Brown (13)
• Amanda Lenhart (12)
• Drew DeSilver (12)
• Amanda Barroso (10)
• Carolina Aragão (10)
• Jeffrey S. Passel (9)
• Katherine Schaeffer (9)
• Kiley Hurst (9)
• Lee Rainie (9)
• Renee Stepler (8)
• Rich Morin (8)
• Aaron Smith (7)
• Rachel Minkin (7)
• Emily A. Vogels (6)
• George Gao (6)
• Mark Hugo Lopez (6)
• Nikki Graf (6)
• Patrick van Kessel (6)
• Andrea Caumont (5)
• Maeve Duggan (5)
• Mary Madden (5)
• Ruth Igielnik (5)
• Stephanie Kramer (5)
• Susannah Fox (5)
• Adam Nekola (4)
• Bruce Drake (4)
• Colleen McClain (4)
• Janell Fetterolf (4)
• Jens Manuel Krogstad (4)
• Michael Suh (4)
• Paul Taylor (4)
• Risa Gelles-Watnick (4)
• A.W. Geiger (3)
• Aleksandra Sandstrom (3)
• Alexandra Macgill (3)
• Anthony Cilluffo (3)
• Benjamin Wormald (3)
• Cary Funk (3)
• Caryle Murphy (3)
• Chris Baronavski (3)
• Christine Huang (3)
• Daniel Dockterman (3)
• Eileen Patten (3)
• Gabriel Borelli (3)
• Gregory A. Smith (3)
• Jacob Poushter (3)
• Jingjing Jiang (3)
• John Gramlich (3)
• Joseph Liu (3)
• Laura Clancy (3)
• Laura Silver (3)
• Rakesh Kochhar (3)
• Seth Motel (3)
• Sneha Gubbala (3)
• Adam Hughes (2)
• Alan Cooperman (2)
• Brian Kennedy (2)
• Claire Gecewicz (2)
• Dana Braga (2)
• Deja Thomas (2)
• Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac (2)
• Erica Turner (2)
• Giancarlo Pasquini (2)
• Isabel Goddard (2)
• Jeff Diamant (2)
• Jeffrey Gottfried (2)
• Joanna Brenner (2)
• Jocelyn Kiley (2)
• Jonathan Evans (2)
• Kirsten Lesage (2)
• Kristen Bialik (2)
• Kristen Purcell (2)
• Manolo Corichi (2)
• Michelle Faverio (2)
• Olivia Sidoti (2)
• Sara Kehaulani Goo (2)
• Shannon Greenwood (2)
• Tim Townsend (2)
• Travis Mitchell (2)
• Abby Budiman (1)
• Aidan Connaughton (1)
• Alec Tyson (1)
• Alissa Scheller (1)
• Amina Dunn (1)
• Andy Cerda (1)
• Angelina E. Theodorou (1)
• Anna Jackson (1)
• Ariana Monique Salazar (1)
• Becka A. Alper (1)
• Christine Tamir (1)
• Cliff Lampe (1)
• Danielle Cuddington (1)
• David McClendon (1)
• Dipo Fadeyi (1)
• Emma Kikuchi (1)
• Eugenie Park (1)
• Felisa Gonzales (1)
• Gabriel Velasco (1)
• J. Baxter Oliphant (1)
• Janna Anderson (1)
• Jenn Hatfield (1)
• Jesse Bennett (1)
• John B. Horrigan (1)
• John Carlo Mandapat (1)
• Joseph Copeland (1)
• Katherine Allen (1)
• Kathryn Zickuhr (1)
• Katie Reilly (1)
• Kelsey Jo Starr (1)
• Kenneth Olmstead (1)
• Khadijah Edwards (1)
• Kiana Cox (1)
• Kristi Walker (1)
• Leslie Davis (1)
• Luis Noe-Bustamante (1)
• Luona Lin (1)
• Meg Hefferon (1)
• Meredith Dost (1)
• Michael Dimock (1)
• Michael Keegan (1)
• Mohamad Moslimani (1)
• Neha Sahgal (1)
• Nicholas Kent (1)
• Nicole B. Ellison (1)
• Oliver Lewis (1)
• Patricia Tevington (1)
• Rebecca Leppert (1)
• Rich Ling (1)
• Roseline Gray (1)
• Shajia Abidi (1)
• Shirin Hakimzadeh (1)
• Skye Toor (1)
• Tom Spooner (1)
• William Miner (1)

Research Teams

• Social Trends (250+)
• Religion (125)
• Internet and Technology (92)
• Politics (67)
• Race and Ethnicity (24)
• Global (23)
• Global Migration and Demography (18)
• Science (16)
• Journalism (12)
• Data Labs (11)
• Methods (7)
• Pew Research Center (7)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Appl Basic Med Res
• v.4(2); Jul-Dec 2014

Study of family factors in association with behavior problems amongst children of 6-18 years age group

Sandip s jogdand.

Department of Community Medicine, Rural Medical College, Loni, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India

1 Department of P.S.M., Government Medical College, Miraj, Maharashtra, India

Background:

The ‘behaviour problems’ are having major impact on child's bodily and social development. The family provides emotional support to an individual as well as plays a major role in the formation of one's personality. The quality and nature of the parental nurturance that the child receives will profoundly influence his future development. The knowledge of these family factors associated with behaviour problems may be helpful to identify at risk children.

Aims and Objective:

To study the family factors associated with behaviour problems amongst children of 6-18 Yrs age group.

an adopted urban slum area of Govt. Medical College, Miraj Dist-Sangli.

Cross sectional study.

Materials and Methods:

the sample size was calculated based upon 40% prevalence obtained in pilot study. Total 600 Children in the age group of 6-18 years residing in the urban slum area and their parents were interviewed with the help of predesigned, pretested proforma. Analysis: chi-square test and risk estimate with Odd's ratio.

Our study result reveals significant association between prevalence of behaviour problems with absence of either or both real parents and alcoholism in the parent or care taker.

Conclusion:

The behaviour problems have good prognosis if they are recognized earlier. Family has great role in prevention of behaviour problems in children, so parental counseling may be helpful.

I NTRODUCTION

The behavior of a child is variable and depends on biological, social and environmental factors.[ 1 ] In learning to adjust to the world in which child is growing up, he develops certain kinds of behavior which are annoying or embarrassing to adults with whom he comes in contact. Adults frequently label such behaviors as problem behaviors.

Studies on the prevalence of behavior problems in children shown alarming results and yet strikingly varying from one study to another. Studies conducted in rural and urban areas of different parts of India suggest prevalence range ranging from approximately 1.16% (Dube, 1970)[ 2 ] to 43.1% (Vardhini).[ 3 ]

The “behavior problems” are having a major impact on the child's bodily and social development. It is the major concern of frustration to parents. Parent-child relationship gets disrupted and creates family conflicts and disharmony.

The family provides emotional support to an individual as well as plays a major role in the formation of one's personality. The quality and nature of the parental nurturance that the child receives will profoundly influence his future development. But only few homes provide the right type of environment to the growing child. Numerous studies have shown that children with various kinds of psychiatric and behavioral problems tend to come from homes or schools that are disadvantaged in some respect.[ 4 ]

Hence, the present study is planned to study certain family factors in association with behavior problems in adopted urban slum area of Government Medical College (GMC), Miraj.

M ATERIALS AND M ETHODS

Present cross sectional study was planned at an adopted urban slum area of GMC and Hospital Miraj. Parents of children in the study group and in some context children themselves interviewed with the help of predesigned, pretested proforma. The proforma was prepared after review of child behavior check list and achenbach system of empirically based assessment behavior problem check list used by different authors in their studies.[ 5 , 6 , 7 ] Also clinical psychologist who run own child guidance clinic at Miraj was consulted to finalize the proforma. The study populations enrolled for the study were permanent resident of the same area for last 5 years or more. Prior to data collection written consent was obtained and data was collected by the corresponding author with the help of fieldworkers of Urban Health Training Center.

The non-respondents or having any chronic illness and neurological disorders were excluded for the present study. The prevalence rate of 40% obtained in a pilot study was used to calculate sample size for the present study. A total 600 children in the age group of 6-18 years were enrolled for study from adopted urban slum area. The children were selected by simple random sampling method from the list of family survey registers of field workers. Their socio-demographic data and information regarding behavior was recorded. Socio-demographic data pertaining to socioeconomic classification, type of family, parent educational status, parent habits and addictions etc., was collected.

The behavior problems which were categorized as externalizing and internalizing in previous literature[ 8 , 9 , 10 ] were further sub classified as antisocial problems, habit problems, psychosomatic problems, personality problems, scholastic difficulties and eating problems etc.

Data was entered in Microsoft excel sheet and contingency tables were prepared and χ 2 was calculated to find out association between the factors and further strength of association was estimated by odd's ratio.

Observations

In our study, majority of children with behavior problems were coming from nuclear families. The observed difference of behavior problems with type of family was not found statistically significant [ Table 1 ].

Association between type of family and prevalence of behaviour problems

In the present study out of 600 children, there were 71 (11.83%) children with either one or both real parents absent (death of a parent). In the present study group the absence of either parent was only because of death of either parent (other causes separation or divorce were not found). Out of these children 56 (78.87%) children exhibited one or more than one behavior problem. The observed difference was found statistically significant, showing that there is an association between behavior problems and absence of parents [ Table 2 ].

Association between parental loss (absence of parent) and behaviour problems

Furthermore the strength of association estimated with odd's ratio show that the absence of either one or both parents increases the risk of behavior problems four times when compared to children having both biological parents present.

In the present study, out of 600 children, 238 (39.67%) children were from families having a history of alcoholism in parents or caretakers. Amongst these children, 134 (56.30%) children exhibited one or more than one behavior problems [ Table 3 ].

Association between alcoholism in parents and prevalence of behavior problems

Statistically there is a significant association between alcoholism in parents and prevalence of behavior problems in children. The risk of behavior problems increases almost 1.5 times among the children having alcoholic parent/care taker.

D ISCUSSION

In this study we observed no significant association between type of family and prevalence of behavior problems in children. Deivasigamani[ 11 ] (1989) and Gupta et al .[ 12 ] (2001) also had shown same result.

Although Bhalla et al .[ 13 ] (1986) and Singhal et al .[ 14 ] (1988) found the majority of the children from nuclear families attending pediatric out-patient department for their psychological and psychiatric problems and shown significant relationship with type of family.

These findings were inconsistent with the present study results.

The present study revealed a significant association between loss of parents and prevalence rate of behavior problems. Most of the research studies related to mental illness and psychological disturbances have shown a significant correlation between loss of parent and psychopathology in children.

Srinivasan and Raman[ 15 ] in their study estimated 9.32 times increased risk for psychopathology in children with long term parental separation Dayal et al .[ 16 ] (1986) studied social, cultural and educational background of 100 male delinquent children at Agra found most of the children from families with the absence of a father.

Deivasigamani (1989) found absent father in most of children with psychiatric morbidity.

Gregory[ 17 ] (1962) shown parental loss as a predisposing factor in delinquent behavior in children. Furthermore, Prat[ 18 ] (2003) stated that parental loss is associated with significant psychosocial and mental health problems in adolescents.

All these studies support the result of the present study showing significance of presence of parents in the life of children and adolescents.

Alcoholism in a parent or care taker of children was found significantly associated with prevalence of behavior problems in children.

Shenoy and Kapur[ 19 ] (1996) studied socio-demographic factors in children with scholastic backwardness; shown alcoholism in the parent as a significant factor. Srinath et al .[ 20 ] (2004) conducted a study at Bangalore among children aged 4-16 year found a significant association between alcoholism in parent and psychiatric morbidity in children.

Few of the western studies have also shown alcoholism in parents as a predisposing factor for psychological and mental problems in children and adolescents. Prat[ 21 ] (1999) stated that in US, India or South East Asia, adolescents who live in households where alcohol is abused are at risk being victims of family violence leading to behavior problems.

C ONCLUSION

The present study shows that family structure is changing more in favor of nuclear setup. Probably, may be because the majority of families are migrated from rural places to urban areas in search of work or for educational purposes. Hence the older persons in family remain at their homes in villages. All these factors contribute to the majority of nuclear families in slum areas. Probably other vulnerable factors present in these children in the present study may be masking the effect of type of family.

Parents are first guide and teacher in the life of children. They fulfill their physical and emotional needs and also provide social and psychological support to their child. The presence of parents increases the secured awareness in the child which prevents them from being exposed to peer group pressure or influence of the outer world.

Alcoholism is now a days increasing in India. In slum areas, most of the population is migrated and doing labor work. The increased economic pressure and indulged in heavy working makes this population involved in alcoholism. The alcoholism in parents is responsible for disharmony in home environments; there is poor interaction between family members, which hampers the psychosocial development of children.

Parents need to be helped to understand that ‘it is not enough to do things to their children; they must do things with them’. Family based interventions which focus on improving communication within the family had some success in treating behavior problems. In family therapy, the primary goal is to change dysfunctional family systems, clarify family roles and promote honest and open communication among family members. Good quality day care can have positive psychosocial benefits, particularly in case of children from poor or disordered homes.

Limitations of the study

There is need further exploratory study with the same topic. Due to time constraint the study has to rely upon the responses of parents and/child only. As the study was conducted in the community setting because of cultural barriers we could not include the questions pertaining to sexual behavior of children.

A CKNOWLEDGMENT

We appreciate the valuable help by Dr. Sandip S. Mangrule (Rehabilitation Psychologist) and Mrs. M.S. Mangrule (clinical psychologist) in preparation of questionnaire for the project and thank them for their contribution.

Source of Support: Nil.

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

R EFERENCES

This week: the arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: xlam: a family of large action models to empower ai agent systems.

Abstract: Autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs) have attracted significant research interest. However, the open-source community faces many challenges in developing specialized models for agent tasks, driven by the scarcity of high-quality agent datasets and the absence of standard protocols in this area. We introduce and publicly release xLAM, a series of large action models designed for AI agent tasks. The xLAM series includes five models with both dense and mixture-of-expert architectures, ranging from 1B to 8x22B parameters, trained using a scalable, flexible pipeline that unifies, augments, and synthesizes diverse datasets to enhance AI agents' generalizability and performance across varied environments. Our experimental results demonstrate that xLAM consistently delivers exceptional performance across multiple agent ability benchmarks, notably securing the 1st position on the Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard, outperforming GPT-4, Claude-3, and many other models in terms of tool use. By releasing the xLAM series, we aim to advance the performance of open-source LLMs for autonomous AI agents, potentially accelerating progress and democratizing access to high-performance models for agent tasks. Models are available at this https URL

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .