, Pages 651-656
, Washington State University
, Washington State University
, Washington State University
Consumer behavior research has given little credence to the affective component present in family decision making. This paper suggests there is a need to recognize the salience of love, affection, and intimacy as important sources of the individual goals and desires that influence joint decisions in families. Basic concepts of family are discussed, including definitions of "family" and how it functions differently than other formal groups, such as businesses or social organizations. The paper also describes how the affectional dimensions fit within the existing family decision research paradigm. Suggestions for future research are provided.
"Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to let you in." Robert Frost, Death of the Hired Man
Frost's statement exemplifies the special role of home and family in human interactions. The relationships between family members which create notions of hearth and home are centered on the deep-seated affection members have for one another. The implications of such interpersonal affection pervades all family decisions.
The significance of the affection component is not lost on marketers. Television or magazine advertisements frequently depict a couple's deep emotional relationship and their feelings of love, affection, and intimacy. In advertisements for baby products, we often see expressions of love, affection, and caring for children used in compelling and heartwarming appeals. Thus, advertising practitioners apparently recognize the viability of the love, affection, and intimacy present in a family setting as an advertising method. However, previous family research has given little attention to these factors, focusing instead on the power/conflict dimensions of family interactions.
Family decision research has generally attempted to understand which family members influence one another in terms of family or household purchases. The research which has examined the issues of who is influential in purchasing decisions led consumer behavior scholars to focus on power relations and conflict in family decision making situations. Even though this approach yields results which offer a rich understanding of family decision processes, the scope of this research can be broadened. There is a need to examine other aspects of family relationships that affect the decision making process.
In this article, we explore the potential of affective dimensions in family decision research. Specifically, consideration is given to how affection or the desire to maintain intimate relationships affect family decision making. Following Davis' (1976) urge, introduction of the affectional dimension leads to a research focus on the family decision process, rather than the decision outcomes.
The initial discussion of the affectional components in family decision making necessitates some consideration of the definitions of relevant terms. The concepts of love and affection have been described as:
Words- used more or less interchangeably to designate warm, positive feelings directed to individuals. The difference between love and affection can be made. Love usually implies more intense feeling than affection, or love may be restricted to feelings with a strong sexual component and affection to those supposedly free of it. (Sills 1968, p. 121)
Concerning intimacy, Sternberg (1986) presented it as one of three major components of love; the other two are passion and commitment. It refers to "sharing that which is inmost with others" (McAdams 1988, p. 18). Helgeson, Shaver and Dyer (1987) found that people perceive intimacy as feelings and expressions of closeness, appreciation, and affection. McAdams (1982, p. 19) defined the intimacy motive as "a recurrent preference or readiness for experiences of warm, close, and communicative interaction with others -interpersonal exchange perceived as an end in itself rather than a means to another end." In summary, it is clear that affection for family members is a deep-seated emotion, represented by intimate, long-term relationships which are unique in comparison to other social relationships. In the remainder of the paper, the aforementioned concepts will be referred to as affection.
Consumer researchers have used theoretical constructs drawn from several disciplines in an attempt to explain the phenomenon of family decision behavior. However, the concepts and theories borrowed from other paradigms must be used with consideration of the underlying contexts, assumptions, and the conceptual relationships established by each research discipline. The research in family decision making has taken concepts from political science, sociology, and other disciplines as explanatory paradigms for this group behavior. The concepts of power or bargaining in a political setting or a more formal organization have been applied in family studies. As an example, Gupta, Hagerty, and Myers (1983) used game theory in formulating their family decision-making model. According to this theory, each of the group members is motivated to obtain the best payoff in a joint decision process. However, if we consider affection as a component of familial interactions, the self-interest motives in game theory may well miss the subtle aspects present in family settings. Thus, consideration needs to be given to the major and minor differences between the family and other group decisions to provide a more sensitive measure and appraisal of family decision behavior.
In a family structure, the linkage among members can generally be characterized by levels of intimacy and affection. It would seem reasonable that family decisions take into consideration the affectional, highly personal aspects which are present in these interactions.
DEFINITIONS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE FAMILY
To provide a more complete picture of family characteristics, the definition and functional values of the family will be discussed from an affectional perspective. A comparison between the family and other groups will be made to better isolate the differentiating characteristics of the family. Assuming that affection is an important construct that influences family decisions, we will explore how the construct fits the definition and functions of the family.
Definitions of the Family
A clear definition helps focus on or isolate key questions and issues. Some examples of family definitions are provided and critiqued. Officially, the U.S. Census Bureau (1978, p. 20) defines a family as "a group of two persons or more related by blood, marriage, or adoption and residing together." This definition describes membership of the family structurally rather than functionally, quite likely useful for census purposes but lacking insight for research purposes.
Reiss (1965) refers to the family in terms of an institution, based on socially defined norms and relationships that family members come to understand in the process of socialization. The family here is characterized as a socially derived and maintained entity. However, it says little about the roles of individuals within the family structure.
A more detailed definition based on an anthropological view was provided by Coser (1974). She defined the family as "a group manifesting the following organization attributes: it finds its origin in marriage; it consists of husband, wife, and children born in their wedlock,...the group is united by...sexual rights and prohibitions as well as such socially patterned feelings as love, attraction, piety, and awe" (Coser 1974, p. xvi). The emotional aspect and care-taking function of the family, which have been ignored in other definitions, are included here, although it does exclude a group formed by informal marriage (living together). However, such contemporization of the definition has little effect on the general notion of family presented here.
The implications- of the definitions of family j and its components are considerable. In total, the > entity called 'the family' is a complex union of p individuals. The structure of a family and the roles > of its membership are learned from social norms and family members. Uniting forces for a family include the individual's needs for and feelings of love, affection, and attraction to one another. From this L perspective, these forces are likely to mediate many S decisions made by a family. Thus, consideration of these affectional factors may be important in [ understanding the dynamics present in the processes [ of family decision making.
Functions of the Family
To further understand the family, it is important to consider its various functions. In sociology, Murdock (1949) proposes that the family had four essential functions: (1) socialization, (2) economic cooperation, (3) reproduction, and (4) sexual relations. Among these functions, Reiss (1965) found Mat socialization is the most prevalent function in the nuclear family. While the concept of consumer socialization has been well researched, the integration of this concept into the family decision framework and the affectional aspects of family interactions may provide additional insight into this phenomenon.
Hoffman and Manis (1979) reported that the most important value of having children in a family in the United States is to maintain primary group ties characterized by face to face contact, smallness of size, frequent and intense contact, and affection (love, companionship, and giving love). For many children, most of the needs for love, affection, and intimacy are met by family units. The family is the group where we can potentially find intimacy, nurturing, and a sense of loving and being loved by someone.
To further describe the uniqueness of the family and- the necessity for including the affectional dimensions in family decision research, it may be worthwhile to compare functional characteristics of the family to those of other groups. It is reasonable to assume that an individual behaves differently when he or she interacts with different groups of people. For example, a person may behave differently in a family setting than when s/he is in a business meeting. Therefore, the identification of relative differences between the family and other groups is a critical first step in determining whether there is a need to consider family decision processes as uniquely different from other formal group decisions. The existence of differences would suggest a need to propose alternative explanations for the family decision process. The relative differences between families and other groups are offered in the Table.
As previously defined, the family is formed by formal or informal marriage, and birth, while other groups are established by various methods differing from family. The formation of family leads to more permanent relationships, both physically and psychologically. For example, children are nurtured and are closely associated with their parents, usually for many years. Thus, most people have their longest and most intimate contacts with others in the family setting. Strong affectional ties (both positive and negative) within the family generally result from this long and close relationship.
RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FAMILIES AND OTHER GROUPS
The strong emotional ties in return may not be dissolved at the individual's will, unlike relationships in other groups. Families are motivated to maintain the intimate emotional relationships by protecting the family and by maintaining the harmony of the home which has intrinsic value. In this family setting, it is reasonable to assume that the affective factors (love, affection and intimacy) are important in the family decision making process. It may not be as likely that individuals develop as intimate a relationship in other groups as would be present in family membership. Further, in general, rational factors and/or utilitarian factors (e.g., cost and benefit analysis) are more important in the group decision making process than for the family. In addition, the members in other groups tend to pursue their own self-interest or seek extrinsic values (e.g., pay and promotion). This self-interest and extrinsic value seeking behavior leads more readily to conflict situations, encouraging individual members to exert power over others. While self-interest certainly is present in family decisions, the complexity and affectional aspects of the family place different parameters on the process.
ORIENTATION OF PREVIOUS FAMILY RESEARCH
The previous literature can be loosely categorized into two types of studies: (1) determination of who influences and/or makes decisions in the family and what differences in family decision making can be explained by sociodemographic and psychographic variables and (2) the investigation of the family decision making process.
Previous family decision research has attempted to understand and describe how family members interact and influence one another in terms of family or household purchases. The family decision-making literature has focused mainly on who is influential (Cosenza and Davis 1981; Davis 1970; Ekstrom, Tansuhaj, and Foxman 1987; Filiatrault and Ritchie 1980; Foxman, Tansuhaj, and Ekstrom 1989; Gupta et al. 1983; Kelly and Egan 1969; O'Connor, Sullivan, and Pogorzelski 1985; Qualls 1982; 1984; Woodside 1975), and who makes the decisions about purchases within families (Brinberg and Schwenk 1985; Davis 1971; Green and Cunningham 1975; Imperia, O'Guinn, and MacAdams 1985; Munsinger, Weber, and Hansen 1975; Sharp and Mott 1956; Wilkes 1975; Wolgast 1958).
Other research has used individual factors to predict and show differences between groups of decision makers/influencers. These factors are called "background factors" and include demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, family group factors, and cultural factors among others. The determinants (independent variables) that previous research have investigated are mainly demographic and socioeconomic factors: income (Davis 1976; Green and Cunningham 1975; Munsinger et al. 1975; Sharp and Mott 1956), age (Green and Cunningham 1975; Munsinger et al. 1975; Sharp and Mott 1956; Wolgast 1958), job status (Wolgast 1958; Woodside 1975), education (Munsinger et al. 1975; Woodside 1975), years of marriage (Cox 1975; Munsinger et al. 1975), opinion leadership (Woodside 1975), and marital role (Brinberg and Schwenk 1985; Buss and Schaninger 1983; Kelly and Egan 1969; O'Connor et al. 1985; Qualls 1982, 1984; Sharp and Mott 1956; Wolgast 1958). These background factors have been shown to effectively discriminate between groups of decision makers.
In total, these studies have provided information about the decision outcomes and the individuals who make and are involved in these decisions. Both groups of studies, however, do little to address the process of family decision making, focusing only on the outcome of the decisions. In other words, the research has provided a clear picture of who participates and decides in family decisions and offers a description of these individuals' characteristics, but does not address the dynamics of the personal interactions which are involved in the decision process (Davis 1976).
To advance our knowledge of family decisions, we need to address process and the factors which influence the process more broadly. A number of models have been proposed which attempt to describe the family decision process -- that is, how individuals interact and what factors (i.e., individual, interpersonal dynamics, product-related, and group factors) influence each decision process. In general, a key assumption made in previous studies of the family decision process has been that each family member has different motives, and these unilateral motives lead to conflict and negotiations in a joint decision process (Moore and Wilkie 1988). These notions have led family decision researchers to focus on conflict situations. The conflict literature can be characterized by research in two areas: (1) conflict avoidance and (2) conflict resolution. Within conflict avoidance we have the behaviors of abrogation of rights, decision specialization, withdrawal, and routinization of decisions resulting from having made multiples of these decisions (Blood and Wolfe 1960). Individuals may resolve conflicts by bargaining a compromise solution, trading off a loss for future considerations, using persuasive techniques, seeking mediation by a third party, and using problem solving skills and techniques (Sheth and Cosmas 1975).
THE ROLE OF AFFECTION IN FAMILY DECISION PROCESSES
To more fully understand the family decision process and its dynamics, there needs to be some consideration of the personal relationships based on love and affection. Knowledge of the role of affection on family decisions will enhance the existing literature based on power (i.e., it helps us understand how power is used and conflicts are resolved more clearly). Buss and Schaninger (1983), Corfman and Lehmann (1987), Gupta et al. (1983), and Sheth (1974) all include model components which relate factors which influence what an individual brings to the decision process. These factors influence the manner in which the participants in the decision process interact. If love and affection are at the base of the family structure, then individuals in the process should include these factors in their interactions. Thus, in addition to the use of factors such as sex roles, power relationships, spousal responsibilities, and level of interest in the decision, the affectional dimensions should be considered as components of the interpersonal dynamics in the family decision process. The role of affection in family decision making will be manifest in a number of different ways. Research on the affectional component may well address such areas based on the following propositions:
P1: Affectional bonds may inhibit hard-line. uncompromising, self-interest positions as members are cognizant and have a desire to maintain their long-term affective relationship. A willingness to acquiesce to members' desires follows.
P2: The greater an individual member's requirements/need for intimate relationships with family members the greater will be the use of conflict avoidance strategies.
P3: The intimacy of family members affect the means for solving conflict. Highly intimate members may resolve conflict in more cooperative manners such as bargaining, trading, logical persuasion, and problem-solving (Sheth and Cosmas 1975). Conversely, low intimacy families may make greater use of coercion, authority, formal authority and the like.
P4: Greater intimacy of families may result in greater incidence of joint decision-making as opposed to single member decision-making dominance.
P5: The impact of the affection component in family decision-making may differ by product class and type. Products that involve the entire family by means of joint usage, involvement, or interest will likely reflect more affectional elements than those which are used exclusively by only one member of the family.
P6: Similarity of goals and values among members may reduce family decision conflict levels.
Affection in the family decision making process can be measured by a number of scales available in the literature. For example, intimacy of spouses can be examined by using the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale (Schaefer and Olson 1980). This scale examines five types of intimacy: emotional, social, sexual, intellectual, and recreational. In research applications, the level of intimacy ascertained by the scale was positively related to satisfaction with the marital union, cohesiveness of the family, and negatively related to conflict arousal and willingness to control the spouse. Rubin's (1970) scale also may be used in this research stream. Here, love is measured to include three components: (1) affiliative and dependent needs; (2) predisposition to help; and (3) orientation of exclusiveness from and absorption in another person.
The ability to measure affection levels within the individual and between individuals is integral to the study of the role of affection in family decision making. The development of affection specific scales for family decisions would be a necessary second step. The mediating influence of affection on the decision process can be assessed by examining family decisions and the differences between high and low affection family units. Simulated as well as actual buying situations may be used in making this measurement.
One of the outcomes of this affection orientation is that the decision process need not focus solely on who influences/dominates in a situation typically characterized by conflict. Rather, such an orientation will necessitate a broader approach to the entire family decision process and require that more interpersonal factors be examined in the research. This further necessitates that scholars distinguish family decision making from other group decisions, creating models which include dimensions unique to this process. Dimensions such as affection among decision participants likely provides great insights into the decision process.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
To more fully understand family decision making phenomena, researchers need to pay more attention to family decision processes. The shift from looking narrowly at the decision outcomes has been encouraged for over a decade by Davis' (1976) critical review of this research area. In this article, we discussed definitions and functions of the family, and offer the affectional concepts to help develop an understanding and interpretation of family interactions and family dynamics. The affective dimensions can be combined with issues of power and conflict resolution, thereby helping to broaden the domain of family decision research. To explore how the affectional dimensions fit within the existing 'power' paradigm in family research, researchers are encouraged to investigate interactions between effects of power and of affection in the decision process, instead of studying each in isolation.
Cross-cultural family studies could also benefit from the inclusion of affectional influences on how families in diverse societies make purchase decisions. For example, do these variables have less effect on family decision outcomes in cultures where such feelings are not explicitly expressed. Are the affective dimensions more important in explaining family decisions and behaviors in modern, materialistic, or advanced societies than in other societies?
In conclusion, love, affection, and intimacy are basic human emotions. The inclusion of these dimensions in the family decision making process helps to establish these emotional components as important explanatory factors. The richness of their inclusion in models of family decision making should yield greater insights into the interpersonal dynamics of the process. It is hoped their inclusion will foster a new and broadened perspective in our efforts to examine and explain the family decision making process.
Blood, Robert O., Jr. and Donald M. Wolfe (1960), Husbands and Wives, New York: Free Press.
Brinberg, David and Nancy Schwenk (1985), "Husband-Wife Decision Making: An Exploratory-Study of the Interaction Process," in Advances In Consumer Research, Vol. 12, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo. UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Buss, W. Christian, and Charles M. Schaniger (1983), "The Influence of Sex Roles on Family Decision Processes and Outcomes," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 439-444.
Corfman, Kim P. and Donald R. Lehmann (1987), "Models of Cooperative Group Decision-Making and Relative Influence: An Experimental Investigation of Family Purchase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 1-13.
Cosenza, Robert M. and Duane L. Davis (1981), "Family Vacation Decision Making Over The Family Life Cycle", Journal of Travel Research, 20 (Fall), 17-23.
Coser, Rose Laub (1974), The Family: Its Structures & Functions, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Cox, Eli P. III (1975), "Family Purchase Decision Making and the Process of Adjustment," Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (May), 189-95.
Davis, Harry L. (1970), "Dimensions of Marital Roles in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (May), 168- 177.
Davis, Harry L. (1971), "Measurement of Husband-Wife Influence in Consumer Purchase Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (August), 305-312.
Davis, Harry L. (1976), "Decision Making Within the Household," Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (March), 241-260.
Ekstrom, Karin M., Patriya S. Tansuhaj, and Ellen R. Foxman (1987), "Children's Influence in Family Decision and Consumer Socialization: A Reciprocal View," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 283-287.
Filiatrault, Pierre and J. R. Brent Ritchie (1980), "Joint Purchasing Decisions: A Comparison of Influence Structure in Family and Couple Decision-Making Units," Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (September), 131-140.
Foxman, Ellen R., Patriya S. Tansuhaj, and Karin Ekstrom (1989), "Family Members' Perceptions of Adolescents' Influence in Family Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (March), 482-491.
Green, Robert T. and Isabella C. M. Cunningham (1975), "Feminine Role Perception and Family Purchasing Decisions," Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (August), 325-332.
Gupta, Sunil, Michael R. Hagerty, and John G. Myers (1983), "New Directions in Family Decision Making Research," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 445-450.
Helgeson, Vicki S., Phillip Shaver, and Margaret Dyer (1987), "Prototypes of Intimacy and Distance in Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Relationships," Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 195-233.
Hoffman, Lois Wladis and Jean Denby Manis (1978), 'Influences of Children on Marital Interaction and Parental Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, in Child Influences on Marital and Family Interaction, eds. Richard H. Lerner and Graham B. Spanier, New York: Academic Press, 165-212.
Imperia, Giovanna, Thomas C. O'Guinn, and Elizabeth A. MacAdams (1985), "Family Decision Making Role Perceptions Among Mexican-American and Anglo Wives: A Cross Cultural Comparison," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, ed ;. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 71-74.
Kelly, Robert F. and Michael B. Egan (1969), "Husband and Wife Interaction in a Consumer Decision Process," in Marketing Involvement in Society and The Economy, Chicago: American Marketing Association, 250-258.
McAdams, Dan P. (1982), "Intimacy Motivation," in Motivation and Society, ed. A. J. Stewart, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 133-171.
McAdams, Dan P. "Personal Relationships," in Handbook of Personal Relationships, ed. Steve Duck, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Moore-Shay, Elizabeth and William L. Wilkie (1988), "Recent Developments in Research on Family Decisions," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, ed. Michael J. Houston, Provo, UT: Association of Consumer Research, 454-460.
Munsinger, Gary M., Jeal E. Weber, and Richard W. Hansen (1975), "Joint Home Purchasing Decisions by Husbands and Wives," Journal of Consumer Research, I (March), 60-66.
Murdock, George P. (1949), Social Structure, New York: The MacMillan Co.
O'Connor, P. J., Gary L. Sullivan, and Dana A. Pogorzelski (1985), "Cross Cultural Family Purchasing Decisions: A Literature Review," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 59-64.
Qualls, William J. (1982), "Changing Sex Roles: The Impact upon Family Decision Making," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, eds. Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 267-270.
Qualls, William J. (1984), "Sex Roles, Husband-Wife Influence, and Family Decision Behavior," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 270-275.
Reiss, Ira L. (1965) "The Universality of the Family: A Conceptual Analysis, Journal of Marriage and The Family, 27, 443-453.
Rubin, Zick (1970), "Measurement of Romantic Love," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 16, 2, 265-273.
Schaefer, Mark T. and David H. Olson (1981), "Assessing Intimacy: The Pair Inventory," Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, (January), 47-60.
Sharp, Harry and Paul Mott (1956), "Consumer Decisions in the Metropolitan Family", Journal of Marketing, 21 (October), 149-156.
Sheth, Jagdish N. (1974), "A Theory of Family Buying decisions," in Models of Buyer Behavior, ed. Jagdish N. Sheth, New York: Harper & Row.
Sheth, Jagdish and S. Cosmas (1975), "Tactics of Conflict Resolution in Family Buying Behavior," paper presented at American Psychological Meetings.
Sills, David L. (1968), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York: The MacMillan Company and The Free Press.
Sternberg, Robert J. (1986), "A Triangular Theory of Love," Psychological Review, 93 (2), 119-135.
U. S. Bureau of Census (1978), "Population Profile in the United States," U.S. Series P-20, No. 324, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wilkes, Robert E. (1975), "Husband-Wife Influence in Purchase Decisions -- A Confirmation and Extension," Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (May), 224-227.
Wolgast, Elizabeth H. (1958), "Do Husbands or Wives Make the Purchasing Decisions?" Journal of Marketing, 23 (October), 151-158.
Woodside, Arch G. (1975), "Effects of Prior Decision-Making, Demographics, and Psychographics on Marital Roles for Purchasing Durables," in Advances in Consumer Behavior Research, Vol 2, ed. M. Schlinger, Chicago: Association for Consumer Research. 81-91.
The Family and Family Structure Classification Redefined for the Current Times
Department of Community Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, India
Address for correspondence: Dr. Rahul Sharma, Department of Community Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi-110 095, India. E-mail: moc.liamg@renrocyduts
Author information ►Copyright and License information ►
Copyright : © Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The family is a basic unit of study in many medical and social science disciplines. Definitions of family have varied from country to country, and also within country. Because of this and the changing realities of the current times, there is a felt need for redefining the family and the common family structure types, for the purpose of study of the family as a factor in health and other variables of interest. A redefinition of a “family” has been proposed and various nuances of the definition are also discussed in detail. A classification scheme for the various types of family has also been put forward. A few exceptional case scenarios have been envisaged and their classification as per the new scheme is discussed, in a bid to clarify the classification scheme further. The proposed scheme should prove to be of use across various countries and cultures, for broadly classifying the family structure. The unique scenarios of particular cultures can be taken into account by defining region or culture-specific subtypes of the overall types of family structure.
Keywords: Classification, definition, family, family structure, types of family
The family as an integrated and functional unit of society has for a considerable period of time captured the attention and imagination of researchers. While the family itself is a matter of study, equally important for research is its role as a factor influencing and affecting the development, behavior, and well-being of the individual. The family is a basic unit of study in many social science disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, social psychiatry, and social work. It is also a unit of study in the medical sciences especially in understanding the epidemiology and the natural history of diseases. It also forms the basic unit for family medicine. Census definitions of family have varied from country to country and also from census to census within country. The word household has often been used as a replacement for family. Using the definition as “all people living in one household” may be erroneous, as on one hand it may include people who do not share kinship, and on other hand may exclude those kin members who are temporarily away. This type of definition fails to identify units that function as families in an economic, social or emotional sense but do not usually reside in the same household. Although the literature often focuses on family living arrangements, family membership includes obligations across and between generations, no matter where family members are living.
The UNESCO report stated that a family is a kinship unit and that even when its members do not share a common household, the unit may exist as a social reality. This definition may be too broad to serve the purpose of identification of a family unit for the purpose of assessment as a factor in variables such as health. Just to give an example, a family in a developing country has a son living in the USA, happily married there with a wife, and he sends across some money to the other family members back home occasionally and visits the country once in many years. Should he still be counted as a member of the original family? Does this person (and his wife) share the same risks to their immediate health as the other family members back in the shared household? Would this individual and his dependants in the new surroundings have access to the same kind of health care options as the other family members living in the country of birth? And would the offspring of this person born in the foreign country experience the same sociocultural and environmental exposures, as (s)he would have come into contact with growing up in the country of origin?
Trask observed that while in the past, locale mattered, today social relationships are maintained over great distances with ease. Global communications such as the internet, e-mail, and satellite linkups are facilitating these relationships over space and time. Still, keeping in mind the previous pertinent questions that are raised if we want to consider the “family” as a factor influencing and interacting with other variable characteristics (such as health, environment, social behavior, etc.), the scales are still tilted toward defining the family as people ordinarily sharing a common living area. The meaning of the term “family” also depends on whether it is being interpreted in a social, biological, cultural, or statistical sense. It is important to identify a family unit and the members constituting the unit, for the purpose of studying their health, for example.
Need for Redefining
Desai (1994), as cited in Sonawat defined the family as a unit of two or more persons united by marriage, blood, adoption, or consensual union, in general consulting a single household, interacting and communicating with each other. While the definition is mostly fine, the interacting and communicating with each other may be a difficult thing to elicit or determine. An existing textbook of the medical specialty of community medicine makes it more objective by defining the interdependence part as “individuals living together and eating from a common kitchen.” It considers and defines three types of families: Nuclear, joint, and three generation families. However, practical experience in community has shown that these categories are not mutually exhaustive.
There are several new social dynamics and realities emerging with time. For example, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of India recognizes and provides protection to female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage with a male partner. Family research provides insight into the structure of society and the changes taking place in the types, composition, and growth of families. Families can be classified in several different dimensions, for example, by marriage type (monogamous, polygamous), by location (patrilocal, matrilocal, and avunculocal), authority (patriarchy, matriarchy), and by kin composition (nuclear, joint). In the present new classification, only the kin composition has been taken into account. Adjectives can be added to define the family as per marriage type or by locus of residence or authority.
In a social sense people may see themselves as being members of several families, as members of families with their parents and siblings and also members of families that they have formed themselves. However, in the current proposed classification for the purpose of family, the view is that an individual will in usual circumstance belong to one family only in a given role.
Because of the multitude of definitions of “family” and the changing realities of the current times, there is a felt need for redefining the family and the common types, for the purpose of study of the family as a factor in health and other variables of interest. The following definition of a “family” is hence proposed:
“People related by marriage, birth, consanguinity or legal adoption, who share a common kitchen and financial resources on a regular basis.”
Nuances of the Definition
The family will comprise of people ordinarily living in the same house, unless work, study, imprisonment, confinement, foreign sojourn, or any other exigencies compel a member to temporarily live away from the shared house. Members who have been disowned legally will cease to be members of the family. Members living away from the physical premises of the shared house, who are not expected to return back to living in the house in the future, will also cease to be considered as members of this family, even though they may be sharing financial resources.
Common kitchen does not only mean just sharing of a physical infrastructure of a kitchen, but also sharing of common cooked meals in the kitchen. In such families where sets of members share the kitchen together but do not share financial resources, and those where sets of members share financial resources but do not share the kitchen together, the different sets of members should be counted as different families. Regarding common financial resources of the family, it is the sharing that is more important than contributing. An unmarried relative may be there who is not earning and thus not contributing economically to the family purse, but will be counted toward the family if (s)he is sharing the family financial resources.
The term “on a regular basis” in the definition, is left open-ended deliberately. In some families, people may have had tiffs and stopped sharing food together for a period of time that may be few days, few weeks, or few months. After what period of time do we say that they stop comprising a single family? Similar dilemma is there for a time period cutoff regarding nonsharing of financial resources. And a very important aspect in this decision would be future intent, that is, whether the constituents think the differences are irrevocable or they think the possibility of getting together is there, whatever may be the period of nonsharing thus far. In case of any doubt, it is best left to a subjective assessment of the individual family unit at hand. The researcher may directly ask the constituents whether they still consider themselves as belonging to a single common family or not. It has been noted earlier that family membership and obligations are subjective and can only be fully understood from the perspective of the family concerned.
A student who goes to reside in any other city for few years of education and stays in a hostel, with guardians, or in a private accommodation, does not cease to be a part of the original family for those years, only because (s)he is not sharing the family's common kitchen. However, to be counted as a member of the original family, (s)he must continue to share in or receive money or other things of monetary value from the financial resource pool of the family. One important caveat would be that the individual must have the intent of returning to the original family in the future, unless compelled by needs of higher studies or job.
Another case may be of a young adult member of the family who has gone abroad for work, or who went abroad for higher education and ends up finding a vocation there. Such a person may visit back on rare occasions to his or her family of origin, but is reasonably expecting to be staying put in the new location for the foreseeable future. Such a member would not then be exposed to the risk factors or the protective social factors common to the other members sharing a residence. So this person should be counted as belonging to a separate new family, irrespective of whether (s)he has married and irrespective of sharing of financial resources with the original family back home.
Biologically unrelated individuals living together in an institutional setting, for example, hostel, boarding school, working women's hostel, and so on, or living together in a single house, will be counted as belonging to their family of origin or as separate family units (single individual families) as the case may be depending on their future intent. They will not be combined or considered together to form new family units. A person imprisoned for a known period of time does not cease to be a member of the original family (unless legally disowned by the head of the family, or by the next head of the family if (s)he happens to be the head). This is because the person is expected to have the intent of returning to the original family unit as soon as the period of confinement is over.
Classification Scheme for Family Structure
A new classification scheme for the various types of family structure is being proposed, keeping in mind the redefined “family.” The various types of family under the proposed classification scheme are detailed in the Table 1. The first step was to define the various types of family possible, which will cover the myriad variations possible in the current times. Then came the question of coming up with suitable terms to label the categories of family types, and it was thought of to come up with a uniform terminology scheme-based on the classic terms.
The proposed classification of types of family
The word “nuclear” was picked upon, that represents a married couple as forming the “nucleus” of a family, as per existing classifications of family structure. Continuing with the word “nucleus,” terms from the atomic world were explored to extend the analogies to the family structure types. For example, a proton would be an incomplete nucleus, a solitary existence. Electrons would be something outside the nucleus, that is, a married couple (nucleus) is not there. An atom would be having a single nucleus only and possibly multiple electrons. Two nuclei cannot be there in an atom, it would have to be a molecule. So the presence of two married couples makes a family “molecular.” It may be clarified here that terms from physics were chosen here just for the nomenclature of the proposed family types. This was done as the word “nuclear” was already being used. Use of these terms borrowed from physics is expected to aid in easier appreciation and recall of the various family types.
The classic term of “joint family” has been retained to define the complex sharing of resources by multiple couples. However, the traditional “joint family” has also been redefined and has two different meanings depending on the number of generations present. Generally across various cultures, obligations to siblings are usually weaker than to parents. This is the reason why the proposed definition of joint family considers different number of couples, depending on the number of generations involved. Two married brothers (or two sisters) living together with their respective families would qualify to be termed as a joint family.
It is a difficult task to categorize families according to any theoretical type or to generalize across or within cultures. An endeavor has been made to try to redefine the family as well as the types of family to keep up with the changing times. However, as per practical experience, the community throws up scenarios which may test any theoretical model of classification. Keeping this in mind, an exercise was done to contemplate a few exceptional case scenarios and discuss their classification as per the new model, in a bid to clarify the classification scheme further [Table 2].
Discussion of a few case scenarios and examples of classification as per the new scheme
Changing Family Dynamics in the Current Times
A paper on the structure of families in New Zealand over time has observed that the family is constantly changing and diversifying there. Same-sex couples have been included in the data, but they can be identified as subsets of couple-only and two parent families. Certain types of family that are becoming more prevalent there include one-parent families and couple-only families. As per the new classification, these types of families can be identified as II-Electron and III-Nuclear family, respectively. The situation of a family with a married couple only and no children can be termed as a “nuclear couple family”, but it should be classified as a subtype of the nuclear family only and not as a separate type. Similarly, the sole-parent family can be identified as a subtype of an electron family (type II).
Unlike a previous definition given by Desai, as cited in Sonawat, “relationship by consensual union” has not been taken as one of the criteria for defining the family, in the basic definition proposed. As mentioned earlier, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of India recognizes “domestic relationships in the nature of marriage,” but the legal and social positions are still evolving. However, in view of the social realities, a classification for families based upon such nuclear relationships has been put forward with the use of qualifier “quasi-” (type VII). Elliott and Gray have also discussed the gray zone caused by remarriage families (or “blended families” as they term it) in classification of families. There may be differences in both the emotional and financial support given to children between “natural” and “new” parents. Also, for many children, both their natural parents may play a very real part in their lives even if they do not live in the same household. These are emerging social realities in the Indian context too. But, counting an individual (e.g., the separated “natural” father/mother) in more than one family may lead to factual mismatches and also create lot of confusion. It is best to consider the remarriage family too as within the frame of the seven types of family set in the new classification, and to label them as a subtype “remarriage family” if required.
Importance of the Changing Family Dynamics for Health
Health has been shown to have multifactorial causation. The family surroundings affect the health of an individual in several ways. Members of a family can be expected to share the risk factors for their health that may arise from various social characteristics of their shared housing, neighborhood, community, society, and culture. They would also share the positive factors contributing toward good health. All the members of a family living together who share the financial resources of the family unit would also share the risks of ill-health and costs of health care as well as the protection offered by availability of money with the family to tide over health-related issues.
Living in a family would also mean usually exposure to similar dietary behaviors and health-related lifestyles, among the family members. Another important aspect shared would be the healthcare-seeking pattern and preference. The changing dynamics of family composition can have important impact on the protective as well as risk factors influencing health. Thus, an updated definition and classification scheme for types of families serves an important purpose for the practitioners of various medical and social science disciplines in the current times.
It is to be expected that the changing societal arrangements in the current times will be a huge challenge for any model of classification of family structure. On top of that is the challenge to keep the possible classification groups to the minimum possible, so that analysis of the family structure as a factor in health and other outcomes, in future studies, does not become an inordinately complex exercise. This is a proposed redefinition of “family” and a proposed scheme of classification of family structure, to try to match the pace of change of current societies. While the objective was mainly to redefine keeping the Indian cultural environment in mind, the sheer heterogeneity of the Indian population in terms of sociocultural milieu is immense. The current proposed scheme should generally suffice for use in other countries and cultures, for broadly classifying the family structure. The intricacies and unique scenarios of particular cultures can be taken into account by defining region or culture-specific subtypes of the overall types of family structure defined in the present article.
Source of Support: Nil
Conflict of Interest: None declared
1. Sooryamoorthy R. The Indian family: Needs for a revisit. J Comp Fam Stud. 2012;43:1–11.
2. Sonawat R. Understanding families in India: A reflection of societal changes. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa. 2001;17:177–86.
3. Bangkok, Thailand: UNESCO; 1992. UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and Pacific. The changing family in Asia: Bangladesh, India, Japan, Philippines and Thailand.
4. Hodgson RM, Birks KS. Palmerston North, New Zealand: The Centre for Public Policy Evaluation, Massey University; 2002. Statistics New Zealand's definition of family, its implications for the accuracy of data and effectiveness of policy targeting. Student paper no. 4.
5. Elliott S, Gray A. New Zealand: New Zealand Immigration Service; 2000. Immigration Research Programme: Family Structures. A report for the New Zealand Immigration Service.
6. Trask BS. New York: Springer; 2010. Globalization and families: Accelerated systemic social change.
7. Park K. 22nd ed. Jabalpur: Banarsidas Bhanot; 2013. Park's text book of Preventive and Social Medicine.
8. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Gazette of India. No. 43 of 2005. [Last accessed on 2013 Aug 19]. Available at: www.wcd.nic.in/wdvact.pdf .
Articles from Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications