Influence of family on children - Research Paper Example

?Influence of family on children Introduction: Family plays a central role in the overall development and growth of a child. The manner in which an individual assumes certain characteristic traits and personality depends largely on the various diverse family variables which influence them during their initial years. The family dynamics ascertains its functioning and influences various aspects of a child’s overall development. Factors such as divorce, single parent households, working mothers, unemployed parents, violence within households (which includes domestic abuse, child abuse, or any type of aggressive or hostile act by a family member against any relative within the family), etc play a key role in influencing the child and determine the manner in which they react to their external environment as well as within their family constellation, over a period of time (Bowden and Greenberg, 2010). Various researchers over the years have suggested that families have a strong influence on children (Harris, 1995 cited in Spodek and Saracho, 2006). These influences can be categorized as direct and indirect influences. Indirect influences refers to the aspects of life which help in shaping the child's social competence while direct influences refers to the efforts put in by the parents to socialize their children and help them form strong social bonds with their peers (Pettit, 2002, cited in Spodek and Saracho, 2006). The influence of parents or family on the children can be ascertained by the manner in which they replicate their behavior within the family in the outside world which includes their beliefs, relationship patterns, or communication style which they have learnt from their families (Spodek and Saracho, 2006). Theoretical perspectives: Attachment theory The reason behind the role of families in influencing children is explained by the attachment theory. This theory suggests that children derive most of their emotional resources from their interaction with their family members and obtain knowledge and/or awareness regarding the working models of relationships based on the type of ties they develop with their parents. It has been claimed by various researchers that one of the key reasons why families have a strong influence on the children is the fact that the children are strongly attached to their caregivers during their initial years and their relationship with their caregivers is known to affect the manner in which they react to external stimuli and interact with their peers and those around them (Spodek and Saracho, 2006). Role of family structure in influencing children: Divorced households The structure of family also is one of the several key factors that play a key role in influencing children. According to the family instability perspective - a sociological theory, it is suggested that children of divorced or separated parents have a strong negative impact on the children. The instability hypothesis suggests that the structure of a family shapes the children’s' view of the real world outside their families and help them in adjusting with their external environment. Children of separated or divorced parents are known to face difficulties in coping with cohabitation (Lamanna and Riedmann, 2008). It has been observed that households with low socio-economic backgrounds tend to influence their children by instilling some crucial skills which may prove to be helpful to them in adapting to different work environments. This includes gaining critical skills which may help them shape their creativity and foster a sense of initiative which is imperative for professionals and white-collar workers. Such families deliberately instill values such as obedience to authoritative figures since it is perceived as a critical skill, based on their own personal experiences (Sigelman and Rider, 2011). Research have indicated that children who grow up in divorced households are typically devoid of the conventional parenting i.e. receiving attention and care by their parent, usually fathers, who are non-residential post the divorce. Such lack of attention and care is known to have a profound influence on the children throughout their lives. This is because children from divorced households are least likely to experience, interact, or communicate with their fathers on a regular basis hampering their emotional development in the process (Fabricius, 2003; Finley & Schwartz, 2007; Marquardt, 2005). Fathers are most likely to become non-residential in cases of divorce as compared to mothers, leading to lack of a father-figure in the lives of children (Riggio, 2004; Schwartz & Finley, 2005). Various studies have confirmed that the custodial arrangements post the divorce have a long term and negative consequence on the children since they are mostly relegated to the care of their mothers, with the role of the father reduced to a mere ‘visitor’ in the life of the child (Ahrons and Tanner, 2003). Prolonged absence of fathers from the lives of their children tends to undermine their authority and acts as an obstacle in their ability to actively participate in the social sphere of the child, thus hampering their emotional development in the process (Kelly, 2007). Furthermore, it is also observed in various studies that children belonging to divorced households tend to undermine the role of their mothers (Braver, 1999; Leite & McKenry, 2002; Marquardt, 2005). Unlike the regular/ intact families, divorced families are comparatively far more complex since in regular families both the parents are present and complement each other’s roles while in the case of the latter, a single parent is entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out the functions of both the parents. Moreover the arrangement and structure of divorced families is detrimental for not only the child but for the parents as well, leading to emotional distress for both. The Nature versus Nurture debate: Critics have consistently dismissed the role of families in influencing their children citing sociological theories which claim that genes rather than families influence the behavior of the children (Rowe, 1994). This claim can be explained by the nature v/s nurture theory which argues and debates the role of heredity and environment in shaping and influencing the child's growth and in enabling them to acquire personality traits. There is no common consensus as to what influences the growth and development of children, as there is abundant evidence both in favor and against the role of nature as well as nurture on children. The proponents of the nature theory state claim that genetic makeup of an individual shapes and influences their behavior and personality traits while proponents of the nurture theory claim that the structure of the family, the environment in which they are brought up as well as the interaction of the child with their caregivers influences their behavior (Elder, Evans, and Nizette, 2012). Conclusion: Human development does not take place in isolation; hence the role of nature as well as nurture cannot be negated in contributing to the manner in which individuals adapt to their surroundings. Both the factors play an equal and significant role in influencing individuals. Hence attributing the behavior or personality traits of the child to either one of the two serves no purpose. Although various sociological theories have been put forward to help explain the role of families in influencing the children as well as the reasons behind the phenomenon, the process of human development cannot be attributed / restricted to any single theory with certainty. This is primarily due to the fact that no single theory can explain or claim to explain human behavior in its entirety, since human development is a complex process whereby various factors (internal as well as external, genetic as well as social) overlap to shape the manner in which humans interact and respond to social stimuli. The quest to unravel the mystery behind the role of families in influencing their children can be explained more by how the nature is nurtured rather than attempting to decode the nature versus nurture hypothesis. References: Ahrons, C. R., & Tanner, J. L. (2003). Adult children and their fathers: Relationship changes 20 years after parental divorce. Family Relations, vol. 52, p. 340–351. Bowden, V. R., Greenberg, C. S., (2010). Children and their families: The continuum of care. London: Lippincott Williams Publication, p. 85-87. Braver, S. L. (1999). The gender gap in standard of living after divorce: Vanishingly small? Family Law Quarterly, vol. 33, p. 111–134. Elder, R., Evans, K., Nizette, D., (2012). Psychiatric and mental health nursing. Elseiver Australia Publication, p. 135-136. Fabricius, W. V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New ?ndings that diverge from Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee. Family Relations, vol. 52, p. 385–396 Finley, G. E., & Schwartz, S. J. (2007). Father involvement and long-term young adult outcomes: The differential contributions of divorce and gender. Family Court Review, vol. 45, p. 573–587. Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: Insights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process, vol. 46, pp. 35–52. Lamanna, M. A., Riedmann, A., (2008). Marriages and families. California: Cengage Learning Publication, p. 432-434. Leite, R. W., & McKenry, P. C. (2002). Aspects of father status and postdivorce father involvement with children. Journal of Family Issues, vol. 23, p. 601–623 Marquardt, E. (2005). Between two worlds: The inner lives of children of divorce. New York: Crown Publishers, pp. 7-9 Riggio, H. R. (2004). Parental marital con?ict and divorce, parent-child relationships, social support, and relationship anxiety in young adulthood. Personal Relationships, 11, 99–114. Rowe, D. C., (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Schwartz, S. J., & Finley, G. E. (2005). Fathering in intact and divorced families: Ethnic differences in retrospective reports. Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 67, p. 207–215. Sigelman, C. K., Rider, E. A., (2011). Life-span human development. California: Cengage Learning Publication, p. 492-494. Spodek, B., Saracho, O. N., (2006). Handbook of research on the education of young children. London: Routledge Publication, p. 25-27 Read More