Households and Parenting in Middle Adulthood

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare dynamics of different household structures
• Identify challenges facing parents during middle adulthood
• Describe influences on the family system

Maya is a single working mother raising two daughters. She is responsible for all the household bills, transportation, and childcare, and sometimes it feels impossible to do it all on her own. Maybe she could ask her mom to move in? It would be nice to have another adult to talk to and help with some of the childcare and housework. On the other hand, things already feel tight in the house. Would adding another person alleviate or increase the stress she already feels?

In midlife, the typical U.S. adult is employed and engaged in the care of their children, aging parents, or even grandchildren. These responsibilities result in rich and complex lives filled with changing roles and relationships that provide opportunities for generativity, but they also bring the potential for strain and stress. In this section, you’ll consider the different ways that adults in midlife organize and manage this role expansion.

Types of Households

Modern U.S. households represent a rich variety of compositions, including (but not limited to) single adults, multigenerational families, blended families, same-sex parents with children, and empty-nest households (Figure 14.15). Those in middle adulthood are either neutral about this growing variety in households or perceive it as a good thing (Deja, 2020).

Figure 14.15 The constitution of American households changes across adulthood. Most adults between ages twenty-five and forty-four years are living with children, while most ages forty-five to sixty-four years are living alone or with another adult. Source: VanOrman & Jacobsen (2020). (attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license)

Single-Person Households

While most American adults share a household with others, 20 percent of American adults ages twenty-five to forty-four years and 26 percent of adults ages forty-five to sixty-four years live alone (VanOrman & Jacobsen, 2020) (Figure 14.16). This number has doubled since 1960, with other countries such as Canada, Japan, Germany, and France also demonstrating an increase. People in prosperous nations are more likely to live alone, particularly those who have the services and infrastructure to support solitary living (Ortiz-Ospina, 2024). In the United States, major cities, such as Los Angeles, New York City, or Washington, DC, report some of the highest numbers of young and middle-aged adults living in single-person households. In rural areas, there is a greater percentage of older adults living alone (Anderson et al., 2023). Adults who live alone may be never-married, divorced, or widowed, and are more likely to be homeowners (as opposed to renters) after age forty-five years (Masnick, 2015).

The experience of living alone seems to depend on the circumstances (Figure 14.16). Living alone does not equate to loneliness, especially for those who live alone by choice and continue to be socially engaged. However, adults who live alone as the result of separation, divorce, or widowhood are more likely to experience depression than those who live with others (Chen et al., 2022; Srivastava et al., 2021).

Figure 14.16 While most American adults share a household with others, 20 percent of American adults ages twenty-five to forty-four years and 26 percent of adults ages forty-five to sixty-four years live alone. (credit: “Woman sitting on sofa” by Michael Poley and AllGo/Unsplash, CC0 1.0)

In 2023 U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued a report urging workplaces, health-care systems, governments, and communities to decrease the stigma of loneliness that can result from isolation (U.S. Surgeon General, 2023). Although those who live alone are at higher risk for loneliness and isolation, Murthy argued that household size is only one aspect of social connection, and that “this advisory calls attention to the critical role that social connection plays in individual and societal health and well-being and offers a framework for how we can all contribute to advancing social connection” (Figure 14.17).

Figure 14.17 Household size is one of many factors that influence social connection. While adults living alone may be vulnerable to isolation and loneliness, individual, community, and societal factors can be just as influential in predicting the extent of a person’s social connection. (credit: “Factors That Can Shape Social Connection” by Office of the U.S. Surgeon General/U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Domain)

Social connection among adults can be formed through a family of choice, which includes individuals who are not necessarily related by marriage or biology but have formed a committed kin-like network to hold significant roles in each other’s lives (Kim & Feyissa, 2021). While adults within these networks do not necessarily perceive their chosen families as replacing their biological families, families of choice often serve a needed role in complementing a family of origin (Hull & Ortyl, 2018), providing a supplemental source of love, support, and security (Kim & Feyissa, 2021). Families of choice may or may not live in the same household and can provide valuable social connection to adults who are experiencing any kind of separation or estrangement from their family of origin, including those who are immigrants or refugees, adults who have aged out of the foster system, members of the LGBTQ+ community who feel misunderstood or rejected by their biological families, and divorced or never-married adults.

Single-Parent Households

About 30 percent of U.S. children live in single-parent households, and 80 percent of those families are headed by women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Single mothers are more likely than married mothers to report symptoms of depression and anxiety (Liang et al., 2019), and they earn only about one-third as much as their married-parent counterparts (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). Mothers with high incomes are more likely than mothers with low incomes to have opportunities for financial loans, places to live, childcare, and sources of emotional support (Harknett & Hartnett, 2011). This disparity likely occurs because the support networks of mothers with lower incomes tend to be similarly financially disadvantaged (Swartz, 2009).

Multifamily and Multigenerational Households

Some families may “double up” to create multifamily households for a variety of reasons, including reducing the strain of single parenting, saving on living expenses, and sharing childcare resources. When these households exist due to financial and housing instability, it may create overcrowded homes where available food or health care fails to meet the needs of all he occupants, taking a toll on family members’ academic, physical, and behavioral adjustment (Gartland, 2022). However, for many families, multigenerational households can offer extra support that can actually improve cognitive, social and emotional support for all members of the household (Lee et al., 2021).

Multigenerational households are created when more than two adult generations of a family cohabitate. Occupants of these homes may include boomerang children (young adult children who return to the parent’s home after a period of living independently) or aging parents who live with their adult children and grandchildren. A “skipped generation household” (when grandparents and their grandchildren younger than age twenty-five years live together without the parents) is also a type of multigenerational household (Figure 14.18).

Figure 14.18 The percentage of multigenerational U.S. households has nearly doubled in the last fifty years. (credit: modification of work “Thanksgiving 2009” by Neale Adams/Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

While most U.S. adults report that they value individual family homes for the independence and privacy they can afford (Bianchi et al., 2007), multigenerational homes can provide many useful emotional and logistic benefits. Most occupants of multigenerational households report that the arrangement is mostly or always rewarding or convenient, which is perhaps why the percentage of multigenerational households has nearly doubled in the last fifty years (Cohn et al., 2022). In the U.S., Asian, Hispanic, and Black people are more likely to occupy a multigenerational home, with finances, changes in relationship status, and caregiving cited as the most common reasons. However, regardless of logistic advantages, some families and cultures may be more likely to value strong ties to extended family (Keene & Batson, 2010).

Blended Households

Most divorced people remarry, and when one or more of these remarried adults have children from a previous relationship, the new marriage creates a blended or stepfamily household (although stepfamilies can also consist of cohabitating but unmarried adult parents). The outcomes of stepfamily living vary substantially across individuals and families and depend on several variables, including the age of the children (Pew Research Center, 2011), psychological investment of the stepparents (Marsiglio, 2004), satisfaction of the newly married parents (Jensen & Lippold, 2018), and time since their divorce (Amato & Anthony, 2014). Family therapist Patricia Papernow (2017) identifies five common challenges facing stepfamilies: (1) insider-outsider views based on previous family alignments, (2) losses and changes faced by children, (3) disagreement between first-time family and stepfamily parents over parenting practices, (4) the challenge of building and negotiating a new family culture, and (5) the need to integrate ex-spouses and parents from previous relationships. Papernow asserts that these challenges can be successfully overcome when they are normalized and the parties are given adequate space and time to adjust, noting that become a stepfamily is not an event but an ongoing process.

LGBTQ+ Family Households

Fifteen percent of LGBTQ+ couples have children (Figure 14.19). Women in same-sex relationships are more likely to be parents than men. U.S. federal law allows same-sex couples to adopt, but foreign and even state adoption laws may impose guidelines that make it more difficult for them to do so. Despite these barriers, same-sex couples are more likely than opposite-sex couples to foster or adopt. In fact, more than 20 percent of same-sex families with children have adopted children (Taylor, 2020).

Figure 14.19 Fifteen percent of same-sex couples have children. (credit: “Fathers & Daughter at Capital Pride Festival 11 June 2006” by Elvert Barnes/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0)

Many same-sex families also include stepchildren from previous heterosexual relationships (Taylor, 2020). Others choose to conceive children through medical reproductive assistance, such as surrogacy, intrauterine insemination, and in vitro fertilization (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2023). Likely because of the increased barriers and discrimination encountered by same-sex parents, they experience significantly more stress than their same-sex counterparts (Bos et al., 2016). These negative impacts are reduced in communities where there is more support for LGBTQ+ individuals (Lick et al., 2012). However, despite the additional parenting challenges, children raised by same-sex parents are no different on measures of general health or emotional adjustment than children raised by opposite-sex parents (Bos et al., 2016).

Link to Learning

Looking for ways to receive or provide support to LGBTQ+ families in your community? The goal of the advocacy group Family Equality is to “create a world where everyone can experience the unconditional love, safety, and belonging of family” through empowerment, education, and coordination of LGBTQ+ community groups.

Family Dynamics and Family Systems Theory

During middle adulthood, many parent-child relationships are adjusting to the changing needs of children as they progress into adolescence. As children grow more independent with age, parents spend less time with their children (Larson et al., 1996), especially in group interactions, such as family dinnertime. However, researchers point out that the time parents spend talking one-on-one with their adolescent children doesn’t change substantially, which preserves more intimate, high-quality conversations even when activities involving the whole-family decrease. Adolescents report that they spend more time with, rely more on, and argue more with their mothers than with their fathers (Larson et al., 1996; Smetana & Rote, 2019). However, research indicates that this decrease in family time does not predict low-quality parent-child relationships. In fact, relationships with parents often improve as children develop into adolescence (Larson et al., 1996; Ruhl et al., 2015). When asked, “Comparing how well you get along now to how well you got along when [your child] was about 10 years old, would you say that your relationship has generally improved, or has it lost something?”, most parents reported growing closer to their children as they grew into adolescents (Shearer et al., 2005).

When considering parenting styles, authoritative parents who continue to exhibit high demand and responsiveness as their children develop are likely to see increasingly positive outcomes of this approach over time, including improved child well-being, life satisfaction, academic competence (Hoskins, 2014; Steinberg et al., 1994), and autonomy (Cramer, 2010). These positive outcomes of supportive parenting continue as children mature into young and middle adulthood. Adolescents who report being satisfied and happy with their parents are more likely to be happily married and engaged in constructive parenting practices themselves twenty years later (Chen et al., 2008).

The family systems theory proposes that developing relationships among family members are interrelated. Those families that remain cohesive by sustaining emotional connection, openness, and flexibility may provide the best context for adapting to developmental challenges (Richmond & Stocker, 2006). Mothers may disproportionately take on the burden of maintaining family cohesion. Emotional support from spouses has been found to be the most important protector against depression compared to other support sources such as family, friends, and children (Gariépy et al., 2016). However, in addition to being the primary support resource for their children, women are also more likely to take responsibility for managing the emotional quality of their relationship with their spouse (Loscocco & Walzer, 2013). Compared to men, women receive less emotional support from their spouse and are less likely to be satisfied with the communication within the marital relationship (Barosso, 2021; Ko & Lewis, 2011). Working mothers may therefore be more vulnerable to feeling overwhelmed within the family system. When predicting the association between work and family satisfaction, there are two frameworks: the spillover model and the compensatory model.

The spillover model of human relationships predicts that negative emotions generated by interactions within one relationship or environment can spread into other interactions or environments, creating a positive correlation among a person’s mood and behaviors across separate relationships or roles. This perspective therefore predicts that negative interactions that adults have at work will overflow into the interactions they have with their family, and vice versa, with a positive association between mood and behaviors in the two roles (Erel & Burman, 1995). Conversely, the compensatory model predicts that individuals will seek out and use positive interactions within one role to counterbalance the negative effects or missing benefits from another role. This perspective therefore predicts that adults who are experiencing unhappy interactions at work will seek to offset that experience by cultivating positive interactions with their family, or vice versa. While there is some empirical support for the compensatory hypothesis, there is greater consistent support for the spillover pattern (Belsky & Jaffee, 2006; Chen et al., 2008; Wayne et al., 2017), including among work-from-home employees (García-Salirrosas et al., 2023).

Link to Learning

CEO, mother, and author Allyson Downey (2016) found that many families struggle to delegate household responsibilities in a way that provides equal support to both working fathers and mothers. She designed a set of “Family Division of Labor” worksheets in response to this finding. Depending on your current household structure, review the relevant worksheets (domestic responsibilities, baby-related responsibilities, child-related responsibilities) and sit down with your domestic partners (roommates, romantic partner, friends, family) and see if you can create a plan.

Life Hacks

Building and Maintaining Your Social Convoy

Have you ever traveled on a highway and noticed a group of semitrucks driving together down the road? Or perhaps you have organized a road trip with friends or family and planned to stay together in a group of vehicles during your drive. This approach to travel is known as a convoy, and it can promote a sense of safety and support on a long journey.

Inspired by this concept, Kahn and Antonucci (1980) suggested the convoy model of social relations to describe how adults build a stable and high-quality social network they can trust to be there for them throughout the journey of adulthood. This network may include close romantic partners, family, and friends who provide support and security as we navigate the pathways, challenges, and transitions of adulthood. Strong social networks are associated with increased physical and mental health and decreased mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

So how do busy adults build and maintain strong social convoys? Sociologist Jenny de Jong Gierveld says the key is to start early by seeking and prioritizing personal connections with others who are on a common journey (close family members, parents of children around the same age, neighbors with shared community or values). The earlier you begin to incorporate and involve others in meaningful ways, the better you will be able to create shared experiences and the more likely those people will be able to recognize and provide the support you need (and vice versa). Gierveld asserts that when unexpected events occur, people need to rely on the “convoy” they have in place at that moment (Denworth & Waves, 2018). Following are some excerpted tips from the Mayo Clinic (2023) for building and maintaining your own social convoy:

• Take note of current connections: Do an inventory of who is already in your social network. Are there people you have already met you could reconnect with?
• Make the effort to reach out: In today’s connected world, getting in touch with someone is as simple as a phone call, text message or video visit. If you prefer a method involving less technology, send a handwritten card or letter.
• Go where people are: Attend events and community activities. Look for classes or groups with people who have interests similar to yours.
• Reap the benefits of volunteering: Join or volunteer for a club or cause that interests you. Volunteering improves your physical and mental health, provides a sense of purpose, and is a great way to build new relationships.
• Extend and accept invitations: Don’t worry if your social skills feel a bit rusty. An invitation to meet for coffee or go for a walk around the neighborhood may brighten someone else’s day as much as it does yours.
• Be available: Relationships take time and effort. Whether connecting with a friend you’ve known for a long time or someone you just met, be present in the moment, and give your full attention to the person and situation.” (Mayo Clinic, 2023)³