1

Family Structure Transitions and Children’s Socioemotional Wellbeing

Catherine Boyd

Laura Freeman

Rachel Tolbert Kimbro

Rice University

Abstract

Numerous studies have found that family structure instability is negatively associated with

children’s social skills and behavior. However, key questions remain as to whether all changes in

family structure are equally detrimental to child socioemotional wellbeing and if there are

differences by gender. Understanding how the effects of family instability vary by initial family

structure and gender is important not only for understanding the role of the family environment

on children’s socioemotional development, but also for developing policies for improving child

wellbeing. To anticipate the potential consequences of suggested programs, we need a better

understanding of how different groups of children respond to different types of family structure

transitions. We address these questions using newly-available data from the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Class of 2010-2011 (ECLS-K:2011), a nationally

representative sample of children living in the United States. First, we compare the social skills

and behaviors (self-control, tendency to internalize problem behaviors, tendency to externalize

problem behaviors, and interpersonal skills) of children across different initial family structures.

Then, among children within the same family structure, we compare these measures of

socioemotional wellbeing of those who experienced a family transition with their counterparts

who did not. Finally, we consider differences by child gender to determine if and how family

instability, within the same family structure, affects boys and girls differently.

2

Introduction

Numerous studies have found that family structure instability is negatively associated with child

wellbeing (Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn 2010). Changes in family structure and

declines in child wellbeing have been documented across a range of outcomes, including

increases in socioemotional problems, declines in cognitive performance, and declines in

physical health (Acs 2007; Amato 2005, 2010; Bzostek and Beck 2011; Cavanagh and Huston

2006, 2008; Cooper et al. 2011; Craigie, Brooks-Gunn, and Waldfogel 2012; Fomby and Cherlin

2007; Fomby and Osborne 2010; Magnuson and Berger 2009; McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider

2013; Mitchell et al. 2015; Osborne and McLanahan 2007; Ryan and Claessens 2013; Ryan,

Claessens, and Markowitz 2015; Schmeer 2011; Waldfogel et al. 2010). Thus, there is a

growing body of literature that finds children who experience family structure transitions lag

behind children who grow up in stable families across different domains.

A key question is whether all changes in family structure are equally detrimental. Earlier

research indicated that all changes were harmful (Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Fomby and

Cherlin 2007; Osborne and McLanahan 2007; Wu 1996). Yet, more recent studies suggest that

the timing and type of transition have different impacts, depending on the outcome (Cavanagh

and Huston 2008; Lee and McLanahan 2015; Magnuson and Berger 2009; Mitchell et al. 2015;

Ryan and Claessens 2013). Similarly, there are questions as to whether family instability

involves differences across subgroups within the population. While there has been some

attention paid to how boys and girls may respond differently to family structure transitions, with

boys exhibiting more behavioral problems than girls, more attention must be paid to interactions

by gender with regard to a wider range of social skills and behaviors (Brown 2004; Carlson and

Corcoran 2001; Cavanagh and Huston 2008; Cooper et al. 2011; Craigie et al. 2012; Lee and

3

McLanahan 2015; McLanahan et al. 2013; Mitchell et al. 2015). Child socioemotional

development at school entrance is particularly important because problem behaviors during

childhood often persist with long-term implications (Fischer et al. 1984). Behavior problems in

early childhood are associated with lower levels of academic achievement, reduced high school

graduation rates, and lower probabilities of college enrollment (McLeod and Kaiser 2004).

Thus, child social adjustment has long-term implications for socioeconomic success, which in

turn affects health outcomes in adulthood (Mirowsky and Ross 2003).

Understanding how the effects of family instability vary by initial family structure and by

outcome examined is important not only for understanding the role of the family environment

children’s socioemotional development, but also for developing policies for improving child

wellbeing. To anticipate the potential consequences of suggested programs, we need a better

understanding of how different groups of children respond to different types of family structure

transitions. We address these questions using newly-available data from the Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten Class of 2010-2011 (ECLS-K:2011), a nationally

representative sample of children living in the United States. First, we compare the social skills

and behaviors (self-control, tendency to internalize problem behaviors, tendency to externalize

problem behaviors, and interpersonal skills) of children across different initial family structures.

Then, among children within the same family structure, we compare these measures of

socioemotional wellbeing of those who experienced a family transition with their counterparts

who did not. Finally, we consider differences by child gender to determine if and how family

instability, within the same family structure, affects boys and girls differently.

Background

4

Family Structure

Children born to unmarried parents tend to have poorer outcomes relative to children born into

families with married parents (Amato 2005; Waldfogel et al. 2010). Specifically with regards to

behavior, when compared with children in continuous two-parent families, children in all other

family types have a higher level of behavioral problems (Brown 2004, 2010; Carlson and

Corcoran 2001). However, it appears that most differences in family structure operate through

economic status. Married parents typically have more resources to invest in children due to

higher levels of income and education (Manning and Brown 2006; McLanahan and Sandefur

1994). Thus, the inclusion of material resources reduces the relationship between two biological

cohabiting families and behavioral and emotional problems to non-significance (Brown 2004).

Similarly, Carlson and Corcoran (2001) found that once income was controlled, the family

structure effects on children’s behavior primarily disappeared.

Family Structure Instability

Previous studies have found that family structure instability is negatively associated with child

wellbeing (Amato 2005; Waldfogel et al. 2010). Social stress theory posits that changes in

family structure can lead to stress on families and adverse child outcomes (George 1993). The

instability hypothesis suggests that family transitions disrupt the roles and routines of parents and

children, and are often accompanied by changes in parental resources and parenting quality,

undermining successful socialization (George 1993).

Early to middle childhood is increasingly seen as a critical stage that shapes subsequent

development across the life course (Elder 1998; Shonkoff and Richter 2013). Children’s

development trajectories are viewed as malleable during this period and considered harder to

reverse at later life stages (Elder 1998, Shonkoff and Phillips 2013). Similarly, the accumulation

5

of risk theory, or the pathway model, hypothesizes that early childhood circumstances set

individuals on diverse social, behavioral, and economic trajectories that affect health and

longevity (Ben-Shlomo and Kuh 2002, Hayward and Gorman 2004). Ben-Shlomo and Kuh

(2002) described this sequence as "chains of risk" where each adverse exposure tends to lead to

another. For example, experiences of stressful family life during childhood may lead to

unhealthy behaviors and poor academic achievement, which then leads to limited employment

opportunities and income in adulthood. Insufficient socioeconomic resources are risk factors for

morbidity and mortality. Thus, childhood social disadvantage can negatively influence child

socioemotional development with long-term implications for socioeconomic success, leading to

illness or premature death (Mirowsky and Ross 2003). The literature has shown that the

socioemotional skills developing during childhood are robust predictors of life course outcomes,

including academic achievement, educational attainment, labor market performance, union

formation, and health (Heckman 2007). This demonstrates the importance of examining the link

between family instability and early to middle childhood development.

Prior research focused on the number of family structure transitions a child experienced and

indicated that all changes were harmful (Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Fomby and Cherlin 2007;

Osborne and McLanahan 2007; Wu 1996). Yet, later studies suggested that both the timing and

type of transition may matter more than the quantity (Cavanagh and Huston 2008; Lee and

McLanahan 2015; Magnuson and Berger 2009; Mitchell et al. 2015; Ryan and Claessens 2013).

Few studies have looked at the timing of family transitions, but those that do find effects

concentrated among children who experienced family disruption in early childhood, once again

highlighting the need to draw attention to this developmental stage (Cavanagh and Huston 2008;

Ryan and Claessens 2013). Similarly, there is some emerging evidence of differences according

6

to the type of family transition, notably the entrance or exit of a biological or social father. For

instance, the exit of a biological parent from the household has shown negative effects on

maternal material hardship and mental health as well as children’s behavioral development

(Magnuson and Berger 2009, Meadows et al. 2008, Mitchell et al. 2015, Osburne et al. 2012).

Alternatively, the entrance of a biological parent or parent figure appears to positively affect

maternal wellbeing (Magnuson and Berger 2009, Osbourne et al. 2012). A recent review by

McLanahan and colleagues (2013) concluded that there is strong evidence that father absence

negatively affects children’s social-emotional development, particularly by increasing

externalizing behavior and that these effects may be more pronounced if father absence occurs

during early childhood than during middle childhood. In support of these previous findings,

Mitchell et al. (2015) observed that father exits were associated with increases in children’s

antisocial behavior.

Differences by Gender

Although boys and girls should have similar levels of exposure to family instability, there is

some evidence that boys are more negatively affected than girls (Hetherington et al. 1985;

Entwisle, Alexander, and Olson 1997; Cavanagh et al. 2008). Gender has been shown to

moderate the link between cumulative family instability and peer competency and externalizing

behaviors (Cavanagh and Huston 2008). Cooper et al. (2011) observed that mothers’ partnership

transitions were positively associated with boys’ behavioral problems at age five. Similarly,

Craigie, Brooks-Gunn and Waldfogel (2012) also concluded that pre-school aged boys have

higher aggressive behavior. In their review, McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider (2013) concluded

that increases in externalizing behavior due to father absence are more pronounced for boys than

for girls. Lee and McLanahan (2015) agreed that the effect of family instability on

7

socioemotional development between 1 to 9 years of age was greater for boys than girls.

However, not all transitions negatively impact boys. While social father entrances are associated

with higher antisocial behavior, entrances of the biological father have being associated with

lower antisocial behavior among boys (Mitchell et al. 2015).

There are several possible explanations for differences in response to family transitions

by gender. One possible explanation is that the loss of a male role model may be more important

for boys’ identity (Allison and Furstenberg 1989). Also, mother-son relationships have been

shown to be significantly worse than comparable mother-daughter relationships following

divorce (Hetherington et al. 1985). There is also evidence that boys are more sensitive than girls

to a variety of changes that often accompany family changes, such as parental conflict, loss of

economic resources, and residential mobility (Davies and Lindsay 2001; Kling, Ludwig, and

Katz 2005). There is also evidence to support the “differential genetic sensitivity” model (Boyce

and Ellis 2005; Belsky and Pluess 2009) that particularly boys with genetic variants that make

them more “sensitive” to their environments responded more negatively to the exit of a father

from the household (Mitchell et al. 2015). Yet, while there has been some attention to how boys

and girls may respond differently to father absence and entrance, researchers should continue to

be attentive to these interactions by gender (McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider 2013).

Research Questions:

1) Do children’s behaviors and social skills (i.e., tendency to internalize problem

behaviors, tendency to externalize problem behaviors, self-control, and interpersonal

skills) vary across different family structures?

2) Do children in different family structures vary in response to family instability on

these outcomes?

8

3) Do boys and girls within the types of family structures vary in response to family

instability on these outcomes?

Data and Method

Data

This research will use the restricted-access version of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study

Kindergarten 2010-2011 cohort (ECLS-K:2011) collected by the U.S. Department of

Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (Tourangeau et al. 2013). To our

knowledge this will be the first time that ECLS-K:2011 data will be used to investigate the

relationship between changes in family structure and children’s socioemotional wellbeing. This

dataset has several advantages over previous studies. First, this newly-available data is the most

recent data available reflecting the experiences of children currently living in the United States.

This is important because the American family is constantly changing and the effects of family

structure transitions may have changed over time. As the proportion of children born to

unmarried parents has increased, the stigma associated with nonmarital childbearing and father

absence may have diminished along with the negative consequences. Conversely, increased

labor market insecurity and the disappearing social safety net support may have made the

economic effects and negative consequences more severe. For this study, we will focus on the

first three years for which data is available in 3 waves: the fall (Wave 1) of kindergarten (2010-

11), the fall (Wave 3) of first grade (2011-12), the fall (Wave 5) of second grade (2012-13).

Second, when appropriate weights are applied to compensate for unequal probabilities of

selection at each sampling stage and to adjust for the effects of nonresponse, the ECLS-K:2011

data are nationally representative of U.S. kindergarten students in the 2010-2011 academic year.

Third, participating in the study were the children's parents, teachers, and schools. Previous

9

studies have been limited to parent and/or self-report of externalizing and internalizing problem

behaviors. ECLS-K:2011 also includes teacher reported measures of the tendency to internalize

and externalize problem behaviors as well as self-control and interpersonal skills. Therefore, we

are able to extend the current literature by considering a wider range of socioemotional

outcomes.

Measures

Family structure. Family structure is a categorical measure that indicates whether a child is

living in (1) a two biological parent family, (2) a step parent family (i.e., one biological parent

and his/her coresidential partner), or (3) a single parent family. This measure is based on parent

reports’ taken at spring kindergarten and spring first grade. We do not distinguish between

married and cohabiting couple families as parent reports of marital status were deemed

unreliable across waves. Additionally, children living with adoptive parents or in other family

types were excluded due to their small numbers relative to other groups and the difficulties this

posed for our model estimation.

Family transitions. A dichotomous variable indicates whether children experienced a family

transition between the spring kindergarten and spring first grade survey waves (1=transition,

0=no transition). This variable indicates whether a child experienced either a family structure

change, which was determined from parent reports of current family structure status at the spring

survey waves,1 or a residential parent change, which was ascertained using the residential parent

identification variables that uniquely identify each person who resides within a child’s

household. Using the residential parent identification variables allowed us to capture family

transitions that occurred without a change in family structure status. Using our measure of

1 Parents are regularly surveyed only at the spring survey waves.

10

family transitions, for instance, a child who lived with his or her biological mother and step

father (i.e., in a step family) at the spring kindergarten survey wave and moved to live with his or

her biological father and step mother (i.e., in another step family) by the spring first grade wave

is coded as having experienced a family transition. This transition could not have been captured

using the family structure variables alone to create this measure.

Child’s gender. A dichotomous variable indicates the child’s gender, which is based on parent

reports (1=male, 0=female).

Children’s socioemotional outcomes. We examine four indicators of children’s socioemotional

development: internalizing problem behaviors, externalizing problem behaviors, self-control, and

interpersonal skills. All outcomes are based on teacher-reports on a scale of 1 to 4. Higher

values indicate greater internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, and greater self-

control and interpersonal skills. Internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors gauge

children’s potential maladaptive functioning, whereas self-control and interpersonal skills gauge

children’s ability to exhibit age appropriate conduct. We standardize each of these outcomes so

that a 1 unit increase corresponds to a 1 standard deviation change for each measure.

Controls. We control for several factors known to relate to children’s socioemotional

development, as well as family structure and instability. These factors include: the child’s

race/ethnicity (white, black, Hispanic, or other race), household socioeconomic status (a

standardized composite measure available from the ECLS-K that combines household adults’

education and income), and the number of step or biological siblings in a child’s household.

Method

We first assess the extent to which children’s characteristics and socioemotional outcomes vary

across family structures. We then use OLS regression to predict each standardized outcome at

11

spring first grade, controlling for children’s scores on the corresponding outcome the previous

year at spring kindergarten. We begin our model building sequence by examining baseline

relationships between family structure and transitions on each of our outcomes. We then add our

control covariates to each model, followed by our two- and three-way interaction terms to each

model. These interaction models examine whether family structure and/or child gender

moderate the relationship between family instability and children’s socioemotional development.

We then calculate predicted scores from models that indicate a significant moderating effect (i.e.,

between-group difference). As a last step, from models that indicate a significant between-group

difference in effect, we assess whether experiencing a family transition is significantly predictive

of a change in outcome within groups (i.e., within family structure and/or child gender) by

calculating the average marginal effect of a family transition for each group.

Results

The descriptive results from Table 1 indicate that children in biological parent families

demonstrate fewer internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors and greater interpersonal

skills and self control relative to their peers in step and single parent families, and they are also

less likely to experience a family transition. In addition, children in biological and step parent

families are predominantly white, whereas the race/ethnic composition of single parent families

is more diverse. Children in biological parent families are also more socioeconomically

advantaged. Finally, children in single parent families have fewer siblings relative to their peers

in biological parent families.

Tables 1 through 4 display the results from the OLS regression models predicting each

outcome at spring first grade. Controlling for children’s outcome scores at spring kindergarten,

children in biological parent families exhibit fewer internalizing and externalizing problem

12

behaviors and more self control and interpersonal skills, as is evident from Model 1 for each

outcome. The results for child gender in Model 2 are also consistent across all outcomes, such

that boys demonstrate more internalizing and externalizing problem behavior and score lower in

terms of their interpersonal skills and self control.

The results diverge with regard to family transitions in Model 3. Table 1, Model 3 shows

that experiencing a family transition is predictive of 0.22 standard deviation increase in

internalizing problem behaviors, whereas Model 3 in Tables 2 through 4 show that a family

transition is not similarly associated with externalizing problem behaviors, self control, or

interpersonal skills. Across all outcomes in Tables 1 through 4, however, Model 4 indicates that

children in different family structures vary in their response to family instability on these four

outcomes. On the other hand, Model 5 in Tables 1 through 4 indicates that boys and girls within

the same types of families do not differ in their response to a family transition on any outcome.

Figure 1 displays the average marginal effects (AMEs) of a family transition on children

within each family type for each outcome. These results are calculated from Model 5 in Tables 1

through 4, each of which demonstrates a significant between group (i.e., family structure)

difference in the relationship between a family transition and children’s problem behaviors, self

control, and interpersonal skills. Since these relationships vary significantly for children across

family structures, we calculate the AMEs to indicate whether a family transition is significantly

related to each outcome for children within each family type. Overall, Figure 1 shows that

experiencing a family transition has a significant negative impact for children in biological

parent families, as it predicts an increase in internalizing problem behaviors and reduction in

interpersonal skills. Experiencing a family transition is not, however, significantly predictive of

these outcomes for children in step and single parent families. Rather, experiencing a family

13

transition appears beneficial for children in step families, as it predicts a reduction in

externalizing problem behavior and increase in self control. Interestingly, experiencing a family

transition is not associated with any socioemotional outcome tested for children in single parent

families.

Discussion (in brief)

A well-established literature documents the importance of family instability for children’s

wellbeing (Waldfogel, Craigie, and Brooks-Gunn 2010), but more recent work within this vein

upends prior claims about the uniformity of family instability for children (Cavanagh and Huston

2008; Lee and McLanahan 2015; Magnuson and Berger 2009; Mitchell et al. 2015; Ryan and

Claessens 2013). Whereas family transitions were previously thought to pose a consistent threat

to children’s wellbeing and development (Cavanagh and Huston 2006; Fomby and Cherlin 2007;

Osborne and McLanahan 2007; Wu 1996), new evidence suggests that the type and timing of

transition experienced, as well the child’s individual and household characteristics, may matter

for how these changes influence children (Brown 2004; Carlson and Corcoran 2001; Cavanagh

and Huston 2008; Cooper et al. 2011; Craigie et al. 2012; Lee and McLanahan 2015; Magnuson

and Berger 2009; McLanahan et al. 2013; Mitchell et al. 2015; Ryan and Claessens 2013). We

add to this burgeoning literature by examining whether family structure and child gender

structure the relationship between family instability and children’s wellbeing using data from the

recent ECLS-K 2011 cohort on a broad set of socioemotional wellbeing outcomes.

Our results indicate that children in different family structures weather transitions

differently in terms of their internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors, interpersonal

skills, and self control. In general, family transitions appear to have significant negative impacts

on children who initially reside with both of their biological parents, in terms of their

14

internalizing behaviors and interpersonal skills. In contrast, experiencing a family transition

appears beneficial for children who initially reside within a step family, in terms of their

externalizing problem behaviors and self control. Children in single parent families who

undergo a transition, however, experience no significant changes in terms of any of these

outcomes. These results add to the evidence that the type of transition matters for understanding

how family instability influences children’s wellbeing.

On the other hand, despite suggestions from prior studies (Brown 2004; Carlson and

Corcoran 2001; Cavanagh and Huston 2008; Cooper et al. 2011; Craigie et al. 2012; Lee and

McLanahan 2015; McLanahan et al. 2013; Mitchell et al. 2015), we find no evidence that boys

and girls in the same types of families respond to transitions differently in terms of their

socioemotional wellbeing outcomes. It may be that child gender structures this relationship for

different kinds of outcomes that are not measured here. Or it may be that our study does not

capture a long enough period of time to detect significant family instability or its possibly

differential consequences on boys and girls.

We do acknowledge our study is limited in its time frame, which captures one year from

kindergarten to first grade, and ability to detect family structure changes, as children could

undergo multiple changes during this time frame that we model as a single change. Even so, we

believe our results are largely consistent with previous evidence, and we intend to incorporate

new waves of data as they become available so that we are able to capture a longer time span and

possible longer-term consequences for children.

15

References

Acs, Gregory. 2007. “Can We Promote Child Well-Being by Promoting Marriage?” Journal of

Marriage & Family 69(5):1326–44.

Amato, Paul R. 2005. “The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and

Emotional Well-Being of the next Generation.” The Future of Children 75–96.

Amato, Pr. 2010. “Research on Divorce: Continuing Trends and New Developments.” Journal of

Marriage and Family 72:650–66.

Brown, Sl. 2010. “Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and Policy Perspectives.” Journal

of Marriage and Family 72:1059–77.

Brown, Susan L. 2004. “Family Structure and Child Well-Being: The Significance of Parental

Cohabitation.” Journal of Marriage and Family 66(2):351–67.

Bzostek, Sharon H. and Audrey N. Beck. 2011. “Familial Instability and Young Children’s

Physical Health.” Social Science & Medicine 73(2):282–92.

Carlson, Marcia J. and Mary E. Corcoran. 2001. “Family Structure and Children’s Behavioral

and Cognitive Outcomes.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63(3):779–92.

Cavanagh, Shannon E. and Aletha C. Huston. 2006. “Family Instability and Children’s Early

Problem Behavior.” Social Forces 85(1):551–81.

Cavanagh, Shannon E. and Aletha C. Huston. 2008. “The Timing of Family Instability and

Children’s Social Development.” Journal of Marriage and Family 70(5):1258–70.

Cooper, C. E., C. A. Osborne, A. N. Beck, and S. S. McLanahan. 2011. “Partnership Instability,

School Readiness, and Gender Disparities.” Sociology of Education 84(3):246–59.

Craigie, Terry-Ann L., Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Jane Waldfogel. 2012. “Family Structure,

Family Stability and Outcomes of Five-Year-Old Children.” Families, Relationships and

Societies 1(1):43–61.

Elder, Glen H. 1998. “The Life Course as Developmental Theory.” Child Development 69(1):1–

12.

Fomby, Paula and Andrew J. Cherlin. 2007. “Family Instability and Child Well-Being.”

American Sociological Review 72(2):181–204.

Fomby, Paula and Cynthia Osborne. 2010. “The Influence of Union Instability and Union

Quality on Children’s Aggressive Behavior.” Social Science Research 39(6):912–24.

Lee, Dohoon and Sara McLanahan. 2015. “Family Structure Transitions and Child Development

Instability, Selection, and Population Heterogeneity.” American Sociological Review

0003122415592129.

16

Magnuson, Katherine and Lawrence M. Berger. 2009. “Family Structure States and Transitions:

Associations With Children’s Well-Being During Middle Childhood.” Journal of

Marriage and Family 71(3):575–91.

Manning, W. d. and S. l. Brown. 2006. “Children’s Economic Well-Being in Married and

Cohabiting Parent Families.” Journal of Marriage and Family 68:345–62.

McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent. What Hurts,

What Helps. Harvard University Press, 79 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

($19.95). Retrieved July 10, 2016 (http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed375224).

McLanahan, Sara, Laura Tach, and Daniel Schneider. 2013. “The Causal Effects of Father

Absence.” Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39(1):399–427.

Mitchell, Colter et al. 2015. “Family Structure Instability, Genetic Sensitivity, and Child Well-

Being 1.” American Journal of Sociology 120(4):1195–1225.

Osborne, C. and S. McLanahan. 2007. “Partnership Instability and Child Well-Being.” Journal

of Marriage and Family 69:1065–83.

Ryan, Rebecca M. and Amy Claessens. 2013. “Associations between Family Structure Changes

and Children†™s Behavior Problems: The Moderating Effects of Timing and Marital

Birth.” Developmental Psychology 49(7):1219–31.

Ryan, Rebecca M., Amy Claessens, and Anna J. Markowitz. 2015. “Associations Between

Family Structure Change and Child Behavior Problems: The Moderating Effect of

Family Income.” Child Development 86(1):112–27.

Schmeer, Kammi K. 2011. “The Child Health Disadvantage of Parental Cohabitation.” Journal

of Marriage & Family 73(1):181–93.

Shonkoff, Jack P. and Linda Richter. 2013. “The Powerful Reach of Early Childhood

Development.” Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on

Global Policy 24–34.

Waldfogel, J., Ta Craigie, and J. Brooks-Gunn. 2010. “Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing.”

Future Child 20:87–112.

Wu, Lawrence L. 1996. “Effects of Family Instability, Income, and Income Instability on the

Risk of a Premarital Birth.” American Sociological Review 61(3).

17

18

19

20

21