Analysis on the Ideal Family

Ryan Gauvreau and Ross Mpye

Overview of hypotheses

Just as two caretakers better than one caretaker, so too are three caretakers (e.g. parents, grandparents, older siblings) better
than two for the well-being of the child.
There is an optimal ratio of caretakers to children. This number or ratio is optimal because lower or higher numbers would
not be as cost-effective.
Corollary: These numbers will each be a Dunbars number.

Methodology and terms

At present, there have been 340 respondents to our Survey on Family Composition, giving these results a 5%
margin of error according to iSixSigma and Survey Monkey. Respondents were sent out over social media, the
blog Thing of Things, and the Institutional Research Office at BYU-I. Only 59 respondents were found
through the Institutional Research Office. One-on-one interviews were carried out with three families, and a
focus group of three individuals was also carried out. Their data is incorporated into the survey and is discussed
in-depth following the analysis section.

Respondents with two adults in the household during childhood are referred to as 2-caretaker respondents.
Respondents with three or more adults in the household during childhood are referred to as several-caretaker
respondents. It was originally determined that we would include data from respondents with only one adult
in the household during childhood, but the low rate of respondents with this characteristic (as few as seven, for
some questions) means that our results would be too full of noise to be of any use.

We bundled several metrics as indicators of optimal well-being for the child: (1) whether traumatic events
were experienced; (2) life satisfaction over the past six months; (3) level of education; and (4) financial class at
childhood and at present.

Conclusion

We must take the null hypothesis, that there is no appreciable difference in outcomes between two-caretaker
households and several-caretaker households. Two-caretaker households were slightly more likely to have
positive life satisfaction, whereas several-caretaker households were more likely to be highly education and to
have advanced in financial class since childhood.

For this reason, we must also take the second null hypothesis, that there is not an optimal ratio of caretakers to
children. To answer this in the affirmative would require that we first be able to determine that either two-
caretaker households or several-caretaker households were superior to the other.

Likewise, our corollary, that these two numbers would be Dunbars numbers, cannot be applied at all.
Analysis in-depth

Our conclusions were reached on the basis of several findings, which were checked against each other.

Traumatic events
Did you experience any traumatic
We did not find any
events? significant difference
120% between two-caretaker
and several-caretaker
100%
respondents. Both self-
80% reported about a fifty-
60% fifty split in the
occurrence of any
40%
traumatic events.
20% Examples were given
0%
to respondents for
2 adults 3+ adults comparison: death of a
loved one, divorce, and
Yes No domestic violence.

Respondents may not have been aware that a given event or situation in their lives was traumatic, or they may
have been reluctant to label it as such, so we had an additional question where a respondent could describe the
most troubling aspect in zir childhood.

Adverse Childhood Experiences are events or situations which are correlated with chronic health conditions,
risky behaviors, and even higher mortality. They are defined as:
Divorce or separation of a parent.
Domestic violence towards a parent.
Emotional abuse.
Illegal street or prescription drug use by a household member.
Incarceration of a household member.
Mental illness of a household member.
Physical abuse.
Problematic drinking or alcoholism of a household member.
Sexual abuse.

A further analysis of these in-depth answers shows the same proportion of ACEs in two-caretaker and several-
caretaker households, confirming the results of the first question.

We also asked respondents with children about whether their children had experienced any traumatic events.
The results were about fifty-fifty both for respondents with children living in two-caretaker households, and
for respondents with children living in several-caretaker households.
Life satisfaction
over the past six How satisfied are you with your life,
months
as of the past six months?
Both two-caretaker 45.00%
and several-caretaker 40.00%
respondents were 35.00%
equally prone to 30.00%
report more life 25.00%
20.00%
satisfaction than less,
15.00%
but (as can be seen in
10.00%
the graph) several- 5.00%
caretaker respondents 0.00%
were slightly less Ex. Dis. Mod. Dis. Sli. Dis. Neither Sli. Sa. Mod. Sa. Ex. Sa.
satisfied with life
overall. 2 adults 3+ adults

Level of education
What is your level of education?
Its difficult to see
where this difference 50%
45%
comes from, however. 40%
As you can see on the 35%
left, several-caretaker 30%
respondents are better- 25%
20%
educated than two-
15%
caretaker respondents. 10%
5%
Both groups graduated 0%
from high school, High school Some 2-year degree 4-year degree 6-year degree 8-year degree
but no further credit/no
received their G.E.D., degree
or made a similar
accomplishment, and 2 adults 3+ adults
both tended to go on to
get higher education. The education of two-caretaker respondents, however, is more heavily weighted to the
left of the graph. Almost half of them reported receiving some college credit, but no degree. Several-caretaker
respondents, on the other hand, are more heavily-weighted to the right of the graph, signifying a greater amount
of education.

Among two-caretaker respondents there is a slightly greater preference for two-year degree (e.g. associates
degrees) than among several-caretaker respondents. Exactly one-third of several-caretaker respondents
preferred four-year degrees (e.g. bachelors degrees), but they took out more six-year and eight-year degrees
(e.g. masters degrees and doctorates) than two-caretaker respondents.

Not pictured: A very small (3%) number of several-caretaker respondents who graduated from a trade school or
received another form of formal vocational training. Interestingly, no two-caretaker respondents at all had
received this kind of training. This result is not pictured because (1) the numbers were irrelevant to the broader
picture and (2) there was no good way to represent vocational training on a spectrum like this, which would
have given the impression that vocational training was either a lesser education than some college credit and
no degree or always a greater education than either a two-year or four-year degree. Either would have been
misleading.

Financial Class: Past & Present

While several-caretaker
respondents were more financial/social class of household -
or less evenly split
between being lower-
childhood
and middle-class in 70%
their childhoods, two- 60%
caretaker respondents 50%
were weighted more
40%
heavily to having been
30%
middle-class during
their childhoods (65% 20%
of respondents), and 10%
were slightly more 0%
likely to have been lower middle upper
upper-class (9%
2 adults 3+ adults
compared to 8% of
several-caretaker
respondents).

The picture changes

when we ask financial/social class of household -
respondents about
their current financial present
status. Several- 90%
caretaker respondents 80%
are still more likely to 70%
be lower-class (23% 60%
compared to 14% of 50%
two-caretaker 40%
respondents) and less 30%
20%
likely to be middle-
10%
class (62% compared
0%
to 78%), but they were lower middle upper
more likely to be
upper-class (15% 2 adults 3+ adults
compared to 8%).
 There is another
Change in financial/social class interesting result when
we compare the overall
20
shift in financial class.
15 Both two-caretaker
10 and several-caretaker
5 respondents were
0 more likely to shift
lower middle upper from lower-class to
-5
middle-class than the
-10 reverse, but the
-15 increase was greatest in
-20 our several-caretaker
-25 respondents, who were
the most likely of the
2 adults 3+ adults two to rise into the
upper-class.

Report on interviews and focus group

Three families were interviewed personally by Ross Mpye, with feedback obtained from both the adults and
the children. Three other individuals formed a focus group and were spoken with together.

One-on-one interviews

All three of the primary interviewees (those being specifically targeted, whose families were also spoken with),
indicated that they grew up in non-traditional homes: divorced families, single-parent households, or foster
homes. This specific group indicated that an imbalanced family structure was a strong influence in their lives,
translating into issues with personal confidence and making decisions that were not part of the mainstream
culture. The overall sentiment that came out of these interviews was that, while the participants somewhat
wished that they could have had different lives growing up, they were also motivated to then do welland not
in order to make others around them proud but in order to prove society wrong about its beliefs that they
would not be successful in life.

Focus group

Two out of three of the panel members were raised in two-caretaker households, with non-adult siblings. All
parties indicated a fairly decent livelihood and expressed major progress in life in both financial and emotional
aspects. The focus group was of a slightly older generation than the average respondent, and therefore the trend
with them was that their parents had gone through different challenges, like war and famine. Parents were of
an older style, where it was almost a mission to get their parents to utter I Love You, especially where fathers
were concerned. The patriarchal side of the family was always hard working, and was less vocal and not as
emotionally involved as the matriarchal side, but was fully supportive from a parental standpoint.
Analysis

In the research carried out on a one-on-one basis, we must take the null hypothesis, that neither the traditional
or two-caretaker household nor the several-caretaker household is necessarily more beneficial to the
development of children. Interviewees indicated that the lack of a parent or of natural parents was a source of
anxiety and resulted in unfortunate, life-changing moments. The results derived from the focus group also
indicate that their family environment had a significant influence on their successes in life and their current
position in life. The participants indicated a need for progress and have found themselves at an economically
elevated position as a result of their ambition and desire to thrive, which was born out of their childhood
situation.

Room for further research

Additional research could be conducted on each of the metrics that we measured.

Being able to get a larger response group would help us to determine whether one or more of our results was
due to statistical noise. Relatively few respondents came from any single country other than the United States,
so larger response groups could allow us to determine the extent that culture can interact with two- and several-
caretaker households (i.e. is a several-caretaker respondent more likely to perform well on a given metric when
coming from a culture where several-caretaker respondents are common?).

A longitudinal study, following two-caretaker and several-caretaker households for a long period of time, would
be of immense value, but should be preceded by a few other studies (as described above) in order to hammer
out the best metrics to measure.