See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318060811

Family structure and family relationship from the child well-being

perspective: Findings from comparative analysis

Article  in  Children and Youth Services Review · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.064

CITATIONS READS

5 1,713

5 authors, including:

Tamar Dinisman Carme Montserrat

Victim Support Universitat de Girona
16 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS    100 PUBLICATIONS   611 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dorota Strózik Tomasz Strózik

Poznan University of Economics Poznan University of Economics
10 PUBLICATIONS   21 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of specialized residential care centres for adolescents with severe emotional and behavioral disorders: referred population, design and outcomes View
project

The Survey of Children's Subjective Well-Being in Poland View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tomasz Strózik on 14 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Family structure and family relationship from the child well-being

perspective: Findings from comparative analysis
Tamar Dinismana, Sabine Andresenb, Carme Montserratc,⁎, Dorota Strózikd, Tomasz Strózike
a
Children's Worlds, UK
b
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Germany
c
University of Girona, Spain
d
Department of Statistics and Demography, The Poznań University of Business and Economics, Poznań, Poland
e
Department of Business Activity, The Poznań University of Business and Economics, Poznań, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Relationships within the family are important for the development of children's well-being, as well as for their
Children evaluations of their family and their overall life satisfaction. Nevertheless, little is known about differences in
Family structure family relationships, family subjective well-being (SWB) and overall SWB of children from different groups,
Family especially those who are living in diverse family structures. The purpose of this study is to explore differences in
Living arrangements
family relationships, family SWB and overall SWB between children living in three different living arrangements
Subjective well-being
– a two-parent family, a single-parent family and a separated family. The study used data from the second wave
of data collection of the Children's Worlds project, a large international study of children's well-being. 20,343
children aged 10–12 from 10 countries constitute the final sample of the current sample. Several agreement,
satisfaction and time use questions were applied to measure the children's family relationships and family SWB.
Two psychometric scales were used to explore the children's overall SWB. In addition, differences in socio-
economic characteristics were also explored. Children living with both parents were found to evaluate their
family relationships and family SWB higher than children living in a single parent family and in separated
families. Similar results were also found in respect to overall SWB. Not many differences were found between the
last two groups, namely these children are quite similar in their perceptions and evaluations of their families and
their overall SWB. However, children living in separated families tend to be less satisfied with the people they
live with and their family life. This trend was found in all participant countries, although it was less prevalent in
Israel and Algeria. The discussion offers several possible explanations to the findings, and emphasizes that the
source of the differences may be complex and may include macro and micro explanations.

1. Introduction evaluations of family relationships and family well-being.

Relationships within the family are important for the development
of children's well-being, as well as for their overall satisfaction
(Andresen, Hurrelmann, & Schneekloth, 2012). On the one hand, it
seems that there is barely another “institution” so crucially dependent
on the social, historical, cultural and religiously conditioned notions.
On the other hand, the elementary care for the exceedingly dependent
family members is central nearly everywhere. While both the im-
portance of differences between the children's comprehension of care
and the similarity of their care related expectations seems be important,
little is known about the family relationships and family well-being
from the perspective of the children themselves, and whether the
children who live in different family structures differ in their
1.1. What is a family?
The Preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child con-
sidered the family as the “natural environment for the growth and well-
being of all its members and particularly children” and declared that
“the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her per-
sonality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of
happiness, love and understanding” (The United Nations, 1989).
Family structure has undergone considerable changes over the last
century; the notion of ‘family’ has become more and more fluid and
there is no such thing as a standard family. In the Western world the
number of household members has fallen dramatically; there has been a

⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Girona, Pl. Sant Domènec, 9, 17071 Girona, Spain.
E-mail addresses: tdinisman@gmail.com (T. Dinisman), carme.montserrat@udg.edu (C. Montserrat).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.064
Received 5 April 2016; Received in revised form 31 July 2016; Accepted 27 June 2017
0190-7409/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Dinisman, T., Children and Youth Services Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.064
T. Dinisman et al.
substantial decline in fertility, often below the replacement level; a
decline in marriage; new forms of partnerships, such as unmarried co-
habitation and living-apart-together; an increase in the divorce rate and
separations as well as single-parent households, and the extended fa-
mily no longer live under the same roof as the nuclear family
(Mortelmans, Matthijs, Alofs, & Segaert, 2016). From the 1960s on-
wards, these changes have gathered pace due to socioeconomic, tech-
nological and cultural factors. Authors like Cliquet (2003) have singled
out three major groups of family characteristics: those pertaining to
relational behaviour (partnership), to reproductive behaviour (parent-
hood) and to intergenerational behaviour (focused on the living con-
ditions of elderly people). Another important change for families and
the family structure in the welfare states is the increased participation
of women in the labour market. In many countries, like Germany,
women mainly work part-time for child and family related reasons
(OECD, 2011). In this line, focusing initially on North-Western Europe,
the concept of the second demographic transition (SDT) sees that po-
pulations will also be much older as a result of the lower fertility and
additional gains in longevity (Richter & Andresen, 2012). Other Eur-
opean countries and industrialized Asian countries are already fol-
lowing this trend. This demographic transition brings new social chal-
lenges associated with further aging, integration of immigrants and
other cultures, lesser stability of households, and higher levels of pov-
erty or exclusion among certain household types, like single people's or
lone mothers' (Lesthaeghe, 2010).
On the other hand, trends in family structure in the developing
countries are slightly different. Extended families, which include parent
(s) and other family members from outside the nuclear family, are
common in Asia, the Middle East, Central/South America, and sub-
Saharan Africa. Marriage rates are declining in many regions. Adults
are most likely to be married in Asia and the Middle East, and are least
likely to be married in Central/South America (Scott, Bradford,
Ryberg, & DeRose, 2015). These are just few examples highlighting that
the notion of family and household structure varies markedly among
countries.
As the concept of family is becoming more fluid and changeable the
challenges in defining different family structures is also raised. In the
current research, a well-established approach was used, in which the
definition of the family structure is based on living arrangements rather
than on the parents' marital status (Bumpass & Raley, 1995). Based on
this approach, and similar to previous research (e.g. Bjarnason et al.,
2012; Dinisman, Montserrat, & Casas, 2012), two-parent family is fa-
mily in which two parents share the same household, a single-parent
family, is in which only one parent is living in and a separated family is
a family in is which the living arrangement of the child (and conse-
quently other aspect of the care) is shared between two homes (and
adults). However, as mentioned above, the reality can be very diverse.
For example, some children living in separated family may share their
time equally between the two homes, while others may visit the other
house less frequency (Maccoby, Depner, & Mnookin, 1988).
1.2. Children's point of view
Although there are relevant studies on changing families and de-
mographic trends (see for example Scott et al., 2015), we know little
about how children experience these situations, and how this affects
their well-being.
Taking the children's point of view into consideration is embedded
in a wider perspective that stress the importance of evaluating and
using children's Subjective Well-Being (SWB) for research and policy
decisions. This is a perspective more focused on the positive aspects of
childhood (and not only on the negative aspects of children's lives) and
on their current situation (not so much on what they will become as
adults) has called for redirecting the focus to certain dimensions of
children's well-being and quality of life, such as satisfaction with dif-
ferent aspects of their lives (Casas, 2011). In recent years, children's
2
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
SWB has received an increasing amount of attention, and one of the
ways to investigate it has been to ask children directly, allowing them
to evaluate their own perceptions of well-being; in other words, their
perceptions of happiness, their satisfaction with life and their own
psychological well-being, and positive affect and negative affect (Rees
et al., 2012).
Casas (2011) contemplates SWB as the set of perceptions, evalua-
tions and aspirations of children about their own lives, and therefore
linked to non-material aspects of life, such as happiness (affective
component) or satisfaction (cognitive component). This also entails
thinking of how to improve or maintain good levels of well-being and
universal policies that promote the SWB. In this respect, the family is
one of the most important facilitating factors for children's well-being.
A data analysis of young people in the United Kingdom revealed a
significant link between the quality of parent-child relationships and
young people's well-being (Quilgars, Searle, & Keung, 2005). Thus, ac-
cording to children participating in a qualitative study (Navarro et al.,
2015) well-being is related to both affects and attitudes, relations with
family and friends being key factors in it. Children scoring lower in the
SWB tend to refer more to relationships with friends and basic needs
covered, whereas those scoring higher tend to refer more to family
relationships and not having problems. In another qualitative study it is
shown how poor adolescents who have a relationship of trust and
support with at least one of their parents are more able to handle
problems (Bradshaw, Hoelscher, & Richardson, 2007).
Considering the children's perspective is not only important in order
to gain an understanding, but also to realize that children do not always
think what adults assume they think. Madge and Willmott (2007) have
shown how children are capable of observing and commenting on their
lives, on the feelings they have towards their parents or carers and the
impact they have on their upbringing. Children tend to respect the
figure of parental authority, but adopt strategies at the same time to
negotiate decision-making (Andresen & Gerarts, 2014). Furthermore,
children want to be consulted, even though the final decision is not
theirs. They like having good relationships, love and support within the
family, and they dislike family conflicts, being more able to cope with
separation and other stresses if they feel cared for. This is especially the
case when children live a socioeconomically deprived situation together
with their family (Andresen et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, a great care must be taken when comparing the SWB
of children from different countries. Ben-Arieh, Casas, Frønes, and
Korbin (2014) identified certain limitations to be taken into account in
the study of child well-being from an inter-cultural perspective such as,
for example, the fact that child-rearing styles differ worldwide and the
results of the majority of cultural practices provide insufficient em-
pirical evidence as far as child well-being is concerned. In addition, we
should bear in mind that many of the approaches and measures to
gauge child well-being are rooted in Western cultures.
1.3. Children's SWB and living arrangements
Not much is known about the differences in SWB in various living
arrangements, especially when cross-cultural differences in SWB are
explored. Dinisman et al. (2012) explored differences in the SWB of
Spanish children aged 12 living in diverse households - living in care, in
single parent families and in two-parent families, and they pointed out
that children living with two parents reported a better SWB in all life
domains than those in the other two groups. Differences between
children living with one parent and children living in care were mostly
found in relation to interpersonal relationships and health. However,
one of the factors which were influencing this output was that children
living in care and living with one parent have the least stable lives
comparing to those living with both parents who have much more
stable lives. As a conclusion, the value of stability to children's lives was
highlighted. These findings were also confirmed by Montserrat,
Dinisman, Bălţătescu, Grigoraş, and Casas (2015) indicating the
T. Dinisman et al.
negative effect of critical changes on adolescents' SWB in seven out of
eight countries participating in the study.
Bjernason and colleagues examined the life satisfaction of children
aged 11–15 among children in different family structures from 36
Western, industrialized countries. They found that life satisfaction is
lower among children in all types of other living arrangements com-
pared to those living with both biological parents. When perceived
economic status of the family and problems communicating with par-
ents has been controlled the highest level of life satisfaction was found
in two-biological parents households, followed by single-mother
households.
Other findings may help us in predicting how different living ar-
rangements may influence children's SWB. An important perspective on
a macro level focuses on structural conditions in national contexts,
often related to the welfare system and the impact on different family
types. The socioeconomic situation of different family types, the
number of family members, the social support, for example, for a nu-
clear family as compared to a single parent family, may have a strong
impact on children. Flaquer (2014) and McCall and Percheski (2010)
articulate that the family structure plays an important role in a child's
material well-being (OECD, 2011). Although the poverty rate varies
greatly among countries, it tends to be higher in single-mother families
than in two-parent families (Eurostat, 2015). As a result, children in
single-mother families have more limited financial resources and are at
a greater risk of poverty. This is happening, for example, in Germany
where structural conditions within the tax system, the social insurance
system and, last but not least, the health insurance system increases the
disadvantages of single parent families (Lenze, 2014).
Another possible impact, located on a meso-level, focuses on in-
terconnections between families and “institutions” like schools or the
social support system at a community level, highlighting families with
multiple needs for support or weaker connections with these “institu-
tions”. This is often the case when families are poor, family members
are traumatized, parents are single or low educated (Dockett, 2013;
Easton et al., 2012). On a micro level, the concept of “doing family”
may shed light. This means that the family is created by social practices
and interactions. Children are also involved like adults and the family
group defines the character of the family. Therefore material resources,
social support and time are important to realize a family life
(Jurczyk & Klinkhardt, 2014).
In addition the family breakdown may have negative effect on
children's well-being. Dunn and Deater-Deckard (2001) point out that,
in the case of parental separation, children claim that parental com-
munication with them is generally very poor, and they are rarely given
a full explanation and a chance to ask questions. The majority report
having felt confused and distressed by the situation. The authors also
report that children whose parents had undergone more relationship
transitions described their relationship to their parents in a less positive
way than those whose parents had not. Children, who described high
levels of conflict and animosity in their relationships with their mothers
and fathers, and a greater involvement in the parental conflict, had
higher levels of adjustment problems. Furthermore, positive feelings
were associated with being given an active role in decisions about how
much time was spent in the two households.
To conclude, the purpose of the present study is to examine differ-
ences between children living in three family structures – ‘Two-parent
family’, ‘Single-parent family’ and ‘Separated family’ – in their family
relationships and family SWB. Furthermore, differences between the
three groups of children will be also explored in overall SWB. The
possible differences between the groups in socio-economic character-
istics will also be assessed. The diversity of the participating countries
will also allow us to explore differences or shared trends across coun-
tries and cultures.
3
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
2. Method
2.1. Sample characteristics
The international Children's Worlds Study (ISCWeB) is a world-wide
research survey on children's SWB. The current research is based on
data from the second wave of data collection that was conducted during
winter of 2013 and spring of 2014 with representative samples of
children aged 8 to 12 in a diverse range of 15 countries around the
globe. Items on family structure, which were essential to the analysis of
the current paper, were included in the questionnaires of 10 countries,
and these were included in the paper: Algeria, Colombia, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Germany, Israel, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the UK.
In each country a representative sample of children in mainstream
schools in the whole country or in a specific region was obtained. The
sampling strategy varied from country to country subject to the char-
acteristics (further details on the samples can be found in Rees & Main,
2015).
The paper's initial sample consists of 21,210 children aged 10–12
from 10 countries. We were unable to classify the family structure of
867 (4.09%) children due to missing data and therefore they were not
included in the current research. The final sample comprised 20,343
children, with a mean age of 11.16 (SD = 1.16) and 49.7% were boys.
2.2. Group classification
Two questions were used to distinguish between the family struc-
tures of the children. Firstly, they were asked where they lived. Most of
the children (19,887, 97.7%) were living with their family. 456 (2.2%)
children who answered they were living in foster care, residential care
or other type of home were omitted from the sample. Secondly, those
children who answered that they lived with their families were asked
who they lived with. 15,751 (79.2%) children who answered they were
living with both their parents were categorized as living in ‘Two-parent
families’, 2591 children (13.0%) who answered they were living with
one parent were classified as living in ‘Single parent families’, and an-
other 1266 (6.4%) who answered they were living with one parent in
one house and another parent in another house were classified as living
in ‘Separated families’. A small number of the children (279, 1.4%)
answered they were living with their families but without any of the
parents; due to this fact the group was omitted from the final sample.
2.3. Instruments
In our study we used ten questions to evaluate the children's family
relationships and family SWB:
- four agreement questions (I feel safe at home; We have a good time
together; My parents listen to me; My parents treat me fairly),
- three satisfaction questions (How satisfied are you with: The people
you live with; All the other people in your family; Your family life?),
- and three time use questions (How often in the past week have you
spent time with your family: Talking together; Having fun together;
Learning together?).
The answers to agreement questions were given on a five-point scale
from “I don't agree” to “Totally agree”. The responses to satisfaction
questions were given on an 11-point scale from 0 to 10, with 0 labelled
as “Not at all satisfied” and 10 labelled as “Totally satisfied”, whereas the
responses to questions about time use were given on a four-point fre-
quency scale from “Not at all” to “Every day”. Due to low internal
consistency between the items, who share similar response scale, in
several of the countries (for example, the Cronbach's α of the three
satisfaction items was 0.496 for Israel, 0.532 for Estonia, 0.546 for
Algeria, and 0.591 for Turkey), combined indexes were not computed,
and the results were explored for each of the items separately.
T. Dinisman et al. Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1 Table 2
Psychometric scales used in the research. Types of family structures by country.

Instruments Response scales Items included Country Living in two- Living in single Living in separated Total
parent families parent families (%) families (%)
SLSS-5 11-point scale, from Not at all My life is going well (%)
agree (0) to Totally agree (10) My life is just right
I have a good life Algeria 2058 (92.0%) 172 (7.7%) 7 (0.3%)1 2237
I have what I want in life Colombia 1099 (65.1%) 533 (31.6%) 57 (3.4%) 1689
The things in my life are Estonia 1533 (77.9%) 346 (17.6%) 90 (4.6%) 1969
excellent Ethiopia 1546 (86.0%) 251 (14.6%) 1 (0.1%)1 1798
PWI-SC adapted 11-point scale, from Not at all All the things you have? Germany 1457 (77.6%) 209 (11.1%) 212 (11.3%) 1878
satisfied (0) to Totally satisfied Your health? Israel 1105 (88.0%) 58 (4.6%) 93 (7.4%) 1256
(10) The things you want to be Norway 1430 (76.2%) 133 (7.1%) 313 (16.7%) 1876
good at? Spain 2082 (78.3%) 344 (12.9%) 233 (8.8%) 2659
Your relationships with Turkey 1881 (93.3%) 89 (4.4%) 47 (2.3%) 2017
people in general? UK 1560 (70.0%) 456 (20.5%) 213 (9.6%) 2229
How safe you feel?
Doing things away from 1
Due to the small henceforth separated families will not be calculated for Ethiopia and
your home? Algeria, they will be included in the pooled sample analysis.
What may happen to you
later in your life?
3. Findings
How you use your time?
Your life as a student?
Table 2 presents the percentage of the three family structures by
country. Algeria, Turkey and Israel have the highest percentage of fa-
In addition two psychometric scales were used to explore the chil- milies with two parents, which can be common for conservative
dren overall SWB: a modified version of the Students' Life Satisfaction countries. Not surprisingly, separated families in are prevalent in
Scale (SLSS-5) and an adapted Personal Well-being Index - School Western countries, with the highest number in Norway and Germany.
Children (PWI-SC). Nevertheless, the picture regarding single-parent families is more
We used in the study a reduced version of Huebner (1991) Student's complex – the percentage of single-parent families is also higher in
Life Satisfaction Scale, which was successfully tested in earlier studies Western countries as well as in Colombia and Ethiopia. As can be seen
(e.g., Casas, Bello, Gonzalez, & Aligue, 2012; Rees, Bradshaw, in Table 2, the sample of Ethiopia and Algeria include only a small
Goswami, & Keung, 2010). This domain-free scale was based on five number of separated families, therefore henceforth this group will not
statements about children's overall life satisfaction (Table 1). The be calculated for these countries, however it will be included in the
children aged 10 and 12 responded to the questions using an 11-point pooled sample analysis.
scale ranging from “Not at all agree” to “Totally agree”. The internal
consistency of the SLSS-5 measured with the Cronbach's α was 0.911 for
the total sample and ranged, depending on the country, from 0.799 for 3.1. Family structure and socio-economic characteristics
Colombia to 0.953 for the UK, thus an index was created as the mean of
all five items. Three socio-economic characteristics were tested: gender, whether
The second measure, domain-specific scale, of SWB applied in the the child was born in the country and worry about family money. Only
study was an adapted 9-item version of the Personal Well-being Index - in two countries – Colombia and Estonia – significant differences be-
School Children (Cummins & Lau, 2005). Seven items from the original tween groups were found in relation to gender. In Estonia girls are more
scale were complemented by two additional elements (Table 1) pro- prevalent in single (56.6%) and separated (57.8) families than in two-
posed by Casas et al. (2012); Casas, Bălţătescu, Bertran, Gonzalez, and parent families (46.9%) and the total prevalence amounts to (49.1%)
Hatos (2013). The children's satisfaction with different life domains was (χ2[2, N = 1958] = 13.34, p = 0.001). Similarly, in Colombia there
measured on an 11-point scale from “Not at all satisfied” to “Totally was a higher percentage of girls in single parent families (57.4%), while
satisfied”. An index was created as the mean of all nine items. Cron- the percentages in separated families (48.2%) and two-parent families
bach's α of the PWI-SC lay between 0.715 (Algeria) and 0.900 (UK). For (48.6%) were similar to the percentage in the total sample (51.3%)
the total sample the Cronbach's α was 0.833. (χ2[2, N = 1679] = 11.27, p = 0.004).
Children were asked whether they were born in their country of
residence. Differences were found in two countries – Spain (χ2[2,
2.4. Analysis N = 2659] = 58.26, p < 0.001) and Norway (χ2[2, N = 1872]
= 22.61, p < 0.001). In both countries the percentage of children not
Due to the notable differences between the size of the group of born in the country was higher in single-parent families (31.7%, 15.8%
children living with both parents and the other two groups, and the respectively) than in separated families (9.0%, 2.9% respectively) and
inequality of variances between the groups in the dependent variables, two-parent families (16.8%, 8.0% respectively).
non-parametric analyses were used, which can minimize the risk of The last socio-economic characteristics involved the question whe-
Type 1 error (Siegel, 1957). Differences between the three groups in ther the child was worried about how much money his/her family had
relation to the items on SWB were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis and there results are presented in Table 3. In six countries – Estonia,
test, which is based on analyzing the mean rank. When a significant Germany, Israel, Norway, Spain and Turkey – differences were found
difference was found, post-hoc tests were conducted using Mann- between the three family structures. In all of these countries children
Whitney's U test to assess the differences between each pair of groups. who live in two-parent families were the least worried, only in Spain
The effect size was then calculated by dividing Z by the square root on and Turkey this difference was found between children living in two-
N (r = Z/√N). In addition, differences among the three groups in re- parent families and those living in separated families, with no differ-
lation to the nominal background items were examined using the Chi- ences between two-parent families and single-parent families. Inter-
square test. estingly, no differences were found between children living in single-
parent families and those living in separated families in any of the
countries.

4
T. Dinisman et al. Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Differences in worry about family money in different family structures by country: Kruskal-Wallis (H) and Mann-Whitney U post-hoc tests.

Two-parents families Single parent families Separated families H

M SD M SD M SD

Algeria 0.82 0.99 0.83 0.95 – – 0.15

Colombia 1.63 1.00 1.64 1.06 1.68 1.09 0.15
Estonia 1.05 0.87 1.21a(r = 0.08) 0.85 1.39a(r = 0.08) 0.98 19.20⁎⁎⁎
Ethiopia 1.20 1.02 1.32 1.01 – – 3.39
Germany 0.68 0.76 1.01a(r = 0.14) 0.82 1.16a(r = 0.19) 0.88 78.84⁎⁎⁎
Israel 0.77 0.98 1.14a(r = 0.09) 1.04 1.11a(r = 0.08) 1.10 14.87⁎⁎
Norway 0.65 0.77 0.85a(r = 0.09) 0.73 0.98a(r = 0.17) 0.81 55.93⁎⁎⁎
Spain 1.50 0.99 1.57 0.99 1.67a(r = 0.05) 0.99 6.62⁎
Turkey 0.70 0.85 0.75 0.85 1.00a(r = 0.06) 0.88 7.15⁎
Total 1.00 0.98 1.30a(r = 0.10) 1.00 1.25a(r = 0.07) 0.97 216.70⁎⁎⁎

Note. Range: 0–3. This item was not asked in the UK.
a(r = effect size) Significantly higher than living in two-parent families.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

3.2. Family structure and family relationships
As was mentioned earlier, three types of questions were used to
evaluate the children's family relationships – agreement, satisfaction
and frequency of activities.
The first agreement item asked the children to evaluate the state-
ment ‘I have good time together with my family’. As can be seen in
Table 4, children who live with both parents agree more often as
compared to the other two groups in seven of the countries. In addition,
in Turkey this difference was also found but only between this group
and the children living in separated families. Differences were not
found between those living in single-parent and separated families ex-
cept for Estonia where the children from separated families scored the
least.
The second statement referred to feeling safe at home. In general,
children who live in two-parent families feel safer at home; in seven
countries differences were found between this group and the two other
groups, however the differences in the other two groups vary between
countries. In five countries – Estonia, Germany, Norway, Spain and the
UK – differences were found between children who live in two-parent
families and children living in separated families, in four countries –
Colombia, Ethiopia, Spain and the UK – these differences were found
between the first group and children living in single-parent families.
Only in Germany differences were also found between children living in
single-parent families and children living in separated families where
the latter scored the least.
In six countries differences were found between different types of
family structures as regards the statement ‘my parents listen to me’.
While children living in two-parent families agree the most that their
parents listen to them, there is a variation between countries in the
nature of this difference; in Estonia, Spain and the UK children living in
two-parent families agree more often than those living in single-parent
families and separated families; in Colombia differences were found
only between those living in single-parent families and in Germany and
Norway - only in separated families. In addition, only in Spain and
Norway differences were found between the two other groups.
Lastly, differences between the groups were found in seven coun-
tries – Colombia, Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, Norway, Spain and the
UK – also regarding the statement ‘my parents treat me fairly.’ Here it
seems that children living in separated families agree less; in five
countries – Estonia, Germany, Norway, Spain and the UK – these dif-
ferences were found between children living in two-parent families and
children living in separated families; in two countries differences were
also found between the latter and children living in single-parent fa-
milies. Between the two other groups, differences were found in three
countries out of ten – Colombia, Ethiopia and Spain.
The children were asked how satisfied they were with the people
they lived with. As can be seen in Table 5, in all of the countries except
Algeria differences were found between the three groups. In five
countries – Colombia, Ethiopia, Germany, Spain and the UK – children
living with both parents were more satisfied then those living in single
parent families and those living in separated families. In Estonia, Israel,
Norway and Turkey this difference was found only with those living in
separated families. In addition, in five countries – Estonia, Germany,
Norway, Turkey and the UK – children living in separated families were
less satisfied with the people they lived with than those living in single
parent families.
The trend found as regards satisfaction with the children's family
life is quite the same but stronger. In all countries differences were
found between groups. In seven countries – Algeria, Colombia, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Germany, Spain and the UK – children who are living in two-
parent families are the most satisfied compared to children living in
other families. In another three countries – Israel, Norway and Turkey –
these differences were found only as compared to children living in
separated families. In addition, in four countries out of ten – Estonia,
Germany, Norway and Turkey – children living in separated families
were also less satisfied with their family life compared to those living in
single-parent families.
In all of the countries, except Algeria and Israel, differences were
found in satisfaction with all the other people in the child's family.
Unlike the differences described above, here children living in single-
parent families were less satisfied in some countries; in Colombia,
Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, Norway, Spain and the UK children living
in single-parent families are less satisfied with all the other people in
their family compared to children living in two-parent families. In
Germany, Norway, Spain, Turkey and the UK these differences were
found between the latter and children living in separated families.
Differences between children living in single-parent families and chil-
dren living in separated families were not found in any of the countries.
The last set of items concerning family relationship was about fre-
quency of activities with the family in the last week (Table 6). The first
item referred to the frequency of talking together with the family. In
five countries differences were found between groups, however quite
differently from the trend found in the previous items, here children
living in single-parent families were reporting lesser amount of talking
together with their family and some variations were found between
countries. In Colombia, Germany, Spain and the UK children living in
single-parent families reported a lower frequency of talking with their
family as compared to children living in two-parent families. Only in
Spain differences were also found between children living in single-

5
T. Dinisman et al. Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 4
Differences in family relationships (agreement) in different family structures by country: Kruskal-Wallis (H) and Mann-Whitney U post-hoc tests.

Two-parents families Single parent families Separated families H

M SD M SD M SD

I feel safe at home

Algeria 3.60 0.91 3.39 1.22 – – 2.32
Colombia 3.73 0.66 3.65a(r = 0.05) 0.79 3.47 1.05 6.57⁎
Estonia 3.75 0.66 3.67 0.78 3.58a(r = 0.07) 0.83 9.60⁎⁎
Ethiopia 2.92 1.45 2.73a(r = 0.06) 1.43 – – 6.57⁎
Germany 3.64 0.84 3.62 0.75 3.49b(r = 0.10)a(r = 0.10) 0.84 15.72⁎⁎⁎
Israel 3.71 0.71 3.75 0.58 3.70 0.70 0.20
Norway 3.77 0.65 3.70 0.75 3.62a(r = 0.08) 0.84 11.01⁎⁎
Spain 3.72 0.63 3.62a(r = 0.06) 0.71 3.59a(r = 0.07) 0.68 17.41⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 3.58 1.00 3.57 0.95 3.32 1.25 2.57
UK 3.73 0.61 3.59a(r = 0.07) 0.80 3.57a(r = 0.07) 0.79 16.73⁎⁎⁎
Total 3.61 0.89 3.53a(r = 0.04) 0.94 3.57a(r = 0.03) 0.82 49.90⁎⁎⁎

We have a good time together

Algeria 3.50 0.93 3.44 1.01 – – 0.45
Colombia 3.50 0.90 3.26a(r = 0.11) 1.07 2.95a(r = 0.09) 1.37 26.98⁎⁎⁎
Estonia 3.69 0.69 3.55a(r = 0.06) 0.88 3.35b(r = 0.10)a(r = 0.10) 1.01 21.82⁎⁎⁎
Ethiopia 3.05 1.26 2.71a(r = 0.09) 1.37 – – 15.55⁎⁎⁎
Germany 3.35 0.96 3.19a(r = 0.06) 1.03 2.95a(r = 0.13) 1.13 32.18⁎⁎⁎
Israel 3.45 0.94 3.20 1.24 3.37 0.98 2.13
Norway 3.76 0.65 3.57a(r = 0.07) 0.86 3.51a(r = 0.13) 0.90 35.72⁎⁎⁎
Spain 3.49 0.87 3.23a(r = 0.09) 1.08 3.23a(r = 0.10) 0.99 35.32⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 3.54 0.98 3.40 1.09 2.94a(r = 0.07) 1.47 12.09⁎⁎
UK 3.48 0.87 3.28a(r = 0.07) 1.07 3.31a(r = 0.07) 0.95 15.52⁎⁎⁎
Total 3.48 0.94 3.27a(r = 0.08) 1.09 3.26a(r = 0.07) 1.04 156.73⁎⁎⁎

My parents listen to me
Algeria 3.41 1.01 3.31 1.17 3.40 1.02 0.27
Colombia 3.54 0.86 3.37a(r = 0.08) 1.04 3.38 1.08 10.76⁎⁎
Estonia 3.26 1.05 3.14a(r = 0.05) 1.06 2.95a(r = 0.06) 1.20 10.37⁎⁎
Ethiopia 2.75 1.35 2.63 1.36 – – 2.03
Germany 3.37 0.95 3.27 0.95 3.08a(r = 0.10) 1.10 17.57⁎⁎⁎
Israel 3.51 0.89 3.57 0.81 3.53 0.82 0.27
Norway 3.53 0.86 3.51 0.90 3.28b(r = 0.14)a(r = 0.13) 0.98 28.07⁎⁎⁎
Spain 3.41 0.88 3.04a(r = 0.13) 1.12 3.22b(r = 0.09)a(r = 0.05) 1.03 43.96⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 3.01 1.23 2.93 1.27 2.67 1.41 2.55
UK 3.36 0.95 3.18a(r = 0.07) 1.07 3.16a(r = 0.07) 1.06 14.32⁎⁎
Total 3.30 1.05 3.17a(r = 0.04) 1.12 3.20a(r = 0.03) 1.06 50.27⁎⁎⁎

My parents treat me fairly

Algeria 3.61 0.81 3.54 0.91 – – 0.39
Colombia 3.72 0.71 3.61a(r = 0.07) 0.86 3.47 1.10 7.87⁎
Estonia 3.54 0.82 3.47 0.87 3.23b(r = 0.10)a(r = 0.08) 1.05 11.94⁎⁎
Ethiopia 3.24 1.17 3.06a(r = 0.05) 1.28 – – 4.41⁎
Germany 3.38 0.95 3.32 0.89 3.11a(r = 0.09) 1.12 13.34⁎⁎
Israel 3.57 0.85 3.64 0.78 3.41 1.00 3.47
Norway 3.65 0.78 3.57 0.89 3.36b(r = 0.11)a(r = 0.14) 1.01 31.97⁎⁎⁎
Spain 3.64 0.75 3.39a(r = 0.10) 0.96 3.45a(r = 0.08) 0.87 34.22⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 3.04 1.43 2.84 1.61 2.93 1.40 1.86
UK 3.56 0.82 3.43 0.97 3.32a(r = 0.08) 1.04 12.39⁎⁎
Total 3.49 1.00 3.42a(r = 0.03) 0.97 3.31b(r = 0.06)a(r = 0.06) 1.04 61.34⁎⁎⁎

Note. Range: 0–4.

a(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in two-parents families.
b(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in single-parent families.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

parent families and separated families. In Germany, Norway, Turkey
and the UK children living in separated families were less engaged in
talking together with the family than those living with both parents. In
Spain, on the other hand, those living in separated families reported a
higher frequency of talking together with the family.
The results regarding having fun together were a bit more obvious.
Differences were found in six countries; in all of them children living in
two-parent families had the highest frequency of having fun together
with the family. In Estonia, Germany, Spain and the UK differences
were found between this group and the other two groups. In Algeria and
Colombia differences were found only with children living in single-
parent families. No differences were found between children living in
single-parent families and children living in separated families.
Differences between the groups were found in all countries except
Algeria and Estonia in the last activities of learning together with fa-
mily. Similar to having fun together, children living in two-parent fa-
milies had the highest frequency with the exception of Ethiopia where
children living in single-parent families reported a higher frequency of
learning together with the family than those living in two-parent fa-
milies. In three countries – Germany, Spain and the UK – children living
in two-parent families had the highest frequency compared to both
children living in separated families and those living in single-parent
families. In Israel, Norway and Turkey differences were found only
between children living in two-parent families and children living in

6
T. Dinisman et al. Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Differences in family relationships (satisfaction) in different family structures by country: Kruskal-Wallis (H) and Mann-Whitney U post-hoc tests.

Two-parents families Single parent families Separated families H

M SD M SD M SD

Satisfaction with the people you live with

Algeria 9.17 2.01 9.08 2.12 – – 0.13
Colombia 9.39 1.59 8.91a(r = 0.12) 2.17 9.13a(r = 0.07) 1.57 25.80⁎⁎⁎
Estonia 9.28 1.58 9.02 1.88 8.26b(r = 0.09)a(r = 0.14) 2.41 33.33⁎⁎⁎
Ethiopia 8.57 2.05 8.11a(r = 0.05) 2.57 – – 4.86⁎
Germany 9.32 1.36 8.95a(r = 0.06) 1.87 8.62b(r = 0.13)a(r = 0.16) 1.88 46.92⁎⁎⁎
Israel 9.31 1.63 9.19 2.03 8.85a(r = 0.08) 2.09 8.69⁎
Norway 9.53 1.17 9.42 1.39 9.01b(r = 0.14)a(r = 0.07) 1.73 35.54⁎⁎⁎
Spain 9.39 1.47 8.75a(r = 0.12) 2.18 8.82a(r = 0.13) 1.90 67.89⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 9.58 1.47 9.62 1.14 8.85b(r = 0.22)a(r = 0.09) 1.94 17.42⁎⁎⁎
UK 9.28 1.54 8.96a(r = 0.08) 1.84 8.63b(r = 0.11)a(r = 0.16) 1.95 49.87⁎⁎⁎
Total 9.28 1.64 8.90a(r = 0.07) 2.05 8.78b(r = 0.08)a(r = 0.11) 1.92 256.01⁎⁎⁎

Satisfaction with your family life

Algeria 9.58 1.41 9.24a(r = 0.05) 1.97 – – 4.92⁎
Colombia 9.54 1.37 9.25a(r = 0.08) 1.86 9.23a(r = 0.07) 1.56 13.33⁎⁎
Estonia 9.31 1.46 8.84a(r = 0.13) 1.88 8.29b(r = 0.09)a(r = 0.14) 2.35 55.41⁎⁎⁎
Ethiopia 8.61 2.08 7.95a(r = 0.08) 2.63 – – 12.26⁎⁎⁎
Germany 9.26 1.46 8.58a(r = 0.12) 2.19 8.29b(r = 0.10)a(r = 0.20) 2.15 79.58⁎⁎⁎
Israel 9.39 1.47 9.10 2.07 8.76a(r = 0.10) 2.03 13.99⁎⁎
Norway 9.41 1.25 9.17 1.57 8.90b(r = 0.11)a(r = 0.15) 1.65 42.09⁎⁎⁎
Spain 9.32 1.39 8.61a(r = 0.13) 2.20 8.45a(r = 0.15) 2.23 83.62⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 9.68 1.25 9.59 1.26 8.47b(r = 0.29)a(r = 0.14) 2.56 41.42⁎⁎⁎
UK 9.22 1.56 8.53a(r = 0.17) 2.13 8.53a(r = 0.15) 1.94 78.95⁎⁎⁎
Total 9.34 1.51 8.81a(r = 0.11) 2.09 8.60b(r = 0.09)a(r = 0.14) 2.03 480.41⁎⁎⁎

Satisfaction with all the other people in your family

Algeria 8.80 2.42 8.50 2.46 – – 0.37
Colombia 9.31 1.69 9.01a(r = 0.07) 2.10 9.15 1.63 8.65⁎
Estonia 8.34 2.80 8.02a(r = 0.08) 2.80 7.99 3.08 10.98⁎⁎
Ethiopia 7.75 2.83 7.38a(r = 0.05) 2.88 – – 4.23⁎
Germany 9.26 1.31 8.73a(r = 0.09) 1.87 8.75a(r = 0.13) 1.65 38.47⁎⁎⁎
Israel 9.34 1.59 9.55 1.27 9.06 2.02 2.79
Norway 9.58 1.07 9.21a(r = 0.08) 1.65 9.16a(r = 0.18) 1.31 57.56⁎⁎⁎
Spain 9.19 1.55 8.67a(r = 0.10) 2.03 8.87a(r = 0.05) 1.83 28.75⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 8.87 2.40 8.21 3.09 8.17a(r = 0.06) 2.70 9.88⁎⁎
UK 9.11 1.73 8.48a(r = 0.13) 2.20 8.69a(r = 0.09) 2.01 43.74⁎⁎⁎
Total 8.93 2.12 8.52a(r = 0.07) 2.39 8.83a(r = 0.04) 1.91 114.15⁎⁎⁎

Note. Range: 0–10.

a(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in two-parent families.
b(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in single-parent families.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

separated families and in Colombia these differences were found only
with children living in single-parent families. Only in Turkey differ-
ences were also found between children living in single-parent families
and children living in separated families, the latter had the lowest
frequency of learning together with family.
3.3. Family structure and overall SWB
Two scales were used to assess the children's overall SWB: a mod-
ified version of SLSS as a domain-free scale and the PWI-SC as domain-
specific scale. Starting with SLSS, as shown in Table 7, differences be-
tween the three groups of children were found in all countries except
for Algeria and Israel. In most of the countries – Estonia, Germany,
Norway, Spain and the UK – children living in two-parent families had a
higher score than those living in single-parent families and children
living in separated families. In addition, in Colombia and Ethiopia si-
milar differences were found, but only with those living in single-parent
families. Only in Turkey differences were not found between these two
groups - in this country children living in separated families had the
lowest score compared to the other two groups.
Similar, yet somewhat distinctive, results were found as regards
PWI-SC. In most countries, except Algeria, Israel and Colombia,
differences were found between the three groups of children. Here too
in Estonia, Germany, Spain and the UK children living in two-parent
families had a higher score than children in the other two groups. In
Ethiopia differences were found only with children living in single-
parent family (differences with separated families were not tested). In
Norway and Turkey only children living in separated families had a
lower score than children living in two-parent families. No differences
were found between children living in single-parent families and those
living in separated families.
4. Discussion
We found that children living with both parents are happier with
their family relationships. This trend was found in all participant
countries, although it was less prevalent in Israel and Algeria, despite a
wide range of countries (and cultures) participating in the study and a
diversity in the distribution of the three family structures in these
countries. For example, children living in two-parent families tend to
agree more that they feel safe at home and have good time together
with their families. This trend is even stronger when satisfaction
questions were used; in all 10 countries children from two-parent fa-
milies are more satisfied with their family life and in nine countries

7
T. Dinisman et al. Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 6
Differences in frequency of family activities in different family structures by country: Kruskal-Wallis (H) and Mann-Whitney U post-hoc tests.

Two-parents families Single parent families Separated families H

M SD M SD M SD

How often family talk together

Algeria 2.54 0.75 2.49 0.77 – – 0.57
Colombia 2.21 0.85 2.05a(r = 0.08) 0.93 2.21 0.96 10.24⁎⁎⁎
Estonia 2.57 0.72 2.50 0.81 2.56 0.71 0.63
Ethiopia 1.95 1.02 1.96 1.03 – – 0.03
Germany 2.79 0.53 2.59a(r = 0.13) 0.68 2.65a(r = 0.09) 0.65 34.29⁎⁎⁎
Israel 2.48 0.78 2.33 0.94 2.41 0.75 2.22
Norway 2.76 0.57 2.75 0.64 2.67a(r = 0.07) 0.63 7.91⁎
Spain 2.57 0.58 2.46a(r = 0.15) 0.82 2.64b(r = 0.12)a(r = 0.05) 0.69 57.48⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 2.30 0.88 2.25 0.86 2.00a(r = 0.06) 0.89 6.92⁎
UK 2.62 0.65 2.46a(r = 0.12) 0.72 2.52a(r = 0.05) 0.71 24.77⁎⁎⁎
Total 2.50 0.79 2.35a(r = 0.07) 0.86 2.57b(r = 0.12)a(r = 0.02) 0.71 95.24⁎⁎⁎

How often family have fun together

Algeria 2.36 0.80 2.18a(r = 0.05) 0.89 – – 6.24⁎
Colombia 2.09 0.86 1.94a(r = 0.07) 0.93 1.89 0.99 9.18⁎
Estonia 1.92 0.81 1.80a(r = 0.05) 0.88 1.71a(r = 0.06) 0.83 8.70⁎
Ethiopia 1.79 1.00 1.74 1.02 0.39
Germany 2.25 0.75 2.04a(r = 0.08) 0.83 2.01a(r = 0.11) 0.80 25.94⁎⁎⁎
Israel 1.99 0.84 2.05 0.89 1.87 0.96 1.32
Norway 2.18 0.79 2.10 0.86 2.13 0.80 1.99
Spain 2.06 0.81 1.91a(r = 0.06) 0.88 1.83a(r = 0.09) 0.83 24.04⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 2.06 0.86 1.92 0.90 1.91 0.92 3.00
UK 2.19 0.78 2.04a(r = 0.07) 0.85 2.00a(r = 0.08) 0.81 17.19⁎⁎⁎
Total 2.10 0.85 1.95a(r = 0.05) 0.90 1.96a(r = 0.04) 0.84 79.19⁎⁎⁎

How often family learn together

Algeria 2.39 0.88 2.43 0.91 – – 1.10
Colombia 2.22 0.92 2.09a(r = 0.06) 0.99 2.08 1.03 6.24⁎
Estonia 1.62 1.03 1.50 1.00 1.40 1.05 6.47
Ethiopia 1.61 1.14 1.78a(r = 0.05) 1.05 – – 4.37⁎
Germany 1.67 0.92 1.33a(r = 0.12) 0.98 1.44a(r = 0.08) 1.02 29.06⁎⁎⁎
Israel 1.64 1.07 1.64 1.21 1.34a(r = 0.07) 1.07 6.54⁎
Norway 1.90 0.84 1.84 0.88 1.74a(r = 0.06) 0.93 6.35⁎
Spain 2.01 0.89 1.72a(r = 0.10) 0.99 1.73a(r = 0.08) 1.02 33.96⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 2.21 0.92 2.21 0.97 1.76b(r = 0.25)a(r = 0.08) 0.88 12.53⁎⁎
UK 1.73 0.94 1.55a(r = 0.08) 0.96 1.47a(r = 0.09) 0.96 22.76⁎⁎⁎
Total 1.93 0.99 1.78a(r = 0.05) 1.03 1.61b(r = 0.08)a(r = 0.08) 1.00 146.05⁎⁎⁎

Note. Range: 0–3.

a(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in two-parent families.
b(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in single-parent families.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

they are more satisfied with the people they live with. In most countries
children living with two parents also reported more joint family ac-
tivities than children from the other two groups.
Interestingly, it seems that in most of the countries children living in
single parent families and those living in separated families are more
similar than different, as not many differences were found between the
two groups in family relationships. Nevertheless, there are some dif-
ferences between children living in single parent families and separated
families, interestingly, the latter are less satisfied; children living in
separated families tend to be less satisfied with the people they live
with and their family life.
When we looked upon the overall SWB, the picture was rather si-
milar; the overall SWB of children living with both parents is higher
than in the other two groups, and there is no difference between chil-
dren living in single parent families and separated families.
Lastly, somewhat fewer differences between the groups were found
concerning socio-demographic characteristics, however the differences
found may help in understanding the differences located in family re-
lationship and overall SWB. In most of the countries children living
with both parents were less worried about the family money.
Remarkably, no differences were found between children living in
single-parent families and those living in separated families in any of
the countries. In two countries – Colombia and Estonia – girls are more
prevalent in single parent families. A higher prevalence of immigrant
children was found in single parent families in Spain and Norway.
Why do children from separated and single parent families have the
lower family and overall SWB? First, this may be related to the struc-
tural conditions of ‘other’ family types that were detailed in the inter-
diction; as long as a society supports a specific type of family – i.e. two-
adults nuclear family – and ignore major changes in family structures,
the situation of different family types will be fragile due to the socio-
economic background, insecurity and participation (e.g. in the labour
market). In addition, despite changes in the family structure, in many
countries there is still a cultural and social preference of families with
two parents, thus children who live in other family types may feel
different, or are subject to being bullied by their peers due to their
different family structure. All of these may affect their SWB. An inter-
esting finding is the lower SWB of children from separated and single
families is shared across a variety of countries with different welfare
systems. The impact of the welfare systems on children's SWB is beyond
the scope of this paper, however Bradshaw (2015) highlight the com-
plicity of such link. On the other hand, these findings may illuminate
that the structural conditions, described above, are still dominated re-
gardless of recent changes in family notion in Western countries.

8
T. Dinisman et al. Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 7
Differences in overall SWB in different family structures by country: Kruskal-Wallis (H) and Mann-Whitney U post-hoc tests.

Two-parents families Single parent families Separated families H

M SD M SD M SD

SLSS (modified)
Algeria 8.73 1.81 8.52 2.01 – – 0.15
Colombia 9.07 1.42 8.79a(r = 0.07) 1.73 8.89 1.59 8.37⁎
Estonia 8.51 1.76 7.97a(r = 0.12) 2.09 7.84a(r = 0.09) 2.03 38.18⁎⁎⁎
Ethiopia 8.24 1.89 7.64a(r = 0.10) 2.23 – – 16.98⁎⁎⁎
Germany 8.66 1.73 7.93a(r = 0.10) 2.33 7.69a(r = 0.17) 2.25 54.95⁎⁎⁎
Israel 8.92 1.76 8.66 2.08 8.75 1.94 1.61
Norway 9.11 1.39 8.49a(r = 0.11) 1.96 8.51a(r = 0.16) 1.80 57.44⁎⁎⁎
Spain 8.90 1.44 8.31a(r = 0.12) 1.94 8.20a(r = 0.13) 1.94 67.81⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 9.02 1.80 8.70 2.24 7.67b(r = 0.25)a(r = 0.10) 2.79 18.22⁎⁎⁎
UK 8.69 1.89 8.18a(r = 0.08) 2.28 8.07a(r = 0.11) 2.13 28.54⁎⁎⁎
Total 8.78 1.72 8.28a(r = 0.09) 2.09 8.20b(r = 0.04)a(r = 0.09) 2.05 243.82⁎⁎⁎

PWI-SC9
Algeria 8.76 1.19 8.64 1.34 – – 0.50
Colombia 9.29 0.94 9.20 0.97 9.19 0.92 3.39
Estonia 8.75 1.27 8.43a(r = 0.11) 1.38 8.41a(r = 0.06) 1.35 24.61⁎⁎⁎
Ethiopia 8.28 1.32 7.96a(r = 0.07) 1.49 – – 8.95⁎⁎
Germany 8.83 1.11 8.46a(r = 0.07) 1.47 8.37a(r = 0.13) 1.33 31.34⁎⁎⁎
Israel 8.93 1.25 8.75 1.67 8.81 1.35 1.71
Norway 9.07 1.00 8.98 1.01 8.79a(r = 0.10) 1.19 16.50⁎⁎⁎
Spain 8.86 1.13 8.57a(r = 0.09) 1.29 8.64a(r = 0.08) 1.09 28.71⁎⁎⁎
Turkey 9.25 1.17 9.13 1.42 8.81a(r = 0.06) 1.41 7.01⁎
UK 8.69 1.43 8.39a(r = 0.08) 1.58 8.32a(r = 0.09) 1.51 22.73⁎⁎⁎
Total 8.86 1.23 8.62a(r = 0.06) 1.40 8.61a(r = 0.06) 1.30 105.30⁎⁎⁎

Note. Range: 0–10.

a(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in two-parent families.
b(r = effect size) Significantly lower than living in single-parent families.
⁎
p < 0.05.
⁎⁎
p < 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001.

Exploration of this subject is just emerging and more research is
needed.
Second, socio-economic status (SES) may help explain these results.
The contribution of SES to children's SWB appears to be complex. On a
macro level, the impact of SES seems to be small and cross-country
differences in economic status do not seem to influence differences in
SWB (Joo Lee & Sang Yoo, 2015), however perceived economic depri-
vation was found associated with lower SWB among children
(Main & Bradshaw, 2012). It may be that what mater is the relative
perception of the child of his/her family's economic deprivation com-
pared to other children, than the family's SES, as measured by objective
indicators. In addition, Main (2014) suggests that family can also act as
a mediator force between the economic status of a household and the
perceived material status of a child. Thus, two-parent families may have
more capacities to ease the negative effect of poverty than single-parent
or separated families with the same SES.
Third, Dinisman et al. (2012) found that children living with one
parent have the less stable lives, while children living with two parents
lead much more stable lives. In that study, stability appears as a key
factor in the SWB of children. Children of separated families, and to
some extent of single-parent families, may experience more changes in
their lives. As a separation of the parents may lead not only to the
change in their family and who they live with, but also to possible
changes in their living arrangements, accommodations and, as a result,
a change of their school and friends. All of these are very significant
factors in children's lives.
Furthermore, when discussing differences between two-parent fa-
milies and other types of families, the concept of ‘quality of relation-
ship’ should be highlighted. From the literature it is well known that
this has an impact on children's well-being. Being treated fairly by
parents (or other adults), having a good time together, having a place to
learn, parents (or other adults) listening to the child, parents interested
in children's opinions and safety are the relevant items to describe the
concept of family relations. This understanding has a normative basis
on “good parenting” (middle class based) and maybe it does not fit to
other cultural attitudes between countries and within countries. The
quality of relationship could also be measured by the time the family
members spend together. We defined this with three items: having fun
together, talking together and learning together. This as well tends to
be a normative concept of a “good” (middle class) family life (Lareau,
2003).
Another key aspect of the current findings is the differences between
children from separated families and single parent families. As men-
tioned above, almost no differences were found between the two
groups, that is to say that despite the differences between countries and
cultures, it seems that in general children from single-parent families
and children from separated families are more similar than different.
This may reflect similar life circumstances, mentioned above – per-
ceived deprivation, less stability in the child life, being different than
the majority of the children or the cultural consensus and the stress
impose on the family relationship – between the two groups, the con-
tribute to the similarities found. Nevertheless, children living in sepa-
rated families tend to be less satisfied with the people they live with and
their family life. This may be due to the change in family relationships
and everyday life due to the breakdown (Kalmijn, 2013). For example,
children of separated parents cannot see and spend time with their
parents at the same time as they used to before the separation.
Additionally, there may be children from separated families who are
the subject of conflict between their parents or who blame themselves
for the family breakdown. Some researchers propose that parents' di-
vorce has an even worse impact on a child than his/her parent's death
(e.g. Mack, 2001). This is mainly the case in high conflict situations
before the divorce, during the process of separation and after the formal
divorce. In high conflict separated families children often have inner
conflicts with their loyalty to the parents. This shifts the attention from
the family structure itself to the importance of parent-child and parent-

9
T. Dinisman et al.
parent relationship to children's SWB. This stress the need of more re-
search on a comparative level because of different legal norms on e.g.
“visitation rights” and their impact on children's SWB.
4.1. Limitations
Despite these important findings, some limitations of our study
should be addressed. First, the division into types of family structures
was based on the children's views of those they live with; the children
were asked if they lived with their mother or father and not if this
person was their biological parent, thus it is possible that for some
children who were included in the two-parent group the person they
defined as their mother or father may not be the biological parent.
Secondly, although the classification of the groups includes some of the
main types of families, we were unable to explore all of the possible
family structures (e.g. foster families or families where parents re-
married) due to low number of children in these groups. Future re-
search should focus on other types of family structures. Thirdly, the
current data available to us did not include how long the children have
been in a particular family structure. It may be an important factor in
explaining differences between the groups, especially in terms of
changes in their lives. Lastly, the present study did not focus on other
family members that may be taking part in caring for the child (e.g.
grandparents), since in some families grandparents may play a crucial
role in childcare (e.g. in assisting in the everyday care or providing
emotional support for children when their family is going through
changes), therefore this factor should be considered in the future re-
search.
4.2. Conclusion
The present study examines differences in family relationship, fa-
mily SWB and overall SWB of children aged 10–12 from three different
living arrangements from 10 countries around the world. Our findings
indicate that children living with both parents are happier, both in
family SWB and overall SWB. Not many differences were found be-
tween the last two groups, namely these children are quite similar in
their perceptions and evaluations of their family and their overall SWB.
However, children living in separated families tend to be less satisfied
with the people they live with and their family life. These results ac-
counts for differing structures and parenting values and styles in dif-
ferent cultures.
The current research focuses on children's living conditions linked
to family types and resources, number of adults and so on. However, the
future research should go beyond this information and explore in more
detail other aspects of the family, which may also help in explaining the
above results: the roles family members play from a child's point of
view, power relations, shared goods, and child labour expected by the
family. Other topics of interest are also important when looking at
differences between family structures and should be explored further.
First, the current research did not include information on relationships
with relevant peers in the family like siblings – this is an important
factor in family life that should be explored in the future. Another
important issue here is the notion of care. The children's expectation to
be cared for within the family seems to be universal, whereas the kind
of care, in particular the idea care, differs. Having children cared for by
their grandparents or transferring children to a children's home as in
the cases of parents being migrant laborers is an accepted type of care.
The current research indicates that children from diverse family
structures (e.g. single-parent family and separated families) may be
more vulnerable than children living in a two-parent family across
various cultures and countries. It appears that there is no simple ex-
planation to the results, especially when a variety of countries is in-
volved. Thus proposed measures should be taken both at the macro-
level and the micro-level. Specific implications at the macro-level are
complex to be drawn; as such recommendations should be embedded in
10
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
each of the countries' welfare system. Nevertheless, the main macro
level recommendation is to aim to ease the strain and burden of families
in which two parents do not share the same house. This can be done, for
example, by benefits or labour market regulations, to reduce the gap
between two-parent families and other types of families in terms of
resource and parents' free time to be devoted to their children. At a
micro level, carers and services should pay special attention to families
and children following a major change in the family, family breakdown
or family conflict and offer support to reduce the emotional effect and
to strengthen family relationships.
References
Andresen, S., & Gerarts, K. (2014). Reconstructing children's concepts: Some theoretical
ideas and empirical findings on education and the good life. In D. Stoecklin, & J. M.
Bovin (Eds.), Children's rights and the capability approach (pp. 85–109). New York:
Springer.
Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Schneekloth, U. (2012). Care and freedom: Theoretical
and empirical aspects of children's well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 37–448.
Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frønes, I., & Korbin, J. (2014). Multifaceted concept of child
well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook of child
well-being (pp. 1–28). New York: Springer.
Bjarnason, T., Benstsen, P., Arnarsson, A. M., Borup, I., Iannotti, R. J., Lofstedt, P., ...
Niclasen, B. (2012). Life satisfaction among children in different family structures: A
comparative study of 36 western societies. Children and Society, 26, 51–62.
Bradshaw, J. (2015). Subjective well-being and social policy: Can nations make their
children happier? Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 227–241.
Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the
European Union. Social Indicators Research, 80(1), 133–177.
Bumpass, L. L., & Raley, R. K. (1995). Redefining single-parent families: Cohabitation and
changing family reality. Demography, 32(1), 97–109.
Casas, F. (2011). Subjective social indicators and child and adolescent well-being. Child
Indicators Research, 4, 555–575.
Casas, F., Bălţătescu, S., Bertran, I., Gonzalez, M., & Hatos, A. (2013). School satisfaction
among adolescents: Testing different indicators for its measurement and its re-
lationship with overall life satisfaction and subjective well-being in Romania and
Spain. Social Indicators Research, 111(3), 665–681.
Casas, F., Bello, A., Gonzalez, M., & Aligue, M. (2012). Personal well-being among
Spanish adolescents. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3(2), 19–45.
Cliquet, R. (2003). Major trends affecting families in the new millennium: Western
Europe and North America. United Nations, major trends affecting families. A back-
ground document. Prepared by the programme on the family (pp. 1–26). New York:
United Nations.
Cummins, R., & Lau, A. (2005). Personal well-being index - school children. Melbourne:
School of Psychology, Deakin University.
Dinisman, T., Montserrat, C., & Casas, F. (2012). The subjective well-being of Spanish
adolescents: Variations according to different living arrangements. Children and Youth
Services Review, 34(12), 2374–2380.
Dockett, S. (2013). Transition to school: Normative or relative? In B. Perry, S. Dockett, &
A. Petriwskyj (Eds.), Transition to school: International research, policy and practice.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Dunn, J., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Children's views of their changing families. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Easton, C., Featherstone, G., Poet, H., Aston, H., Gee, G., & Durbin, B. (2012). Supporting
families with complex needs: Findings from LARC 4. Slough: NFER.
Eurostat (2015). Smarter, greener, more inclusive? – Indicators to support the Europe 2020
strategy – 2015 edition. http://dx.doi.org/10.2785/55853.
Flaquer, L. (2014). Family-related factors influencing child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F.
Casas, I. Frønes, & J. Korbin (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods
and policies in global perspective. Vol. 4. Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods
and policies in global perspective (pp. 2229–2255). New York: Springer.
Huebner, E. S. (1991). Initial development of the student's life satisfaction scale. School
Psychology International, 12(3), 231–240.
Joo Lee, B., & Sang Yoo, M. (2015). Family, school, and community correlates of chil-
dren's subjective well-being: An international comparative study. Child Indicators
Research, 8(1), 151–175.
Jurczyk, K., & Klinkhardt, J. (2014). Vater, mutter, kind? Acht trends in familien, die politik
heute kennen sollte. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Kalmijn, M. (2013). Long-term effects of divorce on parent–child relationships: Within-
family comparisons of fathers and mothers. European Sociological Review, 29(5),
888–898.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CL: University
of California Press.
Lenze, A. (2014). Alleinerziehende unter Druck. Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen, finanzielle
Lage und Reformbedarf. Gütersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Paper
presented at the conference on “fertility in the history of the 20th century – Trends, the-
ories, public discourses, and policies,” Akademia Leopoldina & Berlin-Brandenburgische
Akademie, January 21–23, 2010.
Maccoby, E. E., Depner, C. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1988). Custody of children following
divorce. In E. M. Hetherington, & J. D. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce, single par-
enting, and stepparenting on children (pp. 91–112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
T. Dinisman et al.
Associates.
Mack, K. Y. (2001). Childhood family disruptions and adult well-being: The differential
effects of divorce and parental death. Death Studies, 25(5), 419–443.
Madge, N., & Willmott, N. (2007). Children's views and experiences of parenting. York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Main, G. (2014). Child poverty and children's subjective well-being. Child Indicators
Research, 7(3), 451–472.
Main, G., & Bradshaw, J. (2012). A child material deprivation index. Child Indicators
Research, 5(3), 503–521.
McCall, L., & Percheski, C. (2010). Income inequality: New trends and research directions.
Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 329–347.
Montserrat, C., Dinisman, T., Bălţătescu, S., Grigoraş, B. A., & Casas, F. (2015). The effect
of critical changes and gender on adolescents' subjective well-being: Comparisons
across 8 countries. Child Indicators Research, 8(1), 111–131.
Mortelmans, D., Matthijs, K., Alofs, E., & Segaert, B. (2016). Introduction: A view through
the family kaleidoscope. In D. Mortelmans, K. Matthijs, E. Alofs, & B. Segaert (Eds.),
Changing family dynamic and demographic evolution: The family kaleidoscope (pp. 1–12).
UK: Edward Elgar.
Navarro, D., Montserrat, C., Malo, S., González, M., Casas, F., & Crous, G. (2015).
Subjective well-being: What do adolescents say? Child & Family Social Work. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12215.
11
View publication stats
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
OECD (2011). Doing better for families; chapter 1 families are changing (Retrieved from:)
www.oecd.org/social/family/doingbetter.
Quilgars, D., Searle, B., & Keung, A. (2005). Mental health and well-being. In J. Bradshaw,
& E. Mayhew (Eds.), The well-being of children in the UK (pp. 134–160). (2nd edition).
London: Save the Children.
Rees, G., Bradshaw, J., Goswami, H., & Keung, A. (2010). Understanding children's well-
being: A national survey of young people's well-being. London: The Children's Society.
Rees, G., Goswami, H., Pople, L., Bradshaw, J., Keung, A., & Main, G. (2012). The good
childhood report. UK: The Children's Society and University of York.
Rees, G., & Main, G. (Eds.), (2015). Children's views on their lives and well-being in 15
countries: An initial report on the children's worlds survey, 2013-14. UK: Children's
Worlds Project (ISCWeB).
Richter, M., & Andresen, S. (2012). The politicization of parenthood. Shifting private and
public responsibilities in education and child rearing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Scott, M. E., Bradford, W. W., Ryberg, R., & DeRose, L. (2015). No one best way: Work,
family, and happiness the world over. Bethesda, MD: The World Family Map c/o Child
Trends.
Siegel, S. (1957). Nonparametric statistics. The American Statistician, 11(3), 13–19.
The United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3.