The role of family structure in shaping psychological experiences of emerging adults: A mixed methods study

Abstract

Background:

Family structure plays a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ psychological development, particularly during emerging adulthood.

Aim:

In India, where joint and nuclear family systems coexist, understanding how these structures influence psychological variables such as conformity, loneliness, perceived self-efficacy, psychological distancing, and the need for affiliation is critical.

Method:

This study employed a mixed-methods approach to examine these variables among 470 emerging adults (298 females, 172 males) aged 18 to 25 years, recruited from urban and semi-urban areas in India. Quantitative data were collected using standardized tools, while qualitative insights were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 20 participants.

Results:

Quantitative results revealed that emerging adults from joint families reported significantly higher levels of self-efficacy compared to those from nuclear families (U = 18,945, p = .03), while no significant differences were found in loneliness (U = 25,140, p = .73) or conformity (U = 20,735, p = .57). A weak negative correlation was found between loneliness and self-efficacy (rs = −.20, p < .05), indicating that higher loneliness is associated with lower self-efficacy. Qualitative findings highlighted the role of family as a source of emotional security, with technology bridging emotional gaps across family types. Participants exhibited a present-focused planning mindset, emphasizing adaptability over rigid long-term goals. Both joint and nuclear family participants relied on familial and peer networks to fulfill affiliative needs, though the nature of these networks varied by family structure.

Conclusion:

The study concludes that while joint families were associated with higher self-efficacy, both family types provided emotional security and fulfilled affiliative needs in distinct ways. These findings underscore the importance of considering both structural and relational aspects of family dynamics in understanding young adults’ psychological well-being. Future research should explore these dynamics across different cultural contexts and age groups to identify universal and culture-specific patterns.

Keywords

Family structure conformity loneliness self-efficacy psychological distancing need for affiliation young adults India mixed-methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Antony

Manikandan

(2015). Family structure and self-efficacy: A study among emerging adults in India. Journal of Indian Psychology, 33(2), 45–56.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Aronson

Wilson

T. D.

Akert

R. M.

(2013). Social psychology (8th ed.). Pearson.

Ashford

S. J.

Caza

B. B.

Reid

E. M.

(2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001

Babalola

M. T.

Kwan

H. K.

Ren

Agyemang-Mintah

Chen

(2021). Being ignored by loved ones: Understanding when and why family ostracism inhibits creativity at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2499

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Baym

N. K.

Zhang

Y. B.

Lin

(2004). Social interactions across media. New Media & Society, 6(3), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041438

Bhatt

Bahadur

(2020). A study of family structure, self-efficacy, and achievement motivation among young adults. Adhyayan: A Journal of Management Sciences, 10(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.21567/adhyayan.v10i1.5

Bizer

G. Y.

Krosnick

J. A.

Holbrook

A. L.

Wheeler

S. C.

Rucker

D. D.

Petty

R. E.

(2014). The social norm espousal scale: Development and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035472

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

11.

Brown

(2020). Bowen family systems theory and practice: Illustration and critique. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 41(2), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1415

12.

Demir

Özdemir

Weitekamp

L. A.

(2020). Looking to happy tomorrows with friends: Best and close friendships as they predict happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 243–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00191-x

13.

Diehl

Jansen

Ishchanova

Hilger-Kolb

(2018). Loneliness at universities: Determinants of emotional and social loneliness among students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9), 1865. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15091865

14.

Dissanayake

Kodagoda

(2021). Impact of need for affiliation on the relationship between emotional intelligence and integrating style of conflict resolution. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Management, 17, 5221. https://doi.org/10.31357/icbm.v17.5221

15.

Gerber

G. L.

(1977). Family schemata in families of symptomatic and normal children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(S1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197701)33:1+<43::AID-JCLP2270330108>3.0.CO;2-V

16.

Hawkley

L. C.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8

17.

Hesse

Rauscher

E. A.

Goodman

R. B.

Courrette

M. A.

(2017). Reconceptualizing the role of conformity behaviors in family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 17(4), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1347568

18.

Honmore

V. M.

Jadhav

M. G.

(2017). Self-efficacy and emotional intelligence among college youth with respect to family type and gender. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 587–590. https://doi.org/10.15614/ijpp/2017/v8i4/165881

19.

Jiang

Bong

Kim

(2015). Conformity of Korean adolescents in their perceptions of social relationships and academic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.04.012

20.

Khan

Shahbaz

(2018). Levels of loneliness and family structure among geriatrics. ResearchGate. https://www.walshmedicalmedia.com/open-access/levels-of-loneliness-and-family-structure-amp-geriatrics-2475-319X-1000135.pdf

21.

Kim

H. S.

Markus

H. R.

(1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785

22.

Manalel

J. A.

Antonucci

T. C.

(2019). Beyond the nuclear family: Children’s social networks and depressive symptomology. Child Development, 91(4), 1302–1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13307

23.

McClelland

D. C.

(1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand.

24.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2020). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

25.

Nowland

Necka

E. A.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2021). Loneliness and social internet use: Pathways to reconnection in a digital world? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620954110

26.

Omasu

Takasawa

Tan

(2016). Psychological distancing and mental health outcomes: A review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(5), 456–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22268

27.

Ratner

(2008). Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: Scientific and political considerations. New York: Springer.

28.

Rosander

Eriksson

(2012). Conformity on the internet: The role of task difficulty and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1587–1595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.023

29.

Russell

D. W.

(1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2

30.

Saporta

Scheele

Lieberz

Stuhr-Wulff

Hurlemann

Shamay-Tsoory

S. G.

(2021). Opposing association of situational and chronic loneliness with interpersonal distance. Brain Sciences, 11(9), 1135. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091135

31.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman

Wright

Johnston

(Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.

32.

Singh

Udainiya

(2009). Self-efficacy and well-being of adolescents. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 227–232.

33.

Tan

Liu

(2018). The influence of psychological distance on ambiguity decision making: A perspective based on the construal level theory. Psychology, 9(5), 997–1004. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.95063

34.

Trope

Liberman

(2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963

35.

Weiss

R. S.

(1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT Press.