Childhood family structure describes the constellation of familial relationships and living arrangements in which early life development occurs (Grüning Parache et al., 2024). Among a range of potential caregiving and living configurations, the nuclear family—defined as two biological parents in a long-term cohabiting relationship raising their children together—is often a benchmark against which other family structures are compared (Russell & Su-Russell, 2024). Family structure research has traditionally emphasized categorical distinctions, such as nuclear versus nonnuclear households, to explain differences in offspring well-being. A significant body of research has suggested that children raised in nuclear families generally demonstrate better physical, emotional, and social outcomes than those raised in other family structures, including single-parent, stepfamily, or nonkin households (Izzo et al., 2024; Jarvis et al., 2023). These findings contribute to a widespread assumption that the nuclear family represents the most beneficial and healthful developmental context. Despite the extensive literature on childhood outcomes, it remains unclear whether—and how—time spent in a childhood nuclear family has lasting implications for adult wellness.

 

Understanding long-term implications of childhood family structure requires moving beyond simple family type categorizations and toward a more developmental perspective. The notion that family structure itself can adequately explain the complexity of familial influence on long-term wellness is increasingly challenged, as family structure is better understood as a representation of complex relational systems rather than as a direct determinant of well-being (Sear, 2021). The childhood family structure not only describes who is present in the household; it reflects ongoing exposure to relational systems that shape access to resources, quality and duration of parental care, emotional regulation, and social learning, thus affecting wellness (Umberson & Thomeer, 2020). Associations between time in childhood family structures and adult outcomes is developmental, cumulative, and internalized over time (Umberson & Thomeer, 2020). With respect to the nuclear family, more time in this setting during childhood does not guarantee positive relational experiences. Nuclear families display complex and variable emotional states, relationship qualities, organization, and overall functionality, with health and wellness impacts depending on the nature of those processes and factors over time (Cepukiene & Celiauskaite, 2022). In summary, time in the childhood nuclear family may be better conceptualized as the duration of exposure to a relational environment, rather than a proxy for the quality of a family structure.

 

Research examining associations between childhood family structure and adult outcomes is complex. Results and interpretation depend on how childhood family structure is approached. Much of the literature has focused on family disruption as a childhood adversity marker, with divorce or separation during childhood associated with worse adult mental and physical health and life satisfaction (Liu & Ren, 2024). Time in the childhood nuclear family is often studied as a contrast to disrupted family structures. Moreover, given that associations between childhood family structure and adult outcomes are developmental, cumulative, and influenced over time (Umberson & Thomeer, 2020), it is also important to explore the relational systems and environmental aspects that could mediate or moderate how time in childhood family structures carries forward to affect adult outcomes (Cepukiene & Celiauskaite, 2022).

 

Support during adulthood is a health-relevant component of relational systems and environments that is associated with childhood family structures, and also health and life satisfaction across the lifespan (Ramos et al., 2022). Early family environments provide the first context in which individuals learn how interpersonal relationships function, emotional needs are expressed and met, and support is accessed or maintained (Yan et al., 2025). Links between early and ongoing life circumstances and one’s ability to access social capital as an adult suggest the skills necessary to solicit, and opportunities to access, support are in part founded in childhood family social environments (Kirkbride et al., 2024). For example, a stable childhood family characterized by quality relationships increases probability of access to support (Han et al., 2023). Further, the childhood nuclear family can provide opportunities for offspring to learn social skills and strategies for acquiring support resources as adults (Li et al., 2023). Consistent with this evidence, children from nonnuclear families are more likely to have difficulty learning how to develop internal and external resources (He et al., 2025), be socially isolated (Kier & Fung, 2014), and have poor relationship models (Chavda & Nisarga, 2023). In other words, stable nuclear family contexts may provide opportunities to model effective relational behaviors, facilitate the maintenance of long-term familial bonds, and increase access to kin-based support networks into adulthood, while nonnuclear childhood family structures may involve disruptions or reduced access to familial resources, shaping support availability later in life.

 

In the context of childhood family structure and adult outcomes, adult or current support could operate in two distinct ways. First, support could operate as a mediator, with more time in a childhood nuclear family predicting greater availability of support in adulthood and, in turn, predicting better wellness. As evidence for this, a longitudinal cohort study of 7,951 United Kingdom adults used prospective data collected from individuals from birth to adulthood to examine associations between parental separation and health as mediated by support (Stannard et al., 2022). Parental separation before the age of 10 years was associated with adult hypertension, as mediated by a decline in support (Stannard et al., 2022). Although this suggests that the family structure during childhood can shape adult outcomes through support-related pathways, no studies have tested support as a mediator linking time in childhood nuclear family and adult wellness.

 

Second, adult or current support could function as a moderator, buffering any adverse effects of limited or disrupted exposure to a childhood nuclear family. The stress-buffering model (Cohen & Wills, 1985) posits that supportive relationships mitigate the impact of stress and adversity on health across the lifespan (Lam, 2024). From this perspective, adults who spent less time in a childhood nuclear family experience poor wellness under conditions of low current support, whereas high levels of current support could attenuate or eliminate such associations. Recent studies have suggested this as a possibility, for example, one study from the Netherlands (N = 24,172) found that positive parent–child relationships following divorce buffered negative effects on adult well-being (Van Spijker et al., 2022). Similarly, resilience research has demonstrated that supportive adult relationships mitigate some of the long-term impacts of childhood adversity (Bornscheuer et al., 2024). Whether support moderates associations between time in the childhood nuclear family and adult outcomes is not clear.

 

The effect of support on adult outcomes tends to vary depending on the source of the support. For instance, support from family members, friends, and intimate partners reflects qualitatively different relational processes and may each play distinct roles in health and well-being (Ahmed, 2024). Kin-based support could reflect long-term stress buffering and health benefits derived from ongoing positive relationships and access to longstanding familial networks (Patterson & Margolis, 2023), whereas support from friends or intimate partners may represent relational agency and ties to chosen family developed during adulthood. Indeed, evidence has suggested that support provided by different relational sources—such as family members, friends, and intimate partners—uniquely and independently predicts adult well-being, including life satisfaction (Kaufman et al., 2022). Despite this, many studies have consolidated sources of support, and few have examined whether the role of support in the relationship between childhood family structure and adult wellness varies by relational source.

 

Taken together, associations between time in a childhood nuclear family and adult wellness are likely to be indirect, complex, and relationally specific. Family structure alone may not produce direct effects on adult outcomes; instead, its influence may be carried through access to supportive systems (mediation) or by the quality and availability of adult social ties (moderation). No studies have examined support as both a mediator and a moderator of associations between time spent in a childhood nuclear family and adult wellness, nor have they systematically compared different support sources. The present study examined whether time spent in a childhood nuclear family is associated with adult or current wellness (i.e., health and life satisfaction), and whether support—whether it is total support or support from a specific source: family, friends, intimate partner—mediates or moderates these associations. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: More time in a childhood nuclear family will be associated with better adult health and life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Support will mediate the associations between childhood nuclear family exposure and adult outcomes.

Hypothesis 3: Support will moderate the associations between childhood nuclear family exposure and adult outcomes, such that higher levels of current or adult support will buffer any adverse effects of limited time in a childhood nuclear family.

We recruited undergraduate students in lower-level psychology courses from the psychology research pool at an open, online university (October 2019 to June 2020) for a study on social relationships, personality, and adult development. Inclusion criteria included being an adult (≥ 18 years old). Of those recruited, 518 students consented, 485 began the survey, and 483 met inclusion criteria. Information on key variables (i.e., time in childhood nuclear family, support, health, and life satisfaction) was provided by 464 students. Of these participants, 18 did not provide covariate data, resulting in a final sample of 446 participants. The participants in the final sample did not differ from those who were excluded due to missing covariate data, p > .272 for key variables. As shown in Table 1, most participants spent all their childhood in a nuclear family structure (66%), were female (84%), were on average 31 ± 9 years old, had tertiary education (88%), and completed data collection before the COVID-19 pandemic (70%). All procedures were reviewed and approved by the Athabasca University Research Ethics Board (23588).

 

After providing consent, participants completed survey measures querying time in childhood family structures and current support, health, and life satisfaction, as well as current and childhood sociodemographic information. Participants who completed the survey received course credit.

Participants were asked “For how many years did you reside in the following types of families while you were growing up?” The following options were included: both biological parents (i.e., married or common-law), same-sex parents, mother or father and a stepparent, single mother or single father (i.e., divorced or never married), grandparent household, or other household. “Childhood” was defined as infancy to 18 years. Participants were coded relative to the amount of time spent in the nuclear family (i.e., both biological parents, including married and common-law) according to Slade et al. (2017). For instance, all = 2, some = 1, and none of the 18 years of childhood in a nuclear family = 0.

 

We measured current social support (abbreviated as “support”) using the Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Support (Zimet et al., 1988). The scale comprises 12 items about support from family, friends, and intimate partners, with each dimension containing four items that query emotional help, communication, and the sharing of emotions. An example statement is “I get the emotional help and support I need from my family.” Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Total scores capture overall support, ranging from 12 to 60. Three relationship-specific subscales were calculated for friends, family, and intimate partners, respectively. Subscale totals range from 4 to 20. Scores for total support and subscales were calculated by averaging responses and multiplying by the total number of items. Higher scores indicated higher support. For this scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .905.

 

We assessed self-reported health (abbreviated as “health”) using a single item (Idler & Benyamini, 1997): “How in general would you rate your health?” Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent.

 

We measured life satisfaction using the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), which comprises 10 items querying feelings of fulfilment and positivity relative to the conditions of life, such as “I am satisfied with my life.” Participants respond on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly disagree. Total scores range from 10 to 70. Scores were calculated by averaging responses and multiplying by the total number of items. Higher scores indicated higher life satisfaction. For this scale, the Cronbach’s alpha was .908.

 

Participants self-reported age (years) and sex (male, female). Current socioeconomic status was captured by the highest level of participant education. Childhood socioeconomic status was captured by the highest level of parental education (i.e., either mother or father). Both socioeconomic statuses were coded as less than high school (0); high school (1); some post-high school training (2); trade, technical, vocational, or college training (3); university graduate (4); and post-graduate training (5). The COVID-19 pandemic began partway during data collection. Given that the pandemic could have affected support access and well-being, a COVID-19 timing variable was also included. Participants were coded as completing the study before (0) or after (1) the pandemic started on March 15, 2020 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [US], 2024).

All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS 29.0. Mediation models tested both direct and indirect associations between time in childhood nuclear family and current outcomes (i.e., health, life satisfaction) using Model 4 of the SPSS 4.2 PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2022). Time in childhood nuclear family was entered as the predictor (X), support as the mediator (M) and health and life satisfaction as outcomes (Y) in separate models. Each model adjusted for all covariates. Models that tested different sources of support (i.e., family, friends, and intimate partners) included all sources simultaneously. The PROCESS macro produces: (a) linear regression models testing associations between time in childhood nuclear family and current support (path a), (b) linear regression models testing associations between time in childhood nuclear family, support and the outcome (i.e., health or life satisfaction) (paths b and c), and (c) bootstrapped estimates of the indirect effect (path ab) for each combination of predictor, mediator, and outcome. Indirect effect estimates were calculated using 5,000 bootstrapped resamples.

 

Moderation models were tested using Model 1 of the SPSS 4.2 PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2022). Time in childhood nuclear family (X) and support (W) were standardized prior to calculating the interaction term. Significant interactions were probed using the Johnson-Meyer technique (Preacher et al., 2004) to calculate (a) the predictor on outcome simple slopes for different moderator values, and (b) the regions of significance.

As shown in Table 1, more time in the childhood nuclear family was correlated with higher health, r = .12. Higher total support was associated with more time in the childhood nuclear family, r = .12, as well as higher levels of health, r = .25, and life satisfaction, r = .44. Only higher levels of family support were associated with more time in the childhood nuclear family, r = .20. Higher levels of friend, family, and intimate partner support were all significantly correlated with higher health and life satisfaction, r > .15.

We tested the direct associations between time in childhood nuclear family and current health and life satisfaction. Time in childhood nuclear family structure was not directly associated with health, b = 0.11, SE = 0.08, p = .14, or life satisfaction, b = 0.24, SE = 0.85, p = .78. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

We tested the indirect associations between time in childhood nuclear family and current outcomes as mediated by support. For health, time in the childhood nuclear family was indirectly associated with health through total support, b = 0.05, SE = 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.00, 0.10]. Specifically, more time in the childhood nuclear family was associated with higher total support, b = 1.91, SE = 0.76, p = .01, which was associated with higher levels of health, b = 0.02, SE = 0.00, p < .001.

 

To determine whether a specific relational source drove these results, we ran mediation models with each support subscale included. Family support mediated associations between time in childhood nuclear family and health, b = 0.06, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.02, 0.12], such that more time in the childhood nuclear family was associated with higher levels of family support, b = 1.44, SE = 0.34, p < .001, and higher family support was associated with higher levels of health, b = 0.04, SE = 0.01, p < .001 (see Figure 1A). Neither friend support, b = 0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.03], nor intimate partner support, b = 0.00, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.02], mediated associations between childhood family structure and health.

 

Further, time in childhood nuclear family was indirectly associated with life satisfaction through total support, b = 1.08, SE = 0.50, 95% CI [0.13, 2.11]. Specifically, more time in the childhood nuclear family was associated with higher total support, b = 1.96, SE = 0.77, p = .011, which was associated with higher life satisfaction, b = .55, SE = 0.05, p < .001. To determine whether a specific relational source of support was driving these results, we ran mediation models with each support subscale included. Again, family support mediated associations between time in the childhood nuclear family and life satisfaction, b = 0.73, SE = 0.28, 95% CI [0.26, 1.34], such that more time in the childhood nuclear family was associated with higher family support, b = 1.44, SE = 0.35, p < .001, which was associated with higher life satisfaction, b = 0.51, SE = 0.13, p <.001 (see Figure 1B). Neither friend support, b = 0.14, SE = 0.18, 95% CI [−0.20, 0.53], nor intimate partner support, b = 0.16, SE = 0.23, 95% CI [−0.26, 0.66], mediated associations between childhood family structure and life satisfaction. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

First, we ran models examining health. Although total support was associated with higher health, b = 0.02, SE = 0.00, p < .001, the interaction between total support and time in childhood nuclear family was not associated with health, b = −0.01, SE = 0.01, p = .128. Further, time in childhood nuclear family was not associated with health, b = 0.10, SE = 0.08, p = .174. We tested support subscales (i.e., friends, family, intimate partner) separately as moderators. None of these support subscales moderated associations between time in childhood nuclear family and outcomes, ps > .072.

 

For life satisfaction, although total support and family, friend, and intimate partner support were associated with higher life satisfaction in separate models, ps < .001, none of the support variables interacted with time in childhood nuclear family to predict life satisfaction, ps > .106. Time in childhood nuclear family was also not independently associated with life satisfaction, ps > .246. In sum, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

We examined whether time spent in a childhood nuclear family was associated with current health and life satisfaction, and whether support mediated or moderated any associations. Time in the childhood nuclear family was not directly associated with adult outcomes. Instead, more time in a childhood nuclear family was indirectly associated with better outcomes in adulthood through higher levels of family support. However, support did not moderate associations between time in the childhood nuclear family and current outcomes. These findings highlight the complexity of associations between time in childhood family structures and adult well-being, demonstrating the central role of different relational pathways in carrying early family experiences into adulthood.

 

The absence of significant direct effects may be explained by the operationalization of nuclear family in the present study. When exposure to a childhood nuclear family is measured as duration rather than as a categorical framework, family structure alone cannot capture relationship quality, social processes, or childhood family functioning (Cepukiene & Celiauskaite, 2022). Although the nuclear family is often assumed to represent the most beneficial structure (Jarvis et al., 2023), grouping all nonnuclear family forms did not produce poorer adult outcomes in our study, challenging assumptions about its inherent advantage and supporting calls to broaden how family structure is conceptualized (Sear, 2021). Family environments characterized by stable, supportive relationships—regardless of structure—may be more impactful than structure itself. Future research should prioritize relational pathways, including measures of family relationship quality and functioning, when studying long-term well-being outcomes.

 

Consistent with a relational framework, we found that the amount of time in a childhood nuclear family was indirectly associated with better adult health and life satisfaction through family support. More time in a childhood nuclear family was associated with higher levels of adult family support, which, in turn, was associated with better well-being. Extended time in a childhood nuclear family could reflect sustained access to family-based support networks. This aligns with prior research suggesting that bonds formed in childhood tend to predict long-term health and adult well-being (Fino et al., 2025), and that shared experiences in early family environments facilitate the creation and maintenance of long-term kinship ties that provide emotional and material support across the lifespan (Patterson & Margolis, 2023). Further, nuclear family structures characterized by low conflict and high emotional connectivity may be particularly important to sustaining parent–child bonds and extended familial relationships that carry into adulthood (Natiq, 2024). Thus, more time spent in a positive, functioning childhood nuclear family could increase access to a stable network of supportive family members, thereby indirectly predicting better adult well-being.

 

Notably, support from friends or intimate partners did not emerge as mediators. This suggests that time spent in a childhood nuclear family shapes one’s access to kin-based relationships specifically, rather than strengthening the acquisition of general social skills or the capacity to solicit effective support from nonfamilial sources. If time in a nuclear family structure enhanced general support-seeking skills, mediation effects would be expected across all sources of support. The observed pattern suggests that more time in a childhood nuclear family affects access to ongoing familial support, but not to the skills needed to solicit support overall.

 

Contrary to our hypotheses, support did not emerge as a significant moderator of associations between time in the childhood nuclear family and adult outcomes. This may indicate that support functions more as an independent contributor to adult outcomes, promoting well-being through relational pathways independent of childhood nuclear family (Bornscheuer et al., 2024; Lam, 2024). It is also possible that nonsignificant results reflect methodological factors. For example, prior studies reporting buffering effects used larger samples (Kaufman et al., 2022). Nonetheless, future research should continue to explore different sources of support as moderators of any effects of childhood family structure (Ahmed, 2024).

There are limitations to consider. First, the sample consisted of undergraduate students; it is possible that student experiences do not generalize broadly. Participants were enrolled in an open, online university with a student body characterized by mature students transitioning careers or returning to training while raising families, so the sample had sociodemographics more consistent with a general adult population. Nonetheless, future studies should assess generalization to nonstudent populations. Second, data were collected at a single time point, limiting ability to infer causal direction. Future investigations should use longitudinal or prospective data. Finally, childhood family relationship quality and stress were not assessed, and both could be potentially important contributors to pathways linking childhood family structure and adult outcomes. Future research should also consider the roles of childhood family relationship quality and stress.

These findings highlight the importance of relational context and duration in shaping adult wellness, and emphasize the value of stable, supportive relational networks as pathways by which time in the childhood nuclear family influences adult wellness.

 

Links between time in the childhood nuclear family and adult well-being are complex. Family support mediated associations between time in the childhood nuclear family and better adult wellness. Early family experiences did not matter as fixed determinants of well-being, but were relative to a broader relational system that unfolds across the life course. Well-being is shaped by where individuals begin, and by the relationships they sustain and create over time.

Ahmed, P. B. (2024). The dynamics of family structures in modern society: Shifting patterns and evolving definitions. Liberal Journal of Language & Literature Review, 2(1), 55–566. https://llrjournal.com/index.php/11/article/view/36

 

Bornscheuer, L., Gauffin, K., & Almquist, Y. B. (2024). Mapping resilience: A scoping review on mediators and moderators of childhood adversity with a focus on gender patterns. BMJ Open, 14(9), Article e080259. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080259

 

Cepukiene, V., & Celiauskaite, S. (2022). The relationship between nuclear family emotional system and adult health: Mediating and moderating role of general self-efficacy. Journal of Family Studies, 28(2), 678–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2020.1750451

 

Chavda, K., & Nisarga, V. (2023). Single parenting: Impact on child’s development. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 19(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/09731342231179017

 

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

 

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

 

Fino, E., Kapllanaj, M., Crocetti, E., & Rubini, M. (2025). Who matters the most? The differential role of parents, teachers, and peers’ supportive relationships in early adolescents’ subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 26(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00856-2

 

Grüning Parache, L., Vogel, M., Meigen, C., Kiess, W., & Poulain, T. (2024). Family structure, socioeconomic status, and mental health in childhood. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(7), 2377–2386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-023-02329-y

 

Han, D., Dieujuste, N., Doom, J. R., & Narayan, A. J. (2023). A systematic review of positive childhood experiences and adult outcomes: Promotive and protective processes for resilience in the context of childhood adversity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 144, Article 106346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106346

 

Hayes, A. F. (2022). PROCESS macro for SPSS, SAS, and R [Computer software]. CCRAM Research Hub. https://processmacro.org/

 

He, Y., Ngai, S. S., & Liu, Z. (2025). Intergenerational bonding, resilience, and left-behind children’s cognitive-behavioral competencies: A chain mediating model. Applied Research in Quality of Life. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-025-10484-4

 

Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/2955359

 

Izzo, F., Saija, E., Pallini, S., Ioverno, S., Baiocco, R., & Pistella, J. (2024). Happy moments between children and their parents: A multi-method and multi-informant perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(3), Article 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00735-w

 

Jarvis, J. A., Otero, C., Poff, J. M., Dufur, M. J., & Pribesh, S. L. (2023). Family structure and child behavior in the United Kingdom. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(1), 160–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02159-z

 

Kaufman, V., Rodriguez, A., Walsh, L. C., Shafranske, E., & Harrell, S. P. (2022). Unique ways in which the quality of friendships matter for life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(6), 2563–2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00502-9

 

Kier, C. A., & Fung, T. (2014). Adult outcomes of being raised by grandmothers: Can social networks play a role? Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(2), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2014.901120

 

Kirkbride, J. B., Anglin, D. M., Colman, I., Dykxhoorn, J., Jones, P. B., Patalay, P., Pitman, A., Soneson, E., Steare, T., Wright, T., & Griffiths, S. L. (2024). The social determinants of mental health and disorder: Evidence, prevention and recommendations. World Psychiatry, 23(1), 58–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21160

 

Lam, P. H. (2024). An extension to the stress-buffering model: Timing of support across the lifecourse. Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, 42, Article 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2024.100876

 

Li, S., Tang, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2023). How the home learning environment contributes to children’s social–emotional competence: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1065978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1065978

 

Liu, Y., & Ren, Z. (2024). Will adults’ happiness be affected by childhood parental divorce? Evidence from China. Journal of Family Issues, 45(8), 1997–2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X231194292

 

Natiq, A. A. (2024). Family structures and child development: A comparative analysis. Journal of Political Stability Archive, 2(3), 84–92. https://journalpsa.com.pk/index.php/JPSA/article/view/29

 

Patterson, S. E., & Margolis, R. (2023). Family ties and older adult well-being: Incorporating social networks and proximity. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 78(12), 2080–2089. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbad139

 

Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2004). Simple intercepts, simple slopes, and regions of significance in MLR 2-way interactions. Quantpsy.org. https://quantpsy.org/interact/mlr2.htm

 

Ramos, M. C., Cheng, C.-H. E., Preston, K. S. J., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Gottfried, A. E., Riggio, R. E., & Oliver, P. H. (2022). Positive family relationships across 30 years: Predicting adult health and happiness. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(7), 1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000983

 

Russell, L. T., & Su-Russell, C. (2024). Family functioning, contributions to college expenses, access to mentors, and college student’s health and flourishing: Examining moderation by family structure. Journal of American College Health, 72(7), 2269–2277. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2022.2109035

 

Sear, R. (2021). The male breadwinner nuclear family is not the “traditional” human family, and promotion of this myth may have adverse health consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 376(1827), Article 20200020. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0020

 

Slade, A. N., Beller, A. H., & Powers, E. T. (2017). Family structure and young adult health outcomes. Review of Economics of the Household, 15(1), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-015-9313-x

 

Stannard, S., Berrington, A., & Alwan, N. A. (2022). The mediating pathways between parental separation in childhood and offspring hypertension at midlife. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 7062. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11007-z

 

Umberson, D., & Thomeer, M. B. (2020). Family matters: Research on family ties and health, 2010 to 2020. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 82(1), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12640

 

Van Spijker, F., Kalmijn, M., & van Gaalen, R. (2022). The long-term improvement in father–child relationships after divorce: Descriptive findings from the Netherlands. Demographic Research, 46, 441–452. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2022.46.15

 

Yan, Y., Duan, X., Tan, Y., Wu, T., Yang, B. X., Luo, D., & Liu, L. (2025). The relationship between family functioning and depressive symptoms: Mediating effects of psychological resilience and parent–child interactions. Journal of Affective Disorders, 385, Article 119383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119383

 

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

Kharah M. Ross, Centre for Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Athabasca University, 1 University Drive, Athabasca, AB T9S 3A3, Canada. Email: [email protected]