A Typology of Interactional Patterns between Youth and Their Social Fathers: Implications for Youth Wellbeing and Family Relationship Quality

Background and Purpose: Approximately one-third of youth will reside with a social parent (or stepparent) at some point before reaching legal adulthood. Despite increasing prevalence, the transition to stepfamily life can generate considerable role ambiguity and stress in family systems. Past research indicates that new social fathers can take on a variety of roles in the lives of their stepchildren, ranging from de facto fathers to distant acquaintances. These roles largely have been assessed via qualitative research and clinical observation. The purpose of the current study was to apply a person-oriented perspective and quantitative analysis to the investigation of distinct patterns of interaction between youth and their social fathers.

Methods: The nationally representative sample included 1,182 adolescents (mean age: 15.64 years, SD= 1.70; 53% female; 62% non-Hispanic White) from Wave I of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health who had primary residence with their mothers and social fathers. Youth reported whether they had engaged in any of 10 interactions with their social fathers in the past four weeks, with items representing recreational, personal, academic, and disciplinary domains. Latent class analysis was employed to explore unobserved clusters of respondents that shared similar response patterns. Using the 3-step approach, latent-class differences were also explored with respect to the quality of family relationships and youth adjustment.

Results: The best-fitting model yielded a four-class solution. Youth in Class 1 (19%), the inactive pattern, indicated they had not engaged in any of the 10 interactions with their social fathers in the past four weeks. Youth in Class 2 (37%), the academically oriented pattern, had a high probability of engaging in interactions centered on school-related topics. Youth in Class 3 (30%), the casually connected pattern, had a low-to-moderate probability of engaging in interactions across recreational, personal, and disciplinary domains. Youth in Class 4 (14%), the versatile pattern, had a moderate-to-high probability of engaging in interactions across all domains. Youth in the versatile pattern reported the highest levels of relationship quality with their social fathers (Z = .72), mothers (Z = .33), and nonresident fathers (Z = .32); as well as the highest levels of self-esteem (Z = .25). Youth in the inactive pattern reported the lowest levels of relationship quality with their social fathers (Z = -.87) and mothers (Z = -.33), lowest levels of self-esteem (Z = -.26), and highest levels of delinquency (Z= .08).

Conclusions and Implications: Foremost, the results illustrate variability with respect to the patterns of interactions in which youth and their social fathers engage. Associations between interactional patterns and family and youth outcomes further highlight the importance of the relationship between youth and their social fathers. Importantly, not all interactional patterns differed significantly across outcomes, suggesting that one size does not necessarily fit all. Social workers must continue attending to the needs and dynamics of the increasingly common families that deviate from the nuclear-family model. Such attention should include helping youth and new social parents acquire patterns of interaction that optimize family stability and individual wellbeing.