Summary and synthesis of research on what works in stepfamily childrearing

Abstract

Objective The purposes of this review are (a) to summarize holistically and synthesize research evidence about “what works” regarding effective stepfamily childrearing (i.e., behaviors that contribute to children's physical, cognitive, and emotional well‐being) drawn from three research reviews and (b) explore implications of a “what works” approach in family scholarship. Background This project was designed to identify research‐based evidence about effective childrearing in stepfamilies by parents, stepparents, and coparents. Method We examined 2338 reports, identifying 119 studies yielding empirical evidence about “what works” in stepfamily childrearing. Results On the basis of our analyses of these studies, we find that researchers have found multiple ways children in stepfamilies are effectively raised and that stepchildren benefit when (a) parents exercise parental control by disciplining and setting rules early, (b) stepparents focus on bonding with stepchildren while parents work at maintaining close bonds with children, (c) stepparents and parents agree on rules and roles, (d) coparenting subsystems work collaboratively, and (e) parents and stepparents engage in activities to facilitate family cohesion. Conclusions Studies from a “what works” perspective were conducted using a variety of methods and approaches. Effective childrearing in stepfamilies benefits individual, relational, and stepfamily well‐being and effective stepfamily functioning. There are multiple ways to effectively raise children in stepfamilies. There are still things we do not know about childrearing in stepfamilies, however. Implications Focusing on resilience processes and positive family dynamics yield findings transferable to real‐world applications. Many areas of family scholarship would benefit from a what works perspective.

Identifying a typology of helpful post‐divorce family assets: Implications for divorce education

“…We speculate that some of this may reflect the mixed quality that may exist in new romantic relationships or professional helpers. If a new romantic relationship is relatively similar to (and runs into the same challenges as) the relationship a parent has just left, it is less likely that partner might be viewed as being helpful, and while stepfamilies can bring new love, support, and resources, they can also result in more complications and difficulties (Ganong et al, 2022; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Raley & Sweeney, 2020). Likewise, therapists, lawyers, and experiences with the court system may vary substantially across parents, with some finding success and support, and others facing loss, difficulty, and frustration (Glesner Fines & Madsen, 2007; Sundet, 2011).…”

“…These findings align with previous work that has found parents, and in particular mothers, often view their former spouses parenting “fitness” and ability as a key barrier or facilitator to their engagement in cooperative coparenting (Eikrem & Jevne, 2022; Markham & Coleman, 2012; Russell et al, 2016). Many divorcing parents might benefit from receiving practical advice on specific, tangible, and concrete parenting practices that “work” within post‐divorce family contexts (Beckmeyer et al, 2020a; Ganong et al, 2022). Strategies that are under parents' individual control, such as asking their children about their friends and interests, monitoring their children's media consumption, eating shared meals, helping with school work, and setting clear household rules, may be especially helpful for parents as they are trying to help their children adjust to their new family systems (Beckmeyer & Russell, 2018; Beckmeyer et al, 2020a; Beckmeyer et al, 2020b; Ganong et al, 2022).…”

“…We considered post‐divorce family assets to be the resources, skills, opportunities, and capacities that divorced parents perceived had been helpful as they and their families adapted to parental divorce. As we were unable to locate a previously published list of post‐divorce family assets, we developed our specific asset by reviewing prior research on the content of divorce education programs (e.g., Bowers et al, 2011; Schramm et al, 2018) and the broader divorce literature (e.g., Beckmeyer et al, 2021; Raley & Sweeney, 2020; Ganong et al, 2022). We also utilized a bioecological lens (see Bronfenbrenner, 2005) to ensure that we included assets across ecological systems.…”