Theorizing Ambiguous Gain: Opportunities for Family Scholarship

Abstract

Family stressors marked by ambiguity can place significant demands on families. Family scholars have written extensively about ambiguous stressors in the context of loss or separation-situations that represent ambiguous loss. Given extant demographic trends, including those that lead to changes in family structure, there remain valuable opportunities to highlight ambiguous stressors that arise from situations of family gain or acquisition-situations that represent ambiguous gain. A proposed definition for ambiguous gain is presented, namely, a situation of systemic relational acquisition, either physical or psychological, about which the facts are unclear. Building on foundational theoretical work, ambiguous gain is explicated as a distinct theoretical concept and conceptually positioned with respect to other related concepts, such as ambiguous loss, family boundary ambiguity, and ambivalence. Bolstering the concept of ambiguous gain might promote the theoretical and practical understanding of increasingly common family situations. Suggestions are offered for foregrounding ambiguous gain in family scholarship. A family systems perspective emphasizes the relational interdependencies that exist between family members (Cox & Paley, 2003). Relational interdependencies in families form a

Stepparent–Child Relationships and Child Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…It will also be helpful for practitioners to remember that high-quality stepparentchild relationships can take on numerous functions and forms (Jensen, 2019(Jensen, , 2021a-not all stepparent-child relationships perceived as high quality by stepparents and children will look the same. Practitioners should empower members of stepfamilies to develop stepparent-child relationships that function optimally from the perspective of family members (Jensen, 2021b). Situations in which stepfamily-related challenges appear especially pronounced and obstructive of patient or client care, practitioners could make appropriate referrals to local providers who specialize in stepfamily dynamics.…”

“…For one, many stepfamilies must navigate coparenting demands among resident parents, resident stepparents, and nonresident parents (Ganong & Coleman, 2017; Papernow, 2013). Stepfamilies can also face ambiguity with respect to the optimal role of new stepparents and identifying the most suitable patterns of engagement between children and their stepparents (Jensen, 2021b). Children in stepfamilies can also experience conflict with new stepparents and face disruptions in the quality of relationships (e.g., parent–child relationships) that predate the formation of a stepfamily (Ganong & Coleman, 2017).…”

Family Structure Diversity and Youth Health Care Access and Interactions With Health Care Providers

“…Those tasks can take away parents’ time and energy, making regular health care access more difficult. For example, ambiguity related to caregivers’ roles, especially for caregivers who do not have legal or biological ties to children, can create confusion about who should facilitate care or be involved in youths’ health care experiences (Jensen, 2021; Kelly & Ganong, 2011).…”

Family processes and structure: Longitudinal influences on adolescent disruptive and internalizing behaviors

“…Heeding the call by Powell et al (2016) and others (e.g., Jensen, 2021) to refrain from centering and privileging two-parent families as a paragon, the present study examines associations among family structure types and youth maladaptive behavior that extend beyond the two-parent versus one-parent comparisons. Although previous studies of mostly middleclass White children show negative effects for family structures that deviate from those privileged in American culture on child behavior, varying family structures are more normative in low-income families (Gray et al, 2016) and, consequently, adolescent behavior may be more thoroughly accounted for by other child, family, and community factors beyond family structure type.…”