a0005
Family and Culture
James Georgas
University of Athens, Athens, Greece
1. Culture
2. Family Theories
3. Family
4. Kinship Patterns and Family Matters
5. Family Roles and Power
6. Psychological Dimensions
7. Conclusion
Further Reading
There are two general approaches to the study of family.
One approach has been the focus on the family, its
structure, interactions between family members, child
development, and other issues. The second approach
has been the study of the family within its cultural
context. This approach assumes that the family is one
system within other social systems of a culture, and that
the study of the family necessarily entails studying its
relationships with the institutions and other aspects of
the culture. In addition, the usual approach in cultural
psychology studies the family in one culture or society,
whereas the cross-cultural approach is comparative,
studying universals and differences in families across
cultures or countries. Cultural anthropology, sociology,
psychology, cross-cultural psychology, psychiatry,
economics, political science, and geography have each
contributed to the study of family from the perspective
of its own discipline. However, there is considerable
overlap in theories and methods so that one can also
talk about a multidisciplinary approach employed by
many in each field. A number of issues are related to
Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology,
VOLUME 2
the study of family and culture. There are different
family types: nuclear families, extended families, and
one-parent families. Family types differ according to
subsistence patterns, social systems, religion, and other
cultural features. Marriage takes place in different ways
in different cultures. Kinship ties, postmarital residence,
and descent are important determinants of family types.
The social power of the mother and the father is related
to the institutional structure and values of the culture.
Socialization of children by the family is related to
ecocultural variables and family types and results in
different psychological characteristics across cultures.
1. CULTURE s0005
Culture is a very broad term referring to all human-made
patterns of activity, including societal institutions, prac-
tices, norms, rules, means of subsistence, symbols, com-
munication, settlements, transportation, art, religious
beliefs, ideas about nature and humans, interactions
among humans, child-rearing practices, values, beliefs,
cognitive processes, personality, and social behavior.
There are many definitions of culture, each stressing
different elements, including the patterns of human ac-
tivity, the unique symbols in each culture, the symbols
transmitted through language, the achievements of the
group, the artifacts, the transmission of the traditions
from generation to generation, and the mutual process of
humans creating cultural elements and culture-shaping
human and social patterns.
11 #2004 Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
 12 Family and Culture
The term culture, however, is also used to designate
a group with a common heritage as described in the
previous definition of culture. That is, culture is used
as a synonym for ‘‘ethnic group,’’ ‘‘nation,’’ ‘‘society,’’ or
‘‘country.’’ Anthropologists initially employed the term
to refer to small exotic groups of people, often referred
to in the past as primitive peoples, savages, or indige-
nous groups. Employed in this sense, larger geopoliti-
cal groups are referred to as nations or countries.
However, culture is also employed in taxonomies of
nations, such as Western culture or Islamic culture. If
culture is used to define an ethnic group with a specific
‘‘culture,’’ then the number of cultures has been esti-
mated by anthropologists to be in the thousands,
whereas there are approximately 200 nations or coun-
tries throughout the world.
Thus, culture is employed in both ways in family
research: It refers to a specific country or to those
elements that characterize the society.
s0010
2. FAMILY THEORIES
Family theories have been developed in sociology, cul-
tural anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, and cross-
cultural psychology. The first family theories were
developed in the 19th century. A form of social
Darwinism theorized that the structure and function of
family adapted, as a social organism, to the environment.
Marxist theory employed the concept of economic deter-
minism to explain how economic resources determined
social power, which in turn determined class struggle.
The concept of social power was extended to explain
authority and power structures of the father and mother.
Durkheim’s theory explained the existence and the
changes in family structure and function in terms of
the family’s functional role in the preservation of society.
Functionalism analyzed the role of family as part of a
greater whole, in which an equilibrium with other social
institutions was established. This was essentially a sys-
tems theory, in contrast to the biological or economic
determinism of social Darwinism and Marxist theory.
One of the most influential theories of family in the
second half of the 20th century was Parsons’ structural–
functional perspective, in which society was viewed as
an organism striving to resist change and to maintain
itself in a state of equilibrium. Structure refers to the
members of the family (parents, child, and kin), and
function refers to how families satisfy physical and
psychological needs for survival and maintenance.
According to Parsons, the adaptation of the family
unit to the industrial revolution required a nuclear
family structure that could carry out societal functions
and satisfy the physical and psychological needs of
family members. However, in its urban setting, the
nuclear family is fragmented from its kinship network,
leading to psychological isolation. Distancing itself
from the extended family results in loss of its produc-
tive, political, and religious functions. Social mobility,
particularly in the highly mobile U.S. culture, was
made possible by the breaking of family ties.
However, most sociologists, anthropologists, and
psychologists today disagree with Parsons’ depiction
of the nuclear family as isolated from its kin.
Evidence from studies of family networks indicates
that ties are maintained between members of the nu-
clear family and kin at different generational levels in
the United States and many European countries. Many
ethnic groups in the United States maintain fairly close
family and kinship ties, whereas others do not. Cross-
cultural studies have indicated that there are not polar
opposites of no family ties versus close family ties but,
rather, different degrees of family ties. In countries
such as the United States, Sweden, and Britain there
are looser ties between the nuclear family and kin,
whereas the ties are closer in countries such as
China, India, and Greece.
Family theories based on systemic concepts have
also been developed (Parson’s theory is also a systems
theory). Family system theory has been developed within
general systems theory, and its basic concepts apply to
physics, biology, and social sciences, among other
sciences. The family is a system within larger suprasys-
tems of society and attempts to maintain equilibrium by
adapting to demands and to changes in the larger sys-
tem. The focus is on communication processes between
family members and on recurring family transactional
patterns. Family system theory was developed in the
fields of clinical psychology and psychiatry as a psy-
chotherapeutic method. This has resulted in the con-
struction of models of family functioning and
techniques of psychotherapy directed toward the fam-
ily. Ecological theories of family trace the relationships
between environment, social institutions, the family,
and psychological variables. The human ecology the-
ory of Bronfenbrenner is basically a family systems
model. One of the earliest ecological models is that of
cultural anthropologists John and Beatrice Whiting
and Irvin Child and their many collaborators in their
six-culture study. Their basic hypothesis was that
child training throughout the world is in many impor-
tant aspects identical and that there are universal
 Family and Culture 13

aspects of behavior but also differences from culture to 3. FAMILY s0015

culture. Six cultures were studied in detail: those of

Raira, Okinawa; Tarong, the Philippines; Khalapur, 3.1. Definition of Family s0020

India; Nyansongo, Kenya; Juztlahuraca, Mexico; and

Orchard Town, United States. The elements of the
model were the environment (climate, flora, fauna,
and terrain), history of the settlements, maintenance
systems (subsistence patterns, means of production,
settlement patterns, social structure, etc.), the child’s
learning environment (caretakers and teachers,
mothers’ workload, etc.), psychological variables
(behavioral styles, skills and abilities, values, conflicts,
and defenses), innate needs, and projective expressive
systems or elements of the culture (religion, magic
beliefs, ritual and ceremony, etc.) (Fig. 1). Cultural
features such as the economy, social structure, settle-
ment pattern, and household and family organization
were found to be related to behavior. For example, the
complexity of the socioeconomic system and the com-
position of the household were predictive of social
behavior of the system. This is a classic cultural anthro-
pological model for cross-cultural studies of family.
Other family theories employed include feminist
theory, symbolic interactionism, family development,
phenomenology, family power, and exchange theory.
Currently, there are many definitions of family based on
different theoretical perspectives. An early definition of
the family was that of the anthropologist Murdock:
‘‘The family is a social group characterized by common
residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It
includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom
maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and
one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually
cohabiting adults.’’ The functions of family were consid-
ered to be sexual, reproduction, socialization, and
economic. The sociologist Popenoe defined family in
terms of recent changes in the social and economic
position of the family, the increase in one-parent
families [divorced, adoptive, widows(ers), or unmarried
mothers], and homosexual families. In this definition of
the family, the minimum number is one adult and one
dependent person, the parents do not have to be of both
sexes, and the couple does not have to be married. The
functions of the family are procreation and socialization
of children, sexual regulation, economic cooperation,
and provision of care, affection, and companionship.

Environment Maintenance
systems The Projective
individual expressive
Climate
adult system
Flora Subsistence
Fauna patterns
Means of Learned
Terrain Religion
production Magic beliefs
Behavioral styles
Settlement Ritual and
patterns Skills and ceremony
Social structure abilities Art and
Systems of defense Value priorities recreation
Law and social Conflicts Games and
control Defenses play
Division of labor Crime rates
Suicide rates
Innate

Needs
History Drives
Child’s Capacities
Migrations learning
Borrowings environment
Inventions Infant
Settings occupied
Caretakers and
teachers
Tasks assigned
Mothers workload

f0005 FIGURE 1 A model for psychocultural research. From Whiting and Whiting (1975).
 14 Family and Culture
s0025
3.2. Family Typology
As inferred in the previous definitions, there are differ-
ent types of families. The structure refers to the posi-
tions of the members of the family (e.g., mother, father,
daughter, grandmother, etc.) and the roles assigned to
the family members by the culture. For example, tradi-
tional roles of the nuclear family in North America and
northern Europe in the mid-20th century were the
wage-earning father and the housewife and child-
raising mother. Cultures have social constructs and
norms related to the proper roles of family members—
that is, what the role of the mother, father, etc. should be.
Family types or structures have been delineated
primarily by cultural anthropological studies of small
cultures throughout the world. However, family sociol-
ogists have also contributed to the literature on family
typology, although sociology has been more interested
in the European and American family and less inter-
ested in small societies throughout the world.
There are a number of typologies of family types, but
a simple typology would be the nuclear and the
extended family systems. To these can be added the
one-parent family.
The nuclear family consists of two generations: the
wife/mother, husband/father, and their children. The
one-parent family is also a variant of the nuclear family.
Most one-parent families are divorced-parent families;
unmarried-parent families comprise a small percentage
of one-parent families, although they have increased in
North America and northern Europe. The majority of
one-parent families are those with mothers.
The extended family consists of at least three genera-
tions: the grandparents on both sides, the wife/mother
and the husband/father, and their children, together
with parallel streams of the kin of the wife and husband.
There are different types of extended families in cultures
throughout the world. The following is one taxonomy:
 The polygynous family consists of one husband/
father and two or more wives/mothers, together with
their children and kin. Polygynous families are found in
many cultures. For example, four wives are permitted
according to Islam. However, the actual number of
polygamous families in Islamic nations is very small
(e.g., approximately 90% of fathers in Qatar, Kuwait,
United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia
have only one wife). In Pakistan, a man seeking a
second wife must obtain permission from an arbitration
council, which requires a statement of consent from the
first wife before granting permission.
 In a few societies in Central Asia there are polyan-
drous families, in which one woman is married to sev-
eral brothers and thus land is not divided. However, this
is a rare phenomenon in cultures throughout the world.
 The stem family consists of the grandparents and
the eldest married son and heir and their children, who
live together under the authority of the grandfather/
household head. The eldest son inherits the family plot
and the stem continues through the first son. The other
sons and daughters leave the household upon mar-
riage. The stem family was characteristic of central
European countries, such as Austria and southern
Germany. The lineal or patriarchal family consists of
the grandparents and the married sons. This is perhaps
the most common form of family and is also found in
southern Europe and Japan.
 The joint family is a continuation of the lineal
family after the death of the grandfather, in which the
married sons share the inheritance and work together.
Joint families were found south of the Loire in France,
as were patriarchal families, whereas the nuclear family
was predominant north of the Loire. Joint families are
also found in India and Pakistan.
 The fully extended family, or the zadruga in
the Balkans countries of Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia,
Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, had a
structure similar to that of the joint family but with
the inclusion of cousins and other kin. The number of
kin living and working together as a family numbered
in the dozens.
A point needs to be made regarding the different types
of extended families. Historical analyses of the family
by anthropologists and sociologists indicated that people
considered to be members of a family or a household
were not necessarily kin. For example, in central
European countries until the 18th century, servants
(who were often relatives), semipermanent residents,
visitors, workers, and boarders were considered to be
members of the household. The term familia was used to
denote large households rather than ‘‘family’’ in the
modern sense. Until the 18th century, no word for nu-
clear family was employed in Germany but the term
‘‘with wife and children.’’ Frédéric Le Play, considered
to be the father of empirical family sociology, discussed
the emergence of the nuclear family as a product of the
industrial revolution. He also characterized the nuclear
family, the famille, as unstable in comparison with the
stem family.
One theory regarding the change from feudal
familia to the famille of Western Europe is based on
 Family and Culture
the following analysis. After the reformation, vassals
left the feudal towns to seek work in the cities. This
led to the separation of the dwelling place and place of
work and resulted in privacy and the sentimentality of
the nuclear family. This pattern, however, was not
found among the peasants in the agricultural areas.
The strengthening of the relationship between parents
and children was also a result of the religious influ-
ence of the Age of Enlightenment. These changes led
to the releasing of servants from the close community
of the household. Servants and workers became less
personal and part of the household and more contrac-
tual. This led to the emergence of many new nuclear
families (e.g., those of early factory workers and
clerks). A new word in German, Haus, referred only
to those living within it.
Historical analyses of the family during this period
in Western Europe also emphasize that not all families
were large extended families because establishing this
type of household was dependent on land ownership.
Most families worked for large feudal types of house-
holds and were essentially nuclear in structure. In
England during this period, where land ownership
was restricted to the nobility, the vast majority of
families, which either worked for the landowners or
rented small plots, were necessarily nuclear families.
s0030
3.2.1. The Nuclear Family: Separate or Part
of the Extended Family?
The key element in studying different types of family
structure and its relationships with psychological devel-
opment of the children, its economic base, and its cul-
ture is the nuclear family. In 1949, Murdock made an
important distinction regarding the relationship of the
nuclear family to the extended family: ‘‘The nuclear
family is a universal human social grouping. Either as
the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit
from which more complex familial forms are com-
pounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional
group in every known society.’’
Murdock made an important point: The nuclear fam-
ily is prevalent in all societies, not necessarily as an
autonomous unit but because the extended family is
essentially a constellation of nuclear families across at
least three generations. Parsons’ theory that the adapta-
tion of the family unit to the industrial revolution
required a nuclear family structure resulting in its isola-
tion from its traditional extended family and kinship
network, leading to psychological isolation and anomie,
has had a strong influence on psychological and
15
sociological theorizing about the nuclear family.
However, studies of social networks in North America
and northern Europe have shown that the hypothesized
isolation of the nuclear family is a myth. Nuclear
families, even in these industrial countries, have net-
works with grandparents, brothers and sisters, and
other kin. The question is the degree of contact and
communication with these kin, even in nations of north-
ern and southern Europe.
A second issue relates to the different cycles of fam-
ily, from the moment of marriage to the death of the
parents or grandparents. The classic three-generation
extended family has a lifetime of perhaps 20–30 years.
The death of the grandparent, the patriarch of an
extended family, results in one cycle closing and the
beginning of a new cycle with two or three nuclear
families, the married and unmarried sons and daugh-
ters. These are nuclear families in transition. Some will
form new extended families, others may not have
children, some will not marry, and others (e.g., the
second son in the stem family) will not have the eco-
nomic base to form a new stem family. That is, even in
cultures with a dominant extended family system,
there are always nuclear families.
A third issue is the determination of a nuclear family.
This is related to place of common residence or the
‘‘household’’ of the nuclear family. Demographic studies
of the family usually employ the term household in
determining the number of people residing in the resi-
dence and their roles. However, there is a paradox
between the concepts household and family as employed
in demographic studies. Household refers to counting
the number of persons in a house. If there are two
generations, parents and the children, they are identified
as a nuclear family. However, this may lead to erroneous
conclusions about the percentage of nuclear families in a
country. For example, in a European demographic
study, Germany and Austria had lower percentages of
nuclear families than Greece. This appears to be strange
because Greece is known to be a country with a strong
extended family system. However, demographic statis-
tics provide only ‘‘surface’’ information, which is difficult
to interpret without data about attitudes, values, and
interactions between family members. Nuclear house-
holds in Greece, as in many other countries throughout
the world, are very near to the grandparents—in
the apartment next door, on the next floor, or in the
neighborhood—and the visits and telephone calls be-
tween kin are very frequent. Thus, although nuclear in
terms of common residence, the families are in fact
extended in terms of their relationships and interactions.
 16 Family and Culture
In addition, there is the psychological component of
those who one considers to be family. Social represen-
tation of his or her family may consist of a mosaic of
parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents, uncles, and
aunts and cousins on both sides, together with differ-
ent degrees of emotional attachments to each one,
different types of interactions, bonds, memories, etc.
Each person has a genealogical tree consisting of a
constellation of overlapping kinship groups—through
the mother, father, mother-in-law, father-in-law, but
also through the sister-in-law, brother-in-law, cousin-
in-law, etc. The overlapping circles of nuclear families
in this constellation of kin relationships are almost
endless. Both the psychological dimension of family—
one’s social representation—and the culturally speci-
fied definition of which kin relationships are important
determine which kin affiliations are important to the
individual (‘‘my favorite aunt’’) or the family (‘‘our
older brother’s’’ family) and which are important in
the clan (the ‘‘Zaman’’ extended family) or community
(the ‘‘Johnsons’’ nuclear family). Thus, it is not so
important ‘‘who lives in the box’’ but, rather, the
types of affiliations and psychological ties with the
constellation of different family members or kin in
the person’s conception of his or her family, whether
it is an ‘‘independent’’ nuclear family in Germany or an
‘‘extended family’’ in Nigeria.
s0035
3.3. Subsistence Patterns
and Family Types
Ecological theories specify relationships between the
family structure and function, the ecological context
(physical environment, climate, flora, fauna, terrain,
and settlement patterns), the sociopolitical context (so-
cial structure, subsistence patterns, traditions, religion
and beliefs, language and means of communication,
etc.), and psychological variables (cognition, personal-
ity, values, social interactions, etc.). The ecological
context and the sociopolitical context can shape family
types, but the model is not strictly deterministic:
Individuals or the community can also shape family
types. The number of wives, the dowry system, and
relationships with kin in a family type can be shaped by
traditions and religion. However, perhaps the most
important determinant of family type is the subsistence
system, which is also shaped by the ecological context,
particularly in small societies. In hunting and gather-
ing societies, in which mobility of the family is neces-
sary in order to obtain food, the nuclear family type is
prevalent. In agricultural and pastoral societies, in
which there is a permanent base and many hands are
necessary for cultivation of the land, the extended
family types are prevalent. In modern industrial soci-
ety, in which people are hired to provide services or to
work in industries, money is a means of exchange,
people live in urban areas, and apartments or houses
are expensive, the nuclear family is prevalent.
4. KINSHIP PATTERNS s0040
AND FAMILY MATTERS
4.1. Kinship Relationships s0045
Cultural anthropology has categorized the different types
of kinship relationships in extended families in a variety
of cultures. These are called lineal, collateral, and affinal
relationships. Lineal relationships are those between the
grandparents and the grandchildren. Collateral relation-
ships are those with uncles and aunts, cousins, and
nephews and nieces. Affinal relationships are those
between parents-in-law, children-in-law, and siblings-
in-law as well as with matrilineal and patrilineal kin.
However familiar the terms for these kin are in Europe
and North America, they are critical concepts in different
cultures because they are also related to the types of
relationships and obligations toward affinal, collatoral,
and affinal kin, to lines of descent, to residence, to
inheritance of property, and to roles.
The terms for kin are more differentiated in various
cultures. Murdock employed a system with six cate-
gories based on categorization of cousins: Hawaiian,
Eskimo, Sudanese, Iroquois, Crow, and Omaha. Other
categorizations are based on classification of paternal
and maternal relatives. For example, in Iran the term in
Farsi for mother’s sisters is khaleh and it is ammeh for
father’s sisters, with analogous terms for father’s broth-
ers. In Pakistan, several cousins may be raised together
in the same household. They are referred to in Urdu as
brothers or sisters, with the prefix added, ‘‘through-my-
maternal-aunt’’ or ‘‘through-my-paternal-uncle.’’ Generic
words, such as aunt, uncle, or even grandparents, have
no equivalent in Urdu, but specific terms related to
matrilineal kin, as in Iran, are employed; for example,
khala is the mother’s sister and phuphee the father’s sister.
4.2. Residence s0050
Residence refers to where the couple resides after
marriage. One theory is that subsistence patterns
 Family and Culture 17

determine rules of residence, which in turn affect the Bilateral: Affiliation is with both mother’s and
rules of descent. The theory is based primarily on father’s relatives.
small, noncomplex societies. Patrilineal: Affiliation is with kin of both sexes
through the maternal and paternal fathers only, but
 Patrilocal refers to residence with or near the hus-
not through maternal and paternal mothers.
band’s patrilineal kinsmen. This is the most common
Matrilineal: Affiliation is with kin of both sexes
form of postmarital residence, with approximately 50%
through the maternal and paternal mothers only, but
of small societies sampled.
not through maternal and paternal fathers.
 Virilocal refers to residence near the husband’s
Ambilineal (cognatic): Affiliation is with kin through
father and is similar to patrilocal residence. The differ-
either the maternal parents or the paternal parents.
ence is the absence of patrilineal kin groups. This
Some may affiliate with kin through their mothers
represents the second largest percentage (20%) of post-
and others through their fathers.
marital residence after patrilocal. The remainder of
Double: Affiliation is with both father’s patrilineal
residence patterns sum to the remaining 30% of
kin and mother’s matrilineal kin.
societies.
 Matrilocal is similar to patrilocal but refers to res-
idence with or near the wife’s matrilineal kinsmen. This
is the case, for example, with the Chiapas of Mexico. 4.4. Marriage s0060

 Avunculocal refers to residence with or near the

maternal uncle or other male matrilineal kinsmen of
the husband.
 Bilocal is residence with or near the parents of the
husband or the wife.
 Matrilocal–avunculocal is similar to bilocal but
can be either matrilocal or avunculocal residence.
 Avunculocal-virilocal is also similar to bilocal but
can be either avunculocal or virilocal residence.
 Neolocal means residence apart from the relatives
of both spouses. This is characteristic of nuclear family
residence in northern Europe and North America. In
complex industrial societies in which there are few
small independent farms, the economy is based on
wages rather than land ownership. Thus, land owner-
ship as a basis of production is not a factor, and small
nuclear families with neolocal residence are more
functional.
 Duolocal means separate residence of each spouse
in the paternal and maternal household.
s0055
4.3. Descent
Descent refers to the relationships with paternal and
maternal kin. The relationships concern many aspects
of life, such as economic activities, religious activities,
child-rearing practices, political behavior, inheritance,
and residence. These aspects of living are organized
around strict sets of rules with kin, many of them as
ritualized behaviors. Societies with specific rules for
different kin are usually hierarchical in structure and
in the distribution of power. The following are rules of
descent in different cultures.
Societies have norms regarding whom one is permitted
to marry (endogamy) and restrictions regarding whom
one cannot marry (exogamy). In some societies, such as
in India or Pakistan, endogamy means that marriage is
restricted to the same caste, the same village, the same
religion, and the same race. These social norms are not as
restrictive in North America and Europe, although mar-
riage to someone of another racial or ethnic group or to
someone of a different level of education or social status
may not be accepted in some groups. Exogamy means
that, e.g., marriage to a member of the nuclear family, or
incest, is a universal taboo in almost all societies. In
China, marriage to someone with the same family name
was disapproved. In many societies, marriage is not
permitted with first cousins or with the son or daughter
of a godparent. In other societies, such as Saudi Arabia,
marriage with first cousins is desired, specifically to the
sons and daughters of the paternal brother (uncle) or to
members of the clan. In other societies, if a husband dies,
the wife must marry the brother.
In the past, in most societies throughout the world,
marriages were arranged between two families, and a
verbal or written contract was agreed upon regarding
the dowry or the bride wealth; however, this is chang-
ing gradually in many societies in Africa and Asia. In
patrilineal societies, the fathers usually made the deci-
sion. In the few matrilineal societies in the world, the
mother’s brothers made the decision. Decisions to
unite their sons and daughters in marriage are based
on certain criteria. Because endogamy is an important
restriction, families look for the best possible alliances
between them, which may be based on social and eco-
nomic factors and, in many cases (such as in Saudi
 18 Family and Culture
Arabia, where marriage between paternal first cousins
is highly desirable), strengthening the wealth, prestige,
and social power of the extended family within the clan
or tribe. The decision of a young couple to marry on
the basis of love with or without the consent of the
parents occurs in a minority of societies, including
North America and northern Europe, although this is
changing rapidly in many societies. One theory is that
in societies with neolocal postmarital residence, ro-
mantic love as a basis of marriage is more common. It
is suggested that marriage based on love and compa-
nionship provides a stronger union when the couple
must depend on their own economic assets and not on
their parents’ aid for survival.
The dowry is an integral part of the marriage contract
between the two families of the couple. There are three
general types of dowries. The dowry system refers to the
transfer of property, money, or animals by the bride’s
parents to the husband after marriage. The bride wealth
system, the most common dowry system, is the opposite
of the dowry system: The transfer is from the husband’s
family to the bride’s family. A third type is bride theft, in
which the man abducts the woman without the consent
of the respective families. In the past, the dowry system
was in effect in European countries, in addition to other
societies, whereas the bride wealth system was in effect
in Islamic nations as well as other societies.
Inheritance of property is an integral part of marriage
and lineal descent. Japan and China adapted differently
to industrialization in the 19th century. Both had an
agrarian economy, rapid population growth, and exten-
sive but corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy. In China,
inheritance was egalitarian, but in Japan a single child
inherited the property, which made it possible to accu-
mulate capital. In China, loyalty was to the family and
nepotism a duty, so every family member could benefit
from upward social mobility. In Japan, which had a
more feudal system, a father could disinherit his son
and adopt a young man who seemed more worthy.
s0065
4.5. Divorce
There is considerable cultural diversity regarding
divorce. Divorce is socially disapproved in all societies,
and families usually make great efforts to keep the cou-
ple together. The reasons for this are many: the social
stigma of divorce, the consequences for the children, the
financial provisions, and the issues of property and
inheritance.
Societies differ in the degree to which divorce is
controlled and by which institutions. In some societies,
divorce is controlled directly by the family, whereas in
others there is indirect control by social institutions and
by the dominant religion. For example, Catholicism does
not permit divorce except under highly unusual situa-
tions requiring a special dispensation. The Orthodox
Church permits three marriages and three divorces.
Islamic law, the sharia, permits polygamy up to four
wives and also divorces. However, in Islamic nations,
the intent of a husband to take a second wife may lead to
the first wife seeking a divorce. Despite the conventional
notion in the West that in Islam husbands can divorce a
wife by stating three times the phrase, ‘‘I divorce you,’’
divorce is not an easy matter because of its legal and
social consequences. According to Islamic law, the
daughter inherits property from the father—half of the
sum of the son’s. The wife retains property in her name
after marriage, even gifts from her family, and the hus-
band has no legal claim to her property. After divorce,
the woman retains her property and custody of the
children until they reach 7 years of age. However, the
father remains the legal guardian and is responsible for
the financial care of the children. Remarriage of a
divorced woman is permitted, but the children of the
first marriage are subsequently raised by the maternal
grandmother.
5. FAMILY ROLES AND POWER s0070
Role theory refers to the cultural norms regarding psy-
chological and interactional aspects of members of so-
ciety, such as mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and
grandparents. The originators of role theory are Ralph
Linton in sociology and George Herbert Mead in social
psychology. Role refers to the social expectations and
the social scripts of family roles—how roles have been
shaped by cultural conventions and by the collective
ideologies of a society. One aspect of role theory studies
how roles are learned during the process of social inter-
action. That is, people interact with others, they see
themselves and others as occupants of particular sta-
tuses, and they learn guides for action. In other words,
there are certain social scripts or expectations associated
with certain roles.
Structural role theory as developed by Linton and
Parsons refers to the structural and functional aspects
of status and role. By structure is meant the positions
recognized by the specific social system and the content
of the role. That is, what are the social scripts associated
with the roles of mother and father in the society? For
example, social scripts of gender roles in a society might
 Family and Culture
be that the place of mother is in the home, she should
raise the children, cook, etc., whereas in other societies
mothers should work, share with the husbands the daily
work of the home and care of children, etc. The func-
tional analysis is concerned with the function of role.
That is, what are the consequences for the rest of the
social system of the specific role? How does the role
contribute to the maintenance of the system? How does
a particular role help in the achievement of the goals of
the system? How does the role help solve the process of
adaptation to the social system and contribute to the
maintenance of patterns, such as the values system?
Structural role theory also has a comparative element,
attempting to determine which structure features of so-
cial systems are universal through cross-cultural analysis.
Power, the degree of gender equality, and the divi-
sion of resources within the family are another aspect
of family dynamics in the family. Anthropology has
established that power is related to the control of the
economic activity or land ownership and institutiona-
lized through the norms of the society. Power can be
defined as the influence of the spouse, children, and
other relatives. However, the influence is not a person-
ality trait, although there may be individual differences
in the ability to influence others. The basis of the
influence is the authority bestowed by social norms
to different family roles and internalized in terms of
values. Power may be expressed in the control of the
finances, in the ability to command respect and obedi-
ence, in feelings of autonomy and control over one’s
life, in the capacity to regulate one’s dependency on
others, in the power to decide where the family lives
and whose career is given priority, and in the freedom
to be able to leave difficult family situations.
Most agricultural societies are patrilineal, but some
are matrilineal. In some agricultural societies, the male
does most of the plowing or animal tending and the
woman’s role is to care for the house and the children.
However, in many patrilineal agricultural societies, the
woman does much of the work, such as harvesting and
tending the crops, in addition to the household tasks
and caring for the children. Boys learn the roles of the
males and the fathers, and girls learn the roles of the
females and the mothers in small societies. The roles in
small societies are hierarchical, in which the patriarch
of the family has the ultimate power and males have
more power than females. In matrilineal societies, the
matriarch has more power than the father. The broth-
ers of the matriarch have more power than the father,
who is absent from the family and may visit the matri-
arch secretly at night. However, although the father
19
may have the institutionalized social power within
the family, the influence of the mother in extended
families regarding many family matters may be greater
than that of the father.
It is important to note that role theory refers to social
values and social scripts—what the social scripts should
be in the society. However, there is also a psychological
dimension; there are individual differences in each so-
ciety regarding agreement with these roles. Some mem-
bers of society insist on the strict application of these
roles, whereas some members rebel against these roles.
In many societies throughout the world undergoing
transition, women are rejecting the traditional roles of
mother, housewife, and caretaker and are entering the
workforce, as in Western societies. However, the pro-
cess is more painstaking in these societies, and working
mothers often experience strong family pressures,
which may come from the grandparents or the in-laws,
to be both a working mother and fulfill the traditional
roles of housewife and caretaker. The structure of the
traditional family in many countries provides an alter-
native caretaker of the child while the mother works—
the grandmother.
6. PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS s0075
So far, the discussion has covered features of culture and
family. Societies differ in terms of degree of complexity,
from small, simple societies of a few hundred members
who subsist through fishing or hunting to large, com-
plex societies of western Europe and North America in
which the economic basis is industry and services.
Societies also differ in terms of family structure and
function. Family type is related to the subsistence sys-
tem, property and residence, and descent. This section
discusses whether there are different psychological
characteristics related to different family types.
As indicated previously, there are relationships be-
tween means of subsistence and family types.
Agricultural and pastoral societies tend to have extended
families, whereas hunting, fishing, and gathering socie-
ties tend to have nuclear societies. Agricultural societies
tend to have a base, land and permanent houses, and
large families and kin nearby. A large number of kin is
necessary for crop cultivation. Cultivation is a process
that requires patience and the cooperation of many, and
it is affected by droughts, floods, and other natural
forces. Studies have found that children in agricultural
and pastoral societies are taught to be responsible, com-
pliant, obedient, and to respect their elders. Hunting and
20 Family and Culture
gathering societies move about in order to obtain food,
hunting requires particular skills, and good hunters are
respected no matter what their age. Children in these
societies tend to be self-reliant, independent, and
achievement oriented. It is likely that these personality
traits and the social values that promote them are a
function of the adaptation of the individual and the
family to the ecological constraints of their environment
through their means of subsistence.
In the six-cultures studies of Whiting et al., relation-
ships between the economy, social structure, settlement
pattern, household and family organization, and the
behavior of children were studied. Minturn and
Lambert studied the effects of differences in living pat-
terns and economic activities on child-rearing practices
and the behavior of children (e.g., succorance, achieve-
ment, self-reliance, obedience, nurturance, responsibil-
ity, sociability, dominance, and aggression). Mothers
were least warm in Mexico and India, where the living
patterns were characterized by courtyard or semicourt-
yard living. In African and Philippine societies, where
mothers lived in separate houses surrounding a partially
enclosed yard, mothers were intermediate in warmth.
Okinawan mothers, who had more privacy, were the
warmest. New England mothers, who had the most pri-
vacy and almost exclusive responsibility for child care,
ranked lowest in warmth. In general, children in nuclear,
joint, and lineal family households were treated more
warmly and were indulged when alternate caretakers,
such as grandparents, sisters, and aunts, were available.
Kagitcibasi’s model of family change based on socio-
economic development posits three family interaction
patterns: the traditional family in developing countries
characterized by total interdependence between genera-
tions in material and emotional realms, the individualis-
tic nuclear family model of Western society based on
independence, and a dialectical synthesis of these two
involving material independence but psychological
interdependence between generations. The parenting
orientations differ significantly among these patterns, as
do the distinctive characteristics of the emergent selves.
With increasingly urban lifestyles and increasing afflu-
ence in collectivistic cultures, material interdependence
between generations decreases because elderly parents
no longer depend on the economic support of their adult
offspring, but emotional interdependence continues.
This leads to increased autonomy in child rearing, but
together with psychological interdependence.
These changes are theorized to lead to the develop-
ment of three types of the self in the three family models:
the related self, high in relatedness but low in autonomy
in the family model of total interdependence; the sepa-
rated self, high in autonomy but low in relatedness in the
family model of independence; and the autonomous–
related self, high in both relatedness and autonomy in
the family model of psychological interdependence,
revealed in the changing family in collectivistic societies.
The previously discussed studies refer primarily to
personality and emotional variables. Family type is also
related to cognitive variables. An example is Berry’s
ecocultural framework, which traces the relationships
between ecological, cultural, and acculturational vari-
ables and cognitive styles. Initially, links were estab-
lished between hunting-based and agriculture-based
peoples regarding ecological demands and cultural prac-
tices and the required cognitive performances (i.e., vi-
sual disembedding and analytic and spatial abilities).
These links were analyzed in detail in terms of the
variables subsistence patterns, settlement patterns, pop-
ulation density, family type, social/political stratifica-
tion, socialization practices, education, and wage
employment. It was found that nomadic hunters and
gatherers, with a loose social structure, nuclear family
systems, and an emphasis on assertion in socialization,
were relatively field independent (i.e., were able to focus
on an object without being influenced by its context),
whereas sedentary agriculturalists, with tight social
structures, extended family systems, and an emphasis
on compliance in socialization, were relatively field
dependent (i.e., strongly influenced by the context of
stimuli). In addition, people in societies undergoing
acculturation and developing Western types of educa-
tion became more field independent (Fig. 2).
7. CONCLUSION s0080
This article presented a picture of the family primarily
from the perspective of cultural anthropology, sociology,
and cross-cultural psychology. In this brief synopsis, it
was not possible to present the contributions of other
social sciences, such as economics, geography, psychia-
try, and political science. The primary goal was to focus
on the study of family from the standpoint of cross-
cultural psychology and psychological anthropology.
Thus, emphasis was placed on an ecological or ecocul-
tural perspective: the ecological context, social struc-
ture, maintenance systems, means of subsistence, the
family, child development, roles, and psychological con-
sequences. The picture may appear to be like a kaleido-
scope in that there is wide cultural variety and there
are many variations of families and social structure.
 Family and Culture 21

Country level Country level Country level

Individual level Individual level

Ecocultural indices Family positions

• Affluence • Father, mother, 10-year-old
• Religion boy, girl, 20-year-old male,
• Education female, grandfather,
Psychological variables
• Population grandmother, uncle, aunt
• Temperature • Emotional distance
Family roles
(Georgas)
• Provides emotional support
• Keeps family united • Self–construal
• Conveys traditions, manners, (Singelis)
and customs
Social structural variables
• Marriage • Supports when in need (illness, • Personality (Williams
• Postmarital residence financial problems, etc.) et al.)
• Affinal, lineal and • Does housework (cleans,
collateral relationships cooks, washes) • Family values
• Descent • Does the shopping, pays bills, (Georgas)
• Control and etc.
institutionalization of • Contributes financially to the • Values (Schwartz)
divorce: child custody, family
direct control of • Helps parents with their work • Frequency of
property, financial (fields, shop or family communication
provisions for the occupation)
wife/husband
• Degree of power of
• Etc.
mother, father,
grandparents
• Geographic proximity
• Urban-rural residence

f0010 FIGURE 2 An ecocultural framework for the study of family.

However, there have been many efforts to determine the
structure underneath this seemingly chaotic plethora of
findings. This entails a comparative approach, consistent
with the approach of psychological anthropology and
cross-cultural psychology in seeking universals in family
structure and function as well as variations due to
cultural differences. A criticism of sociology, which has
made significant contributions to the study of the family,
is that it has been concerned primarily with the study of
the family, particularly the nuclear family, only in the
countries of northern Europe and North America.
An important issue in making sense of results from
thousands of societies is the chronological dimension.
That is, anthropologists have been studying small socie-
ties for more than a century. Thus, some findings refer
to the study of a culture 100, 80, 40, or 30 years ago and
some to recent studies. However, in a changing world in
which small societies have been exposed to economic
changes, technology, television, tourism, and trade with
economically developed nations of the West and Asia,
these societies have also been adapting. Acculturation
and enculturation in response to these pressures for
change have also affected the links between ecology,
social structure, family types, and psychological vari-
ables. There is a trend toward more families becoming
structurally nuclear, even in small societies. However,
one must be careful in employing the phrase ‘‘becoming
nuclear.’’ There is increasing evidence from studies of
small societies or developing nations that the predic-
tions of modernization theory that the driving force of
modernization, the economic engine, will eventually
lead to the Western type of nuclear family system may
be incorrect. The number of nuclear families is increas-
ing in many developing societies; the traditional family
systems are no longer totally dependent on subsistence
systems, such as hunting, gathering, or even agriculture;
young couples are increasingly choosing their spouses
rather than entering arranged marriages; women are
increasingly entering the workforce; traditional family
roles have changed; and the male is no longer the
22
absolute patriarch in the family. However, even though
the number of nuclear families is increasing in most
societies, these families still maintain very close relation-
ships with their kin. It appears that although the struc-
ture of the family is changing from extended to nuclear,
the functions of the family and the kin relations have
not changed as much. Interactions and relations with
kin are the psychological components of the family,
which are of particular concern to psychologists.
The study of culture, family, and the psychological
consequences is thus in a very dynamic phase and of
considerable interest to social scientists and students.
See Also the Following Articles
Marital Therapy
Further Reading
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R.
(2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applica-
tions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human develop-
ment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Georgas, J., Berry, J. W., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Kagitcibasi, C.,
& Poortinga, Y. H. (Eds.). (2005). Cultures, family and
Family and Culture
psychological functioning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ingoldsby, B. B., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (1995). Families in
multicultural perspective. New York: Guilford.
Levinson, D., & Malone, M. J. (1980). Toward explaining
human culture. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship.
London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
Malinowski, B. (1962). Sex, culture, and myth. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, & World.
Minturn, L., & Lambert, W. W. (1964). Mothers of six cul-
tures. New York: Wiley.
Munroe, R. H., Munroe, R. L., & Whiting, B. B. (1981).
Handbook of cross-cultural development. New York: Garland.
Murdock, P. M. (1949). Social structure. New York: Free
Press.
Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of the contemporary
United States. American Anthropologist, 45, 22–38.
Parsons, T. (1949). The social structure of the family. In
R. N. Anshen (Ed.), The family: Its functions and destiny.
New York: Harper.
Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the nest—Family changes and
decline in modern societies. New York: Aldine.
Segalen, M. (1986). Historical anthropology of the family.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Whiting, B., & Whiting, J. W. M. (1975). Children of six
cultures: A psycho-cultural analysis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.