For example: the impact of family structure in the well-being of children: the changes to family structure, namely the absence of the biological mother or father, have the potential to debilitate the socio-emotional well-being of children, especially in contexts of poverty (Pierce et al., 2014).
​
The impact of family structure and the context of existence in personal networks is another example. The study conducted by Aeby et al. (20179, which sought to investigate the impact of biographical, structural and macro factors on the construction of personal connections in the life of young adults amongst different countries and generations, showed that family bonds embody personal networks more in cases of co-residence with partners and/or children than in cases of young adults that lived alone or in a “nest” (in their parent’s house) and that includes closer bonds of friendship apart from those of family. Additionally, it was shown that the national context of existence has an impact on the structure of personal networks, where in developed countries, with greater welfarism, we can witness a greater inclusion of friendship bonds than on less developed countries, these having economic restraints, we can observe a solidification of the presence of familial bonds in social connections by depending more on them to solve the lack of or difficulty of access to personal housing.
The impact and duration of the situation towards housing on individual well-being is also illustrative. The fact that living in a procured house or on a rented one, during long periods of time, can impact the future well-being and show processes of accumulation of advantages and disadvantages. In short, individuals that live longer in a renting situation, especially those that previously lived on their own house, show worse states of happiness and affection in their well-being during the later stages of life (Vanhoutte et al., 2017).
​
A final example can be the impact of the marital decision and the household’s structure on personal attitudes. A couple deciding to consummate marriage shows an adaptation, a sharing of values and traditional family beliefs and can have consequences on the satisfaction with life and relationships as well as the subsequent well-being.
Even if there is a gentrification on the satisfaction of the relationship before and after marriage, where women show greater values of satisfaction, the structure of the household also shows an impact of that satisfaction, since the presence of children can cause a negative effect on the fulfilment of the cohabitating couple (Roser & Le Golf, 2018).
​
​
References:
​
Pearce, A., Hope, S., Lewis, H., & Law, C. (2014), “Family structure and socio-emotional wellbeing in the early years: a life course approach”, Longitudinal and life course studies, 5(3), 263-282.
​
Aeby, G., Gauthier, J. A., Gouveia, R., Ramos, V., Wall, K., & ÄŒesnuitytÄ—, V. (2017), The impact of coresidence trajectories on personal networks during transition to adulthood: A comparative perspective, em Family Continuity and Change, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 211-242
Vanhoutte, B., Wahrendorf, M., & Nazroo, J. (2017), “Duration, timing and order: How housing histories relate to later life wellbeing” Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 8(3), 227-244.
Ryser, V. A., & Le Goff, J. M. (2018), “The Transition to Marriage for Cohabiting Couples: Does it Shape Subjective Well-being and Opinions or Attitudes Toward Family?” em Social Dynamics in Swiss Society, Springer, Cham, pp. 47-59.
​
​
Text by Marco Carreira, 2019
​
​