Sign here: Coresidence contracts for parents and young adults who live together

• Published in: Family relations Vol. 73; no. 3; pp. 1625 - 1645
• Main Authors: Wellsch, Jordan, Gelech, Jan, Mazurik, Kathrina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken, USA Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.07.2024; National Council on Family Relations
• Subjects: Adolescent Literature; Adult children; Adult development; Child Role; conflict; Conflict resolution; Content analysis; Contracts; Coresidence; Developmental Stages; Educational Demand; Families & family life; Family Income; Family Involvement; Family Problems; Family Role; legal motifs; Literature Reviews; Living arrangements; living at home; Longitudinal studies; Parent Child Relationship; Parent-child relations; Parents & parenting; parent–child relationships; Prevention; punishment and rewards; rationalizing commentary; responsibilities; Rights; room for personalization; Self help; Socialization; Termination; timelines; Trust (Psychology); Values; Well Being; young adulthood; Young adults; Canada; United States > US
• ISSN: 0197-6664; 1741-3729; 0197-6664
• DOI: 10.1111/fare.12979

Objective To describe the content of parent and young adult coresidence contracts, attending to understandings of development and adulthood, processes of socialization, and conflict prevention and resolution. Background Little is known about overcoming the challenges of parent and young adult coresidence. Popular media encourages families to adopt written contracts to clarify expectations, prevent conflict, and cultivate positive experiences. However, their content, use, and effectiveness have not been empirically investigated. Method This work is a qualitative content analysis of a sample of young adult and parent coresidence contracts obtained from popular self‐help and parenting resources. Results Contract content emphasized the following: parent and young adult rights and responsibilities, timelines around the termination of coresidence and other responsibilities and developmental milestones, legal motifs, punishments and rewards, rationalizing commentary, and room for personalization. Overall, contracts focused on role‐specific rights and responsibilities and positioned young adults as subjects of socialization in hierarchical family systems. Conclusion Coresidence contracts scaffold young adult development according to traditional Western understandings of adulthood. Depending on family circumstances, they have the potential to benefit and harm parent–child relationships. Implications The asymmetrical nature of coresidence contacts raises questions about their ability to support mutual aims, intergenerational understanding, young adult independence, interpersonal trust, and healthy parent–young adult relationships.