The Negative Effects of Divorce on the Behavior of Children

 

Portland State University 

PDXScholar Dissertations and Teses

Dissertations and Teses

1976

Te negative eects of divorce on the behavior behavior of  children David Hawkins  Portland State State University

Karen Lloyd  Portland State State University

Follow this and additional works at: hp://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Recommended Citation Hawkins, David and Lloyd, Karen, "Te negative eects of divorce on the behavior of children chil dren"" (1976). Dissertations and Teses. Paper 1862.

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Teses by an authorized administrator of  PDXScholar.. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PDXScholar [email protected].

 

 ·

THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF DIVORCE ON THE BEHAVIOR OF CHILDREN

by DAVID HAWKINS

and KAREN LLOYD

A.

practicum submitted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m en t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

ortland S t at e University   976

 

  CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

e

wish t o thank Dr.

~ t a n l e y

Cohen, Assistant P r o f e s -

s o r i n the Department o f Psychiatry and P e d i a t r i c s s t y o f Oregon Health Sciences Center

Research A s s i s t a n t

Univer-

and Nolan Jones

and the o t h e r members o f th e

IDC P

p r o j e c t team for t h e i r advice and encouragement . and p a r t i c -

u l a r l y . f o r th e use o f d a t a from the p r o j e c t

Impact o f

Divorce on Children and P a r e n t s . e

Longres

w ish t o express our ap p rec1 atio n t o Dr. John Associate P r o f e s s o r o f Social Work and Sociology

Portland S t a t e University

School o f

~ o c i

l

Work, f o r h i s

a s s i s t a n c e i n the design o f t h i s practicum and f o r h i s advice and support i n completion o f t h i s

p r a c t 1 c ~ m

Thanks

go t o Dr. Q. Dean Clarkson f o r help with the s t a t i s t 1 c a l problems

 

and t o Bea Todd for typing t h i s work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST

ii

OF TABLES

v

.

i I

I

I

1

CHAPTER I

•

INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

3

Causes f o r Divorce •

11

Causes f o r Divorce In crease S t r es s f u l Marriages

Changing Att tudes Towards D1vorce on Divorce Behavioral Changes i n Ch ldren Descrip tio n o f Behavioral Changes Statistics

x p ~ c t a t i o n s

o f the Study

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

32

IDCAP

32

Study Questions

35

Sample

37

Coding and Re

 

32

ab ility

9

Variables

39

Limitatio n s of the Study

4

iv PAGE

CHAPTER

IV

FINDINGS . . . .

42

Incidence o f Problems

43

Types o f Problems

51

Severity

54

Severity of Problems f o r Individual Children S e v e r i t y o f Problems Within F amilies

v

Summary

59

CONCLUSIONS

61

Discussion

'61

Implications f o r Social Work

64

Recommendations f o r Future Research

65

BIBLIOGRAPHY

66

APPENDIX I •

72

APPENDIX I I

87

·  

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

TABLE Inci'dence o f Problem Behavior Among

I

44

Children Incidence o f Perceived Problems i n

Families

III'

.

· · · · · · · · · · · · ·

5

·

• •

· · · · ·

46

· ·  · · · · · · · ·

Economic Status and Perceived Negative Behavior Change o f Children

VI

• •

Age o f Child and Perceived Behavior ChCinge .

V

44

•

Sex o f Child and Perceived Behavior Change

V

·

·

•

47

· · · · ·

48

··

Relig io u s P referen ce and Perceived Negative Behavior Change o f

Children VII

 

. · · · · · ·

Amount o f Time Both Parents Spend

Working and Perceived Incidence o f Problems

VIII

··· ·

•

· · ·

·

Problems o f Children i n F amilies o f

· ·

Three o r More Children • • •

IX

~

i d e n

e

·

49

50

o f Problems i n Health, I n t e r 

personal and-School C a t e g o r i e s . X

•

Incidence of Health Problems • • .

52

52

 

vi

PAGE

TABLE

XI XII

XIII

Incidence o f School Problems · · · ·

53

Incidence o f I n t e r p e r s o n a l Problems

54

Incidence o f Perceived Severe and

55

Not Severe Problems XIV

Incidence of S ev erity Ratings o f Children a s Perceived by

56

P aren ts XV

Sex o f Child and Perceived S ev erity of

XVI

XVII

ehavioral Change

56

Age o f Child and Perceived S ev erity ehavioral Change   · · · · · · · of Incidence o f Perceived S ev erity i n

Families

 

· · · · · · · · ·

 

. . . . .

·

· · · · · · · · ·

57

58

CH PTER I

INTRODUCTION

rnivorce

many p eo p le. stigma

is

is

becoming a common event i n the l i v e s o f

It

is

now e a s i e r t o d i s s o l v e marria ge, and l e s s

However, f o r many,

a t t a c h e d t o divor ced p eo p le.

divorce remains a n eg ativ e and trau matic ex p erien ce.

Not

only does th e d iv o rcin g couple s u f f e r , but th e c h i l d r e n ar e

affected as well:J I n the p a s t , concern has been focused on the problems

o f th e p a r e n t s , but l a t e l y there has been a growing i n t e r e s t

i n the e f f e c t s o f d iv o rce on c h i l d r e n .

This has e s p e c i a l l y

been the case among those i n the h e l p i n g p r o f e s s i o n s who

work with c h i l d r e n ex p erien cin g problems.

Because o f t h e i r

p erso n al i n t e r e s t , th e w r i t e r s became members o f a r e s e a r c h

team studying d i v o r c e . Childr en and P a r e n t s ,

The p r o j e c t ,

Impact o f Divorce on

(IDCAP), d e a l t with s e v e r a l a r e a s o f

a f f e c t e d by divorce. The study presented here d e r i v e s from one p a r t i c u l a r area o f t h a t e f f o r t family

life

Our study

is

concerned with the e f f e c t s o f f i l i n g f o r

divor ce on the behavior o f c h i l d r e n .

e

are in terested in

the adjustment of the c h i l d t o the changes which occur d u ring s e p a r a t i o n and d iv o rce, and

~

main tain the a t t i t u d e

t h a t the l i v e s o f c h i l d r e n a r e a f f e c t e d i n some way when a

 

2,

marrlage o r family

~ n i t

dissolves.

A

g e n e r ~ l l y

accepted,

b e l l e f i s t h a t dlvorce produces n eg ativ e consequences i n the l i v e s o f ch i l d r en a s shown i n t h e i r

b e h a v l o ~ .

However

r e ~

cen t l y a number o f s t u d i es have suggested t ha t d iv o rce need not be

n e g

people f e e l

t l v ~

it

experience, a t l e a s t t o th e degree moet

Factors t h a t influence the e f f e c t s on

ls l

the i n t e n s i t y

children include: divorGing p a r t n e r s j

of the

c o n f l i c ~

b e t w e ~ n · t n e .

th e degree t o which p ar en t s demonstrate

concern f o r th e ch i l d r en and help them prepare f 9 r

a r a t i o n ; the c h i l d s

~ t

t o th e cu s t o d i al

c h m e n t

th e l e v e l o f maturity and general p e r s o n a l i t y tics

of

t h ~

aep-

t h ~

and,

p a ~ e r i t ;

c h a : r a c ~ e . r i B -

child.

The primary goal o f ,the study p r e s e n t e d here determine the e x t e n t t o which

ch i l d r en a r e v i s ab l e

i m m e d i

~ e g

~ e l y

t l v e

behavior

c h

is

to

n g e ~

follow1ng a divorce.

in Addi-

t i o n a l l y , we wish t o desoribe those changes and determine

t h e i r frequenoy.

F i n al l y , we w1eh t o r e l a t e such changes t o

c e r t a i n s o c l a l v ar i ab l es including economic statu s and age and sex of the

ch l l d r en .

Louise Despert, Children o f Divorce (Gard en City, Dolphin, 1962). New York: IJ

 

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This study 1 s concerned with family and c h i l d r e n .

As

a background, and i n o rd er t o help i n the a n a l y s i s of data; t h i s chapter w i l l examine the family a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n , a s well a s changing a t t i t u d e s toward divorce.

The research

concerning p o s s i b l e negative behavior changes i n c h i l d r e n

due t o divorce Little

is

is

c e n t r a l t o our stu d y .

known about family o r g a n i z a t i o n bef or e the

beginning o f w r i t t en h i s t o r y . The v ar i et y o f f am i l i al s t r u c t u r e s found i n e a r l i e r times o r among nonindustrial

people g iv es u s a number o f i n s i g h t s but does not about the o r i g i n s of the American family.

tell

us

All statemen ts

about the o r i g i n and evolution of family types must be

c la ssifie d as supposition. 2

~

h e

ch i l d r en .

family i s generally composed o f parents and t h e i r

The conjugal o r

n u c l e

~

f

m i l y ~ r e f e r s

t o an

inti-

mate, c l o s e l y k n i t group c o n s i s t i n g o f spouses and o f f -

spring, whereas the consanguine o r extended family co n s i s t s o f a large group o f blood r e l a t i v e s .

A b a s i c assumption o f

The Natur al Histo ry o f the Family, i n Linton, I t s Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth N Anshen a r p e r & Bros. , 1959), p . 31.

 

4 the fam1ly 1 s the continu1ty of the mated r e l a t i o n s h i p and the a n t i c i p a t i o n o f permanence. Man's need f o r s e c u r i t y i n h i s p erso n al r e l a t i o n s h i p s

and a d es i r e f o r congenial companionship had probably given

considerable permanence t o matings b efo re c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s

came i n t o play.

One o f these f act o r s

s

g e n e r a l l y been divided according t o sex .

t h a t l a b o r has H1 sto r1 cally , the

man has 'been the p r o v i d e r and th e woman th e preparer o f raw materials,

unt l

r e c e n t l y when t h i e basic p a t t e r n o f eco

nomic interdependence o f the sexes has begun t o change. Western c u l t u r e s ,

In

the women's movement has had a n e f f e c t on

l i b e r a t i n g the house-bound fema,le and allowing h e r t o work outside th e home i n th e economic system. Although the mating r e l a t 1 0 n s h i p p ro v id es a basiS f o r

th e family u n i t , o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e a l s o involved, such

a s those of p a r e n t s t o c h i l d r e n and c h i l d r e n t o each o t h er .

Many have seen the function of the family a s t h a t o f the parents p ro v id in g f o r the emotional and p sy ch o lo g ical needs o f th e c h i l d r e n .

On the o t h e r hand, Laing w r i t e s t h a t t h e

f a m i l y ' s functions are

t b induce a f a l s e consciousness o f s e c u r i t y • • t o promote r e s p e c t , conformity, obedience; t o con c h i l d r e n out o f play; t o induce a f e a r o f f a i l u r e ; t o 'promote a r e s p e c t f o r work; t o promote a r eSpect fqr r e s p e c t a b i l i t y . 3 •

3

'

R. D. Laing, "The M y s t i f i c a t i o n o f Experience, a r p Radical Psychology, ed. by P h i l Brown New York:

now, 1973 ):;

p.ll

.

in ~ r

&

 

5 I n o p p o sitio n t o the f e e l i n g t h a t the family1s fu n ctio n i s su p p o rtiv e and growth-producing f o r the c h i l d r e n , Laing

f e e l s t h a t i t i s i n h i b i t i v e and growth-denying.

It is

.

l i k e l y t h a t family l i f e i n c l u d e s both f u n c t i o n s . Various forms of the family u n i t have been found o t h e r

than t hose alread y mentioned,

such a s group o r p l u r a l mar

r i a g e s , p l u r a l i t y o f husbands o r wives, s i n g l e p a r e n t fami lies,

etc.

S o c i e t i e s u sin g forms o f p l u r a l marriages have

riot been uncommon. more

Polygamy, p l u r a l i t y o f wives, i s much

than polyandry, p l u r a l i t y o f husbands.

common

Even i n

s o c i e t i e s which co n sid er th ese th e i d e a l form ,of m a rri a ge , most f a m i l i e s a r e monogamous through f or ce of' circum

stances.

4

coming more

.

I n our c u l t u r e , s i n g l e p a r e n t f a m i l i e s a r e b e  common

and accep ted .

The e a r l y Western family o r g a n i z a t i o n , a s s o c i a t e d with a pastoral

e c ~ n o m y

was p a t r i a r c h a l (g en eral c o n t r o l o f

family members by the f a t h e r ) ,

p a t r i l i n i a l . ( descent i s t r a c e d

through the males) , polygamou s ( p l u r a l i ty o f wi vee) , and e x  tended ( a r e s i d e n t i a l combination o f t h r e e o r more gener a

I n the Hebrew family, th e p a t r i a r c h tions or r e l a t i v e s . had almost a b s o l u t e power. Women were su b jected t o the w i l l

 

1

o f t h e i r husbands, and sons were highly valued. l i e s were very s i m i l a r ; however, Women I

I I

were s t i l l o f low s t a t u s .

Greek fami

they were monogamous. Men

were a b l e t o divor ce

(

4Linton,

OPe

c i t . , p.

40.

 

6 t h e i r wives i n v ario u s methods depending on the c u l t u r e ,

and only g r a d u a l l y were the wives p ermitted t o divor ce t h e i r husbands f o r l i m i t e d reaso n s.

Like t h e i r p red ecesso rs,

the

Germanic and E nglish peoples were p a t r i a r c h a l , but the s y s 

tem o f double descent p r o t e c t e d the wives from too much However, t h e r e was a l s o a double stan d ard o f m ora l 

abuse. ity

f avor ing the males.

The emergence o f feudalism emphasized a b i l i t y t o b e a r arms and lowered the s t a t u s o f women even more BO

This

a t t i t u d e was g rad u ally rep laced a s the romantic t r a d i t i o n o f c h i v a l r y appeared; and though a t f i r s t i t was consider ed 1 n - . compatible with mar r iage,

i t grew t o be more p o p u lar. t r

The

n s p o s ~ d

l i n g e r i n g e f f e c t s o f t h i s t r a d i t i o n were t o the American c o l o n i e s and the family system was orga ni z e d around the n u clear o r conjugal family with a c l e a r l y p a t r i -

E a rl y America was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r u r a l

a r c h a l system.

living.

Families s e t t l e d on a p l o t o f lan d .

T heir sub

s i s t e n c e came from r eaping the h a r v e s t s and maintaining That was the e r a of the p ro d u ctiv e family

t h e i r animals.

system.

As

i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n pr ogr essed, f a m i l i e s moved-

c l o s e r t o sour ces o f employment and the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f working the land diminished. towns and c i t i e s

People looked f o r work i n

u n t i l c u r r e n t l y the c1ty i s th e fo cal

p o i n t o f most American f a m i l i e s . and widespread mobi11ty, until finally,

With th e passage, o f time

the p a t r i a r c h a l t r a d i t i o n weakened,

i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and u r b a n i z a t i o n

 

7 transformed the family i n t o a small consumption u n i t . 5

w i l l discuss

later

e

the functions of the family t h a t changed

during tHis period.

Customs o f the family often correspond with the customs.of t h e i r s o c i e t y .

For example, when the government

is

a u t h o r i t a r i a n , the family head tends t o r e f l e c t

American family still

is

r e l a t i v e l y nonauthoritarian; however, men

have a u t h o r i t y over many famIly matters including

place of residence.

In our c u l t u r e , free e n t e r p r i s e i n f l u -

ences many o f our s o c i a l customs, family

The

this

is

established.

e

i ~

l u d i n g

the way the

are encouraged t o choose our own

mates but the a l i e n a t i o n of the free e n t e r p r i s e system i n -

fluences u s t o

treat

others,

including m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s , a s

o b j e c t s and t o measure t h e i r personal worth a s our own i n terms o f individual achievement.

t i o n o f a mate a r e : c

u ~ i n g

,Factors i n f l u e n c i n g s e l e c -

(a) educational and economic f a c t o r s ,

people t o wait longer before marriage;

(b) increased

mobility with a wider s e l e c t i o n o f mates p o s s i b l e ; and (c) a n increased emphasis on romantic love, which I s

felt

t o be

determinable by the couple a l o n e . is

A f t e r marriage, the couple a b l e t o make many chOices, a freedom which i s unusual I n the w o rl d . They are

f r e e t o choose how and where they w i l l l i v e , and

w i l l bear and r a i s e c h i l d r e n .

It

is

5Gerald R. L e s l i e , The a m i l ~ York: Oxford University Press, 19

if

they

not uncommon f o r both

i n Social Context 7 , p . 211.

New

 

8 p ar t n er s i n the upper and middle s t r a t a t o work and pursue

careers.

I t i s more common i n lower c l a s s f a m i l i e s for the

wife t o remain a t home t o care f o r the c h i l d r e n and husband.

A notable f e a t u r e o f the American family i s i t s r e l a t i v e l y nonauthoritarian c h a r a c t e r .

The mo th er's opinions

are somewhat equal t o the father1s,

and the c h i l d r e n are not

l i k e l y t o see them a s a l a s t au t h o r i t y from which there i s

no a p p e a l . 6

These f r ee choice and nonauthoritarian aspects

o f the family, along with i t s privacy and p o t e n t i a l l e i s u r e , evidence only a few of the many ways i n which i t has become

co n s i s t en t with major emphasis i n our n a t i o n a l l i f e . 7 I

The American family which occurs most o f t e n i s perhaps

I I

!

best characterized a s a n open, m u l t i l i n e a l , conjugal system.

Our system i s d i s t i n c t i v e because o f t h e absence o f any important u n i t s which cut a c r o s s conjugal f am i l i es .

The

system i s made up exclusively o f i n t er l o ck i n g conjugal (or

nuclear) families.

8

These are individual differences', such

a s another ad u l t o r ch i l d outside the immediate nuclear fami l y l i v i n g with a family.

How'ever, the most commonly found

variance i s the s i n g l e p a r e n t family, which involves one Benedict, "The Family: Genus Americanum," i n I t s Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth N. York: Harper & Bros. , 1959), p . 60.

7Ibid . 8Talcott Parsons, "The Social Structure of the Fami l y , " i n The Family: I t s Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth N. Anshen New York: Harper & Bros.; 1959), p . 242.

 

9 parent and the c h i l d r e n o f the former marrlage. i s not only

This type

becoming more common, b u t more accep ted .

The basic s a t i s f a c t i o n s t h a t family l i f e o f f e r s th e p ar t n er s who e n t e r i n t o th e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p are th e

f u l f i l l m e n t of various p sy ch o lo g ical needs.

They may be

summarized a s the need f o r a f f e c t i o n , s ecu r i t y , p e r f e c t e d

emotional response, a s well a s sexual s a t i s f a c t i o n .

c h i l d r e n a r e p a r t of the family, the p a r e n t s want them, and the

When

i t i s more o f t e n because

f u n

~ i o n s

o f the family e x 

A number o f people have conceived t h eo r i es regarding

pand.

these functions, and vary somewhat.

St r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n a l theory i s concerned with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and function or

Murdock,9 a s t r u c t u r a l f u n c t i o n a l i s t , l i s t s four

purpose.

functions common t o the family u n i t : productive and education

or

sex u al, economic, r e 

s o c ~ a l i z a t i o n

,

while Kingsley

Davis, another f u n c t i o n a l i s t , considers reproduction, main

s o c i a l i z a t i o n and placement the primary func

tenance,

t i o n s . lO

The s t r u c t u r e - f u n c t i o n theory focuses on the i n t e g r a  t i o n o f the family system with the o ccu p atio n al system;ll

9C. C. Harris, The Family: An I n t r o d u c t i o n New York: Praeger P u b l i s h e r s , 1967), p . 93. lOKlngsley Davis, Human S o ciety

1948), pp. 394-5. 11

Leslie,

OPe

clt.

pp.

London:

Macmillan,

248-9.

 

10 ow each

co n t r i b u t es t o th e maintenance o f the o t h er .

reg ard t o American f a m i l i e s ,

With

t i e s with th e p a r e n t a l g en era

t i o n are minimized, and t h e r e i s a l a c k o f l a r g e r kinship groups.

Marriage i s the s t r u c t u r a l keystone o f the system.

Procreation,

c o n t r o l o f s ex u al i t y , r e l i g i o u s i n d o ct r i n at i o n ,

and s o c i a l i z a t i o n a l l l e a d people i n t o marriag e.

The occu

p at i o n al system r eg u l at es th e s e g r e g a t i o n o f r o l e s , r e q u i r 

Ing t h a t only one member,

the husband, be a f u l l p a r t l c l p a n t

i n the occupational system.

The famlly must be geograph

. i c a l l y and s o c l a l l y mobile.

The faml1y has o f t e n been conceived o f a s a p a s s l v e agent In s o c l a l change'--to adopt t o changes I n o t h e r ar eas o f s o c i e t y r a t h e r than t o cause changes.

The economic and

p o l i t l c a l ' I n s t i t u t i o n s are f e l t t o change more r a p i d l y th an the famlly .

Attempts have been made t o understand the r e 

l a t l o n s h i p of the family system t o other s o c i a l i n s t i t u -

tions.,

Car le Zimmerman developed a c y c l i c a l theory, findlng

t h r e e r e c u r r l n g family types: a t o m i s t i c family.12  

e

the t r u s t e e , domestic o r

finds change occurs i n g i an t h i s 

t o r i c a l cy cl es . p r o g r e s s i v i s t theory,1I a s Ogburn d e s c r I b e s i t

The

f i n d s technological development

s

th e prime cause o f s o c i a l

change and the family a s p a s s i v e l y ad j u s t i n g t o outside

12. Ibid.,

p.

223.

 

11 changes.13  changes.13  

any fu n ctio n s formerly performed by the family

have been l o s t t o o t h e r s o c i e t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .

such a s economic, p r o t e c t i v e , relig io u B,

Func tions

r e c r e a t i o n a l , edu-

c a t i o n a l , and s t a t u s a r e no longer held p r i m a r i l y by the family.

However, a f f e c t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l i t y fu n ctio n s a r e

more important than they used t o be. These theor 1es have a tte m pte d t o d escrib e r easons f o r

a chang1ng family system, wh1ch i s demonstrable by many f a c -

t o r s , one o f

1 s a r i s e i n divorce r a t e s i n r e c e n t

w ~ i c h

The causes f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r phenomenon a r e the

years.

same a s f o r o t h e r s o c i a l changes and w i l l be descr ibed later.

Causes For Divorce

There a r e many e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s t h a t have added s t r a i n

t o the marriage and fam1 ly .relat1 o n sh ip s, ,causing divor ce t o

George Leonard d e s c r i b e s o t h e r b a s i c r easons f o r

increase.

people1s i n a b i l i t y t o g e t along with one an o th er by w r i t i n g : e can or b1t the e a r t h , touch the moon • . • and y e t t h i s s o c i e t y has not y e t devised a way (though love p ro p els our very eXistence) f o r man and woman t o l i v e t o g e t h e r f o r s e v e r a l s t r a i g h t d y ~ wirll any assurance of harmony and p erso n al

growth. 13 I b 1 d .

p.

248.

14aeorge B. Leonard, "The December 24, 1968, p . 55.

an and Woman Thing,

Look,

 

12

One o f the most common reasons people give f or d iv o rce is

incompatibility.1f   When broken down

t h i s word s i g n i f i e s

a n abundance o f d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s and expectations on

the p a r t of t he couple. marry i n a haze.

people commonly

Jourard says,

They marry a n image

not a person. 15

Later the couple becomes aware of the many di f f er ences b e -

tween them. may grow

I f not d e a l t with properl y,

t hese di f f er ences

i s o l a t i n g one person from another.

Communication

may break down under t h i s tenSion, increasing t h i s i s o l a -

tion.'

Often t h e r e a r e major problems o r di f f er ences t h a t

are not worked through. difficulties

Some of t hese include f i n a n c i a l

sexual adjustment, r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , and

s o c i a l c l a s s v alu es a s well a s parenting s t y l e s . Perhaps beneath t h i s array o f problems faci ng a mar-

r i a g e i s anot her ai l ment :

t hat of al i enat i on.

O'Neil says,

cl oseness i s a paradox, longed f o r but i ncreaSi ngl y i n t o l -

e r a ~ l e

f f I 6

People do not know how t o be intimate, or

they

a r e not s u f f i c i e n t l y knowledgeable t o t o l e r a t e . aut hent i c e n

o u n t e r ~

with supposed i n t i m a t e s . l 7

The f e a r o f intimacy

of t en eventually causes couples t o become increasingly T h ~

Jourard,1971), Transparent Self D. Van 15S1dney Nostrand M. Company p . 43.

l 6 Nena and George O'Neil, Open Marriage Avon Books 1972), p . 31.

New York:

New York:

17 I b i d . , p . 32.

 

13 independent, l o s i n g important common bonds and 1 n t e r e s t s ,

thus s e t t i n g th e stag e f o r divorce.

Add1ng t o th1s sense o f

a l i e n a t i o n may be the r o l e o f the family a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n , such a s th e establishment o f sex r o l e s ,

and au t h o r i t y p a t -

t e r n s which g en erate c o n f l i c t . Other f o r c e s a f f e c t i n g divorce are l a r g e r than the

problems,of i n d i v i d u al s .

Free e n t e r p r i s e teaches u s, a s a

s o c i e t y , t o t r e a t each o t h e r a s o b j ect s ; s o c i e t a l a u t h o r i t y

p a t t e r n s , and s o c i a l movements, such

~

th e women s mov movee-

Perhaps f o r some the

ment, cause c o n f l i c t between p eo p le.

system i s not u t i l i z e d o r integrat,ed properly. Causes For Divorce Increase.

I n d i v i d u a l d i f f er en ces

a r e being l e s s t o l e r a t e d than i n p rev io u s decades.

When

coupled with increasing external pressures placed on the family, the r e s u l t i s a n increase i n divorce. Understanding

the reasons couples divorce w i l l provide a valuable background f o r t h i s study.

e

w i l l examihe s o c i a l pressures and

changing a t t i t u d e s toward i t which a f f e c t the increase i n

divorce. There i s no doubt t h a t th e two major wars o f our time and the more l o cal i zed wars have had a d i s t u r b i n g influence

on human r e l a t i o n s h i p s , even association.

h e r ~

t

the most intimate l e v e l o f

i s some evidence t h a t family d i s r u p t i o n

tends t o p a r a l l e l world d i s r u p t i o n and t h a t wars bring a n

 

14· i n c r e a s e i n d iv o rce, whereas peace r e s t o r e s family s t a -

bility.18  Another major tu rmo il t h a t had

its

onset i n the

l

st

im-century was i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , which has had a profound im p a c t on p eo p le.

The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f machinery i n t o the

f i e l d o f economic p ro d u ctio n has r e s u l t e d i n major changes throughout th e whole i n d u s t r i a l world. Existing industries have been transformed while many new ones have been c r e a t e d .

The s u b s t i t u t i o n o f mechanical f o r p h y s i c a l power has caused the rearrangement o f the forces o f p'roduction and

redistri-

People are more mobile than ev er

bution o f th e population. b e f o r e , making

it

difficult

s t r o n g support system. family,

past.

with

its

f o r th e family t o maintain a

Mobility has had an e f f e c t on the

being smaller and l e s s stu rd y than i n the

This makes th e family more v u ln erab le t o d i s r u p t i o n .

As has peen s t a t e d , because o f i n d u s t r i a l 1 z a t i o n , blocks o f people moved t o the c i t y .

e

modern i n d u s t r i a l c i t y , and

felt

have seen the

rise

o f th e

th e p a i n s o f u r b a n i z a t i o n .

The in creased p r o d u c t i v i t y o f l a b o r and c a p i t o l has made p o s s i b l e the r a p i d accumulation o f wealth .

These r e v o l u -

t i o n a r y changes i n wealth have complicated every form o f

s o c i a l a c t i v i t y and c r e a t e d a mu ltitu d e o f new problems.

Deep and fundamental changes i n the i n d u s t r i a l b a s i s o f SOCiety have e f f e c t e d and been accompanied by

l 8 p8UI Jacobson, American Marriage and Divorce York: Rein h art and Co., I n c . , 1959 , p . 91.

New

 

15

transformations i n th e s o ci al o r d e r .

With the change 1n th e

m a t e r i a l b as i s o f e x i s t e n c e , the functions o f s o ci al i n s t i -

t u t i o n s change i n form.

The p e r i o d s o f most r a p i d modern

i n d u s t r i a l development coincide with the p e r i o d s o f most r a p i d in crease i n divorce r a t e s . As

s t a t e d e a r l i e r , a t the beginning o f the modern er a,

th e family was the economic u n i t o f s o ci et y .

I t was u s u a l l y

l a r g e and l i v ed c l o s e t o the s o i l , fu n ctio n in g a s an eco-

nomic u n i t , with each member o f the family c o n t r i b u t i n g according t o h i s a b i l i t y between husband and wife,

I f t h e r e ex i s t ed i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y

the care o f the c h i l d r e n and the

economic n e c e s s i t i e s o f th e family offered an i n c e n t i v e f o r

a d j u s t i n g o r s u f f e r i n g the d i f f i c u l t i e s

However

today we

see th e home maintained more a s a comfort and luxury th an a s a

necessity.

Census Bureau s t a t i s t i c s show young people a r e

postponing marriage u n t i l they a r e o l d e r , and families a r e s m a l l e r . 19 Because o f th e decr eased importance and dependency upon the family,

economic r easons have not proved s u f -

f l c i e n t t o hold the family together, and the divorce r a t e has r e g i s t e r e d the r e s u l t . Another change t h a t has a f f e c t e d the s t a t u s o f the

family i s the d e c l i n e i n au t h o r i t y o f the husband and

Whereas th e

father.

man once

had complete au t h o r i t y over

the home and family, women a r e beginping t o share i n 19

Ann

Blackman S t a t i s t i c s P r o j e c t More S t a b i l i t y For The Oregonian, February 5 1976.

Future Mar r iages,

 

decisions reg ard in g the home.

The women wom en's 's movement i s

l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e for t h i s change. p r e s s u r e s locked wife.

women

For s o long,

16

societal

i n t o the r o l e o f mother and house-

Recently th ese t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e s have been q u estio n ed

and challenged,

r e s u l t i n g i n increased employment by

women

outside the home, and i n c r e a s e s i n l e g a l , educational, and

c i v i c r i g h t s o f women. the t r e n d i s f o r married

With t h i s women

new

emphasis on eq u al i t y ,

t o acquire more responsib. ilil -

i t i e s outside the home, and f o r married

men

t o assume more

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n the home, s o t h a t the sexes shar e

more a c t i v i t i e s

The e f f e c t s o f in creased employment o f wives on family l i f e a r e manifold.

With th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f economic s e c u r -

i t y i n a job,

have more freedom i n the choice o f a

women

mate and i n the d e c i s i o n a s t o whether t o continue i n a n

 

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y marriage.l

I t i s suspected t h a t t h i s

freedom i s r e f l e c t e d i n divor ce r a t e i n c r e a s e s , women

in that

a r e e x e r c i s i n g t h i s freedom t o leav e bad marriag es.

The r o l e o f marriage i n the l i f e o f a fied.

new

wom n

i s g r e a t l y modi-

I t i s not a s e x c l u s i v e l y important a s i t used t o b e.

The women's movement i s a cause f o r divorce increase i n t h a t i t has given

women

permission t o s t r i v e f o r t h e i r

own

id en -

t i t y outside tQe home, p r i m a r i l y through employment, and t o

s t r i v e f o r p erso n al happiness even a t the r i s k o f d1ssolving a n unhappy marriage.

 

17

U n t i l the mid- nineteenth centur y, divor ce was almost

s o l e l y the p r e r o g a t i v e o f the husband.

I n f i d e l i t y and d e 

s e r t i o n remained a woman s main grounds f o r o b tain in g a divorce.

Aware t h a t t h e i r only means of sustenance was i n

m a rri a ge , women q u i e t l y endured t h e i r i n j u s t i c e u n t i l i n 

d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n provi de d e m a nc i pa t i on. k i t c h e n f o r the o f f i c e o r f a c t o r y ,

As

t he y l e f t the

t he y were no lo n g er con

t e n t t o endure c r u e l t y o r gener al unha ppi ne ss.

T hi s r e p r e 

s e n t s a new a t t i t u d e toward m a rri a ge , and has r e s u l t e d i n

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with those mar r iages which would have been re ga rde d a s s u c c e s s f u l a h a l f centur y ago. As

has a l r e a d y been mentioned,

t h ~

i s a greater ex

p e c t a t i o n f o r ha ppi ne ss i n marriage and a n in creased emphas i s on th e romantic a s p e c t s o f mar r iage. new awareness

There has been a

t h a t marriage can be happy and s a t i s f y i n g , a n d

t h i s q u a l i t y has come t o be expected.

The whole b a s i s o f

marriage has changed from one o f s u r v i v a l t o one o f p l e a s u r e and s a t i s f a c t i o n .

There i s a n

dependency upon

i n c r ~ a s e d

love t o pr ovide s t b i l i t y i n family r e l a t i o n s and a

c h

a p p r e c i a t i o n o f sex and i t s c o r r e l a t e d

With

s e n t i m ~ n t s

n g ~ d

th ese changing a t t i t u d e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s from marriage, disappointments a r i s e when marriage cannot f u l f i l l

l l these

e x p e c t a t i o n s and th e divor ce r a t e i n c r e a s e s . rAnother important f a c t o r undoubtedly adding t o the

f

i n c r e a s e i n divor ce has been the changing divor ce laws.

Al though i t 1 s d 1 f f i c u l t t o deter,mine whether o r not t h e r e

 

18 has been a n i n c r e a s e i n m a r i t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , we can

p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y the removal o f b a r r i e r s t o o b t a i n a divorce.

In

1967, the National Conference o f

Commissioners

on Uniform S t a t e Laws received a g r a n t from th e Ford Founda The e f f e c t o f

t i o n t o look i n t o ad ap tin g family law.

their

recommendations concerned reducing divorce t o a l eg al recog

n i t i o n t h a t a marriage has i n f a c t broken down.

On the

b as i s o f these recommendatl'ons a uniform law was drawn up t o ser ve a s a p a t t e r n f o r several s t a t e s , with the goal being

the n o - f au l t d i v o r c e .

The reason why they cannot l i v e t o 

g e t h e r i s o f no concern t o the world;

it

is

no o n e ' s b u s i 

ness but t h e i r s . , , 2 0

S o c i e t a l change i s rapid and a f f e c t s r o l e s t h a t i n d i 

v i d u a l s have i n m a r i t a l s i t u a t i o n s and o t h e r aspects o f

l i v e s . Roles a r e i n a s t a t e o f t r a n s i t i o n , making i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s somewhat more confusing and

their

d e l i c a t e l y balanced.

With the changes i n r o l e s , t h e r e has

come t o be an acceptance o f th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d iv o rce th e marriage does not b rin g h ap p in ess.

o f t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y , divorce l o s e s

its

if

With the acceptance emotional q u a l i t i e s ,

such a s th e f e e l i n g o f f a i l u r e o r g u i l t , which tends t o

r e s t r a i n the i n d i v i d u a l .

With th ese r e s t r a i n t s loosened,

people f e e l f r e e r t o s e p a r a t e o r d i v o r c e . needed

is

P o ssib ly what

v a r i a t i o n i n the form o f marriag e.

is

With th e

20 paul Bohanan, e d . , Divorce and After (Garden City , New Jersey: Doubleday and Company, I n c . , 1970), p . 14  

 

19 growing f l e x i b i l i t y o f marriage we can expect more a l t e r n a -

t i v e s , not a s d e v i a t i o n s but a s acceptable s t y l e s . 2 l

With

added f l e x i b i l i t y i n marriage, people w i l l have more choices

1n the type o f family st'ructure than now e x i s t , thereby helping people t o l i v e more h a p p i l y .

S t r e s s f u l Marriages.

The process of most m a r i t a l con-

f l i c t s t h a t terminate i n divorce e n t a i l s emotional divorce,

p h y s i c a l and f i n a l l y l e g a l d i v o r c e .

Emotional divorce i s

d i f f i c u l t enough but may be bearable i f the couple continues

to live together.

The pain over the dying marriage i n t e n S i -

f i e s when physical divorce (separation) takes p l a c e .

It is

then t h a t f e e l i n g s o f g u i l t and fa1lure become overwhelming. Legal divorce tends t o come a s an emotional a f t e r l u d e .

The

l e g a l t r a n s a c t i o n t h a t accompanies, the d i s s o l u t i o n o f a marriage does not destroy f a m i l i e s . The damage has already been by the time s o c i e t y gives i t s divorce decree. Goode d ~ n e found t h a t divorce i s preceded by a long period o f c o n f l i c t

and t h a t the obtaining of a divorce 1 s the f i n a l r e s u l t o f a

decision process l a s t i n g nearly two y e a r s . 2 2  2   I t would seem

t h a t 1n most instances i t i s the marriage t h a t i s most

stressful

York:

r

than the d1vorce process i t s e l f

t h e ~

Similarly,

21Helena Z. Lopata, ed Marriages and Fami11es (New D. Van Nostrand Company, 1973), p . 402.

22william J Goode, After Divorce (Glencoe: Press,. 1956), P 137.

The Free

e

 

20

divor ce may play l e s s a p a r t i n the be ha vi or. c ha nge o f

c h i l d r e n t ha n some m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t .

A study

y Browning

o f d elin q u en t and nondelinquent boys i n Los Angeles l e d him

t o the conclusion t h a t " d e l i n q u e n t s a r e a s l i k e l y t o come

from homes where a g r e a t d eal o f c o n f l i c t e x i s t s but a r e s t r u c t u r a l l y unbroken a s they a r e from broken homes."23 These r e s u l t s p o i n t t o the f a c t t h a t the n eg ativ e impact o f

divor ce upon c h i l d r e n may be no g r e a t e r than w ould be the e f f e c t s o f p a r e n t s cont1nuing t o l i v e t o g e t h e r i n a n unhappy mar r iage.

Sever al s t u d i e s have shown t h a t unhappy unbroken

homes may have more d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s upon c h i l d r e n t ha n 24   do broken homes. 24 The divor ce

itself

p a r t o f th e marriage.

is

o f t e n not th e most s t r e s s f u l

Often i t has been preceded by y e a r s

o f turmoil and h o s t i l i t y _

often a

relief

conf usion.

The divor ce p ro cess i n f a c t ,

is

t o p a r t i c i p a n t s , a n end t o the c o n f l i c t s and

Divorce can be

p ro cess t h a t can end unhappy,

harmful s i t u a t i o n s . Changing A t t i t u d e s Toward Divorce.

ago t h a t "divor ce" was a n a c t ,

It

was not long

not o f t e n publt' cized.

It

was

religious

not d iscu ssed because o f s o c i a l custom,

Browning, " D i f f e r e n t i a l Impact o f Family J 3 ch arles Diso rg2an izatio n Upon Male Adolescents,U S o c i a l Problems, Vol. 8 (Summer, 1960), 48.

2 4 Ivan F. Nye,

happy Unbroken

(1957), 356-61.

H o ~ e s

f

"Child Adjustment i n r o k ~ n and i n Un I Marriage and Family L iving, Vol. 9

 

21 p r i n c i p l e s , and h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n .

There has been an

overwhelming e f f o r t throughout h i s t o r y t o p r o t e c t marriage and l i m i t divorce.

Religious and s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s along

w ith l e g a l complications , formed a combined b a r r i e r t o

divorce.

What may have been s t a r t e d by the church was con

tinued by the newspapers.

There has been a pervasive and

p o s i t i v e image o f marriage and a negative image of divorce protrayed by the mass media.

Even i n the e a r l y twentieth

century, public a t t i t u d e s on divorce were deeply a f f e c t e d by newspapers, magazines and popular books. 25

The s t a t e , a s i l e n t p a r t n e r t o marriage, has been a n o t h e r opposing force o f divorce.

Until recently,

and i n c o n s i s t e n t divorce laws were widespread,

chaotic

confirming

and r e i n f o r c i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c Amer1can a n t i d i v o r c e

dition.

Although divorce was p e r m i t t e d ,

it

tr

was surrounded

/If

-

by i n h i b i t i n g negative a s s o c i a t i o n s . More r e c e n t l y , marriage has been viewed a s "no longer a s t a b l e s 1 t u a t i o n held together

y the consensus o f

a

s o c i e t y t h a t sees the l i f e l o n g union o f man and wife a s a d e s i r a b l e i n s t i t u t i o n .,,2 6

man

is

There

is

a general f e e l i n g t h a t

not Bubordinate t o the i n s t 1 t u t i o n o f marriage.

e

Merton, "The S e l f - F u l f i l l i n g Prophecy, in Soclal 25Robert Theory ~ nK. Social Structure (Glencoe: The Free Press,

1949).

26

,

Marriage i n the 70 s John H. Snow, On Pilgrimage: New York: The Seabury P r e s s , 1971), p . 95

 

22

a r e seeing a g r e a t e r expectation o f happiness i n marriage,,,27 and marriage l a s t i n g f o r the duration of happiness, r a t h e r than

I t i l death

do u s p a r t .

I t i s apparent t h a t general s o c i e t a l a t t i t u d e s a r e

changing, becoming more accepting o f the i n s t i t u t i o n o f

divorce.

T ~ i

may be observed by r e l a x i n g l e g a l codes on

divorce, o r hearing the decreas e i n public o u t c r i e s a t the

r a t e o f divorce.

There seems t o · b e a changing a t t i t u d e

t h a t divorce can be a p o t e n t i a l l y l i b e r a t i n g experience which r e s t r u c t u r e s family l i f e ,

and i s not n e c e s s a r i l y

detrimental t o those involved. Statistics

on Divorce.

The number o f divorces i n the

United S t a t e s i s r i s i n g every year.

However, 'it must be

remembered ·.that the population generally has increased, and could account f o r some o f the increase i n divorce.

I n 1974,

the number of divorces grew t o 970,000, an increase o f nearly 300,000 annually i n nine y e a r s . 28 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the P a c i f i c s t a t e s ,

which include Oregon, have the highest r a t e o f d1vorce i n

the United

t ~ w i t h

the lowest r a t e occurring i n the

Middle A t l a n t i c s t a t e s .

The P a c i f i c s t a t e s average 5.7

27 and M.Houghton F . N1mkoff, F . Ogburn the, Changing wFamily (Boston: Mi f f lTechnology i n Company, and 1955 p . 8. Department o f Commerce, Bureau of the Census, S t a t i s t i c a l Abstract of the United S t a t e s (Washington, D.C.:

2 ~ U

S

Government P r i n t i n g OffIce,

1975 ,

p.

67.

 

23 divorces per 1,000 people, with the s t a t e o f Oregon having nearly 12,000 divorces i n 1973. 29 Because o f the increase of divorce,

the number o f

c h i l d r e n involved i n divorce i s a l s o r i s i n g .

I n 1971, t h e r e

were 946,000 c h i l d r e n involved i n divorce, suggesting there a r e over a m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n now involved i n divorce a n n u a l l y . 3 0  There

a n average o f 1.22 c h i l d r e n o f every

is

divorce decree. Behavioral Changes i n Children Children o f t e n e x h I b i t the s t r e s s e s and s t r a i n s o f

d i s t u r b e d marriages and divorces i n various ways, and f o r various reasons.

e

have attempted t o p o i n t out t h a t the

bad marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p can be a s d i s r u p t i v e t o a c h i l d a s any divorce process, and i n f a c t

is

o f t e n more detrimental

t o c h i l d r e n . , A phenomenon which accounts f o r why c e r t a i n c h i l d r e n show symptoms and not o t h e r s i s t h a t o f scape-

goating.

This idea holds t h a t c h i l d r e n are o f t e n involved

i n the t e n s i o n s between t h e i r p a r e n t s .

The p a r e n t s , by

p r o j e c t i n g t h e i r c o n f l i c t s on the Child, maintain a reasonably harmonious r e l a t i o n s h i p , although the c o s t t o the

29I b i d . , p . 67.

30 Dan Golenpaul, e d ., Information Pleas e Almanac

York:

New

Macmillan, 1974 ; and U.S. Department o f Health, Education., and Welfare, Public H ealth Service, V i t a l tatistics o f the United S t a t e s Washington) D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g Office, 1975 , Vol. 3 .

 

24 c h i l d ' s development may be g r e a t . 3 l may be s el ect ed t o

Therefore, one c h i l d

the problems which involve the

bear

p ar en t s , o r the e n t i r e family.

rNumerous r ep o r t s have maintained t h a t th e broken fam  ly leads to a variety of

p ~ o b l e m s

including crime, d e l i n -

quency, mental i l l n e s s and a heterogeneous mass o f

lls

a f f l i c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s and s o c i e t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s a s a '\

whole. 32

However, o t h e r s r e f l e c t r es er v at i o n about a s s e r -

t i o n s t h a t d iv o rce per s e

states that

s bad f o r c h i l d r e n ~

One a u t h o r

t may be t r u e t h a t ch i l d r en from happy mar-

r i a g e s are b e t t e r adjusted th an ch i l d r en from divorced

homes.

However, c h i l d r e n from divorced p a r e n t s a r e happier

than c h i l d r e n coming from i n t a c t unhappy homes. 33

I n our

study we w i l l be examining t h e e f f e c t s on c h i l d r e n coming

from unhappy homes t h a t

:lave

b e e ~

divided. ,,'/'

Goode (1956) q u e s t i o n s th e assumption t h a t d1vorce leads t o poor adjustment f o r c h i l d r e n , alth o u g h he was con-

cerned t h a t th e missing parent would not be an adequate r o l e

model t o h i s / h e r ch i l d r en .

He s t a t e s t h a t

the best f a c t s

j u s t i f y our repeated i n s i s t e n c e t h a t th e r e l a t i o n s h i p

31 E• F . Vogel and N. W. B el l , e d s . , "The Emotionally Disturbed Child a s the Family Scapegoat, i n The Family New York: The Free Press, 1960).

32 S  dney H. Croog, "The

Family a s a Souroe o f S t r e s s , i n Social S t r e s s , ad. b ~ Sol Levine and Norman A. Scotch AldIne, 1970). (ChIcago:

33 J . R. Udry, The Soclal Context o f M a r r 1 a ~ e New York: J . B. Lipp1ncott, 1971).

2nd ed.

 

25 between divorce and other behavioral problems o f c h i l d r e n

are not clear.,,3 4

Others support 't h e idea t h a t divorce

is

not i n e v i t a b l y a traumatic experience, and i n f a c t can lead

35   t o changes f o r the b e t t e r . 35 Although divorce does not have t o be a traumatic e x 

perience,

it

often

is

Children o f divorce are often caught

i n the middle o f a n unpleas ant s i t u a t i o n .

Westman e t ale

(1971) s t a t e t h a t c h i l d r e n from divorced families generally

i n d i c a t e somewhat g r e a t e r signs of maladjustment than those

from i n t a c t homes.

Other f i n d i n g s d i s p u t e t h i s ,

however.

t,t has been shown t h a t c h i l d r e n i n broken homes show l e s s problem behavior and b e t t e r adjustment t o p a r e n t s than do

c h i l d r e n o f unhappy i n t a c t homes. 36

There

is

eVidence show-

ing t h a t c h i l d r e n are b e t t e r o f f l i v i n g w1th one p a r e n t than

the c h i l d r e n o f unhappy i n t a c t homes c h a r a c t e r i z e d by

bit-

t e r n e s s , f i g h t i n g and p h y s i c a l and mental c r u e l t y where the parents stay together f o r the c h i l d r e n ' s s ake. 37

34william J . Goode, Women i n Divorce (Glencoe, The Free Press, 1956). '

Ill::

35Susan Gettleman and Janet Markow1tz, The Courage To Divorce (New York: S1mon and Schus ter, 1974); and Despert, l o c . c1 t .

36 Judson Landis, "The Trauma of Children Whe n Parents Divorce, Marriage and Family Livins, Vol'. 22 (1960), 7-13; and Nye, l o c . c i t 37 Jane Burgess, "The Single-Parent Family: A Social and Psycholog1cal Problem, The Fam1ly Coord1nator, Vol. XVIX (1970), 2 .

 

 6

There i s supporting evidence t h a t the disturbed mar

r i a g e can be a s d i s r u p t i v e and harmful f o r the c h i l d a s the

38   Others have found t h a t the broken divorce experience. 38 family i s not the v i t a l f a c t o r 1n c h i l d r e n ' s l i v e s i t was thought t o be. 39

e

suspect t h a t i t i s the trauma t h a t i s

experienced before the divorce takes p l a c e .

Description of Behavior Changes.

t has been noted

t h a t c h l l d r e n do exh1bit various changes when confronted w ith dlvorce.

e

expect t o find t h a t some c h i l d r e n w i l l e x 

hib1t negatlve behavioral ohanges wh1le o t h e r s p o s i t i v e changes.

a ~ d i s

1960) found the e f f e c t s o f d1vorce on

c h i l d r e n vary a g r e a t deal according t o the age o f the ch1ld and the way the ch1ld viewed h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith h l s

p a r e n t s p r i o r t o the divorce.

His r e s u l t s ind1cated t h a t

i s l e s s traumat1c f o r younger c h i l d r e n while thos e who p e r 

ceived the home a s happy, experienced a g r e a t e r degree o f trauma. Despert (1953) deSignates several f e e l l n g s t h a t a

t

c h i l d w i l l i n l t i a l l y experience when faced with the p a r e n t s ' dIvorce.

e

w i l l be 'looking f o r these same f e e l i n g s and

behavlors In our study.

The oh1ld may experience h o s t i l 1 t y

Socla1 C o r r e l a t e s o f Divorce o r 38Judson T. Landis, Nondivorce mong the Unhappy Married, Marriage and Famill

May, 1963), 178-9. 39Lee Burchlnal, C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Adolescents from Unbroken Homes and Reconstituted Families, Journal o f Mar r i a g e and Faml1l, Vol. 26 1964)-, 44-51. Llving,

 

27 a g a i n s t one o r both p a r e n t s , g u i l t f e e l i n g s , and the p a r a 

mount f e e l i n g o f f e a r .

The c h i l d o f t e n r e a c t s i n numerous

G r i e f may be shown openly, o r th e c h i l d may f l t l y

ways.

r e j e c t the r e l i t y o f th e d iv o rce. o f food,

e may depr ive him self ·

refusing to eat, or of pleasure, refusing to play.

e may behave i n a gene·ral negative way, making a nuis a nc e -

o f h i m s e l f . (Some c h i l d r e n may show more independence t o compensate f o r a n i n n e r need t o b e dependent.

They may be

eati.ng o r s l e e p i n g poor ly, having t r o u b l e completing t a s k s , in clu d in g schoolwork. Often t h i s i s a r e a c t i o n o f pr eoccu

p a t i o n with the tr aum atic ev en t. b i l i t y may be observed.

L i s t l e s s n e s s and i r r i t -

The c h i l d may r e g r e s s and become

f e a r f u l o f t h i n g s he hasn   t been a f r a i d o f f o r y e a r s .

e

may develop nightmares o r make more f r equent use o f day dreams.

Bowlby {196l

f e e l s t h a t some

o ~ h

main f eel i ngs

the c h i l d exper iences a r e s e p a r a t i o n a n x i e t y , extreme f e e l i n g s o f h e l p l e s s n e s s .

Sugar

r e j e c t i o n and

(1970) agr ees with

th ese f i n d i n g s , but a l s o in clu d es f e e l i n g s o f d ep ressio n ,

irrit

The c h i l d may have

b i l i t y and s u i c i d a l i d e a t i o n .

t1mes o f insomn1a, s k i n e x c o r i a t i o n , l o s s o f i n t e r e s t s and loss of.appetite. i n i t i l l y angry,

e a l s o f e e l s t h a t most c h i l d r e n a r e fr1ghte ne d and h u r t and l e t t h e i r p a r e n t s

know by t h i s a c t i n g - o u t behavior . ~ ~

M c D e r m o t t

(1970) s t a t e s t h a t c h i l d r e n exper ience de

p r e s s i o n , but the d ep ressio n may b e observed i n a c c i d e n t  \

 

28 prone b eh aVio r.* Th e c h i l d may be blaming himself f o r the

parents self

s e p a r a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e f eel i n g a need t o punish him-

The g r i e f may be

o v e r w h ~ l m i n g

McDermott a l s o notes

a frequency o f c h i l d r e n running away from home, a n attempt t o leave the s i t u a t i o n while l e t t i n g t h e i r f e e l i n g s be

known. Grollman

 

1969) found c h i l d r e n who a r e o f t e n h o s t i l e

t o p a r e n t s a c t out f e e l I n g s o f f r u s t r a t i o n and anger.

He

adds t h a t c h i l d r e n exper ience panic and conf usion a s w e l l . Gardner

1964) a l s o n o tes d ep ressio n i n c h i l d r e n ,

a tendency t o withdraw.

and

These are thought t o be symptoms o f

hopelessness and f r u s t r a t i o n over th e s e p a r a t i o n o f p ar en t s . ,Children a l s o display apathy,

insomnia and an o rex ia,

indi-

c a t i n g the c h i l d 1 s p reo ccu p atio n with th e s t r e s s f u l event. Gardner has a l s o observed c h i l d r e n running away, act i n g out and throwing temper tantr ums, f eel i n g t h a t these signs of

anger a r e i n ev i t ab l e r e a c t i o n s t o d i v o r c e . nightmares a r e

He b e l i e v e s t h a t

manifestation of repressed hostility_

These w r i t e r s b a s i c a l l y agree t h a t nightmares stem from sub-

conscious m a t e r i a l , possibly an g er.

Several authors have noted a n excess o f e n u r e s i s i n

40   Morrison c h i l d r e n ex p erien cin g a d i v o r c e . 40

se

1974)

found

4 0 Irv in g R. S t u a r t and Lawrence E. Abt, Childr en o f r a t i o n and Divorce (New York: Grossman P u b l i s h e r s ,

2). 197

 

29 e n u r e s i s twice a s o f t e n i n c h i l d r e n o f divor ced parents a s

i n c h i l d r e n o f i n t a c t fami l i es, while Douglas an excess i n c h i l d r e n o f d iv o rcin g par ent s .

1970) notes

This problem

i s f e l t t o be a n a c t i n g - o u t behavior t h a t e x p l i c i t l y t e l l s

o f the c h i l d ' s unhappiness.

Often t h i s behavior i s a s s o 

c i a t e d with o t h e r r e g r e s s i v e , immature behaviors suggesting the chi l d i s agai n seeking a t t e n t i o p and wanting t o be d e 

41   pendent. 41

1973)

Littner

noted s e l f - d e f e a t i n g behavior which,

s i m i l ar t o accid en t-p ro n en ess, i s f e l t t o be a symptom o f depressi on.

Westman (1972), i n concurrence with others,

noted d ep ressio n and g r i e f i n c h i l d r e n a s a r e a c t i o n t o the

divorce.

They o f t e n have f e e l i n g s o f helplessness, and are

not abl e t o co n cen trate on what they ar e doing. have thoughts o f wanting t o

h u r t ~

They may

e i t h e r themselves o r t h e i r

parents. Several s t udi es have shown a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

j u v e n i l e delinquency and di vorce.

be a c t i n g - o u t behaVior, 41 Jane

W

a

42

Again, t h i s i s f e l t t o

demonstration o f th e f e e l i n g s t he

Kessler, Psychopathology ,of Chl1dhood,

Englewood C l l f f s , New J e r s e y :

p

119.

Prentice-Hall,

I n c . , 1966,)

428 42 8 • Glueck and E. Glueck, Unraveling Ju v en ile Delin  quency Cambridge: Harvard Uni versi t y Press, 1950); J . F. McDermott, Divorce and I t s Psychiatric Sequalae i n C h i l  d r e nand , Archives o f General atiry, 1970), 421o f C. A. Whitaker and Psychi 27; M H. M l l er,Vol. A 23 Re-evaluation P s y c h i a t r i c Help When Divorce Impends, American Jo u rn al o f Psychia t r ~ : Vol. 126 1 9 ~ 9 ) , 611-18.

 

30 c h i l d has about the d1vorce.

Delinquency i s consider ed a

sever e form o f a c t i n g - o u t behavior .

J u v e n i l e d elinquency

most o f t e n r e f e r s t o o ffen d ers who are younger than the

s t a t u t o r y age l i m i t , which v a r i e s from s i x t e e n t o twenty

A c h i l d adjudged a d elin q u en t may have committed a n

years.

a c t f o r which a n a d u l t would have been adjudged a criminal, o r h i s o ffen se may be one which i s not a p p l i c a b l e t o a d u l t s i.e.,

incorrigibility,

quency i s o f t e n SOCiety,

a g g r e s ~ 1

waywardness o r t r u a n c y ) . 4 3  3  n

tur ned outward,

the a u t h o r i t y o f a p a r e n t ,

Delin

toward r u l e s o f

o r an o th er i n d i v i d u a l .

I t has been noted t h a t d elin q u en ts o f t e n have l a r g e q u a n t i  t i e s of hate,

o f t e n stemming from the p erso n al problems

going on i n t h e i r l i v e s .

44

This st udy observed delinquency

may be a r e a c t i o n t o the divor ce t a k i n g p l a c e 1 n the home.

However, Despert

1953) c i t e s a st udy by N. C.

Elmer

which rev ealed t h a t only o n e-ten th o f the d elin q u en t boys

and o n e - f i f t h o f the d elin q u en t g i r l s came from f a m i l i e s

broken by a c t u a l s e p a r a t i o n and d i v o r c e .

e

see t h a t th e

r e l a t i o n s h i p between divor ce and delinquency remains u n 

c l e a r , and warran ts f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .

Kessler, op. c i t . , p . 20. York:

4 4 F r i t z Redl and David Wineman, Children Who Hate The Free P ress o f Glencoe, 1951), p . 20.

New

 

3 Expectations o f th e Study This study w i l l examine and document n eg ativ e behav-

i o r a l changes i n c h i l d r e n a s peroeived by p ar en t s .

To the

e x t e n t t h a t n eg ativ e b eh av io ral changes e x i s t , th e s o c i o economic,

demographic and i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o r r e l a t e s o f the

changes w i l l be analyzed. th e

liter

ture

Hopefully th e study w i l l add t o

i n t h i s a r e a by f u r t h e r documenting th e l i k e -

lih o o d o f n eg ativ e behavior changes, th e varioys types o f n eg ativ e changes.

h ~ n g e s

t o be expected,

and

th e c o r r e l a t e s t o the

 

CHAPTER METHO OLOGY

·

Introduction We

it

have been i n t e r e s t e d i n ch i l d r en and divorce.

When

came t o our a t t e n t i o n t h a t a research p r o j e c t had r e 

cen t l y begun studying the e f f e c t s o f divorce on c h i l d r e n , we joined the s t a f f ,

interviewing parents and c q l l e c t i n g d at a.

Selected data from t h a t p r o j e c t ,

o f t h i s paper

IDCAP

comprises the b as i s

 

IDCAP

. The research p r o j e c t Ch ild ren and Parents t

titled

The Impact o f Divorce on

was developed by Dr. Stanley N. Cohen.

i s a collaborat1ve e f f o r t between the Clackamas County,

Oregon C i r c u i t Court and the Portland S t a t e Univers1ty National Criminal J u s t i c e Educational Development Pr o j e c t . t

has been funded by LEAA funds administered. by the

Portland S t at e University Division o f Urban A f f a i r s .

g r a n t i s p a r t o f the Criminal J u s t i c e EducatioQal

The

e v e l o p ~

ment Project . . The major aim o f t h i s two-year study

is

t o examine the

impact o f divorce on the personal and s o c i a l adjustment o f minor ch i l d r en .

or p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t

is

the extent t o

 

 

which c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t delinquent behavior p r i o r t o , during,

and a f t e r the divorce o f t h e i r p ar en t s .

The sample population consisted of divorcing couples who had not who

previously married, who had minor children, and

r es i d e i n Clackamas County, Oregon.

The p r o j e c t

g ath ered d a t a from both divorcing p ar en t s , t h e i r children,

at t o r n ey s of record, school and Court s t a f f

C l a c ~ a m a s

County Juvenile

a s well as court and school r e c o r d s .

I t was

planned t o be g ath ered a t t h r e e time periods: a t the time o f

f i l i n g , six and eighteen months a f t e r th e f i l i n g . The I D C ~ p r o j e c t was direc'ted by Dr. Stanley Cohen, ASSistant P r o f e s sor i n the Department of Psychiatry and PediatriCS, Univers i t y o f Oregon Medical School, and Nolan Jones,

Research

A s s i s t an t .

The p r o j e c t o b j e c t i v e s a s noted i n the p ro p o sal are:' a.

A comprehensive d es cr i p t i v e an al y s i s o f th e demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a random sample o f f i r s t married divorcing couples with minor ,children.

b.

A d e s c r i p t i v e analYSis o f the f a c t o r s cons i d e r e d by courts i n determining custody i n noncontested cases.

c.

A d es cr i p t i v e an al y s i s o f those s o c i a l and personal f a c t o r s operating w i t h ' a family t h a t prompt i n t er v en t i o n by c o u r t s i n determining child' cu sto d y .

d.

eighteen month l o n g i t u d i n a l study t o the extent t o which parenting s t y l e s developed by

An

 

 4

couples p r i o r to, during, and f t e r divorce, a f f e c t the psycho-social development o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 45 .

With regard t o these o b j e c t i v e s , the major independent v a r i a b l e s a r e whether the children were prepared f o r t h e i r

p a r e n t s ' divorce and the type o f parenting s t y l e s developed

by the divorcing couple.

The major intervening v a r i a b l e s

are s o c i a l c l a s s and c u l t u r a l a t t r l b u t e s (income, occupa

tional status, race/ethnicity, religious orientation).

IDCAP's hypotheses a s noted i n the p r o j e c t overview. are: 1.

Children whose parents have prepared them f o r divorce and have e s t a b l i s h e d a cooperative p a r e n t a l s t y l e w i l l e x h i b i t the b e s t develop mental adjustment o f any group o f c h i l d r e n involved i n dlvorce.

2.

Children whose parents have prepared them f o r divorce w i l l e x h i b i t a b e t t e r developmental adjustment than c h i l d r e n not prepared f o r d i v o r

e ~

3.

The s o c i a l economic circumstances o f divorcing p a r e n t s i s inversely r e l a t e d t o the develop ment o f cooperative p a r e n t a l s t y l e s .

4.

The c h i l d r e n o f p a r e n t s who have e s t a b l i s h e d a cooperative p a r e n t a l s t y l e w'ill e x h i b i t a b e t t e r developmental adjustment than c h l l d r e n 'whose p a r e n t s d i d not e s t a b l i s h a cooperative parental style.

nne Paetzhold, " P r e t e s t i n g a Questionnaire 45sh1rley t the Solo Center on the Impact o f Divorce on Children and Parents" (unpublished practicum submitted t o the Portland S t a t e University School o f Social Work, i n p a r t i a l f u l f l l l ment o f the· requirements f o r the degree o f Master o f Soclal

Work, 1975).'

 

35

,,\II

I

;( .t',¥Y \

Study Questions

I

/

r

9

-

-

The purpose o f t h i s study /\i8 t o determine

if

ch i l d r en

1 1

ex h i b i t negative behavior changes when experiencing t h e i r

I

parentsl

d l v o r c e ~

and i f

s o ~

what kind ,of changes occur, and

what the s ev er i t y of the changes i 8 . / I n order t o obtain t h i s information, the IDCAP data were used.

The IDCAP

staff

developed a questionnaire which was ad min istered t o t h e i r

study

There were seventy q u e s t i o n s which covered a

s a m p l ~

v a r i e t y o f t o p i c s around the s e p a r a t i o n of divorce process. C e r t a i n predetermined questions were d e a l t with i n more depth, and were c a l l e d probe questions. Interviewers were

i n s t r u c t e d t o ask f o r more in fo rmatio n o r explanation,- e n  c,ouraging the interviewee t o respond more f u l l y t o th e b r i e f

questionnaire statement.

An attemp t was made by the i n t e r 

viewers t o main tain a n a t t i t u d e o f

d i s ci p l i n ed naivete

in

order t o allow spontaneous and s u b j e c t i v e responses t h a t

were· c l e a r l y th e in terv iewee s own. E f f o r t s were made not t o lead o r i n t e r j e c t comments. Probing questions such Can you

tell

me a

little.

more about '. .

.?

were used.

Two que,stlons concerned with the behavior changes i n ' c h i l d r e n proyided the baSis f o r our study. They a r e : Have

you noticed any change i n your c h i l d r e n ' s behavior since the

I

divorce f i l i n g ?

If

the answer, was y es, the in terv iewee was

t o check areas o f change.

Three areas were

listed:

(b) school, and (c) r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

(a) h eal t h ,

These a r e a s

 

36

were broken

down

f u r t h er , p ro v id in g the lnterv1ewee with

s p e c i f i c categ o r1 es t o check.

Health

 t

was d iv id ed i n t o

eat i n g , sleeping, complaints o f f eel i n g s i c k , f ear f u l n es s ,

Both emotional and p h y s i c a l changes were i n 

and o t h e r s .

." School

eluded.

problems were composed o f atten d an ce,

g rad es, and classroom behavior.

Childrenl·s

r el at i o n s h i p s

problems were broken down i n t o brothers and s i s t e r s

par

en t s , neighbors, playmates, and f r i en d s , g ran d p aren ts and other relatives. These two questions our study examines were among the

"probert q u e s t i o n s ; t h e r e f o r e , more information about behav i o r changes i n c h i l d r e n was recorded on. the tapes than on Responses t o our questions were man-

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

u a l l y recorded on Family' Data Sheets. mad:e

These sheets were

i n order t o reco rd a l l data from each family t h a t would

be used i n

o u ~

study.

e

recorded f i r s t th e fam11y i d e n t i 

f i c a t i o n number, and sex o f parent being 1nterviewed. c h i l d

agej

~

Social

d

t

followed.

~

Each

sex, and l i v i n g arrangements were then noted. such a s work s t a t u s , and r e l i g i o u s preference

Spaces were provided f o r noting any behavioral

change and i t s s e v e r i t y .

Each p a r e n t i s response was recorded s e p a r a t e l y on the Family Data S h eet.

A t o t a l o f seventy-four sheets was com-

p i l e d , o r t h i r t y - s ev en f am i l i es . l ect ed ,

After the data were co l 

s el ect ed information was removed and l i s t e d on i n d i 

·vidual sheets where frequency counts were· made f o r each

 

37

table.

D1fferent un1ts were used 1n the t a bl e s such a s

fam1ly, the ch1ld, and the problem, depend1ng on the i s s u e

under i nve s t i ga t i on.

S t a t i s t i c a l a n a 1 y s i s · t o determine

s t a t 1 s t i c a 1 significance was used whenever r e l e va nt . Sample The study sample c ol l e c t i on began June 12, 1975 continued u n t i l Decemb December er 31

1975 (our c u t - o f f date)..

and

Con-

t a c t with families was made by Nolan Jones; IDC P A s s i s t a n t Research Director, .who received the names o f the divorcing couple and t h e i r a t t or ne ys ' names from the Clackamas County

C ircuit Court i n Oregon City, Oregon.

The sample was chosen

randomly, beginning with the f i r s t p e t i t i o n f i l e d a f t e r the

beginning o f the study time period and including every o t h e r

petition riled

The person t o be interviewed was se n t a

l e t t e r explaining the study and then contacted, and an

appointment was s e t up for a n interviewer t o v i s i t him/her.

Each interviewed subject received

e was u s u a l l y interviewed

tion.

20.00 for h i s p a r t i c i p a  a t home

f i r s t f i l l i n g out

the questionnaire and then responding t o the i n t e r v i e w e r ' s

questions.

Our sample included only rDC P f a m i l i e s where both p a r e n t s had been interviewed. I'

sources: view.

Our data were taken from two

the wr i t t e n questionnaires and the taped i n t e r 

I f a tape was inaudible,

from our study.

the whole family was omitted

 

38 A t o t a l o f 126 couples had f i l e d f o r divorce, o f which 113 had been drawn i n the sample by our c u t - o f f date o f  December 31, 1975.

However, only one p a r t n e r had been

interviewed i n sixty-one cases, the o t h e r pa r t ne r not having been reached o r not yet interviewed, o r i n seven cases

refusing t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study f o r personal reasons. This l e f t f o r t y - f i v e couples with both p a r t i e s having been

interviewed.

There were five couples omitted because tapes

were missing from the

InC P

f i l e s , and three more were

omitted because tapes were inaudible.

thirty-seven families

we

This l e f t a t o t a l o f

were able t o include i n our study

sample.

The population studied by

IDC P

was defined a s f i r s t

married divorcing couples with minor children l i v i n g i n

Clackamas County, Oregon, f i l i n g for divorce a f t e r June 12,

1975. Our t h i r t y - s e v e n f a m i l i e s have an income range o f \ 400 p e r month t o

1,800 per month, averaging (the mean)

1,066 p e r mon month. th.

Th Thee med median ian income wa wass

1,100 p e r month.

There were ninety-two c h i l d r e n i n these t hi r t y- s e ve n fami l i e s with an average o f 2 . 5 c h i l d r e n per family.

Their ages

ranged from nine months t o eighteen years, averaging 9.24

years.

There were twenty-seven school age c h i l d r e n (six,

y e a rs old and ol de r ) , and s i x t y - f i v e preschoolers, f o r t y  seven boys and -forty-five g i r l s

 

39 Coding

n d ~ e l i

b i l i t y

R e l i a b i l i t y o f coded data was determined through i n -

F i r s t , the r e -

dependent coding o f p a r e n t s ' responses.

s e a r c h e r s l i s t e n e d t o a number o f tapes t o g e t h e r , determining codes and discussing and scoring responses.

Then each

r e s e a r c h e r proceeded t o independently l i s t e n t o the next t en t a p e s i n the sample.

The

i ~ d e p e n d e n t

searchers was th en compared.

coding of the r e -

Based on t h i s procedure, a

r e l i a b i l i t y r a t e o f 90 p e r cent was found;

agreed 90 p e r cen t of the time.

that is,

w

Discussion o f d i f f er en ces

followed u n t i l consensus was reached.

e

th en divided and

l i s t e n e d t o the remainder of the sample independently.

A

·number o f times q u e s t i o n s a r o s e , were discussed, and a n  

agreement was reached .

Variables

The f i r s t v a r i a b l e t o be coded was whether o r not the c h i l d was p erceiv ed by the p a r e n t t o have negatively changed. Often p a r e n t s were i n disagreement a s t o the exi s t e n c e and nature o f the problem. problem t o e x i s t ,

i t was t ab u l at ed .

f a parent considered a . The

absence o f a p ro b -

lem correspondS t o a l a c k o f a n e f f e c t of divorce, while the degree o f a problem corresponds t o the e f f e c t o f divorce on the c h i l d .

r at ed

A second v a r i a b l e was

severe

severity.

Behavior was

i f the p a r e n t r e p o r t e d t h a t i t occurred

 

40 p e r s i s t e n t l y and i n h i b i t e d normal f u n c t i o n i n g .

The tlnot

r a t i n g was given when p a r e n t s r e p o r t e d problems that,

severe

d id not occur e x c e s s i v e l y and d id not i n h i b i t normal func

tioning.

tlNo problem

s i g n i f i e s t h a t t h e r e was no n eg ativ e

change i n the c h i l d ' s b eh av io r.

Socio-economic v ar i ab l es

used 1nclude family income, age and sex o f ch i l d , r e l i g i o u s

p r e f e r e n c e , and work p a t t e r n s o f p ar en t s .

These were not

coded but were taken from th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Limitations of the Study

The study exam1nes p a r e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s , th u s we a r e I

not concerned with o b j e c t i v e problems.

Standard1zed methods

o f o b j e c t i v e l y determ1n1ng and measuring problems was not used by the p a r e n t s , and i t 1 s assumed they may have had

reasons o f t h e i r own f o r report1ng o r withholding d a t a .

t

can be assumed a l s o t h a t p a r e n t s were included i n the -study

who d id not p erceiv e some problems i n t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s behav ior.

Therefore, th e r e s u l t s obtained must be i n t e r p r e t e d

with caution, with the understanding t h a t th e r e s u l t s may be

biased. Because our population i s very small, 1 t s g e n e r a l  i z a b i l l t y t o a l a r g e r p o p u latio n i s q u e s t i o n a b l e .

t 1s

b e t t e r t o have a s l a r g e a sample a s p o s s i b l e ; however, our mandatory o u t - o f f date d i c t a t e d t h a t our sample be l i m i t e d .

Since we

h ~ v

used a small sample,

populations must be done c a r e f u l l y .

i t s application to other e

feel that results

I

 

41 o b tain ed her e may c a u t i o u s l y be used a s a s t a r t i n g point

for similar studies. It

has been noted t h a t only t h i r t y - s e v e n o f 113

couples who f i l e d f o r divorce were included i n our study.

While ei g h t couples were unable t o be included because o f technical errors,

this

still

leav es s i x t y - e i g h t couples i n

which one. spouse could not be reached t o be interViewed,

or

refused to partiCipate.

This might e a s i l y change the n a t u r e

o f our r e s u l t s somewhat

but since in fo rmatio n was not

g ath ered t o examine th ese s i x t y - e i g h t couples, we cannot say 1

i n what ways our r e s u l t s might be d i f f e r e n t .

The d a t a g a t h e r i n g f o r t h i s study was done over a s i x

and one-half-month p erio d o f time; however, much o f th e

interviewing was done during th e summer months.

become

i n t h a t c h i l d r e n were not i n school and,

restrictive

t h er ef o r e, d id not which t o observe

Results

~

r y

their

o f t e n pr ovide a school s e t t i n g i n b eh av io r.

Often th e p a r e n t s r e p o r t e d

no change i n school r e l a t e d behavior because th e ch i l d was not i n school during the time o f h i s p a r e n t s

separation.

Had th e interviews been done dur ing th e school months, r e s u l t s may have been somewhat d i f f e r e n t .

 

CHAPTER

IV'

FINDINGS

There was a time when i t was believed t h a t those who

sick

di vorc e were

people, hopeless n e u r o t i c s who would

r e p e a t t h e i r f a i l u r e should they marry a g a i n .

Today, the

divorcing. and di vorc e d population i s observed a s coming from a l l walks o f l i f e

wi t h d i v e r s i t y o f c u l t u r a l backgrounds.

The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t di vorc e w i l l p l a y a rol.e i n t he l i v e s

7f

o f more a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n i s incr eaSing. Cur r ently, t h r e e - f i f t h s o f divor ces occur among co u p les wi t h c h i l dr en. 6

J j

Yet di vorc e i s not u n i v e r s a l l y approved o r a c c e pt e d

i n America,

but i s viewed a s a s o l u t i o n f o r unbe a ra bl e m a ri -

tal conflict.

Are c h i l d re r e n a f f e c t e d by t h e i r p a r e n t s th ey a r e , how a r e

Literature,

we

t h ~ y

affected?

In t h e

di vorc e ?

If

Review of t he

d e s c r i b e d s e v e r a l ne ga t i ve re sponse s o t h e r

r e s e a r c h e r s have discover ed.

However, c h i l d r e n respond wi t h

a range o f be ha vi ors, some o f which a r e not always n eg ativ e. P o s i t i v e r e a c t i o n s have been seen and rep o rted by a u t h o r s 6

E sther

The Family

 

o.

F i s h e r , /fA Guide t o Di vorce Counseling, January, 1 9 7 3 , . p . 55.

q o o r d i n a t ~ £

IJ

I

.1

43 such a s Lou l s e Desper t. 47

Our study does not include the

p o s l t i v e r e a c t i o n s o r improvements t h a t some f a m i l i e s i n our sample may have seen.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e from which we c o l l e c t e d our d a t a . w a s n ' t s e t up t o d i s c e r n between improvements o r negative changes 1n behavior .

We

a s i n t e r v i e w e r s , used probing

techniques when negative changes were i n d i c a t e d but did not pursue improvements.

Since we did not o b t a i n f u r t h e r i n f o r 

mation on p o s i t i v e changes, we are e xc luding o b serv atio n s

o f improvement, and a r e c onfine d t o ·studying the inc ide nc e of negative be ha vior changes i n c h i l d r e n .

It

is

our i n t e n t

t o de te rm ine : 1.

The e x i s t e n c e o f problems.

2.

The type s o f problems found.

3.

The s e v e r i t y o f problems found.

4.

F a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o the c h i l d t h a t make him /he r l i k e l y t o exper ience problems.

5.

Factors r e l a t e d to socio-status of parents that make c h i l d r e n l i k e l y t o e xpe rie n6e problems.

nc ide nc e of Problems w

..,...

_

Are c h i l d r e n l i k e l y t o show n e g a t i v e changes i n behav l o r when t h e i r p a r e n t s divor ce? problems appear?

fact·,

how o f t e n d o

Not a l l c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t problems.

In

a s Table I shows, a l a r g e number a r e seen t o have no

47

 

I f they do,

De s pe rt, l o c . c i t .

44

behavior change.

On

the o t h e r hand

parents reported that

f i f t y - f o u r out of ninety- two c h i l d r e n sampled have a t o t a l

o f 120 p-roblems.

TABLE

I

INCIDENCE OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOR MONG CHILDREN

Change

No

 

Change

54-

38

59%

41%

T otal C hi l dre n 92

The ninety- two c h i l d r e n came from t h i r t y - s e v e n f am i lies.

Of t h e s e

twenty- six rep o rted problems

while eleven

families dtd not. TABLE I I

INCIDENCE OF PERCEIVED PROBLEMS IN FAMILIES

Change

No

Change

26

11

70%

30%

T otal Families

37

--------===============================:-::::=::::=:::::

 

45 We

have seen t h a t not a l l c h i l d r e n respond t o divor ce

by e x h i b i t i n g negative be ha vi or

c h

the c h i l d r e n i n our sample d i d .

But 59 p e r cent of

n g e s ~

Who

are these children?

t h e r e any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which i d e n t i f y them?

Are

For i n s t a n c e ,

i s i t p o s s i b l e t h a t sex i s a s s o c i a t e d wi t h be ha vi or change?

Our sample c o n s i s t e d o f f o r t y - s e v e n boys and f o r t y  Table I I I suggests t h a t p a r e n t s p erceiv e boys

five g i r l s .

t o have s l i g h t l y more problems a s a r e s u l t o f divor ce than girls.

t h i s d i f f e r e n c e does not a ppe a r s t a t i s -

~ o w e v e r

tically significant. I, I

TABLE I I I

I

SEX OF CHILD AND PERCEIVED BEHAVIOR CHANGE

Behavior

Change

Boys.

Girls

No

28

19

60

40

23 51

x2

Change

 ;;

703

49

N S.

Does the age o f the c h i l d a f f e c t p e r c e p t i o n s o f nega t i v e be ha vi or change? three age groups.

sch o o lers,

We

have divided the c h i l d r e n i n t o

There a r e a t o t a l o f twenty-seven p r e 

twenty-nine grade school c h i l d r e n , and t h i r t y -

s i x j u n i o r high and hi gh school

s t u d e n t s ~

 

46

TABLF. IV AGE OF CHILD AND PERCEIVED BEHAVIOR CHANGE

Behavior

Change

0-5

~

.

15

12

55

45

- - - - - ---.--- _ _----_._-_  

 

6-11

12+

====

No Change

 

_-

19

10

65

35

17

19

47

53

- - - - . . . : . = - ~ - - - - - - - = - - - - - . - . - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - = - - - - = = - - - : : : . .

x2

;:

: ' _ - ' .

= ' : - = = = =

2 . 2 6 6 N.S.

I n g e n e r a l , p a r e n t s perc.ei ve problems among a l l age

categories.

However

c h i l d r e n under twelve a r e p e r c e i v e d t o

have p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more problems t h an c h i l d r e n twelve o r

older.

Among c h i l d r e n twelve o r o l d e r , t h e l i k e l i h o o d i s

about equal t h a t they w i l l be p e r c e i v e d t o have problems a s

a r e s u l t of divorce.

However

again the differences don't

appear s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . F ami l i es d i f f e r i n socio-economic and r e l i g i o u s fac tors

Is i t

p o s ~ i b l e

t h a t income a f f e c t s the i n ci d en ce o f

problems o r t h a t problems are more l i k e l y t o occur i n

 

47

c e r t a i n economic l e v e l s ?

The measure o f economic s t a t u s

used he re i s annual family income.

The d i v i s i o n · o f wage

l e v e l s i n t o t h r e e groups was made a f t e r c o n s u l t i n g t he S t a  tistical

_

b _ s t r a q ~ _

of. the

U _ ~ ~ _

l2.74.

_

These groupings a r e

believed t o r e p r e s e n t d i s t i n c t I v e economic l e v e l s , although the l i m i t s are somewhat a r b i t r a r y . TABLE

V

ECONOMIC STATUS AND PERCEIVED NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR CHANGE OF CHILDREN

_

~

-------------- _

_.

Qhange

No

_  

~

Change

_.

000

• • $15, 7,500-14,999

0-7,499

N

•

....

7 15

5

4

2

4

= 37

There a ppe a rs t o be l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e accor ding t o

family income.

At a l l income l e v e l s , p a r e n t s a r e l i k e l y t o

p e r c e i v e problem be ha vi or i n c h i l d r e n . ·Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t d i f f e r s from family t o

family i s r e l i g i o u s p r e f e r e n c e .

I s i t p o s s i b l e t h a t the

p e r c e p t i o n o f problems among c h i l d r e n w i l l be a f f e c t e d by the r e l i g i o n o f

the

parents?

I f one p a r e n t i n d i c a t.ed no

p r e f e r e n c e , r .eligious p referen ce o f the o t h e r p a r e n t was used.

I n one case, a pe rson i n d i c a t e d

Jewish,

but because

 

48 h i s spouse marked

Catholic,

the family was consider ed

Other mixed f a m i l i e s i nc l ude d one Catholic or

mixed.

P r o t e s t a n t , and one p aren t who claimed no p r e f e r e n c e . TABLR VI

RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE ND PERCRIVED NEGATIVE BEHAVIOR CHANGE OF CHILDREN

Catholic

_

.

Protestant

Mixed

Change

No Change

--_._

 

.;

8

1

14

10

4

0

... . ..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_. _. 2 X = 5.13 N.S. The r e l i g i o n o f p a r e n t s does not a ppe a r t o a f f e c t t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f problems among c h i l d r e n .

Although t h e r e

i s a tendency f o r C a t h o l i c and mixed p a r e n t s t o r e p o r t pr ob lems p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y ,

t h i s i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .

I n t r a d i t i o n a l American f a m i l i e s , a t home, t o .care f o r the c h i l d r e n .

the mother remains

Are t r a d i t i o n a l f a m i l i e s

who break up, more l i k e l y t o gener ate problems f o r c h i l d r e n ?   I

I

·

 

Or

s a i d . d i f f e r e n t l y , does having ar r anged the family in .

o t h e r than t r a d i t i o n a l terms, such a s where both p a r e n t s work, produce more problems f o r c h i l d r e n a s a r e s u l t o f

divor ce?

 

49 TABLE MOUNT

VII

OF TIME BOTH PARENTS

SPEN

WORKING

AND PERCEIVED INCIDF.NCE OF PROBLF.MS PROBLF.MS  

Change - - - - - - - - - - --

No

Change

Traditional famiiya . . . .

13

6

Other arrangements b

13

5

home.

a T r a d i t i o n a l family

= father

working, mother

b

All o t h e r arrangements, in clu d in g f a m i l i e s i n which both p a r e n t s work where one works f u l l t i m e \ a nd one p a r t time, o r n e i t h e r works. Table VII s u g g e s t s no d i f f e r e n c e i n r e p o r t e d problem

behavior of c h i l d r e n a s a r e s u l t o f having diver ged from

traditional patterns. Are the e f f e c t s of divor ce more l i k e l y t o be demons t r a t e d by one c h i l d i n a family r a t h e r than by children. others,

When

one per son

is

v i

the term Ifscapegoating"

t i ~ i z e d is

all

the

t o the b e n e f i t o f

48  Table o f t e n a p p l i e d . 48 

V I I I r a t e s c h i l d r e n accor ding ,to per centage o f probiems reported for 48

all

~ i l d r e n

,Vogel and B e l l ,

i n f a m i l i e s with t h r e e o r more

loc.

cit.

 

50

c h i l d r e n i n a n e f f o r t t o determine whether one c h i l d might be d i s p l a y i n g most o f t h e problems.

TABLE VIII PROBLEMS OF CHILDREN IN FAMILIES OF THREE OR MORE CHILDREN

Family No.

Child No. 1

( )

Child No. 2 ( )

Child No. 3 ( )

Child No. 4 ( )

Child

No.5 ( )

1

0

25

75

2

57

43

0

3

100

0

0

4

0

0

0

5

0

50

50

6

100

0

0

7,

0

0

0

0

0

8

17

17

17

17

17

9

33

33

33

10

12

25

38

25

11

0

0

0

100

12

0

25

0'

50

13

66

17

17

14

63

37

0

Child No. 6 ( )

0

•

17

25

•

•

•

I n t h r e e f a m i l i e s o f t h r e e o r more c h i l d r e n , one child

is

p e r c e i v e d t o be experiencing

ll

the problems.

In

 

51 two o t h e r families one ch i l d seems t o be b earin g th e b ru n t o f problems.

These cases

m a ~

i n d i c a t e scapegoating.

I n no

other instances, however, does 8capegoating appear t o b e

occurring. ~ r o b l e m s

Types o f The words h

ve

problem

and

n eg ativ e behavior change

been used in terch an g eab ly i n t h i s c h a p t e r .

What kinds of problems d o . p a r e n t s p e r c e i v e i n t h e i r c h i l d r e n a s a r e s u l t of divorce?

Our findings suppor t the

l i t e r a t u r e concerning changes i n c h i l d r e n a f t e r d i v o r c e .

49

While some ex h i b i t no b eh av io ral changes, o t h e r s seem t o make improvements.

Many

however, r e a c t t o the event i n

ways which may be cons1dered negat1ve.

Some o f t h e n eg ativ e

changes r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e and a l s o

f o u ~ d

here are

h o s t i l i t y towards parents and s i b l i n g s , act1ng-out behavior,

f e a r f u l n e s s , withdrawing,

f e e l i n g s o f d ep ressio n and g r i e f

For th e f i f t y - f o u r c h i l d r e n i n our study p erceiv ed t o have problems,

th e n eg ativ e behavior changes most f r e q u e n t l y

c i t e d by p a r e n t s were h e a l t h , school and i n t e r p e r s o n a l p ro b  lems.

Health problems were c i t e d most o f t en .

Table IX

shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f problems i n these t h r e e cat eg o r i es .

49

Landis, loco c i t ; D e s p e r ~ loco c i t ; J . Bowlby p ro cesses o f Mourning, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Jo u rn al o f Psycho a n a l y s i s , Vol. 42 317-340 1961; and M. Sugar, Children o f Dlvorce,ft P ed iatriCS , 46 588-95 1970.

 

52 TABLE IX

INCIDENCE OF PROBLEMS IN HEALTH, INTERPERSONAL AND SCHOOL CATEGORIES

Inter

Health

per sonal

School

59

49

12

T otal No. o f Reported Problems

-----------

-----

120

He a l t h problems include bot h p h y s i c a l and emo-

1.

t i o n a l changes.

Among the p h y s i c a l problems r e p o r t e d were:

eating difficulties

disturbed sleep

crease i n u r i n a r y frequency

vomiting

complaints o f f e e l i n g i l l .

emotional changes included g r i e f

s i v e be ha vi or

nausea

and f e a r f u l n e s s .

sa dne ss

in The

regres

cr ying

Of the 120 problems r e 

f i f t y - n i n e a r e i n the h e a l t h categ o ry .

p o rted

TABLE X

INCIDENCE OF HEALTH PROBLEMS ~

 

_-

Eating

 

__------ ----- _-- -   ------- - - - - - - -   ~ ,---- ~ -,'" - - - - - - , - _ . _ - -  

 

Sleeping

5-

  Complaints o f Feeling Sick

13

4 ~

..

 

Fearful ne ss 23

,

  _-

Other

14

_--_: -----  

 

53

The c a t e gory of drawing behavior .

other

includes s i l e n c e and with-

P a r e n t s most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d t h a t

t h i r c h i l d r e n were a f r a i d o f t h i n g s t h a t had p r e v i o u s l y not

bot he re d them; most o f t e n , might l e a v e .

i t was t h a t the remaining p a r e n t

2

~ S C h o o l

problems i nc l ude such changes a s lowered

i n t r s t o r achievement i n sch o o l work,

teacher,

h o s t i l i t y toward

i n c r e a s e d absence from sc hool , o r i n c r e a s e d p r o b -

lem .behavior i n the classr o o m . t hose c h i l d r e n i n school.

Table XI r e p r e s e n t s only

F o r t ~

s e v e n

c h i l d r e n ar e over s i x

y.ears o f age, . a l though t h e r e a r e a few who a t t e n d nurse ry s c h o o l ~

TABLE XI

\ INCIDRNCE OF SCHOOL PROBLEM

Attendance

Grades

Classroom Behavior

3

8 ~

~

~

=

=

=

I n no case was t h i s be ha vi or c onsi de re d t o be e xc e s-

s t v e by the p a r e n t s .

Most o f the problems were a c t i n g out

i n the classroom. 3.

The i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems c i t e d by p a r e n t s were:

(a) problems wi t h p a r e n t s ,

i n c l u d i n g runaways;

(b) problems

wi t h s i b l i n g s ; . (c) problems wi t h p e e r s ; and (d) problems

 

54

with o t h e r s .

These problems were g e n e r a l l y demonstrated

by d efian ce, h o s t i l i t y , a c t i n g - o u t behavior toward a n i n d i  v i d u a l , o r withdrawal from another per son.

Of the 120 pr ob

lems, f i f t y were concerned with th e c h i l d s i n t e r p e r s o n a l

relationships. TABLF. XII

INCIDENCE OF INTERPERSONAL PROBLEMS

P aren ts 33

Siblings

Others

Peers

10

4

Relat+onship problems with p a r e n t s receiv ed a n over  whelming m a j o r i t y .

I t is possible

t

~ t

p a r e n t s would p e r 

ceive problems i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with the c h i l d and not

be a s aware o f problems i n o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , which could account f o r t h i s c o n c e n t r a t i o n .

They may a l s o be more aware

o f r e l a t i o n s h i p problems w i t h i n the home

a s with s i b l i n g s ,

t ha n t hose o ccu rrin g o u tsid e the home.

Severity e

have found t h a t negative behavior change i s r e p o r t e d

f o r f i f t y - f o u r c h i l d r e n out o f th e n in ety -two . sever e a r e the problems r epor ted?

i n terms o f t h e i r s e v e r i t y .

J u s t how

The problems were r a t e d

Those c a t e g o r i z e d a s

not

 

55

sev ere" i n cl u d e b eh av i o r change not o c c u r r i n g excessively or not i n h i b i t i n g normal f u n c t i o n i n g .

A "sev ere" problem i s

d e f i n e d a s a change i n b eh av i o r t h a t occurs p e r s i s t e n t l y and

i n h i b i t s normal f u n c t i o n i n g . ' TABLE

XIII

INCIDENCE OF PERCEIVED SEVERE AND NOT SEVERE PROBLEMS

Not Severe

Severe

17

N

No

Problems 115

109

241

S e v e r i t y o f Problems

f o r ~ n

~ v i

u ~ l

Children.

This

measure o f s e v e r i t y w i l l r a t e not i n d i v i d u a l problems,

but

. t h e t o t a l problems r e p o r t e d for a c e r t a i n , c h i l d ; t h a t i s , the degree t o which a c h i l d e x h i b i t s b eh av i o r change.

If

o n e - f i f t h , o r 20 p e r cen t o f the problems f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d had been r a t e d " s e v e r e , "

we

experiencing sev ere problems.

When fewer

had been r a t e d we

t h en r a t e d him/her a s

than t h a t number

s e v e r e , " o r o t h e r problems were perc'e i ved,

considered the c h i l d s r a t i n g a s "not s e v e r e . "

If

"no

change" was r e p o r t e d , he was r a t e d a s having' no problems.

 

56 TABLE XIV

INCIDENCE OF SEVERITY RATINGS OF CHILDREN AS PERCEIVED BY PARENTS

Severe

9

Not Severe

No

Problems

Total Children

45.

38

92

10%

49%

4 1 ~

Does the sex o f the c h i l d c o r r e l a t e with the s e v e r i t y o f perceived behavior change?

I n Table

there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f er en ce

c h i l d and perceived problems.

Here

e ~ w e e n we:

found t h a t

we

the sex o f the

add s e v e r i t y r a t i n g

t o the·incidence o f problems t o determine whether one sex I

perceived by

p a r ~ n t

is

t o have more severe problems. TABLE XV

SEX OF CHILD AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE

Not Severe

None

23

19

49%

4

4

19

22

9

42

49%

Severe

Boys . • .

5 11%

Girls

~

 

57 There i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n freq u en cies of per ceived problems o f boys and g i r l s

Paren ts p erceiv e them t o e x 

p erlen ce th e same s e v e r i t y o f problems.

DOes the age o f t h e c h i l d c o r r e l a t e with th e s e v e r i t y o f per ceived be ha vior change?

I n Table IV we found t h a t

t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the age of the

c h i l d and p e r c e i v e d problems.

We

now add s e v e r i t y r a t i n g s

t o incidence of problems t o determine whether one age group

Al though the number o f c h i l d r e n

has more .severe proble·ms.

p e r c e i v e d t o be exper iencing problems i s s o sm all, t h e r e does not appear t o be any s i g n i f i c a h t r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and s e v e r i t y .

TABLE XVI AGE OF CHILD AND PERCEIVED SEVERITY OF BEHAVIORAL CHANGE

Age

~

v

0-5

2

48%

.......

_-----

 -

N

=

-

-

=

_  - - - . - - - - - - -  10

17%

48

35%

2

15

19

42

5 =

...

 

14

12+ ===.:....

__._-_._---

45%

5

6-11

=====::

12

13

7

._._

No Change'

Not Severe

r

=

=

=

=

=

-

-

~

-

.

=

:

53%

:

92

 

58 S e v e ~ i t y

o f Problems

This measure o f

W ~ t h i n · F a m i l i e s .

s e v e r i t y w i l l r a t e not i n d i v i d u a l problems, o r the degree

t o which a c h i l d e x h i b i t s be ha vi or change, but t he degree t o which a family e x h i b i t s be ha vi or change. t he

total

per ceived problems i n a fa m i l y.

2 0 p e r cent of t he problems had been r a t e d

We

If

combined

one-fifth, or

severe,

r a t e d t he family a s e xpe ri e nc i ng se ve re d i s r u p t i o n .

l e s s than t h a t amount had been r a t e d

we t he n

When

se ve re ;rr o r o t h e r

problems were per ceived,

the family was r a t e d a s

severe.

was r e p o r t e d f o r any c h i l d , the

no change

If

t

not

family was c onsi de re d a s having no problems. TABLE XVII

INCIDENCE OF PERCEIVED SEVERITY

IN FAMILIES

Severe -   - 

.

- 

Not Severe .

_.

---

 

.

5

21

11

13%

57

30

~

....

~

-

 

T ot a l Fa m i l i e s ._----_._----   -

No Change

. .-

 

.

~

37

~

A m a j o r i t y o f c h i l d r e n showed problems, but only ni ne out o f n ~ n e t y t w o showed severe behavior al change, o r sev en  t e e n o f 241 problems were r a t e d a s

severe.

Because only

f i v e f a m i l i e s sugge st se ve re d i s r u p t i o n has oc c urre d, we

 

 9 d o n t have a s u f f i c i e n t number o f c a s e s t o p ro p erly a na l yz e such data further. Although t h e r e were 120 problems r e p o r t e d f o r f l f t y -

f our c h i l d r e n ,

very few p a r e n t s r e p o r t e d the same problem

for the ir child.

I n t h i r t y - e i g h t c a s e s , both p a r e n t s a gre e d

the c h i l d had no problem,

but t h e r e were only f our c h i l d r e n

whose p a r e n t s bot h a gre e d on the problem t h a t c h i l d h ad . ome o f the re a sons f o r t h i s might be t h ~ t (1) the p a r e n t i s b i t t e r and r e p o r t s more problems;

(2) the p a r e n t i s

s e n s i t i v e t o c r i t i c i s m and d o e s n · t want t o be se e n a s i n  capable; o r

3 ) the c h i l d may expose h i S / h e r problems t o

onl y one p a r e n t .

C e r t a i n l y , the l a c k o f communication b e 

tween p a r e n t s i s e v i d e n t .

Summary I n t h i s ch ap ter we have r e p o r t e d the incidence o f b e  h av io r changes i n c h i l d r e n a s per ceived by t h e i r p a r e n t s . e

found,

first

t h a t a majo rity o f c h i l d r e n a r e per ceived

t o e xpe ri e nc e problems a s a r e s u l t o f d i v o r c e . t h e s e problems happen a t random.

Secondly,

They a ppe a r u n r e l a t e d t o

the age o r sex o f the Child, and the income o r r e l i g i o n o f the p a r e n t s .

T hir dly, a l t hough a m a j o r i t y show problems,

only a sm all per centage show se ve re problems.

Once again,

the age o r sex of the Child, and the income o r r e l i g i o n o f

p a r e n t s , appear u n r e l a t e d t o the , s e v e r i t y o f problems.

 

6 The kinds o f problems l i k e l y t o b e pe rc e i ve d by parents are health

school and i n t e r p e r s o n a l .

lems appear t o be most

next i n importance

•

ommon

Health prob-

with i n t e r p e r s o n a l problems

 

CH PTER V

CONCLUSIONS Di sc ussi on

Not

ll

c h i l d r e n whose p a r e n t s are d iv o rcin g exper -

i e nc e negative be ha vi or problems.

The st udy d id not e xpl ore

t he p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t divor ce might a c t u a l l y be a p o s i t i v e e xpe ri e nc e f o r some q h i l d r e n .

inter viewed i n

this

Never theless,

the p a r e n t s

study r e p o r t e d t h a t a majo rity o f

their

c h i l d r e n d i d e xpe ri e nc e problems.

Our fin d in g s i n d i c a t e t h a t a m a j o r i t y o f c h i l d r e n a r e · per ceived by

their

p a r e n t s t o have problems a s a r e s u l t o f inter-

These problems i nc l ude h e a l t h problems, divorce. p erso n al problems, and school r e l a t e d problems. There a r e

very few c h i l d r e n who show se ve re changes.

o r sex o f

F u r t h e r , the ag e

c h i l d a ppe a rs u n r e l a t e d t o the i nc i de nc e o f

~ h

S i m i l a r l y , the r e l i g i o u s pre fe re nc e . o r income

problems.

l e v e l o f a family, a l s o , appears not t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d t o the incidence o f p a r e n t s lems i n c h i l d r e n .

F i n a l l y , p a r e n t s r a r e l y agr ee i n

p e r c e p t i o n s o f problems i n While is

this

their

their

children.

may i n f a c t be i n d i c a t i v e t h a t t he c h i l d

exper ienaing problems,

. parents

perceptions of prob-

it

may a l s o be r e l a t e d t o the

f e e i i n g s about the d iv o rce.

There appear s t o be a n

 

62 overwhelming breakdown i n communication between p a r e n t s .

This is· e x h i b i t e d i n the d i f f e r i n g p e r c e p t i o n s by the p a r -

en ts of

their

c h i l d r e n ' s problems, which was most ev id en t

when the same i n t e r v i e w e r t a l k e d t o both the husband and wife.

They appeared not t o be r e p o r t i n g t h e i r concerns t o

each o t h e r ,

o r coming t o a n agreement

b o ~ t

which problems

a c h i l d had. Our.own o b serv atio n s as i n t e r v i e w e r s a l s o lead s t o · this conclusion. c ount e re d a

Some

p a r e n t s , a s a r e s u l t o f d iv o rce, e n -

per iod of confusion

o r a g en eral d i s o r g a n i z a -

t i o n which was e xpe ri e nc e d by the whole f amily.

For

i n s t a n c e , one p a r e n t s t a t e d , about a week

*

then t h i n g s began t o

a couple s' epar ates,

When

o r bot h p a r e n t s . volved i n

Everyone was r e a l l y u p set f o r

t

down.

1 s o f t e n trau matic f o r

it

one

p o s s i b l e t h a t they become s o i n -

is

own problems

their

settle

that

it

recognize t h e i r ch ild ren 1 s ne e ds.

is

was dur ing

t

t h a t the p aren ts. were inter viewed.

hard f o r them t o

e

p erio d

this

d id observe t h a t they

wanted t o t a l k about t h e i r spouses q u i t e o f t e n .

t

is

p e ~ -

haps the p a r e n t s r a t h e r t ha n the c h i l d r e n who a r e i n more trauma and i n g r e a t e r need of help when the divor ce o ccu rs.

Often

was noted by the p a r e n t s t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p

it

p a t t e r n s changed.

For example, the noncustodial p a r e n t

sometimes r e l a t e d t o the c h i l d r e n b e t t e r than when h e r e -

sided i n the home. Several f a t n e r s

e

would o f t e n begin t o

r e p ~ r t e

spoil

spending more time with

them.

their

 

63

c h i l d r e n and e nj oyi ng them more.

a t i o n s , noncustodial p a r e n t s

seldom being heard away from

their

s e e i n g them.

r o m ~

However

in ot her

situ-

dropped out of t he p i c t u r e ,

Some reported t h a t they stayed

c h i l d r e n because o f t he p a i n a s s o c i a t e d with

Oc c a si ona l l y c h i l d r e n were n o ticed t o e x h i b i t

c l i n g i n g be ha vi or towards

their

noncustodial p a r e n t , .fearin g

he/she would not r e t u r n .

Al though a' c h i l d would sometimes show anger towards a p a r e n t , o t h e r s began helping and even comforting him/her .

Some c h i l d r e n grew c l o s e r t o of

the stressful

their

parents

marriage had ceased.

after

the t e n s i o n

F ig h tin g among

dren was per ceived t o be l e s s by many p a r e n t s ,

chil-

and one s a i d

c h i l d r e n were g e t t i n g a l ong b e t t e r .

her

reported

their

Other p a r e n t s

c h i l d r e n were communicating more wi t h each

o t h e r , and becoming c l o s e r . It s u f f

is

proba bl y t r u e t h a t both p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n

duri ng the divor ce pr ocess s o t h a t we cannot com-

~

pletely

the p e r c e p t i o n s o f p a r e n t s .

i g ~ o r

any parents' r e -

p o rted negative be ha vi or changes which a r e c o n s i s t e n t with the

literature

on

this

subject.

likely that children

is

do r e a c t i n var ious ways t o the divor ce p r o c e s s .

There may be a number o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t may be i n -

f l u e n t i a l i n de t e rm i ni ng when problems w i l l occur which were this

parents,

q u a l i t y o f time p a r e n t s spend with

o ~

stu d y .

For i n s t a n c e , e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l o f

not used i n

their

chil-

dre n, as well a s t he ki nd of r e l a t i o n s h i p and p a r e n t i n g

 

s t y l e s t h a t pers.1sted be fore t he di vorc e oc c urre d could affect

c h i l d r e n ~ s

reactions to divorce.

i a b l e s we have used i n

this

However

the v a r 

study do not p r e d i c t i nc i de nc e

and s e v e r i t y o f problems per ceived i n c h i l d r e n .

I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r S o c i a l Work

Historically,

~ 1 V c

s o c i a l work has been more involved 1n

family c ounse l i ng t h a n o t h e r h e l p i n g p r o f e s s i o n s . f o r e ~

it

is

important t h a t ,

a s a , p r o f e s s i o n , we a r e a w a r e

o f r e c e n t t r e n d s i n qi vorc e and family members.

e

There

t h ~

impact o f di vorc e on

need t o be aware,

a l s o , o f t he p o s s i b l e

n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s on the c h i l d r e n o f a family who through the s e p a r a t i o n and di vorc e p r o c e s s .

is

going

y b ein g p r e p a r e d t o deal with the problems sometimes caused by divor ce,

through

~

t he soc 1a l worker could he l p the fa m i l y,

possibly

situation.

stressful

To be more e f f e c 

. t i ve, the worker mus t t e a s open-minded a s p o s s i b l e . most e f f e c t i v e ,

lems,

To be

we need t o re c ogni z e the. p o t e n t i a l f o r

p ~ o

-

and t he n t o d i s c o v e r which problems occur most o f t e n .

The next s t e p alleviate

l e a r n i n g how t o work wi t h f a m i l i e s t o

is

o r reduce- such problems.

Another approach

is

to

work toward p r e v e n t i o n o f problems, by w r i t i n g or teaching p a r e n t i n g and communication Although di vorc e this

study has shown

is

skills

not always harmful t o c h i l d r e n , a s

o f t e n t h e r e a r e problems.

When p a r 

e n t s a r e fnvolved i n t he problems di vorc e c a use s f o r them,

(,,  

65 t he y m y not be ab le t o respond i n a h e l p f u l way t o t h e i r

c h i l d r e n s problems. very u s e f u l .

I t i s here t h a t our s e r v i o e s would be

The s o c i a l worker can

assist

the p a r e n t s i n

coping with t h e i r own c o n f l i c t s , which w i l l i n d i r e c t l y help

them c a r e f o r The

g ~ n e r

their l

children.

goal o f divor ce counseling i s f o r spouses

t o g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o and under standing of t h e i r p e r s o n a l and m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t s and d i f f i c u l t i e s

t o g e t h e r with enough

em o tio n al s t r e n g t h t o make d e c i s i o n s and deal more ade

q u ately and resp o n sib ly wi t h the problems caused by d i v o r c e . Recommendations f o r Fut ure Research While working on t h i s p r o j e c t , we have c o n t i n u a l l y

.

been i n t e r e s t e d i n the p o s i t i v e be ha vi or changes c h i l d r e n

sometimes de m onst ra t e .

e

found t h a t i t does oc c ur wi t h

some frequency, but p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s of divor ce have not been documented t o our knowledge. There i s a need t o have f u t u r e r e s e a r c h d i r e c t e d t o

foc usi ng o n b o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e behavior changes i n

c h i l d r e n , a n i n t e g r a t i o n of the two p resen ted i n one study. I t would be valuable f o r one st udy t o look a t b o th p o s i t i v e

and negative changes t a ke n from the same sample p o p u l a t i o n .

There i s a l s o a g r e a t need f o r r e s e a r c h d i r e c t e d toward

l ong-t e rm e v a l u a t i o n o f be ha vi or changes i n c h i l d r e n .

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anthony, E. James and C y r i l l e Koupernile, e d s . 1970. The Child i n His F a m l l ~ New York: John Wiley & S o n s ~

In c.

Be ne dic t, Ruth 1959. The Family: Genu s Amer American icanum, um, The Edited by Ruth N. Family: t s Function and D e s t i ~ New York: Harper & Bros. Anshen

Berg ler, Edmund 1948., Harper & Row.

~ D i v o r c e

Won1t Help.

New York:

Bernard, J e s s i e 1972. The Future o f Marriage. World Pu b lish in g .

New York:

Bern stein , Norman R. and J . S . Robey 1962'. The Detectio n and M a n a ~ e m e n t o f P e d i a t r i c D i f f i c u l t i e s Created by Divorce, P e d i a t r i c s , 30, 950-6. Blumenthal, Monica D. 1967. rtMental He a lth Among the Divorced," Archives o f General P s y c h i a t r y , Vol.

603-8.

16,

Bohanan, Paul,

e d ~

New J e r s e y :

1970.

Divorce and A f t e r . Doubleday & Company, In c.

Garden City,

'

J . Bowlby 1951. Maternal Care and Mental Health . , World' Health Org;anization

 

1961.

'''Processes o f Mourning, Jour nal o f P sychoanalysis, Vol.

Geneva,

International '

42, 317-40.

1960.

Browning, Cha rle s J .

" D i f f e r e n t i a l I m ~ a c t o f Family Diso rg an izatio n Upon Male Adolescents, ' S o c i a l Prob 'lems, Vol. 8 , Summer.

Lee 1964. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Adolescents from Unbroken ijomes and R e c o n s t i t u ~ e d F a m i l i e s , " Jo u rn al

Burchinal,

o f Marriage and Family, 26, 44-51. Burgess, Jane 1970. The Sin g le-Paren t Family: A S o c i a l and P sychological Problem," The Family.Coordinator, . XVIX, 2 .

 

67

eroog, Sydney H. 1970. "The Family a s a Source o f S t r e s s , Social St r e s s . Edited by Sol Levine and Norman A. Scotch. Chicago: Aldine.

1948.

Davis, Kingsley

Human S o c 1 e t ~ .

London:

D e s p e r t , . J . Louise 1962. Children o f Divorce. New York: Dolphin.

fI

Macmillan.

Garden City,

W. B. 1970. "Broken Families and Child Behav-. i o r , " J.R. Co lI. P h y sician s, London, 4, 203-10.

Douglas, J .

Esman, Aaron H. 1964. Marriage and

Fisher, Esther

"Medical Aspects o f Human S e x u a l i t y , "

26, 44-51.

F a ~ i l y

o. 1973.

"A

Guide t o Divorce' Counseling,

The Family Coordinator, January, 55-61 .

. Gardner, Richard Divorce.

A. New

·1970. York:

rr

The Boys'and G i r l s Book About gantam Books.

1974.

"Psychological Aspects o f Divorce," American Handbook o f , P s y ch i at r x . Edited by Silvano A r i e t i . New York: Basic Books. Gettleman, Susan and Janet Markowitz 1974. The Courage To Divorce. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Glasser, Paul H. and Lois N. Glasser, ed s . , 1970.

F amilies

in C r i s i s .

New

York/London:

Harper & Row.

Unraveling Juvenile P el i n  Glueck, S. and E. Glueck 1950. quency. Cambridge: Harvard University P r es s . Golenpaul, Dan, New

York:

e d . ~

1974.

Macmillan.

Goode, William J . 1956. Free P r e s s .

1956.

Press.

Women

Information Please Almanac.

After Divorce.

i n Divorce.

The Family. 1964. ?re n t i c e Hall.

Glencoe, I l l :

Glencoe,

Ill :

Englewood C l i f f s ,

New.

The

The Free

Jersey:

Explaining Divorce t o C h i l - ' Grollman, Earl A., ed . , 1969. dren. Boston: Beacon P r e s s .

 

68 H ~ r d y ,

Richard E. and John G. Cull 1974. Through S o c i a l a n d J ~ h o l o g i c a l A field, I l l . : Charles C. Thomas.

Thee F' .mily: Harris, C. C. 1967. Th York: Praeger Publishers.

, A n _ .

Creative Divorce S p ri n g 

p p r o a _ ~

n t r o d u ~ _ t i o n .

J ourard, Sidney M. 1972. The Trans parent S e l f . D. Van Nostrand Company.

New New York:

Kessler, Jane W. 1966. Psychopathology o f Childhood. Jersey: Prentice H a l l , I n c .

New

"The Mystification o f Experience. Laing, R. D. 1973. Ed i t ed Phil New York: Radical Psychology. by Brown. Harper & Row. f

Landis; Judson T. 1960. e n t s Divorce,1r M a r

"The Trauma o f Ch i l d ren When P a r 

r i a g ~

and Family Living,

22, 7-13.

Social Correlates o f Divorce o r Nondivorce Among the Unhappy Marri ed , Marriage and Family Liv ~ May, 178-9. 1963.

L e s l i e , 'Gerald R. 1967. The Family i n S o c i a l Coptext. Oxford University P r e s s . York: Divorce: Lichtenburger, James P. 1968. Cau sat i o n . New York:' AMS P r e s s . l

New

A Study i n S o c i a l

Linton, Ralph 1959. rrThe N atural H is tory of the Family. The Family: I t s Funqtion and· D es tiny. Edited by Ruth N. Anshen. New York: Harper & Bros.

L i t t n e r , Ner 1973. "The E f f e c t s on a Child o f Family Disruption and Separation From One o r Both P a r e n t s . . Paper presented t o 1 1 t h Annual Conference o f C o n c i l i a  t i o n Courts, Chicago, I l l . May 19. Marriages and Lopata, Helena 7 .., e d . , 1973. York: D. Van Nostrand Company. Mahler,

M. S . and R. Rabinovitch 1956.

A Re-evaluation o f

Marital t on Child Development. I n t e r a c t iCoonn filni cMarriage. Edited by V New York: Basic Books.

McDermot t

hood,

New

F a m i ~ i e s

W

Neurotic Eisenstein.

J . F . 1968.

P a r e n t a l Divorce i n Early Child American J ournal of Psychiatry, 124, 1424-32.

 

69 Its

and o f P "Divorce s y c h i a tPsychiatry, ric McDermott, J . Fi. n 1970. Sequalae Archives General Children,"

23, 421-7.

1949. The S e l f - F u l f i l l i n g Prophecy," Social Theory and Social S t r u c t u r e . Glencoe, I l l : The Free P r e s s .

Merton, Robert K

Morrison, J . R

"Parental D1vorce a s a Factor i n Ch1ldhood P s y c h i a t r i c I l l n e s s , " Comprehensive Psy , c h 1a t ,ry , 15 ( 2 ) , 95 -102 • 1974.

Mortlock, B i l l 1972. Constable.

The Inside o f Divorce.

London:

Nye, F . Ivan 1957. "Child Adjustment i n Broken and i n Unhappy Unbroken Homes, a r r i a g e b ~ n d Family Llvtng, 19, 356-61.

Ogburn, W F . and M F. Nimkoff 1955. Technology and the Changing Family. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Company. OINeil, Nena and George OINeil 1972.

York:

Avon

Books.

Open Marriage.

New

O tters trom, Edith 1952. The Social Outlook f o r Children o f Divorce, Acta Genetica e t S t a t i s t i c a Medica, Vol. 3, 72-96. Anne

Paetzhold, Shirley a Q,uestlonnaire Solo Center 1975. on the "Pretest1ng Impact o f Divorce on C h i l  a t the dren and P a r e n t s . " Unpublished practicum, Portland

University School o f Social Work.

t ~ t e

Parsons, T a l c o t t 1959. The Social Structure o f the Family. The Family: I t s :BUnct ion and Dest iny. Edited by Ruth N Anshen. New York: Harper & Bros.

P l a t e r i s , A A 1970. "Divorce S t a t i s t i c s Analysis: United States--1963," Public Health Service P u b l i c a t i o n No. 1000, Series 21, No. 13. (Wash1ngton, D.C.: Govern ment P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . '

The Broken Family." Social Work and Pollak, O tto 1964. Social Problems. Edited'by Nathan E. Cohen, N ational Association of Social Workers, Inc. Redl,

F r i t z and David Wineman 1951. Children The Free Press of Glencoe.

York:

Who

Hate.

New

 

70

Rh ein stein ,

Law. Sherwin

J

Max

1972.

Chicago:

Marriage S t a b i l i t y , Divorce and th e The University o f Chicago ·P ress.

1969.

Robert v

Crown Publishers,

Compatible Divorce. Inc

S in g leto n , Mary Ann 1974. S t e i n and Day.

Snow, John New

H.

1971..

York:

New

Life A f t e r Marriage.

Pilgr image: The Seabury P r e s s . On

York:

New

York:

Marriage i n th e 70

IS.

S p i t z , R. 1954. "Unhappy and F a t a l Outcomes o f Emotional Deprivation and S t r e s s i n In fan cy ." Beyond The Germ Edited by I . Goldston. New York: Academy Theory. o f Sciences, Health Education Council. S t e i n z o r , Bernard 1969. When P aren ts Divorce.

Pocke t Book s .

 

S t u a r t , I r v i n g R. and E. Abt Lawr ence 1972. o f S ep aratio n and Divorce. New York: lishers.

Sugar,

M.

95.

'1970.

Udry, J . R. 1971. New

Vogel,

York:

"Childr en of Divorce,

It

New York:

Childr en

Grossman Pub

P e d i a t r i c s , 46, 588

The S o cial Context o f Marriage, 2nd ed. J . B. L i p p i n c o t t .

E. F . and N. W. Bell 1960. "The Emotionally Dis tur bed Child a s the Family Scapegoat." The Family. Edited by N. W. B e l l and E. F . Vogel. New York:

Free P r e s s . D. 1965. "The E f f e c t o f Divorce on a C h i l d s P e r s o n a l i t y Development," Mental Health Dig est, 4 , 2 4 

Westman, Jack

8. 'Westman,

J.,

e t a l . , 1971.

"The Role o f Child P sy ch iatry

i n Divorce," Archives o f General PSYChiatry, 23, 416 18.

Whitaker,

C.

A.

and

M.

P s y c h i a tor ifc P sHelp J o ~ ~ n a l y c ~ ~

u.s.

H.

M i l l e r 1969.

"A

Re-ev alu atio n o f

When Divorce Impends," American

a t r y

126, 611-18.

Department o f Commerce, Bureau o f th e Census 1975. S t a t i s t i c a l Ab stract o f th e United S t a t e s . Washington, D.C.: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e .

 

7

u.s.

Department o f Health,

Education and Welfare, Public

Health erv ice V i t al S t at es , SVol. 3 . 1975. Washington, ing O f f i c e .

t a t i s t i c s o f the United D.C.: Government P r i n t -

 

 

 

.'"

IMPACT OF DIVORCE ND

ON

 

CHILDREN

THEIR PARENTS

QUESTIONNAIRE

ID

 

1.

How many c h i l d r e n do you have?

Sex,

Grade l e v e l

School Name

1/

-----

 

2.

Please check th e following t o i n d i c a t e those people

OW

l i v i n g with you:

Mother and/or Father,

Childr en,

No one,

Mother-in-law and/or f a t h e r - i n - l a w ,

tives,

Hou sekeeper,

----

F rien d s,

Other r e l a 

Other 

describe) 

3.

Relig io u s p r e f e r e n c e :

P r o t es t an t ,

None

Catholic,

Jewish,

Other,

4.

Did you have a r e l i g i o u s ceremony a t the time o f your marriage? 

Yes

5.

No 

Do you at t en d church o r synagogue?

Yes

No

 

75 6. 

If

yes t o

how o f t e n do you at t end?

5 ~

Daily , ____ Weekly

On Once ce a mont month h

.Few times a y e a r

7. 

Do any o f your c h i l d r e n at t end Saturday o r Sunday School?

Yes 8. 

If

yes t o

No

#7,

how o f t e n do they attend?

Weekly

Daily

Once a month

Few times a y e a r

9.  What p a r t di d your r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f pl ay i n you and your spouse's d e c i s i o n t o

Not important ____ 10.

e ~ y

file

f o r 'divorce?

____ Somewhat important

important

Race/ethnic

i d e n t i f i c a t i o ~ :

Caucasian, can American), (American Indian)

Chicano (Mexi

Black (Negro),

. Oriental,

bll

Are you cur r ent l y working?

612. 

If

yes t o #11, are you w?rklng

Native American

Ye.s,

No

F u l l time,