Portland State University
PDXScholar Dissertations and Teses
Dissertations and Teses
1976
Te negative eects 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: hp://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Recommended Citation Hawkins, David and Lloyd, Karen, "Te negative eects 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), 421o 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,