Children of Divorce Final Exam Review

Children of Divorce
Final Exam Review

Tuesday, April 24, 12
What Was My
Childhood Like?
Children
Paradoxical effect on marriage
Stabilization (institutional emphasis)
Destabilization (individual emphasis)

Children
Changes in:
Roles - caregiver, worker, availability to

spouse; pressure towards more
traditional gender roles
Bodies - sexuality changes
Routines - sleep, eating, traveling, working
Values - new values, or dormant values

emerge
Children
Marital quality declines during the

transition to parenthood and across the
early years of parenting (many years!)
Decline is more pronounced for wives than

husbands
Children
Belsky & Hsieh, 1998, followed couples with

newborn sons for 5 years
Father reported Love score
Three patterns of change

Belsky & Hsieh 1998
Stays good group - Fathers love stays

high, and mothers conict stays low
Good gets worse - Fathers love was high

but went lower, and mothers reported
conict went from low to high
Bad to worse - Fathers love low to begin

with, and gets worse, and high initial
mother reported conict remains high
PATTERNS OF MARITAL CHANGE 519
Husband
Love
80-
76-
72-
68-
64-
60-
"stays good" (n=51)
good-gets-worse" (n=10)
"bad-to-worse" (n-38)
10 27 36 60
Child Age In Months
Figure I. Patterns of change in husband-love scores.
and good-gets-worse groups to determine why
marriages that functioned similarly at the outset
of the study functioned so differently at its
termination.
The results of the cluster analysis of the wife
conflict scores are depicted graphically in Figure
2. Once again, a stays-good cluster is identifi-
able (n = 42); in this case, levels of marital
conflict remain low across all measurement
occasions. Also discemable is a stays-bad group
(n 43) in which marital conflict remains high
over time. These two groups are compared in
analyses to follow in order to determine factors
that distinguish well and poor functioning
marriages (as experienced by wives). Finally, a
third group, labeled good-gets-worse, emerged
(n = 14), characterized by low levels of conflict
at enrollment that increased steadily over time.
The stays-good group is also compared with this
one to determine what might explain why
marriages (as perceived by wives) that were
comparable at the beginning of the study were
so different at the end.
Before conducting any group comparisons,
we performed a chi-square analysts to determine
whether membership in one of the husband-love
clusters was systematically related to member-
ship in one of the wife-conflict clusters. On the
Wife
Conflict
35-i
30-
25
20-
15-
u
staysbad"<n=43)
"good-gets-worse" (n=14)
10 27 36
Child Age In Months
60
Figure 2. Patterns of change in wife-conflict scores.
Belsky & Hsieh
Predictors of initial marital quality were
Neuroticism (propensity towards

negative affect - depression, anxiety,
hostility)
Agreeableness (thoughtful, considerate,

cooperative, not selsh, cynical or
manipulative)
Extraverted (warm, friendly, likes people)

Belsky & Hsieh
Predictors of change were interaction

patterns around parenting
In particular, whether co-parenting

interactions were VALIDATING or
INVALIDATING
Undermining, negative or hostile

interactions
PATTERNS OF MARITAL CHANGE 519
Husband
Love
80-
76-
72-
68-
64-
60-
"stays good" (n=51)
good-gets-worse" (n=10)
"bad-to-worse" (n-38)
10 27 36 60
Child Age In Months
Figure I. Patterns of change in husband-love scores.
and good-gets-worse groups to determine why
marriages that functioned similarly at the outset
of the study functioned so differently at its
termination.
The results of the cluster analysis of the wife
conflict scores are depicted graphically in Figure
2. Once again, a stays-good cluster is identifi-
able (n = 42); in this case, levels of marital
conflict remain low across all measurement
occasions. Also discemable is a stays-bad group
(n 43) in which marital conflict remains high
over time. These two groups are compared in
analyses to follow in order to determine factors
that distinguish well and poor functioning
marriages (as experienced by wives). Finally, a
third group, labeled good-gets-worse, emerged
(n = 14), characterized by low levels of conflict
at enrollment that increased steadily over time.
The stays-good group is also compared with this
one to determine what might explain why
marriages (as perceived by wives) that were
comparable at the beginning of the study were
so different at the end.
Before conducting any group comparisons,
we performed a chi-square analysts to determine
whether membership in one of the husband-love
clusters was systematically related to member-
ship in one of the wife-conflict clusters. On the
Wife
Conflict
35-i
30-
25
20-
15-
u
staysbad"<n=43)
"good-gets-worse" (n=14)
10 27 36
Child Age In Months
60
Figure 2. Patterns of change in wife-conflict scores.
Children DO make a difference
Belsky & Hsieh nd that co-parenting is much more

unsupportive during the toddler years in
marriages that get worse
Marital dynamics are more important than

personality traits in predicting why marriages that
look the same initially (are both good) diverge over
time (some get worse)
Co-parenting is more important than division of

household labor (or, co-parenting is THE form of
household labor)
Who Fights?
mean square of the correlations for each spouse,
using the following formula:
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
The average correlations between the ve dimen-
sions of marital quality and life happiness were
.26 for husbands in high-distress marriages that
ended in divorce, .20 for husbands in low-distress
marriages that ended in divorce, and .27 for hus-
bands in marriages that remained continuously
together. For wives, the corresponding correla-
tions were .34, .29, and .31. Across both genders,
the correlations between life happiness and mar-
ital quality were lowest in the low-distress group.
Nevertheless, the differences between pairs of
correlation coefcients were not signicant (all
p . .10). We observed comparable patterns of
results when we used the risk factors (described
above), rather than life happiness, as criterion
FIGURE 1. MARITAL QUALITY INDICATORS BY YEARS FROM INTERVIEW UNTIL DIVORCE.
Low-Distress Divorce
(wife)
(husband)
High-Distress Divorce
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Note: National Survey of Families and Householdshigh distress, n 242; low distress, n 267. All variables are stan-
dardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Regression analyses indicate that no slopes were signicant, except
the happiness of high-distress husbands and reported chance of divorce by high-distress wives and husbands.
630 Journal of Marriage and Family
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Root mean square
r
2
1
1r
2
2
1r
2
3
1r
2
4
1r
2
5
=5
q
:
(wife)
(husband)
(wife)
(husband)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
H
a
p
p
i
n
e
s
s
2-3 4-5 6-7
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
C
h
a
n
c
e

o
f

D
i
v
o
r
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
V
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0-1
Years To Divorce
2-3 4-5 6-7
Some people ght
How do we argue?
What is a successful argument? ONE THAT

PROMOTES ENGAGEMENT
Not necessarily resolution
Further clarication about sources of conict
Building a framework for ongoing discussion

and conict
Conict is work- it can be constructive or

destructive
Trust
Trust is a basic precondition for any

successful argument
With trust, it is possible to tolerate

negative emotions, expressions of doubt,
and some kinds of criticism
Without trust, negative emotion, doubt and

criticism get magnied quickly
Leading to defensiveness or retaliation

Successful arguments
Be Assertive (Say what you mean) In a

Kind Way
Maintain engagement
Good Communication Principles

Gottman: Anatomy of a
Bad Argument
Work of John Gottman from the Love

Lab provides some evidence of what is
destructive in an argument
Harsh Start-ups
How couples begin arguments vary
Slow or cool start-up
Can we talk? Somethings bothering me.

I statements
Harsh start-up
Criticism, sarcasm, or harsh words
You must be a retard to book that

hotel
The Four-Horsemen of
Bad Arguments
Contempt
Criticism
Defensiveness
Stonewalling (withdrawal)
Flooding
When the negative emotion expressed by one

partner overwhelms the ability of the other
partner to respond or cope
Reects a lack of attunement and empathy
Promotes disengagement (self-protection) by

the other
Can lead to a vicious cycle of pusuit- retreat, as

the upset spouse increases the volume to try to
connect and the overwhelmed partner
retreats further to feel safe
Failure to Repair
The most crucial aspect of conict in

relationships
The ability to repair a ruptured bond

promotes a feeling of trust
Given the inevitability of conict and

rupture, the building block of successful
(safe) conict is knowing that the bond can
be repaired
Lack of repair corrodes trust, promotes

recrimination and suspicion and isolation
Not Everyone Fights
Fighters
The conict group shows
frequent arguments
physical aggression
thoughts of divorce
little happiness
minimal interaction
The quiet
Couples who report
Few arguments
Little physical aggression
Few expressed thoughts of divorce
Moderate levels of happiness and

interaction
Understanding Divorce
For high distress couples, the traditional

measures of marital quality do a good job of
predicting who will divorce
For low distress couples, marital quality seems

unrelated to divorce
Common risk factors
Divorced parents
Early age of marriage
Prior cohabitation with another partner
Liberal family values
Believing in acceptability of divorce
Having alternative partners

A framework for
understanding divorce
Social Exchange Theory (Levinger 1976)
Attractions
Barriers
Alternatives
Exchange Theory:
Attraction
The basic rewards and costs of marriage have

changed
Sex used to be a reward mostly found within

marriage
For women, economic stability was a reward

found within marriage
Status
Exchange
Theory:Barriers
Modern life has lowered barriers to leaving

marriage
Less religious control
Fewer legal restrictions
Lower levels of belief in the norm of

lifelong marriage
Exchange
Theory:Barriers
Yet for the upper class, barriers remains
Social stigma
Perceived impact on children
Economic decline (the upper class has

farther to fall)
Exchange Theory:
Alternatives
Modern life presents more alternatives than

ever before
Increasing urbanization
Also a greater pool of single people

1

!"#$%&' )* +,"-,%".
!"#$ &'# ()*& +, -#)$*. ) /01#& $#"230&124 ')* &)5#4 (3)6# 14 &'1* 6204&$-7 8#6)9#* 2: 9#;2<$)('16. #6242;16
)49 *261)3 6')4<# ')"# &$)4*:2$;#9 &'# *&$06&0$# )49 62;(2*1&124 2: &'# =;#$16)4 :);13-7 >'# ($#?#;14#4&
:);13- 041& 2: &'# ;19?@,
&'
6#4&0$-;2;. 9)9 )49 &'# 519*42 324<#$ ')* &'# *&)<# &2 1&*#3:7 = ")$1#&- 2: 4#A
)$$)4<#;#4&* ')"# #;#$<#9. <1"14< $1*# &2 ) B$2)9#$ )49 #"23"14< 9#:141&124 2: A')& 624*&1&0&#* ) :);13-7
=& &'# 6#4&#$ 2: &'1* &$)4*:2$;)&124 1* &'# *'$14514< 14*&1&0&124 2: ;)$$1)<#7 C4 DEF,. G@H 2: =;#$16)4 )903&*
A#$# ;)$$1#97 I- @,,J. &')& *')$# ')9
:)33#4 &2 +@H7
K)$& 2: &'1* 9#6314# 1* #L(3)14#9 B- &'#
:)6& &')& &'# )"#$)<# )<# )& A'16' ;#4
)49 A2;#4 :1$*& ;)$$- 1* 42A &'# '1<'#*&
#"#$ $#62$9#9. ')"14< $1*#4 B- $20<'3-
:1"# -#)$* 14 &'# ()*& ')3: 6#4&0$-7
M
=49
()$& 2: &'# 9#6314# 1* )&&$1B0&)B3# &2 &'#
4#)$ &$1(314< 14 &'# *')$# 2: 60$$#4&3-
91"2$6#9 2$ *#()$)&#9&2 DNH 14 @,,J
:$2; +H 14 DEF,7
N

K0B316 )&&1&09#* &2A)$9 ;)$$1)<# $#:3#6&
&'#*# 9$);)&16 6')4<#*7 O'#4 )*5#9 14
&'# 4#A *0$"#- 1: ;)$$1)<# 1* B#62;14<
2B*23#&#. )B20& :20$?14?&#4 =;#$16)4*
PMEHQ *)- &')& 1& 1*7 C4 ) *0$"#- 2: "2&#$*
624906&#9 B- >1;# ;)<)R14# 14 DEGJ.
A'#4 &'# 91"2$6# $)&# 14 &'1* 6204&$- A)*
4#)$ )4 )33?&1;# '1<'. S0*& @JH )<$##9
&')& ;)$$1)<# A)* B#62;14< 2B*23#&#7
+

M
T7U7 V#4*0* 9)&) 24 &'# ;#91)4 )<# )& :1$*& ;)$$1)<# B#<14* 14 DJE,7 C4 @,D, &'# #*&1;)&#9 ;#91)4 )<# )& :1$*& ;)$$1)<# :2$ ;#4 A)* @J. :2$
A2;#4 1& A)* @F7 U## T7U7 V#4*0* I0$#)0. V0$$#4& K2(03)&124 U0$"#-7
N
=42&'#$ A)- &2 ;#)*0$# 6')4<# 14 ;)$$1)<# $)&#* 2"#$ &1;# 1* &2 3225 )& &'# *')$# 2: )903&* A'2 ')"# !"!# ;)$$1#97 W#$#. &22. &'# &$#49 1*
92A4. B0& 42& )* *&##(3-7 C4 @,,J. GMH 2: )903&* ')9 #"#$ ;)$$1#97 C4 DEF,. &')& :1<0$# A)* J+H7 >'# <)( B#&A##4 &'# +@H $%##!&'() +,##-!.
)49 &'# GMH !"!# +,##-!. 14 @,,J 1* #L(3)14#9 B- &'# @DH (#$6#4& A'2 A#$# A192A#9 PGHQ 2$ 91"2$6#9X*#()$)&#9 PDNHQ7
+
>'# DEGJ :1<0$# 1* B)*#9 24 $#<1*&#$#9 "2&#$*7 >'# 62;()$)B3# 40;B#$ :$2; &'# 60$$#4& *0$"#- 1* MFH 2: $#<1*&#$#9 "2&#$*7
/0--"'$ 12-%$23 !$2$045 )6789:88;
()

Note: Ages 18 and older. Numbers may not total to 100 due to
roundIng.
Source: Pew Fesearch Center calculatIons of 0ecennIal Census and
AmerIcan CommunIty Survey data

72
52
5
14
9
7
15
27
0
20
40
60
80
100
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Never marrIed WIdowed 0Ivorced or separated |arrIed
2008
Exchange Theory:
Alternatives
People with moderate levels of reward, low

barriers, and many alternatives may be
more likely to leave
Again, think of the Me Marriage

Comparison of Alternatives
The rise of individualism (in the urban industrial

context) led to a radical shift in our expectations of
marriage
Marriage is expected to provide a deep source of love

and emotional fulllment (Barich & Bielby, 1996; Buss,
Shackelford, Kirkpatrick & Larsen, 2001).
Comparison of Alternatives
For a certain amount of reward
If you have MODEST expectations you will be

happy
If you have HIGH expectations you will be less

happy
THE CRITICAL FACTOR is not the absolute level of

reward/cost, but how these compare with
expectations for the current relationship
AND the perception of reward-expectation match

in alternative relationships!
Low conict divorce?
Infrequent ghting, moderate happiness, engage

in pleasurable activities together, sex is ok or
even good
Few perceived problems
Low levels of commitment = low commitment

to IDEA of commitment
HIGH expectations of what marriage should be
Few barriers
Obvious alternatives
Tasks of Divorce
1. Separate psychologically, establish new, separate
identities
2. Separate nances and establish independent
economic lives
3. When children are present, to become single
parents and learn to co-parent
4. Reorganize and re-establish social networks
5. Fulll legal duties to divorce and settle money and
child custody
Loss following Divorce
Money
Womens per capita income declines about

30%
1998 Income
Married couple - $54,000
Father headed family - $36,000
Mother headed family - $22,000

Downward Mobility
Less desirable housing
Less safe, smaller spaces, less privacy
Change in school for children
Longterm impact on college and

educational attainment
Fewer options for advancement
Educational opportunity
Isolation
On average, people lose three friends after

a divorce
Divorced people are twice as likely to have

friend breakups and also feel more
excluded by friends
Work and Family (Role
change)
80% of divorced mothers work, compared

to employment rate of 40% prior to
divorce
Women working full time already work

longer hours after divorce
Women who never worked have the

greatest difculty with transition
Loss of Routine
Increased work pressure and having no one

to share home responsibilities leads to
breakdown of family routines
Meals are skipped
Events are cancelled
Housework doesnt get done

Mental Distress
UK study -Divorced mothers were 3x

more likely to be depressed than married
mothers
Higher suicide rates in men and women
Australia - men 6x more likely to attempt

suicide when divorced
USA - 20% of women endorse suicidal

thoughts following divorce
Higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse

Adjustment
Positive adjustment
Higher education level
Better mental health prior to divorce
Believe in their own competence
Assertiveness, self-assurance, intelligence,

creativity, sociability, social maturity
Part 2: Review
How Bad Is Divorce
For Kids?
Marital Instability Over Life
Course Study (MIOLC)
Same data set as in Alone Together
Outcomes
Psychological well being
Marital discord
Relationship with father
671 adult offspring identied from the original

sample of 2,034 adults surveyed
336 Family Relations
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Figure 1. Distribution of psychological well-being scores for offspring with di-
vorced parents and continuously married parents.
Figure 2. Distribution of marital discord scores for offspring with divorced par-
ents and continuously married parents.
Figure 3. Distribution of father-child relationship quality scores for offspring
with divorced parents and continuously married parents.
ative to the distribution of scores for offspring with continuously
married parents. Summing the number of cases within each in-
terval reveals 90% overlap in distributions, with 10% of cases
in the divorced group falling outside of the distribution of scores
for the nondivorced group. If we assume that the difference be-
tween the two groups is entirely due to parental divorce, then
the gure suggests that divorce leads about 1 out of 10 children
to reach adulthood with a lower level of psychological well-
being than would have been the case had parents remained mar-
ried. Although this difference is statistically signicant (p .05),
it is modest in magnitude. The gure reveals few differences
between the distributions at the positive end, suggesting that di-
vorce does not lower the percentage of children who reach adult-
hood with high levels of well-being. Instead, divorce appears to
shift some children from an average level of well-being to a low
level of well-being.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of marital discord scores for
offspring with divorced parents and offspring with continuously
married parents. Note that the overall distribution is positively
skewed, with a small number of offspring reporting relatively
high levels of discord. Compared with the distribution for adults
with continuously married parents, the distribution for adults
with divorced parents is more peaked in the middle and shifted
to the right (toward higher levels of marital discord). Eighty-two
percent of cases in the two distributions overlap, with 18% sep-
aration in distributions. Of this 18%, 7% reects the peak in the
middle of the distribution, and 11% reects the shift toward the
right end of the scale. Although only marginally signicant (p
.09), these results suggest that parental divorce elevates mar-
ital discord among almost one in ve young adults. Divorce ap-
pears to shift some offspring from a low to a moderate level of
discord and to shift other offspring from a moderate to a high
level of discord.
The distribution of father-child relationship scores appears
in Figure 3. For this outcome, the separation between the two
distributions was substantial (35%), with only 65% of cases
overlapping. In other words, these data suggest that parental di-
vorce results in poorer father-child relationships for about one
third of children. Moreover, the estimated effect is strong, with
divorce appearing to shift children from having positive rela-
tionships with fathers to having negative relationships with fa-
thers. This association is highly signicant (p .001). However,
note that the distribution for children of divorce is bimodal, with
children tending to have either poor-quality relationships with
fathers or high-quality relationships with fathers. A similar anal-
ysis, based on a scale measuring the quality of the mother-child
relationship ( .88), yielded a comparable result, but the as-
sociation was not nearly as strong as the association involving
the father-child relationship.
Summary
Results based on the MIOLC data suggest that the long-term
effects of marital dissolution on children are not as pervasive or
as strong as Wallerstein claims. With respect to psychological
Divorce: Bad for
relationships
Relationship problems are more common
Less marital happiness, more discord, more

divorce proneness, more divorce
Parental bonds are weakened
Less closeness with parents
See parents less often
Less support from parents

S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
level of discord.
Summary
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
level of discord.
Summary
Moderation
Divorce is particularly bad for kids in

certain situations
Moderating factors
Pre-existing: conict in marriage
After the divorce: remarriage or other

transitions
2003, Vol. 52, No. 4 337
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Figure 4. Offsprings psychological well-being by parents marital discord and
divorce.
well-being, Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989) reported that over
one third of children with divorced parents developed into psy-
chologically troubled young adults. In contrast, the MIOLC data
indicate that 90% of children with divorced parents reach adult-
hood with levels of well-being comparable to those of children
with continuously married parents. One of the limitations of
Wallersteins research, as noted earlier, is that she did not have
a comparison group of offspring with continuously married par-
ents, and many individuals raised in two-parent families also
reach adulthood with psychological problems. Nevertheless,
even if marital disruption lowers the long-term psychological
well-being of only 10% of children, then the effects of divorce
are not trivial.
With respect to offsprings marital discord, the estimated
effect of divorce in the MIOLC study is weaker than the effect
implied by Wallerstein, who, at times, seems to suggest that re-
lationship problems among offspring with divorced parents are
universal. This discrepancy also may reect the absence of a
comparison group in Wallersteins research. It is possible that a
clinically trained researcher, engaged in detailed interviews,
would nd that the majority of young adults with continuously
married parents also report feelings of anxiety about close rela-
tionships and some level of disappointment with current partners.
The estimated effects of divorce are strongest with respect
to the father-child relationship, with 35% of children from di-
vorced families reaching adulthood with comparatively weak ties
to fathers. For this outcome, the estimated effect of marital dis-
ruption is pervasive and strong. Although this particular nding
from the MIOLC comes close to Wallersteins claim that troubled
parent-child relationships following separation are common, the
majority of children with divorced parents in the MIOLC (nearly
two thirds) fall within the same range as children with nondi-
vorced parents. Nevertheless, to the extent that close father-child
relationships represent potentially valuable resources for children
across the life course, the ndings on father-child relationships
are troubling.
Overall, the examination of overlap and separation in dis-
tributions helps us to move beyond thinking in terms of relative
differences in group means to thinking in terms of the percentage
of children who are negatively affected by divorce and the
strength of this effect among children who are negatively af-
fected. Moreover, Figures 1, 2, and 3 reveal that a substantial
percentage of children from divorced families were doing well;
that is, they had relatively high levels of psychological well-
being, reported relatively little marital discord, and had close
relationships with fathers. Correspondingly, some children from
two-parent families had relatively low levels of psychological
well-being, reported a great deal of marital discord, and had
weak ties with fathers. Given the diversity of childrens experi-
ences in postdivorce families, as well as the diversity of chil-
drens experiences in two-parent families, this result is not sur-
prising. Rather than search for the overall effects of marital dis-
ruption on children, a more protable strategy is to search for
factors that moderate the effects of marital disruption. The key
question is: What are the conditions under which divorce is ei-
ther harmful or benign with respect to childrens long-term ad-
justment?
Moderating Factors
Moderating factors may be present in the family prior to
marital disruption, or they may exist in postdivorce family ar-
rangements. Analyses of the MIOLC data reveal two factors that
appear to operate consistently as moderators. The rst factor is
the level of discord present in the marital relationship prior to
disruption. To demonstrate the moderating role of parental dis-
cord, I calculated marital discord scores for parents in the sam-
ple. Marital discord was measured as a composite based on a 4-
item measure of marital conict ( .54), a 13-item measure
of marital problems ( .78), and a 13-item measure of divorce
proneness ( .90). (These are the same measures described
with respect to Figure 2, except that the parents completed these
instruments, rather than the offspring.) For marriages that did
not end in divorce, marital discord was based on the mean of
the scores from 1980, 1983, 1988, 1992, and 1997. For mar-
riages that ended in divorce, discord was based on the mean of
all discord scores available prior to marital dissolution.
With respect to offsprings psychological well-being, a sig-
nicant interaction between divorce and predivorce marital dis-
cord was present (p .01). Figure 4 shows the nature of this
interaction based on the regression equation (.07 .21 divorce
.20 discord .26 divorce discord). In this gure, very
low discord refers to scores two standard deviations below the
mean, low discord refers to scores one standard deviation be-
low the mean, and so on. Note that when parents reported low
levels of marital discord, offspring with divorced parents were
worse off than offspring with continuously married parents.
When parents reported high levels of discord, however, offspring
with divorced parents were better off than offspring with contin-
uously married parents. This nding is consistent with the notion
that when exposed to chronic and overt interparental discord,
children are no worse off, and perhaps better off, if parents split
up. (For a more detailed exposition of this result, see Booth &
Amato, 2001.) The nding that the estimated effects of divorce
vary with the level of discord between parents prior to divorce
has been replicated by several other investigators using different
data sets (Hanson, 1999; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Jekielek,
1998).
Why are the estimated effects of divorce stronger in low-
discord marriages than in high-discord marriages? When parents
engage in a pattern of chronic, overt, destructive conict, chil-
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Figure 5. Offsprings psychological well-being by the number of family transi-
tions (parental divorces and remarriages).
dren may be no worse off (and perhaps better off) if the marriage
ends in divorce. In contrast, when parents exhibit a relatively
low level of overt marital conict, children may experience di-
vorce as an unexpected, inexplicable, and unwelcome event. In
these cases, divorce is likely to create a good deal of turmoil
and instability in childrens lives with few compensating benets.
Events that occur following marital disruption also can mod-
erate the effects of divorce. One example refers to whether par-
ents remarry. The evidence regarding whether parental remar-
riage is more likely to help or harm children is mixed (see Ama-
to, 2000, for a review). Nevertheless, parental remarriage makes
it possible for children to experience a second (or third) divorce
prior to reaching adulthood, and some studies show that multiple
divorces are more problematic for children than a single divorce
(Amato & Booth, 1991; Wolnger, 2000). Other investigators
suggest that multiple family transitions (involving multiple di-
vorces and remarriages) are particularly stressful for children
(Rodgers & Pryor, 1998).
Figure 5 presents data from the MIOLC study, with off-
spring divided into groups based on the number of family tran-
sitions they experienced while growing up. Transitions included
any parental divorce or remarriage on the part of either mothers
or fathers. (Parental cohabitations are excluded because we did
not have this information for all households.) The zero-transition
group refers to offspring raised with continuously married par-
ents, and the single-transition group refers to offspring who ex-
perienced a parental divorce but no subsequent parental remar-
riages. Note that offspring who experienced a single parental
divorce (and no subsequent transitions) had a level of psycho-
logical well-being comparable to that of offspring with contin-
uously married parents. As the number of transitions increased,
however, offspring psychological well-being declined corre-
spondingly (p .05). These data suggest that much of the neg-
ative effect of divorce on children is due not to marital disruption
itself but to the accumulation of subsequent family transitions
that divorce often sets into motion. Although it would be useful
to distinguish more precisely between the remarriages and sub-
sequent divorces of mothers and fathers, the small number of
divorce cases did not make this approach possible. Nevertheless,
these data suggest the utility of focusing on the number of post-
divorce family transitions as a central factor in accounting for
childrens later adjustment.
Conclusions
Wallerstein claims that divorce is a disruptive and disturbing
event in the lives of children, and that the negative consequences
of this event persistand grow strongeras children reach
adulthood. Many observers have criticized Wallersteins research
because of her reliance on a nonrandom sample, the absence of
a comparison group from her design, and her impressionistic
approach to aggregating and reporting data. Despite these criti-
cisms, the research literature generally supports a moderate ver-
sion of Wallersteins position. Compared with children with con-
tinuously married parents, children with divorced parents reach
adulthood with lower levels of psychological well-being, more
discordant marriages, a greater likelihood of seeing their own
marriages end in dissolution, and weaker ties to parents, espe-
cially fathers.
As noted earlier, the main point of contention between Wall-
erstein and her critics involves the pervasiveness and strength of
these effects. On the one hand, if Wallerstein is claiming that
divorce has serious, harmful consequences for virtually all chil-
dren (the strong version), then her claims go well beyond exist-
ing scientic evidence. On the other hand, if Wallerstein is
claiming that divorce is a risk factor for subsequent social and
psychological problems and that divorce negatively affects the
lives of many children, although not necessarily the majority of
children (the moderate version), then her claims fall within the
boundaries of current scientic thinking.
What exactly is Wallersteins position? At times, Wallerstein
makes sweeping generalizations that suggest uniform, damaging
consequences of divorce for children. For example, she stated,
Children of all ages feel intensely rejected when their parents
divorce (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989, p. 12); Divorce is a
wrenching experience for many adults and for almost all chil-
dren. It is almost always more devastating for children than for
their parents (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, p. 297); and We have
created new kinds of families in which relationships are fragile
and often unreliable. Children today receive far less nurturance,
protection, and parenting than was their lot a few decades ago
(Wallerstein et al., 2000, p. 297). Wallersteins frequent use of
words such as cruel, doom, panic, tragedy, and terror in describ-
ing the effects of divorce reinforce this interpretation. Yet, Wall-
erstein also acknowledges that many children of divorce reach
adulthood as compassionate, courageous, and competent peo-
ple (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, p. 298). And although Wallerstein
believes that adult children of divorce are disadvantaged in their
ability to form satisfying and stable relationships, she also ac-
knowledges that many adult children of divorce conquer their
anxieties about relationships and manage to form happy and sta-
ble unions (Wallerstein et al., p. 301).
Wallerstein also acknowledges that growing up in a dys-
functional, discordant two-parent family can be more problem-
atic than parental divorce. As she has stated, Children raised
in extremely unhappy or violent intact homes face misery in
childhood and tragic challenges in adulthood (Wallerstein et al.,
2000, p. 300). Media accounts of Wallersteins work typically
suggest that marital disruption inevitably harms children. How-
ever, as Wallerstein points out, I am not against divorce. How
could I be? Ive probably seen more examples of wretched, de-
Cherlin
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
Austria nland France Sweden United States
Percentage of Children Who See New Partner Within 3 years of disruption of marriage
Cherlin
0
2.25
4.5
6.75
9
Austria nland France Sweden United States
Percentage of Children with 3 or MORE parental gures by age 15
Everything you need to
know about being a
parent
High Low
High
Low
Authoritative Permissive
Authoritarian Disengaged
Control
W
a
r
m
t
h
Post Divorce Parenting
Factors that reduce control
Guilt
Depression
Lack of time/energy
Parenting
Decreased Increased
Affection Irritability
Involvement Punitiveness
Supervision Unpredictability
Adult Outcomes of
Divorce
Hetherington nds 4 main outcomes
1) Enhancers - 20%
2) Competent Loners - 10%
3) Good Enoughs - 40%
4) The Defeated - 30%
And two phases: Libertines and Seekers

Protective Factors:
What Keeps You Sane
During Times of Stress
Social Maturity
A broad idea that Hetherington breaks

down into several components
Adults with higher levels of social maturity

adapt better following the break up of their
family
A broadly adaptive trait for all adults

1. Planfulness
Ability to make concrete rather than general

goals and ability to identify the steps to
achieve those goals. Requires:
Creativity
Specicity
Delay of gratication
Organization
II. Self-Regulation
People who are better able to manage their

normative feelings of depression, anxiety,
loneliness and anger are better able to engage
in planning, to maintain social support, and
make better decisions
Recall how Intimacy Skills involve emotional

regulation - being able to tolerate intense
feelings and still communicate and plan
Biological & Psychological

III. Adaptability
Ability to change with the circumstances
Requires self-regulation; to not react to

the immediate frustration but to see the
goal (or what is needed) and to be willing
to change
Flexible people can achieve sustainable

solutions in the post-divorce world
Social Responsibility
Being sensitive and responsive to the needs

of others and being willing to help them
People who give a lot will get a lot of

support back in times of stress
Social giving is an effective antidote for

feelings of loneliness, low self-esteem, and
anger
Other Protective
Factors
Autonomy
Self-Efcacy
Religion
Work
Social Support
New Love
New romance
The most powerful buffer against post-divorce

stress was a new love relationship with a
supportive and stable partner
This nding is strong evidence for the utility of

Attachment Theory in understanding marital
dynamics
New romance
The recreation of a safe harbor provides a

deeply felt sense of well-being
Restores a sense of relational self-efcacy
Provides emotional and psychological

support that facilitates other necessary
activities of adaptation to post divorce life
What About the Kids?
Children 2 years later
VLS children showed the typical pattern

described in all children immediately
following divorce
Higher rates of stress, anxiety, behavioral

problems
Children 2 years later
Adults matter most...
A competent custodial parent is the most

important buffer for kids
But parents (most often mothers) are at

their weakest in the immediate post-
divorce period
6 years later: Children
As with adults, multiple risk and protective

factors
Parenting is the primary inuence through

adolescence, but with time, peers, siblings,
and schools take on more importance
Proximal factors become more important

than what happened around the time of
divorce
Parenting
Particularly important in the custodial

parent
There is no other parent to compensate

for an incompetent parent, who is unable
to shield a child from daily hassles of life
Rejection, irritability and neglect ood

into a childs life
Authoritative Parents
Had children who were the most socially

responsible, least troubled, and highest
achieving
Permissive Parents
Creates a risk factor for those children

who need help learning emotional self-
regulation and social regulation
Authoritarian
Parenting style characterized by lack of

warmth and attunement
Children are often quite deceptive -

conforming around the feared parent and
disrespectful, mean or disruptive around
other less intimidating authorities
Often produces what it is meant to prevent

- deant and rebellious children
Authoritarian Homes
High rates of conict which impact children

across development
Young adults from such home often did

poorly at school and work
Angry, disruptive relationships

Disengaged Parents
Parents who are basically focused on their

own needs, and not at all focused on childs
needs
Respond to expression of childrens needs

with irritation and withdrawal
Personality problems, substance use,

depression
Disengaged Homes
The children were the most troubled in the

study
Wild, deant and unhappy
Few social or emotional skills
As they aged, problems with work,

marriage, the law, and alcohol/drugs
emerged
Wallerstein Redux
Hetherington also found that children were

frequently thrust into roles that they were not
developmentally prepared for
Condant, advisor, emotional support
Children confronted with adult problems that

they cannot actually solve develop a sense of
LOW self-efcacy, or helplessness
Most commonly seen in teenage girls who

had boundary blurring as younger children
6 years later: Post-
divorce adjustment
At six years, 25% of children were

struggling with emotional, social, academic,
or behavioral problems
Compared to only 10% of children of

continuously married parents
Half empty or half full? Double the risk vs.

3/4 of kids were doing well
Post-Divorce Patterns
of Adjustment
Competent-Opportunist
Competent-Caring
Competent-at-a-Cost
Good Enough
Aggressive Insecure
Competent Opportunists
Mature, self regulated, good social skills
Instrumental (manipulative) in their relationships
Raised in high conict homes, by age 6 had to

learn how to play parents against one another to
get their needs met
Competent Caring
Present in both groups, but more from

divorced than non-divorced families
By necessity had to assume some caregiving

role for others at an early age
Competent Caring
Similar to competent opportunists, but not

status oriented or socially manipulative
More sensitive and responsive to others

needs
Propensity to help vulnerable people

Competent Caring
When does stress enhance child development?
No history of difcult temperament, anxiety,

depression or antisocial traits
Stress challenges but doesnt overwhelm
Availability of protective factors - especially

the support of at least one caring adult
Competent Children
A common template: a single parent home

run by a supportive loving working mother
Not always available but encouraged

mature and independent behavior
Competent at a Cost
Like their competent brethren, able, independent,

successful
But, plagued by anxiety, a sense of inadequacy
A pattern of adapting that emerged during

adolescence
Pre-existing anxiety plus more likely to have

experienced parentication
Early failure to solve parents problems -haunted

by a sense of letting people down
Good Enough
The average child coping in a difcult

situation
50% of kids from divorced families and 60%

from non-divorced families
Most problems were transient

Aggressive Insecure
Authoritative parenting rare
Conict, rejection, neglect are common
Quick to anger, prone to depression,

substance use problems
Unpleasant personalities make it hard to

get support from others
10% from non-divorced, 20% from divorced

families
Aggressive Insecure
Highest pregnancy rate
Highest attempted suicide rate
In adolescence, divided into two groups
Depression/low self-esteem
Antisocial behaviors
Can these kids pull it together?

VLS: Why do children of divorce
more often repeat their past?
Non-traditional values: More prevalent in children of

divorce
Trust/Safety: Reluctance to commit and a sense of

conditionality of all relationships
Divorce is an acceptable solution to an unhappy

marriage
70% of children of divorce agree
40% of children from continuously married agree

VLS Divorce Rates
Divorced Parents
High Conict,
Intact Families
Low Conict,
Intact Families
36% 29% 18%
Relationship Skills
Both divorced and High-Conict Intact

families produced children who on average
had more weaknesses
Negotiation and compromise
Validation
Self-control
Lifelong Learning...
Mate Selection:
The main protective factor that emerges in

the VLS for children of divorce
A child of divorce who marries a stable,

supportive spouse from a non-divorced
family sees his/her divorce risk fall to that
of a young person from an intact home
It appears that we can adapt and learn new

relationship skills as young adults!
Wallerstein
Thesis 1 - We are in an experiment
Thesis 2: What is true for adults is not always

true for children
Cherished Myths
1. Whats good for parents is good for kids
2. The crisis for kids is temporary, and kids
recover
What Is Divorce?
A long lasting developmental disruption

that continues to affect people as they
mature from childhood into adulthood
A disruption that we do not make any long-

term plans to address, or even recognize
Cherlin revisited...
The child who grows up in a postdivorce

family often experiences not one loss - that
of the intact family - but a series of losses
as people come and go.
Cherlin
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
Austria finland France Sweden United States
Percentage of Children Who See New Partner Within 3 years of disruption of marriage
Cherlin revisited
0
2.25
4.5
6.75
9
Austria finland France Sweden United States
Percentage of Children with 3 or MORE parental gures by age 15
Growing up is harder
In particular, when it comes time to engage

in courtship and mate selection
Karen states I knew I didnt love him, but I

was scared of marriage. I was scared of
divorce, and Im terried of being alone.
How it works
Relationships become the most important

part of life in young adulthood
Divorce creates an absence of good

memories for how two adults can live
together in a loving relationship
The psychological scaffolding that they

need to construct a happy marriage has
been badly damaged by the two people
depended upon to provide this
Absence & Incoherence
The image of parents together and happy is

lost
In particular, without a coherent

explanation of how & why the relationship
ended, it is impossible to recover any image
of them being together and happy
The absence of a coherent ending makes it

difcult to have a coherent narrative of any
part of the relationship

Children of Divorce Final Exam Review

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Children of Divorce Final Exam Review

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Children of Divorce

Final Exam Review

Paradoxical effect on marriage

Stabilization (institutional emphasis)

Destabilization (individual emphasis)

Roles - caregiver, worker, availability to

Bodies - sexuality changes

Routines - sleep, eating, traveling, working

Values - new values, or dormant values

Marital quality declines during the

Decline is more pronounced for wives than

Belsky & Hsieh, 1998, followed couples with

Father reported Love score

Three patterns of change

Stays good group - Fathers love stays

Good gets worse - Fathers love was high

Bad to worse - Fathers love low to begin

Predictors of initial marital quality were

Neuroticism (propensity towards

Agreeableness (thoughtful, considerate,

Extraverted (warm, friendly, likes people)

Predictors of change were interaction

In particular, whether co-parenting

Undermining, negative or hostile

Belsky & Hsieh nd that co-parenting is much more

Marital dynamics are more important than

Co-parenting is more important than division of

What is a successful argument? ONE THAT

Not necessarily resolution

Further clarication about sources of conict

Building a framework for ongoing discussion

Conict is work- it can be constructive or

Trust is a basic precondition for any

With trust, it is possible to tolerate

Without trust, negative emotion, doubt and

Leading to defensiveness or retaliation

Be Assertive (Say what you mean) In a

Good Communication Principles

Work of John Gottman from the Love

How couples begin arguments vary

Slow or cool start-up

Can we talk? Somethings bothering me.

Criticism, sarcasm, or harsh words

You must be a retard to book that

When the negative emotion expressed by one

Reects a lack of attunement and empathy

Promotes disengagement (self-protection) by

Can lead to a vicious cycle of pusuit- retreat, as

The most crucial aspect of conict in

The ability to repair a ruptured bond

Given the inevitability of conict and

Lack of repair corrodes trust, promotes

The conict group shows

Couples who report

Little physical aggression

Few expressed thoughts of divorce

Moderate levels of happiness and

For high distress couples, the traditional

For low distress couples, marital quality seems

Early age of marriage

Prior cohabitation with another partner

Liberal family values

Believing in acceptability of divorce

Having alternative partners