Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring .docx

Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring
‘19
SOCY 214: Sociology of the Family (35375)
Family Issues Research Paper
Final Paper
Due: Sunday, May 5, 2019
For this assignment, you are expected to delve into an area
of the family that most
interests you. You will be exploring a specific issue dealing
with what you consider to be
one of the most pressing issues facing families today.
Using scholarly research and class readings and discussions,
write a 5-8 page research
paper that explores an important aspect of families. In the first
part of the assignment, you were
asked to simply summarize the peer-reviewed journal articles
and describe how you will
approach your topic. In this final part of the assignment you
will be expected to:

-reviewed scholarly journal
article in order to focus
your topic and add academic weight to your paper;
ctions and discrepancies between the readings;
“how”, and “what” behind
what you see as an important issue facing families today; and
In other words, what have you learned from your research that
helps give you
more insight into how/in what ways the family is affected by
your chosen topic?
Organize your paper to include the following sections:
o Begin the paper with a very clear introduction in which you
state your general topic/research
question and the 3-5 specific themes/subtopics you will write
about in the paper.
o Demonstrate/argue that it (your topic) is a problem to/for
families.

• Although not required, you are encouraged to use information
from the class readings, class
discussion, and/or websites that I have suggested/used in class
in order to make the
argument that the topic you have chosen is worth paying
attention to. Use current,
authoritative, reliable statistics in order to give context to this
issue facing families.
• Please be sure that your sources are authoritative (a .gov site
is a great site to use for these
purposes), and that you cite accordingly. You MUST cite the
place from which you got
ANY statistic that you use throughout your paper.
o Summarize the research methods (explain how the data were
collected) for each of the three
academic articles. This section of your paper should be
approximately 1-3 paragraphs. Include
the general focus of each article writing about the types of
research questions each article was
answering. Identify how the data were collected for each of the
studies you read. (Did the
researchers conduct surveys? Interviews? Use data from a
larger data set?)

‘19
o Then, present 3-5 very specific issues/themes/subtopics
related to your chosen topic. You
should write 2-4 paragraphs per theme. These specific
subtopics should emerge by finding 3-5
connections across your research. In other words, what specific
aspects of your topic do all
three articles discuss, and what are the findings across them
related to each subtopic?
Here are some tips for finding/writing about these
themes/subtopics:
peer-reviewed articles), look for
some common findings/themes across the articles. These
themes can be used as a way to
organize your paper into different sections.
• One way to draw the themes from the articles is to make a list
of all of the small, specific
findings (that you understand and are able to write about) from
each of the three articles.
Then, look across those three lists (one for each article) to see
how those findings could
be connected. Those connections will make up each
subtopic/theme around which your

paper should be organized.
your applicable research in order
to explain and give support to each particular aspect of your
topic.
• Take advantage of some of the overlap between your articles
in order to give additional
support and detail to each section. The best papers will
highlight the connections across
the research, weaving the findings from each of your articles
together based on these 3-5
subtopics.
• Some of the most interesting claims will lie in the very
specific details and findings
across your research. Use these details in order to give weight
to a particular point you
are making.
• It may be useful to use each theme/subtopic as a subheading in
your paper. Under that
subheading present all of the research you have from each
article related to that
theme/subtopic.
• Your articles do not have to reach the same
conclusion(s)/report the same findings about

these aspects of your topic. In fact, it may be interesting to
explore why two (or more) of
your articles started with similar questions, but got different
results.
o End your paper with a conclusion in which you highlight the
major conclusions you are
able to draw based on the connections across the research you
read. According to the
research you presented in your paper, how/in what ways are
families affected by your
particular topic? A conclusion should not include any new
information that is not already in
the paper, but is, instead, a way to highlight and bring together
the most important insight
about your topic that you wrote about in your paper.
o The final paper MUST include in-text citations and a
references page. Every time you use
any information from another source – whether you are quoting,
paraphrasing, or
summarizing – you must cite the source in your text where you
use the information, and have
a properly formatted references page at the end of your paper.

‘19
A few notes about the paper expectations:
Although the use of popular media
accounts and online information is acceptable, it should not take
the place of academic literature.
You should have no fewer than 3 scholarly sources. (We have
learned in class about what
constitutes a scholarly, peer reviewed article. Some good
journals in which to search include, but
are certainly not limited to: American Sociological Review,
American Journal of Sociology,
Sociological Inquiry, Journal of Marriage and the Family, etc.)
-8 pages typed, double-
spaced, 12 point font. I am not strict
about page limits – say what you have to say in the length you
need to say it. (I would find it
difficult to accomplish the goals of this paper in less than about
4 pages or so, and anything more

than about 10 pages is getting a bit too long…but I’m giving
you relative freedom in terms of
length.) I care much more about quality than quantity.
attachments of all of the journal articles that
you use for this paper. (In total, at least three of your sources
should be peer reviewed, scholarly
journal articles.)
due. If you use someone else’s idea
or a quote, be sure to cite them properly. Whether you are
quoting, paraphrasing, or
summarizing, you MUST include an in-text citation at the point
in your paper at which you used
the information and a properly formatted references page at the
end of your paper. We will
review some basic citation formats during class. Plagiarizing or
copying are grounds for failing
the course and may lead to further sanctions.
week the paper is due you will
receive more instructions about paper submission procedures.
You will receive ½ a letter grade

off of the paper for each day the paper is late. I strongly
suggest that you hand the paper in on
time! If you think you will have a problem, email me or come
to see me before the paper is due.
may not get a chance to discuss
every issue that families face today, this is a way for you to
learn something about an aspect of
the family that concerns you. Please do not hesitate to send me
an e-mail or come to see me to
talk about any issue with this paper: topic selection, finding and
understanding journal articles,
writing the paper, problems, etc. I am absolutely open to any
and all of these discussions; as a
matter of fact, I look forward to them.
Good luck and try to enjoy the paper!

Effects of Divorce on Children: Differential Impact of Custody
and Visitation Patterns
Author(s): Carol R. Lowery and Shirley A. Settle
Source: Family Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 455-
463
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/584005
Accessed: 25-04-2019 06:18 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/584005?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked
references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Family Relations
This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr
2019 06:18:52 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Effects of Divorce on Children:
Differential Impact of Custody and
Visitation Patterns
CAROL R. LOWERY AND SHIRLEY A. SETTLE*
The present paper reviews the research literature on children's
experience of the
restructuring of the family following divorce. Methodological
issues in this area are
addressed. Recurrent findings are identified and then discussed
within a theoretical
framework using cumulative stress and family systems
concepts. The effects of
divorce are organized according to differences observed as a
function of the follow-
ing variables: the child's age and gender, parental conflict,
post-divorce family
stability, and parent-child relationships. Custody arrangements
and visitation pat-
terns potentially minimizing the deleterious effects related to
these variables are
iden tified.
How children are affected by divorce has

become an important topic of research over the
last 20 years, in keeping with the rising divorce
rates. As divorce statistics have risen, so has
the number of children involved in this type of
family disruption, more than 1 million children
per year (Bane, 1979; Crosby, 1980; Glick, 1979).
Researchers have long recognized the poten-
tially powerful and pervasive impact of divorce
on the lives of family members. However, it has
taken a long time to untangle the web of a com-
plex event in order to identify aspects of the
divorce process that are relevant to family
members' subsequent adjustment. Our think-
ing has been hampered by empirical findings
that were largely artifacts of methodological
limitations of the research and theories that
failed to recognize the interpersonal and con-
textual variables operating in divorce as a proc-
ess rather than as an instant event. The present
review attempts to sort the wheat from the
chaff: reliable, replicated findings are identi-
fied and interpreted using stress and family
systems concepts for the theoretical frame-
*Carol R. Lowery is an Assistant Professor, Department of
Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-
0044.
Shirley A. Settle is a doctoral student in that same department.
Key Words: cumulative stress, custody, divorce, post-
divorce stability, visitation.
(Family Relations, 1985, 34, 455-463.)
work. Major variables that have been sorely
neglected in the research are identified in

order to provide direction to future efforts in
this important area.
In the past decade, researchers began trying
to discover what the range of effects of family
disruption on children might be and what
aspects of divorce seem to cause that most
problems. The earlier research on the long-
term effects of divorce on children focused
primarily on the loss of one parent, usually the
father. Problems manifested in children of
divorce were assumed to be caused by paternal
absence (Longfellow, 1979; Nye, 1957;
Stiegman, 1966). As the frequency of divorce
increased, a popular mythology grew about
father-absent families: the sons who became
either effeminate or juvenile delinquents and
the daughters who became promiscuous. In
their comprehensive review of the father
absence literature, Herzog and Sudia (1973)
found little support for these interpretations of
earlier data. Bernard and Nesbitt (1981)
described divorce as an unreliable predictor of
mental illness, low achievement, and delin-
quency. In fact, a direct causal link between
divorce and a variety of children's problems
has not been supported by more recent, better
controlled studies. Whereas earlier research
dealt largely with clinical samples, the more re-
cent research has focused more on "normal"
children. Researchers have now begun to
realize that there is more involved in the prob-
lems of disrupted families than father absence.
October 1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 455

2019 06:18:52 UTC
A recent shift in the divorce literature has
been toward the concept of cumulative stress
in children of divorce. The cumulative stress
model assumes that there is a threshold of
stress that can be exceeded either by a single
event that is extremely stressful or by the oc-
currence of several events of a less stressful
nature within a short period of time, not allow-
ing for enough time between events to recover.
The disruption of a family by divorce is seen as
not one event, but a collection of less stressful
events which, together, exceed some chil-
dren's tolerance of stress (Hetherington, 1979;
Hodges, Wechsler, & Ballantine, 1979; Kurdek,
1981; Longfellow, 1979). According to the
cumulative stress approach, then, it is the ac-
cumulation of stress which causes the prob-
lems frequently seen in children of divorce. Ad-
ditional factors which may increase the stress-
ful impact of the events involved in the divorce
are the degree of ambiguity and absence of
preparation for the events; the availability of
support in the child's social network; and the
duration of tension or unresolved conflict
before the child's life settles into a relatively
stable pattern (Lazarus, 1966).
Another model evident in the current divorce
literature is the family systems or family proc-
esses approach. This approach indicates that

the relationships among family members do
not end when divorce occurs; the relationships
are merely altered (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hunt-
ington, 1982; Musetto, 1978). Even the relation-
ship between husband and wife is continued
through the children. Within this framework,
the problems associated with divorce cannot
be understood unless they are examined in
light of the continuing relationships among the
family members.
It is important to determine which aspects of
divorce are most stressful to children and to
discover how different patterns in the continu-
ing relationships within the family either ex-
acerbate or mitigate the stress precipitated by
the initial changes associated with divorce.
Reliable Findings
Though the amount of research on divorce
and children has increased tremendously, the
quality of much of the research to date leaves
something to be desired (Bleckman, 1982).
There have been so many different approaches
to the problem and so little replication that it is
difficult to draw valid conclusions about the
major sources of stress for children from the
existing body of literature.
Sampling problems. Typical problems that
plague the literature include small samples
(McDermott, 1968); samples from more highly
educated and more affluent families than
average (Hodges et al., 1979; Rothberg, 1983);
samples from lower SES groups where con-

founding effects of poverty and low educa-
tional levels prohibit a clear interpretation of
the data (Thomes, 1968); samples based on
referrals to mental health clinics or school
guidance programs (Felner, Stolberg, & Cowen,
1975; Porter & O'Leary, 1980; Tuckman &
Regan, 1966); and samples limited only to
mother-custody families (Hess & Camara, 1979;
Kopf, 1970; Santrock, 1975). Selection of ap-
propriate statistics that will not be biased by a
few extreme scores can be a major problem.
Many of the studies do not include suitable
control groups that would facilitate interpreta-
tion of the data. It becomes impossible to sort
out whether findings are due to the divorce
process itself or to other characteristics of the
particular sample studied.
For example, compared to the custodial
mother, little is known about the experience of
the custodial father (Jacobs, 1982). Even less is
known about the noncustodial father who
disengages from the family since he is not like-
ly to participate in empirical studies (Gold-
smith, 1980; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979;
Koch, 1982). Very little is known about non-
custodial mothers.
Procedural problems. Typical procedural
problems include retrospective data collected
several years after the separation, when in-
tervening variables are a likely confound (Luep-
nitz, 1979; Stiegman, 1966); parental reports or
teacher reports as the only measures (Felner,
Farber, Ginter, Boike, & Cowen, 1980); and

observation or direct contact with the children
limited to only a few minutes per child (Felner
et al., 1975; Kelly & Wallerstein, 1976; Kopf,
1970; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974, 1975, 1976,
1980a, 1980b). Relying heavily on parents and
teachers for information is extremely risky. The
parents are likely to be unable to be objective;
clinical and empirical reports indicate that
divorce is a situation in which parents have par-
ticular difficulty maintaining an accurate
understanding of the child's perspective (Luep-
nitz, 1982; Tessman, 1978). Teachers may not
know that much about a given child and it has
also been found that teachers can have a nega-
tively biased view of the behavior of children
they know to be from divorced families (San-
trock & Tracy, 1978).
Consistent Research Findings
Given these criticisms, there are some find-
ings that have been fairly consistent through-
out the literature which merit noting. Most
studies which have compared children from di-
vorced and intact families have found some
statistically significant differences between
the two groups in some areas, sometimes
favoring divorced families and sometimes
favoring intact families (Biller, 1969; Felner et
al., 1975; Felner et al., 1980; Hess & Camara,
1979; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979; Hodges
et al., 1979; Santrock, 1975; Santrock & War-
456 FAMILY RELATIONS October 1985

2019 06:18:52 UTC
shak, 1979; Tuckman & Regan, 1966). However,
it should be noted that there are also several
studies showing no significant differences in
either direction (Bernard & Nesbitt, 1981;
Raschke & Raschke, 1979; Thomes, 1968). A
clearer picture emerges when studies are or-
ganized by variables that have consistently
been identified as mediating the effects of
d ivorce.
Age. Divorce seems to have some negative
short-term effects on most children's social or
cognitive development, but younger children
seem to have more severe reactions to the
divorce of their parents (Hetherington, 1966;
1979; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1981; Long-
fellow, 1979; Santrock, 1975). Children who are
under age 5 at the time of divorce seem to be
more vulnerable to developmental disruption
and depression (Longfellow, 1979; McDermott,
1968). Younger children also tend to show
more anxiety than older children (Tuckman &
Regan, 1966) and to somatize more than older
children, showing more eating disturbances,
weight gain or loss, and more physical com-
plaints (Luepnitz, 1979).
However, there is some question as to how
early children show reactions to parental
separation. Lamb (1977) found that young in-
fants showed no preference in their attach-

ment behavior for either parent by sex; similar-
ly, Spelke, Zelazo, Kagan and Kotelchuck (1973)
found that the father's presence was just as
comforting as the mother's in certain un-
familiar situations. Developmental literature in-
dicates that children form a primary attach-
ment to a specific person sometime between 6
months and 1 year of age (Rutter, 1979), with
additional attachments soon thereafter. None
of the divorce studies reviewed included chil-
dren under 2 years of age. This raises the ques-
tion of whether a child who has not yet formed
a strong attachment to a parent would react
negatively to reduced contact with that parent.
Generalizing from the developmental literature,
one could conclude that reduced contact with
the primary attachment figure when a child is
between the ages of 6 and 12 months would be
quite stressful, and less stressful than if con-
tact were reduced with a secondary attach-
ment figure. Before 6 months, the distinctions
between primary and secondary attachment
would be less important, as it would be after
about 12 months of age.
However, this remains speculative and is
based on generalization from a body of litera-
ture that does not explicitly address the issue
of the relative levels of stress experienced by
an infant under each of the various patterns of
custody and visitation established by families
after a divorce. Lay and judicial wisdom has
dictated that the younger the child, the more
likely that custody goes to the mother (Bratt,
1977), with shorter periods of visitation but at

no greater frequency than that provided for
older children. Although at least one study with
older children has demonstrated that the dura-
tion of visitation, but not its frequency, is asso-
ciated with better noncustodial parent-child
relationships (Hess & Camara, 1979), virtually
nothing is known about the patterns of
custody and visitation that will enhance post-
divorce family relationships when very young
children are involved.
Longfellow (1979) has presented a break-
down by age level/developmental level of the
immediate stress reactions of children to
divorce from a compilation of data (Kelly &
Wallerstein, 1976; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974,
1975, 1976). Preschool children (21/2 to 6 years)
were frightened and confused, and tended to
blame themselves. Wallerstein and Kelly (1975)
note that this self-blaming attitude was par-
ticularly resistant to change. These children
showed a great need for physical contact and
comfort, and expressed fears of punishment or
rejection. All of the preschool children had dif-
ficulty expressing feelings and only the 5- and
6-year-olds had any understanding of what the
divorce meant in terms of changes taking
place. Early latency children (7 to 8 years) did
not blame themselves, but expressed feelings
of sadness, fear and insecurity. They had dif-
ficulty expressing anger toward their parents
and had a strong desire for parental reconcilia-
tion. In later latency (9 to 10 years), the children
had a better understanding of the situation and
could better express their anger. However, they
felt a conflict of loyalty, were lonely, and were

ashamed of their parents' behavior. The adoles-
cents (13 to 18 years) most openly expressed
their anger, sadness, and shame. They also en-
gaged in examination of the familial relation-
ships and their own values and concepts. Chil-
dren in this age group were better able to dis-
engage themselves from their parents' con-
flicts and regain their emotional equilibrium.
Sex. Boys typically show more,, maladjust-
ment and more prolonged problems than girls
in response to divorce. For boys, the increase
in aggression, dependency, disobedience, and
developmental regression is greater than for
girls and the effects persist for a longer period
of time (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington,
1979; Hetherington et al., 1979; McDermott,
1968). Boys show more problems in mother/son
interaction than they do in father/son interac-
tion (Hetherington, 1979; Hetherington et al.,
1981).
The differences between boys and girls in
their reactions to parental divorce are more
puzzling than the age differences in children.
At least one study (Santrock & Warshak, 1979)
has found that boys show more competent be-
havior, more maturity, and are less demanding
in the custody of their fathers. A possible ex-
planation for the poor adjustment of boys
October1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 457
2019 06:18:52 UTC

following divorce is that they are almost
always in the custody of their mothers and
have limited contact with their fathers. Given
that the formation of functional subsystems
within a family frequently crosses generations
down the line of gender (Minuchin, 1974), boys
may feel the relative loss of their fathers more
acutely than do girls (Hetherington, 1979).
Another possible factor is that boys are
usually more aggressive than girls at all ages.
One study (Tuckman & Regan, 1966) showed an
increase in aggression for both sexes in chil-
dren from divorced families, but that increase
may push the boy's behavior past acceptable
limits while an increase in a girl's aggressive
behavior might still not be labeled problematic
behavior. There is evidence that some of the in-
creased aggressive behavior shown by boys
may represent the boy's childlike attempt to re-
establish a masculine presence in the family
(Tooley, 1976). From a systems point of view,
this would be more likely to occur in families
where the father's involvement was minimal
and sporadic after the divorce. The boy's be-
havior would occur with subtle encouragement
by other family members (Haley, 1976) as an at-
tempt to compensate for the "loss" of the
father. Confirmation of the occurrence of such
a dynamic, however, remains an empirical
issue.
When a son is a great deal like the father, the

mother may vent hostility toward the father on
the son, thereby enacting the dysfunctional
cross-generation enmeshed relationship that
has been documented in the family therapy
literature (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 1980;
Hetherington, 1979; Kopf, 1970). It is likely that
some minimum number of occasions for direct
contact between the adults would be
necessary if a process of scapegoating a son is
to be avoided. That is, some contact with the
true target of the mother's anger may help
minimize its displacement on a son who hap-
pens to resemble the father in some ways.
Parental conflict. Several studies have
shown that predivorce parental conflict is
associated with poorer adjustment in children,
and that children from intact but conflict-
ridden homes have more behavior problems
than do children from divorced homes where
the parents no longer show a high level of con-
flict (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979;
Hodges et al., 1979; Kurdek & Siesky, 1980;
Longfellow, 1979; Luepnitz, 1979; McCord, Mc-
Cord, & Thurber, 1962; Nye, 1975; Raschke &
Raschke, 1979).
Several researchers have found that both
divorced men and women report that the most
stressful period in the transition from married
to divorced life was during the period im-
mediately before the separation, marked by
overt and covert mistrust and disagreement
(Albrecht, 1980; DeFrain & Eirick, 1981; Weiss,
1975). If this period is most stressful for the

parents, it is reasonable to hypothesize that
this is also a stressful time for the children. At
least one study found that children also
reported this period to be the most stressful
(Luepnitz, 1979). A crucial factor may be
whether the separation and divorce function as
a mechanism to reduce the parental tension or
whether it serves as a respite for each parent to
regroup and rearm for a continuing battle
whenever they have contact. There is some evi-
dence that a small proportion of divorced
parents continue to be over involved in each
other's lives in a hostile, conflicted way
(Kressel, Jaffe, Tuchman, Watson & Deutsch,
1980). The structure of custody and visitation
may be particularly crucial for these families
which do not seem to be able to use the
distance of divorce to improve their level of
functioning. For these families, structuring the
exchange for visitation so that only one parent
is needed to accomplish the actual transfer
(e.g., picking the children up from school) may
benefit the children (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox,
1976; Kurdek, Blisk, & Siesky, in press).
Post-divorce stability. Hodges, Wechsler
and Ballantine (1979) found that low income,
young parents, and more moves were associ-
ated with more problems in children from di-
vorced families. There was no similar relation-
ship for intact families. DeFrain and Eirick
(1981) found that fathers tended to move less
often after a divorce than did mothers. Given
the fact that mothers more often have custody
of the children, this means that the children

frequently experience not only the relative loss
of the father from the home, but the loss of the
home itself, their neighborhood friends, and
other familiar surroundings (Hetherington,
1979; Longfellow, 1979). In addition, custodial
mothers tend to show a marked decline in an-
nual income, reported in one study to be an in-
itial average decrease of $6000 (Kohen, Brown,
& Feldberg, 1979). Current patterns of custody,
visitation, and child support show low frequen-
cies of deviation from the traditional mother
custody, bimonthly visitation with a father who
pays support (DeFrain & Eirick, 1970; Moore &
Davenport, 1979; Koch, 1982). This fact
challenges any supposition that arrangements
are tailored to meet the specific needs of the
particular family. It is more logical to conclude
that these decisions are made according to
fairly rigid, conventionalized standards (Der-
deyn, 1976; Garrett-Fulks & Worell, 1983;
Lowery, 1982; Marschall & Gaty, 1975) that
poorly accommodate the variety of circum-
stances among individual families in minimiz-
ing stressful changes.
Mother/child-fatherlchild relationships.
Several studies have found that the quality of
the relationships between the child and each
parent is an important variable in the adjust-
458 FAMILY RELATIONS October-1985
2019 06:18:52 UTC

ment of children after divorce. Hess and
Camara (1979) found that children who had a
good individual relationship with each parent
following divorce had fewer problems than any
other group of children. In fact, a good relation-
ship with the custodial parent seemed to act as
a buffer against a poor relationship with the
noncustodial parent. The level of parental har-
mony also played an important role. Finally, the
duration of contact with the father was posi-
tively related to the quality of the father-child
relationship and, indirectly, to the child's ad-
justment. These findings suggest that patterns
of visitation are related to characteristics of
the child's relationship with that parent, but
the direction and details of the causal linkage
to child adjustment have not been empirically
determined. The intertwining of the continuing
parental relationship, the noncustodial parent-
child relationship, patterns of visitation, and
child adjustment are obvious. Untangling the
causal network remains an enormous empirical
problem.
One study (Koch, 1982) indicates that, while
increased visitation is associated with a good
noncustodial parent-child relationship, that
association is mediated by the quality of the
post-divorce parental relationship. This raises
the intriguing possibility that, even after di-
vorce, the characteristics of the relationship
between the two adults continue to determine
other relationships in the family system, a posi-
tion long espoused by those working clinically

with intact families (Goldenberg & Goldenberg,
1980; Okun & Rappaport, 1980; Perez, 1979).
Thus, family relationship variables seem to be
more closely related to children's post-divorce
adjustment than the divorced family status, per
se (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979;
Hetherington et al., 1981; Kopf, 1970; Kurdek &
Siesky, 1980; Longfellow, 1979; Raschke &
Raschke, 1979; Rutter, 1979).
Aspects of Custody
There is evidence that the adjustment of the
children to divorce may be affected by at least
two characteristics of the custody arrange-
ments: sex of the custodial parent interacting
with sex of the child, and the type of custody
(sole, joint, or split).
Santrock and Warshak (1979) found that chil-
dren seemed to be better adjusted on mea-
sures of social development when in the
custody of the parent of the same sex rather
than of the opposite sex. In comparing the
same-sex custodial arrangements, significant
differences were found in four areas. Father
custody boys were less demanding, more
mature, more sociable, and more independent
than father custody girls. Mother custody girls
were less demanding, more mature, more
sociable, and more independent than mother
custody boys. Although another study (Kurdek
et al., in press) did not detect enhancing ef-
fects for same-sex matching, this question was
not the major focus and effects may have been

obscured by procedural confounds.
Ample confirmation of the ability of
custodial fathers to function competently in
the role of primary caretaker has been demon-
strated in the literature (DeFrain & Eirrick,
1981; Lewis, 1978; Luepnitz, 1982; Roman &
Haddad, 1978; Santrock & Warshak, 1979).
However, a note of caution is needed since, in
most parts of the country, it is still highly infre-
quent for a father to receive custody except
under unusual circumstances (U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1979; Lowery, 1982). Custodial
fathers continue to be a highly select group
who may not be directly comparable to a
typical sample of custodial mothers.
Although judges are still reluctant to grant
joint custody in most situations (Settle &
Lowery, 1982), at least two studies show better
results for joint custody than sole custody (II-
feld, llfeld, & Alexander, 1982; Luepnitz, 1982).
The authors assumed that returning to court to
alter custody arrangements was indicative of
post-divorce parental conflict, which they felt
would be harmful to the children. Ilfeld et al.
(1982) examined court records over a 2-year
period and found that the relitigation rate for
joint custody cases was half that for sole
custody cases (16% vs. 32%). They also found
that, for a subset of cases where at least one of
the parents had not wanted joint custody, the
relitigation rate was no higher than that for
sole custody cases (33% vs. 32%).
Luepnitz (1982) concluded that joint custody

has more advantages and fewer disadvantages
than sole custody. She found that none of the
joint custody parents in her study had mini-
mized contact with the other parent, as had
many of the single parents; no joint father had
ceased to support the children financially, as
had many of the noncustodial fathers; and joint
parents did not report feeling overwhelmed by
child care responsibilities, as did the sole
custody parents.
There were, of course, some disadvantages
to the joint custody arrangement as compared
to the sole custody. The major disadvantage in
joint custody was that the ex-spouses felt tied
to one another. Since joint custody is more
feasible when parents live near each other,
spouses reported constraints on their freedom
to relocate after the divorce. However, this
seems to be mostly a disadvantage for the
parents and in some ways, reflects the post-
divorce reality of a continuing tie with the other
adult. Approximately half the children in the
sole custody situation desired more contact
with the noncustodial parent, suggesting that
joint custody might be beneficial to these chil-
dren. Given the fact that divorced mothers with
custody typically suffer a significant economic
2019 06:18:52 UTC

loss upon divorce (Albrecht, 1980; Luepnitz,
1982; Santrock & Warshak, 1979), the finding
that joint custody fathers did not default on
their child support is of great interest and may
balance the disadvantage noted above. If joint
custody results in less geographic mobility
(Luepnitz, 1982; Rothberg, 1983) and a more
equitable financial situation, it may well mini-
mize some of the major stress factors for
divorced families.
Although there seem to be some potential
advantages to joint custody over sole custody,
there are some conditions under which joint
custody might increase the problems associ-
ated with divorce (Benedek & Benedek, 1979;
Clingempeel & Repucci, 1982). If the increased
contact between the parents in a joint custody
situation results in increased conflict, the chil-
dren may be better off in sole custody with less
interaction between the parents. Other poten-
tial problems include switching between
school districts or between homes which are
quite dissimilar. To the extent that there is
greater dichotomy between the two homes,
children may experience considerable stress in
making continual transitions and maintaining
balanced loyalties (Steinman, 1981). In that
regard, the age of the child is likely a factor in
coping with dual but equal households.
It remains to be seen whether the generally
favorable benefits derived from joint custody
stem from the confirmation of the partnership
between equals, from the relatively evenly dis-

tributed contact with both parents, or from
some combination of the two. Clearly the limi-
tations of joint custody need to be further ex-
plored. Although some early results suggest
that the benefit of joint custody may be more
widely distributed among various kinds of
divorcing families than earlier thought, careful
examination of special cases needs to be
u ndertaken.
Split custody is a rare form of custody that
involves dividing siblings, placing one or more
in the custody of each parent (Lewis, 1978). Vir-
tually nothing is known about this structure of
custody and its impact on the family. A reason-
ably sized sample of such families would be
difficult to obtain. What little is known is that it
is generally held in disfavor both by parents
(Moore & Davenport, 1979; Lowery, 1982) and
by the courts (Bratt, 1977; Lowery, 1981). In
families with more than one child, split
custody could conceivably alleviate the typical
custodial parent's complaint of being over-
burdened and the typical noncustodial parent's
complaint of a loss of influence and involve-
ment (Luepnitz, 1982). However, a great deal
needs to be done in understanding the role of
sibling relationships in intact families (Bank
and Kahn, 1982) before such an arrangement is
recommended for divorcing families.
Correlates of Visitation
Conflict in the marriage sometimes makes
for an unusually close relationship between
father and children in an attempt to minimize

marital interaction (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).
However, a more typical pattern is that fathers
in conflicted marriages may become more in-
volved in work and other activities outside the
home, resulting in his becoming a less signifi-
cant parental figure (Friedman, 1980). With
divorce, some fathers actually become much
more involved with their children and develop a
closer relationship with them (Friedman, 1980;
Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). This seems to be
more likely when a father is in a situation of
caring for the children's needs on a daily basis,
either when the children are visiting for a
period of time or when the father has custody.
Hess and Camara (1979) found that the dura-
tion, but not the frequency, of visitation with
the fathers was related to better father-child
relationships. They concluded that a visitation
structure which encourages the father to incor-
porate the time with his child as part of his life-
style minimizes the loss subjectively experi-
enced by the child. The family systems litera-
ture suggests that continuity in a parenting
role would minimize the demand on the chil-
dren to develop new ways of interacting with
their father. Because evidence suggests that
fathers generally do continue basic features of
their relationship with their children, the ex-
istence of the "Disneyland fathers," in sub-
stantial numbers, has not been demonstrated
(Koch, 1982).
Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) explored factors
that fostered visitation in fathers who did not
have custody. They found that the following
factors were related to a pattern of continuing

regular visitation after divorce: fathers whose
children expressed pleasure in the visits (more
often younger children); fathers whose chil-
dren were not angry at them over the divorce;
fathers whose children were in the custody of
chronically distressed mothers; fathers who
were lonely, but psychologically intact and not
depressed; fathers who were economically
secure and better educated; and fathers in
families where there was no longer intense
animosity between the parents. The last
feature has been confirmed as a major factor in
other research (Koch, 1982).
It seems that when fathers have joint cus-
tody or liberal visitation with the children, they
have no intense conflict with the ex-wife, and
are relatively well-adjusted psychologically,
they continue to visit the children and continue
to pay child support regularly. It seems that
key factors may be to insure that the father has
easy access to his children and input into his
children's lives, both of which are frequently
denied fathers in actual practice. The current
typical pattern for visitation seems to be
460 FAMILY RELATIONS October1985
2019 06:18:52 UTC
weekends together, every other week (Hether-
ington, Cox & Cox, 1979; Koch, 1982; Waller-

stein & Kelly, 1980). Bi-monthly contact is gen-
erally considered "reasonable" visitation and
constitutes the norm.
Summary
An examination of the divorce literature sug-
gests that there are five areas that deserve
more extensive and more systematic research
regarding the effects of divorce on children:
age differences, sex differences, conflict in the
parental dyad, life changes concomitant with
divorce, and custody/visitation arrangements.
Younger children seem to fare worse than do
older children after a divorce. At present, the
research suggests a linear relationship: the
younger the child, the more severe the impact.
However, little is known about the impact on
children under 2 years of age.
Boys seem to fare worse than girls in a
divorce. The mechanism of this gender dif-
ference is still unknown. It may not be so much
the gender of the child perse as it is the disrup-
tion of the cross-generation, male subsystem
in traditional custody arrangements.
As for the role of conflict in the family, ac-
cumulating evidence suggests that parental
conflict predicts family dysfunction better
than does family status (intact or divorced).
This raises the question of what level of con-
flict in an intact marriage must be reached
before the negative effects of that conflict on
the children exceed the potential negative ef-

fects of divorce. It would also be important to
determine the extent to which continued con-
flict in the post-divorce parental relationship
influences the decisions that determine other
stress factors such as the distribution of finan-
cial resources, changes in residence, and reliti-
gation.
There is some evidence that joint custody
could help to eliminate some of the stress ex-
perienced by families by decreasing the in-
cidence of other changes associated with
divorce. Relative to pre-divorce arrangements,
families with joint custody show less dis-
crepancy in the financial resources available to
the child, in the functional roles as parents, in
the child's physical and emotional access to
both parents, and in access to a familiar com-
munity than traditional custody families. This
custodial arrangement comes closer than tra-
ditional or other nontraditional arrangements
(sole father custody, split custody) to minimiz-
ing changes in both the structural and func-
tional characteristics of the family. Whether it
is the continuity in structure, in function, or
perhaps the demographic features (relatively
high socioeconomic status) of the families
studied that accounts for its apparent benefits
has yet to be determined. This area needs fur-
ther empirical exploration. In many joint
custody arrangements, greater access to both
parents, fewer life changes, and parents' legal
status as equals are confounded. Studies com-
paring joint custody with equal time, equal
status, and fewer changes to other kinds of

joint arrangements are clearly needed. Addi-
tionally, studies identifying family characteris-
tics that are counterindications for joint
custody are needed, lest joint custody become
an unrealistic panacea for difficult decisions
about custody.
It is important to determine which combina-
tion of changes are most stressful for which
kinds of families. The stress literature sug-
gests that similar events are experienced dif-
ferently by different people and that there are
strategies for minimizing the harmful effects of
stressful events (Hetherington, 1979; Lazarus,
1966; Luepnitz, 1979). For some, divorce is the
occasion for deterioration and impaired func-
tioning; for others, it is an opportunity for
growth and integration of complex issues. The
area is in critical need of a better understand-
ing of what factors make the difference.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S. L. (1980). Reactions and adjustments to divorce:
Differences in the experiences of males and females. Fami-
ly Relations, 29, 59-68.
Bane, M. J. (1979). Marital disruption and the lives of children.
In G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation.
New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1982). The Sibling Bond. New
York:
Basic Books, Inc.
Benedek, E. P., & Benedek, R. S. (1979). Joint custody:

Solution
or illusion? American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1540-1544.
Bernard, J. M., & Nesbitt, S. (1981). Divorce: An unreliable
pre-
dictor of children's emotional predispositions. Journal of
Divorce, 4, 31-41.
Biller, H. B. (1969). Father absence, maternal encouragement
and sex role development in kindergarten age boys. Child
Development, 40, 539-546.
Bleckman, E. A. (1982). Are children with one parent at
psycho-
logical risk? A methodological review. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 44, 179-195.
Bratt, D. (1977). Paternal custody of the young child under the
Kentucky No-fault Divorce Act. Kentucky Law Journal, 66,
165-183.

Clingempeel, W. G., & Repucci, N. D. (1982). Joint custody
after
divorce: Major issues and goals for research. Psychological
Bulletin, 91, 102-127.
Crosby, J. F. (1980). A critique of divorce statistics and their
in-
terpretation. Family Relations, 29, 51-58.
DeFrain, J., & Eirick, R. (1981). Coping as divorced single
parents: A comparative study of fathers and mothers. Fami-
ly Relations, 30, 265-274.
Derdeyn, A. P. (1976). Child custody contests in historical per-
spective. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 133,
1369-1376.
Felner, R. D., Farber, S. S., Ginter, M. A., Boike, M. A., &
Cowan,
E. L. (1980). Family stress and organization following paren-
tal divorce or death. Journal of Divorce, 4, 67-76.
Felner, R. D., Stolberg, A., & Cowan, E. L. (1975). Crisis
events
and school mental health patterns of young children. Jour-

nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 305-310.
Friedman, H. J. (1980). The father's parenting experience in di-
vorce. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1177-1182.
Garrett-Fulks, N. J., & Worell, J. (1983, August). Social
percep-
tions of divorced parents. In J. Worell (Chair), Issues in child
custody: Process and outcome. Symposium at the annual
meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association,
Atlanta
October`1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 461
2019 06:18:52 UTC
Glick, P. C. (1979). Children of divorced parents in
demographic
perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 112-125.
Goldenberg, J., & Goldenberg, H. (1980). Family therapy: An

overview. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Goldsmith, J. (1980). Relationships between former spouses:
Descriptive findings. Journal of Divorce, 4, 1-20.
Haley, J. (1976). Problem solving therapy. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.
Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. E. (1973). Children in fatherless
families.
In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Riccuiti (Eds.), Review of child
development research: Volume 3: Child development and
child policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hess, R. D., & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family
relation-
ships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce
for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 79-96.
Hetherington, E. M. (1966). Effects of parental absence on sex-
typed behavior in negro and white preadolescent males.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 87-91.
Hetherington, E. M. (1979). Divorce: A child's perspective.
American Psychologist, 34, 851-858.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979). Play and
social
interaction in children following divorce. Journal of Social
Issues, 35, 26-49.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1981). The aftermath
of
divorce. In Contemporary readings in child psychology (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Hodges, W. F., Wechsler, R. C., & Ballentine, C. (1979).
Divorce
and the pre-school child: Cumulative stress. Journal of
Divorce, 3, 55-69.
Huntington, D. S. (1982). Attachment loss and divorce: A
recon-
sideration of the concepts. In L. Messinger (Ed.), Therapy
with remarriage families. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
Ilfeld, F. W., Jr., llfeld, H. Z., & Alexander, T. R. (1982). Does
joint custody work? A first look at outcome data of relitiga-
tion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 62-66.

Jacobs, J. W. (1982). The effect of divorce on fathers: An over-
view of the literature. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139,
1235-1241.
Kelly, J., & Wallerstein, J. (1976). The effects of parental di-
vorce: Experiences of the child in early latency. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 20-32.
Koch, M. P. (1982). The visitation experience of divorced, non-
custodial fathers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kentucky.
Kohen, J. A., Brown, C. A., & Feldberg, R. (1979). Divorced
mothers: The costs and benefits of female family control. In
G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation.
New York: Basic Books.
Kopf, K. E. (1970). Family variables and school adjusment of
eighth grade father-absent boys. The Family Coordinator,
19, 145-150.
Kressel, K., Jaffe, N., Tuchman, B.. Watson, C., & Deutsch, M.
(1980). A typology of divorcing couples: Implications for
mediation and the divorce process. Family Process, 19,
101-116.

Kurdek, L. A. (1981). An integrative perspective on children's
divorce adjustment. American Psychologist, 36, 856-866.
Kurdek, L. A., Blisk, D., & Siesky, A. E. (in press). Correlates
of
children's long-term adjustment to their parents' divorce.
Developmental Psychology.
Kurdek, L. A., & Siesky, A. E., Jr. (1980). Effects of divorce
on
children-The relationship between parent and child
perspectives. Journal of Divorce, 4, 85-99.
Lamb, M. (1977). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction
in
the first year of life. Child Development, 48, 167-181.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping
proc-
ess. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Leupnitz, D. A. (1979). Which aspects of divorce affect chil-
dren? The Family Coordinator, 28, 79-85.

Leupnitz, D. A. (1982). Child custody. Lexington, MA:
Lexington
Books.
Lewis, K. (1978, November). Single-father families. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the American Association of
Psychiatric Services for Children, Atlanta.
Longfellow, C. (1979). Divorce in context: Its impact on chil-
dren. In G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and
separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Lowery, C. R. (1981). Child custody decisions in divorce pro-
ceedings: A survey of judges. Professional Psychology, 12,
492-498.
Lowery, C. R. (1982, August). Child custody in divorce: How
parents decide. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Marschall, P. H., & Gaty, M. J. (1975). The custody decision
process: Toward new roles for parents and the state. North
Carolina Central Law Journal, 7, 50-72.
McCord, J., McCord, W., & Thurber, E. (1962). Some effects

of
parental absence on male children. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 64, 361-369.
McDermott, J. F., Jr. (1968). Parental divorce in early
childhood.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 1424-1432.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, N. V., & Davenport, C. V. (1979, March). Custody and
visitation: An explication of prevalent patterns. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, San Francisco.
Musetto, A. P. (1978). Evaluating families with custody
orvisita-
tion problems. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling,
4, 59-65.
Nye, F. I. (1957). Child adjustment in broken and in unhappy
un-
broken homes. Marriage and Family Living, 19, 356-361.

Okun, B. F., & Rappaport, L. J. (1980). Working with
families:An
introduction to family therapy. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury
Press.
Perez, J. F. (1979). Family counseling: Theory and practice.
New York: D. Van Nostrand.
Porter, B., & O'Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and child-
hood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-
chology, 8, 287-295.
Raschke, H. J., & Raschke, V. J. (1979). Family conflict and
chil-
dren's self-concepts: A comparison of intact and single-
parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41,
367-374.
Roman, M., & Haddad, W. (1978). The disposable parent. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rothberg, B. (1983). Joint custody: Parental problems and sat-
isfactions. Family Process, 22, 43-52.
Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation, 1972-1978: New find-

ings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Development,
50, 283-305.
Santrock, J. W. (1975). Father absence, perceived maternal be-
havior, and moral development in boys. Child Development,
46, 753-757.
Santrock, J. W., & Tracy, R. L. (1978). Etfects of children's
fami-
ly structure status on the development of stereotypes by
teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 754-757.
Santrock, J. W., & Warshak, R. A. (1979). Father custody and
social development in boys and girls. Journal of Social
Issues, 35, 112-125.
Settle, S. A., & Lowery, C. R. (1982). Child custody decisions:
Content analysis of a judicial survey. Journal of Divorce, 6,
125-138.
Spelke, E., Zelazo, P., Kagan, J., & Kotelchuck, M. (1973).
Father
interaction and separation protest. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 9, 83-90.

Steinman, S. (1981). The experience of children in a joint-
custody arrangement: A report of a study. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 403-414.
Steigman, A. W. (1966). Father absence during early childhood
and antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 71, 71-74.
Tessman, L. H. (1978). Children of parting parents. New York:
Jason Aronson.
Thomes, M. M. (1968). Children with absent fathers. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 30, 89-96.
Tooley, K. (1976). Antisocial behavior and social alienation
post
divorce: The "Man of the House" and his mother. American
Tuckman, J., & Regan, R. A. (1966). Intactness of the homes
and behavioral problems in children. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 7, 225-233.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1979). Divorce, child custody and
child support. Current Population Reports (Special Studies

Series P-23, #84). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1974). The effects of parental
divorce: The adolescent experience. In J. Anthony &
C. Loupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Children at
psychiatric risk. New York: Wiley and Sons.
462 FAMILY RELATIONS October1985
2019 06:18:52 UTC
divorce: Experiences of the pre-school child. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 600-616.
divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. American

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980a). Effects of divorce on
the visiting father-child relationship. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 137, 1534-1539.
Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980b). Surviving the
breakup.
New York: Basic Books.
Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic
Books.
-CALL FOR PAPERS-
Manuscripts Solicited for Special
Issue of Psychotherapy
The Division of Psychotherapy (29) of the American
Psychological Association announces that
the Summer 1987 issue of Psychotherapy will include a
separate supplement devoted to
"Psychotherapy with Families." The guest editor for the
supplement is Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D.,
Boston University.
A list of potential topics follows:

I. Theoretical/Empirical Topics
1. The debate on epistemology-what's it all about?
2. The Milan Model: Strategic or systemic? (And what
difference does it make?)
3. Family therapy research (outcome, process).
4. Integrating theories of personality and psychotherapy with
theories of social systems
and social change.
II. Clinical Topics
1. Ericksonian hypnosis and family therapy.
2. Integrative approaches to family therapy.
3. Bridging the gap between child therapy and family therapy.
4. Marriage strengthening/divorce counseling.
Submissions should be prepared in triplicate according to the
guidelines of the Publications
Manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd
edition).
Deadline for submissions will be August 1, 1986. Please
address inquiries and submissions to:
Donald K. Freedheim, Ph.D.

Editor, Psychotherapy
Department of Psychology
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH 44106
(216) 368-2841
2019 06:18:52 UTC
Contents455456457458459460461462463Issue Table of
ContentsFamily Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 453-
592Volume Information [pp. 589-592]Front Matter [pp. 453-
582]Editor's Comment [p. 454]Effects of Divorce on Children:
Differential Impact of Custody and Visitation Patterns [pp. 455-
463]Personal and Family Resources Supportive of Displaced
Homemakers' Financial Adjustment [pp. 465-474]Evaluation of
a Church-Based Sexuality Education Program for Adolescents
[pp. 475-482]Wife Employment and Marital Adjustment a
Cumulation of Results [pp. 483-490]What Do Parents Observe
about Parenting from Prime Time Television [pp. 491-499]1985:
Seventeenth Annual NCFR Film Awards Competition [pp. 501-
504]Father-Infant Interactions: A Review of Empirical Research
[pp. 505-511]A Premarital Assessment Program [pp. 513-

520]Stepfamilies: A Content Analysis of the Popular Literature,
1961-1982 [pp. 521-525]Portraits of Stepfamily Life in Popular
Literature: 1940-1980 [pp. 527-534]1985: NCFR
Filmstrip/Videotape Competition [pp. 535-539]Preparing
Parents for Teenagers: A Step in the Prevention of Adolescent
Substance Abuse [pp. 541-549]Influences on the Life
Satisfaction of Never-Married Men and Women [pp. 551-
556]Missing Links: An Empirical Investigation of Network
Variables in High-Risk Families [pp. 557-560]Premarital
Childbearing Decision Making [pp. 561-563]Grandfathers and
Grandchildren: Patterns of Association, Helping, and
Psychological Closeness [pp. 565-571]Courtship Violence and
Sex-Typing [pp. 573-576]An Attitudinal Correlate of the
Timing of a Major Life Event: The Case of Morale in
Widowhood [pp. 577-581]Stepfamily Strengths: A Review of
Popular Literature [pp. 583-589]Back Matter
The Impact of Divorce and Maternal Employment on Pre-
Adolescent Children
Author(s): Esther Devall, Zolinda Stoneman and Gene Brody
Source: Family Relations, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Single Parent

Family (Jan., 1986), pp. 153-159
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/584294
Accessed: 25-04-2019 06:24 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/584294?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked
references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Family Relations
2019 06:24:16 UTC
The Impact of Divorce and Maternal
Employment on Pre-adolescent Children
ESTHER DEVALL, ZOLINDA STONEMAN, AND GENE
BRODY**
The study compared the responsibilities, activities, peer
relations, and self-esteem
of 60 boys and girls, ages 9 to 12, whose mothers were
divorcedlemployed, mar-
ried/employed, or married/nonemployed. Both children and

mothers responded to
two self-report measures, an adapted version of Schwirian's
(1977) questionnaire and
the Perceived Competence Scale (Harter, 1982). Children from
divorced families did
not have more household or childcare responsibilities than
other children, but they
did assume a confidant role with their mothers more often.
They also rated
themselves lower in social competence. Maternal employment
decreased the
children's participation in athletic activities and involvement
with friends. The impor-
tance of examining perceived differences between family types
as well as actual dif-
ferences was discussed.
The large number of children who ex-
perience divorce and family disruption each
year have become a source of concern to many
professionals in the family field. Numerous
studies have been conducted to document the
effects of divorce on children. Early studies
tended to focus on effects associated with
father absence, but the present trend is to ex-

plore the differences in functioning and
organization of divorced and intact families
(Brandwein, Brown, & Fox, 1974). In a recent
review, Blechman (1982) concluded that most
of the differences observed in children from
single parent homes can be attributed to in-
direct factors such as the increased social,
emotional, and financial stresses experienced
by mothers. The ways in which the family
reorganizes to cope with these stressors may
have the greatest impact on children (Buehler
& Hogan, 1980). More research which focuses
*Presented at the 1983 Annual Meeting of the National
Council on Family Relations, St. Paul, MN.
*Esther Devall is a doctoral candidate, Department of Child
and Family Development, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
30602. Zolinda Stoneman and Gene Brody are associate pro-
fessors in that same department.
Key Words: divorce, single parent families, maternal employ-
ment.
(Family Relations, 1986, 35, 153-159.)

on the social and emotional environment of
children reared in single parent families is
needed (Pedersen, 1976).
Weiss (1979) suggests that children in single
parent families "grow up a little faster"
because the family structure necessitates
early maturity and responsibility. Weiss
described the structure in most intact families
as hierarchical, where decisions are generally
made by the parents and then handed down to
children. This structure often dissolved in
single parent families as children became
"junior partners" and contributed equally to
the functioning of the household.
Single mothers often report difficulty in cop-
ing with household responsibilities (Weinraub
& Wolf, 1983). In his interviews with single
parents, Weiss (1979) found that the increase
in children's responsibilities was commonly
mentioned as the biggest change resulting
from the divorce. This increase in respon-
sibilities may result in children who are self-

reliant and have high self-esteem. These
responsibilities, however, may also lead to
children who are overburdened and isolated
from their peers. Children may have little time
to engage in extracurricular activities or
develop friendships. In addition, mothers may
rely on children to meet their emotional needs
as well as their physical needs (Messinger,
Walker, & Freeman, 1978). Children may
become overly close to their mothers and feel
January 1986 FAMILY RELATIONS 153
2019 06:24:16 UTC
more comfortable interacting with adults than
peers.
The first purpose of the study was to com-
pare the responsibilities, activities, peer rela-
tions, and self-esteem of children from di-

vorced and intact families to determine if
children in single parent homes are indeed
growing up a little faster. In other words, are
children from divorced homes assuming more
responsibilities and thus participating in fewer
activities or interacting less with peers than
children from intact families? Single parent
families headed by fathers were not included in
the study because only about 10% of children
from divorced families live with their fathers
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1976).
The role of maternal employment must also
be considered in examining the impact of
divorce because most divorced women must
work to sustain their families. Approximately
75% of all divorced women are employed, as
compared to about 52% of all married women
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1981). Failure to
consider employment as a variable may con-
found the results of a study because effects
associated with maternal employment may in-
correctly be attributed to divorce or father
absence. The second purpose of the study,
therefore, was to detect differences related to

maternal employment rather than marital
status.
Maternal employment generally increases
the participation in household tasks by chil-
dren (Propper, 1972; Woods, 1972). This added
responsibility has been found to have positive
effects for children (Woods, 1972). Children
may see themselves as being a contributing
member of the family and may gain increased
influence in decision making regarding
household tasks (Bahr, 1974).
Employment may affect divorced and intact
families differently. Weinraub and Wolf (1983)
found that increased employment was related
to greater controls and maturity demands by
single mothers, but decreased controls by mar-
ried mothers. Married mothers may accept the
more traditional roles of women as mothers
and homemakers and experience more guilt
about working outside the home. They may be
less likely, then, to place de; )ands and con-
trols on their children. Because sin gle mothers
must work and there is often no other help

available, they may be more likely to require
their children to assist with household tasks.
The way maternal employment affects chil-
dren may also be moderated by variables such
as their gender or age. Boys generally are more
negatively affected by their mother's employ-
ment than are girls (Gold & Andres, 1978; Hoff-
man, 1974). In a recent study, however, boys
reported themselves as more positively af-
fected by maternal employment than did girls
(Trimberger & MacLean, 1982). The girls'
dissatisfaction may have been related to an in-
crease in responsibilities following the
employment of their mothers. Firstborn
children also reported more negative effects
than did laterborn children.
Differences were predicted among the three
family types in these four areas: (a) responsi-
bilities; (b) interaction with peers and involve-
ment in extracurricular activities; (c) perceived
differences; and (d) self-concept. The hypoth-
eses which follow were rendered based on the

studies previously reviewed. Regarding
responsibilities, it was hypothesized that
children with divorced or married, employed
mothers would have more household and child-
care responsibilities than children with mar-
ried, nonemployed mothers. Girls were pre-
dicted to assume more responsibilities than
boys. In terms of emotional responsibility, chil-
dren from divorced homes were expected to
act as confidants more often than children
from other family types.
In the area of involvement with friends and
participation in activities, children with di-
vorced mothers were hypothesized to be less
involved than children from intact homes. Chil-
dren with married, working mothers were ex-
pected to be less involved in extracurricular
activities but equally involved with friends
when compared to children of married, non-
working mothers. Boys were predicted to be
more involved in sports than girls.
It was believed that perceived differences
might be as important as the actual differences

reported by the families. Therefore, it was
predicted that children from divorced families
would perceive themselves as being less well
off (more responsibilities and less involvement
in activities and with friends) than other chil-
dren. However, children with married, em-
ployed mothers were expected to compare
themselves less favorably only in terms of par-
ticipation in outside activities. No gender ef-
fects were expected.
Children from divorced homes were pre-
dicted to have a lower self-concept in the area
of social competence than children from intact
homes. No employment effects were expected.
Boys were expected to have a higher self-
concept than girls in the area of physical com-
petence.
Method
Subjects
Sixty mother-child pairs representing three
family types participated in the study: (a) 20 di-

vorced families with working mothers; (b) 20
intact families with working mothers; and
(c) 20 intact families with nonworking
mothers. Divorced families with nonworking
mothers were not included in the study due to
154 FAMILY RELATIONS January1986
2019 06:24:16 UTC
their low incidence in the population (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1981). In the community
in which the study was conducted, it was not
possible to locate any divorced mothers who
did not work at least part-time.
All families were Caucasian and middle-
class. The mothers' median level of education
was 4 years of college. The majority of mothers
were in their early 30s and those who worked
had primarily professional positions (e.g.,

teachers or nurses). Most were satisfied with
their job and with their childcare arrangments
and would continue to work even if there was
no financial necessity for their employment.
The majority of the nonworking mothers chose
not to work for the sake of their children. The
working mothers were currently employed full-
time for at least 1 year and the nonworking
mothers had not been employed for the last 2
years.
Because employment often requires some
type of childcare, working mothers were asked
to describe their arrangements for their
children during the school year and during the
summer. Almost half of the children from
divorced families stayed alone during the
school year. The mean time spent at home
alone was 90 minutes. The married mothers
were able to arrange their schedules such that
over half of their children were able to stay with
them or their spouse. The children who did
stay alone did so for a mean time of 60
minutes.

Families indicated their annual income on a
checklist that ranged from $0-4,000 to over
$56,000. The median income for the divorced
families ranged from $11-15,000. Intact families
with working mothers reported a median in-
come of $20-25,000. The median income of
intact families with nonworking mothers was
$46-55,000. Because of the disparity in income
for the three family types, statistical controls
were employed in the data analysis to equate
for family income.
The divorced families were identified
through court records. The mothers had
custody of the children and had been legally
divorced at least 1 year. The minimum period
since divorce was chosen based on research
indicating that reorganization and restabiliza-
tion of families usually does not occur until
after the first year post-divorce (Hetherington,
Cox, & Cox, 1976). The period since divorce in
the present study ranged from 12 months to 66
months, with a median of 29 months. Almost
three-fourths of the mothers had been em-
ployed before the divorce. Of those who had

not worked previously, 80% were employed
within 1 year following the divorce.
The intact families were recruited from the
community and matched with the divorced
families by the mother's level of education and
the sex and age of the oldest two children.
Families were matched by the oldest two chil-
dren because over three-fourths of the di-
vorced families were two child families.
However, almost half of the intact sample were
three child families. The third child was slightly
older in the divorced families (3.3 years) than in
the intact families (2.6 years). An analysis of
covariance with number of children as the
covariate was conducted to determine if the
difference in family size had a significant im-
pact. No such effects were found.
Pre-adolescent children were selected for
study because they are considered most at risk
for the possible adverse effects of extra
responsibilities stemming from divorce or
maternal employment (Weiss, 1979). The first-

born child ranged in age from 9 to 12 years old,
with a median age of 10. The second child
ranged in age from 6 to 8 with a median age of
6 1/2, and was at least 2 years younger than
the firstborn child. From each family type, 10
children (five boys, five girls) who had a same-
sex secondborn sibling and 10 children (five
boys, five girls) who had an opposite-sex
secondborn sibling participated.
Instruments and Procedure
The researcher administered two self-report
measures to families in their homes. Items
were read aloud to children to insure com-
prehension. Mothers completed their forms in
a separate room.
An adapted version of a questionnaire that
assessed children's responsibilities, activ-
ities, and involvement with peers was used
(Schwirian, 1977). Mothers and firstborn chil-
dren reported separately on the frequency of
the child's participation in household and
childcare tasks, extracurricular activities, and

interactions with friends.
Household and childcare tasks were chosen
as indicators of the child's responsibilities.
Household tasks involved taking care of one's
self, assisting with meal preparation, cleaning
the house, and doing outside work. Childcare
responsibilities included babysitting, watch-
ing, and taking care of the younger (second-
born) sibling. Mothers and children reported on
the frequency with which children carried out
these responsibilities each week on a 5-point
scale ranging from "never" to "almost always."
Because children with many responsibilities
may not have time to socialize with their peers,
we sought to determine the amount of time
spent in extracurricular activities and with
friends by children in each family type. Extra-
curricular involvement consisted of hours
spent each week in sports, music and drama,
club activities, and church activities. Involve-
ment with friends included both the number of
friends and the frequency of visitation with
f riends.

In the second section of the instrument,
2019 06:24:16 UTC
mothers and children were each asked to com-
pare the child's participation in housework,
childcare, outside activities, and involvement
with friends to that of the child's peers. A
5-point scale was used that ranged from "a lot
less than other children" to "a lot more than
other children." Comparison items were in-
cluded in the study to determine if perceptions
of behavior patterns corresponded to actual
reports of behavior. Perceived differences in
responsibilities, activities, and peer relation-
ships may have as much or even more impact
than actual differences.

In the third section of the instrument,
mothers and children responded to seven
questions developed and piloted by the ex-
perimenter to assess how often children
assumed a confidant role with their mother.
Sample items included questions such as,
"How often does your mother tell you things
she doesn't tell other people?", and "How
often does your mother discuss the bills with
you?". The subjects responded on a 5-point
scale ranging from "never" to "almost always."
The second instrument, the Perceived Com-
petence Scale (PCS), was used to assess
children's self-concept (Harter, 1982). The PCS
consists of four subscales, three which
measure specific competencies and a fourth
which measures overall self-worth. The
cognitive subscale reflects academic perfor-
mance, the social subscale assesses peer rela-
tionships, the physical subscale focuses on
skill at games and sports, and the general self-
worth subscale measures feelings of self-
esteem beyond competency in the skill areas.

The 28-item scale uses a structured alternative
format to reduce socially desirable responses.
Mothers responded to a parallel version of the
questionnaire originally designed for teachers.
Results
The data from both children and mothers
were analyzed by 2 x 3 (child gender x family
type) analyses of variance. In addition, 2 x 3
analyses of covariance with income as a
covariate were conducted. The Duncan post
hoc procedure, with p < .05, was used to
detect differences among group means.
Effects due to Family Type
Main effects for family type were found for
the children's report of outside chores, visita-
tion with their friends, comparison of involve-
ment in activities, assumption of the confidant
role, and social competence. The F ratios and
means for the children's data are presented in
Table 1. Main effects were also found for
mothers' childcare comparison (F[2,54] = 4.54,

p < .05) and confidant scores (F[2,54] = 3.40,
p < .05).
Contrary to our predictions, children from
divorced families did not have more respon-
sibilities or engage in fewer activities than
other children. In fact, they reported less
responsibility for outside chores than children
from intact families. Even though they did not
report less participation in activities than other
children they still perceived themselves as less
involved. Children from intact homes perceived
their level of involvement as equal to that of
other children. As predicted, children from di-
Table 1.
F Ratios and Means for Family Type Effects Found for
Children's Responses
Divorced/ Married! Married!
Subscale F Working Working Nonworking
Responsibilities
Personal N.S. 8.05 7.35 7.30
Meal N.S. 19.80 20.70 21.10
Cleaning N.S. 20.75 21.35 18.35

Outside work 5.49** 6.90 9.45 9.65
Childcare N.S. 6.15 7.40 7.55
Peer Relations
Number of friends N.S. 6.40 5.60 6.55
Frequency of visits 3.03* 5.55 6.25 6.90
Relation with mother
Conf idant 3.63 * 19.55 16.85 16.55
Perceived Differences
Tasks N.S. 2.95 3.00 2.55
Childcare N.S. 2.80 3.15 3.50
Friends N.S. 3.15 2.95 3.35
Activities 3.85* 2.60 3.25 3.40
Competence
Cognitive N.S. 20.35 20.70 20.65
Social 3.33* 20.25 22.15 23.10
Physical N.S. 19.00 19.75 20.10
General N.S. 19.55 21.05 21.45
n = 20 for each group.
*P < .05.; *F*p < .01.

156 FAMILY RELATIONS January 1986
2019 06:24:16 UTC
vorced homes reported fewer visits with
friends and lower social competence than
children from intact families.
One major difference between the family
types was the frequency with which children
acted as confidants. Children with divorced
mothers reported acting as confidants more
often than children with married mothers. The
divorced mothers (M = 20.67) also reported
that their children acted as confidants more
than the married mothers (M working = 18.92;
M nonworking = 18.67).
For divorced mothers, perceived differences
were more significant than actual differences.
Although there was no difference in the

amount of childcare married and divorced
mothers reported their children were responsi-
ble for, divorced mothers (M = 3.35) perceived
that their children had more responsibilities
than their peers. Married mothers (M working
= 2.85; M nonworking = 2.80) reported that
their children had less childcare respon-
sibilities than other children.
When the data were equated for income, the
scores for children's outside chores and
assumption of the confidant role remained
significant. All effects found for mothers re-
mained significant.
Employment Effects
For children, main effects related to mater-
nal employment were found for participation in
sports (F[2,54] = 3.08, p < .05). A disordinal in-
teraction was found for the comparison of in-
volvement with friends (F[2,54] = 3.95, p < .05).
For mothers, main effects associated with
maternal employment were found for the
number of friends (F[2.54] = 5.06, p < .01),

comparison of participation in activities
(F[2,54] = 3.12, p < .05), and comparison of in-
volvement with friends (F[2,54] = 3.43, p < .05).
The only activity affected by maternal
employment was participation in sports.
Children of nonemployed mothers (M = 4.10)
spent more time engaging in athletics than
children of employed mothers (M married =
2.80; M divorced = 3.00).
An interesting pattern of results was found
for the impact of maternal employment on chil-
dren's perception of their involvement with
friends. As indicated by previous studies, boys
were more affected by maternal employment
than girls. Boys with working mothers rated
their involvement with friends as less than
other children (M divorced/working = 2.8;
M married/working = 2.6) but boys with non-
working mothers rated their involvement as the
same as other children (M = 3.7). Girls
reported a level of involvement similar to their
peers in all three family types (M di-
vorced/working = 3.5; M married/working =

3.3; M married/nonworking = 3.0).
Mothers reported that their employment
adversely affected the friendships and ac-
tivities of their children. The number of friends
reported was less for the children of employed
mothers (M married = 6.0; M divorced = 5.9)
than nonemployed mothers (M = 7.65). Work-
ing mothers also perceived that their children
were less involved in activities (M divorced =
2.6; M married = 2.95) and with friends (M di-
vorced = 2.52; M married = 2.70) than other
children. Nonemployed mothers, however, per-
ceived that their children were as involved in
activities (M = 3.45) and with friends (M =
3.15) as other children.
The friends comparison score for children
remained significant after the ANCOVAs were
performed. None of the effects found for
mothers were significant after the data were
equated for income.
Gender Effects

For children, gender main effects were
found for personal care responsibilities, out-
side chores, participation in sports, and
physical competence. For mothers, gender
main effects were found for personal care
responsibilities, meal preparation, cleaning,
outside chores, helping with siblings, and par-
ticipation in sports. The F ratios and means for
both children and mothers are presented in
Table 2.
Both family members reported that girls had
more personal care responsibilities than boys,
and that boys had more outside chores than
girls. Additionally, mothers reported that girls
had more responsibility than boys for meals,
cleaning, and childcare. Children and mothers
also reported that boys spent more time in
sports activities than girls. All gender effects
remained significant after the ANCOVAs were
performed.
Discussion and Implications

The belief that children in single parent
families grow up a little faster was only partial-
ly substantiated. Children whose mothers are
divorced or employed did not have more house-
hold or childcare responsibilities than other
children. Indeed, the children from divorced
homes had less outside chores than the other
children because they tended to live in rental
properties where the landlord was responsible
for yard upkeep.
The fact that almost half of the children in
the divorced group were "latchkey kids" may
account for the lack of differences found for
household and childcare responsibilities.
Mothers may have felt that asking children to
care for themselves for over an hour was
enough of a responsibility. Since their younger
sibling typically was in daycare or an organized
program during this time, the children from
divorced families had less opportunity to help
with childcare.

2019 06:24:16 UTC
Table 2.
F Ratios and Means for Gender Main Effects
Children Mothers
Measure F Boys Girls F Boys Girls
Responsibilities
Personal 6.06* 6.90 8.28 5.05* 7.27 8.30
Meal N.S. 20.23 20.83 4.91* 18.27 20.33
Cleaning N.S. 20.07 20.23 4.16* 18.03 20.27
Outside work 13.08** 10.03 7.30 9.90** 9.00 6.73
Childcare N.S. 7.13 6.93 4.73* 6.27 7.23
Activities
Sports 16.43** 4.23 2.37 34.27** 4.77 2.20
Musical N.S. 3.33 3.77 N.S. 3.63 3.50
Clubs N.S. 3.30 3.27 N.S. 3.13 3.03
Church N.S. 1.63 1.63 N.S. 2.33 2.43

Competence
Cognitive N.S. 20.33 20.80 N.S. 24.80 24.73
Social N.S. 21.87 21.80 N.S. 23.37 25.00
Physical 10.34** 21.20 18.03 N.S. 21.87 20.33
General N.S. 21.10 20.27 N.S. 23.97 25.10
n = 30 for each group.
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Although children from divorced families did
not report more household or childcare respon-
sibilities than other children, they may indeed
have more emotional responsibility. The
divorced mothers and their children were more
likely to have a confidant relationship than
were the married mothers and their children. In
this way, children from single parent families
may grow up faster. Further research is needed
to determine the long-term effects of such a
relationship for children. Some of the difficulty
encountered by single parents when they
remarry may stem from children's anger at
sharing or losing their role as confidant
(Walker & Messinger, 1979).

The importance of testing for effects
associated with maternal employment was
supported by the study. Children with
nonemployed mothers participated in more
athletic activities and, at least according to
mothers, have more friends than children with
employed mothers. Employed mothers may be
less available to chauffeur children to activities
that require a large time commitment, such as
soccer or baseball. Being involved in fewer ac-
tivities may also impact on the number of
friendships children form.
It is possible that more negative effects
associated with maternal employment may
have been found if the study had included
more families in which the mother had not
worked prior to the divorce, or mothers who
were dissatisfied with their jobs and childcare
arrangements. In the present study, about
three-fourths of the divorced mothers had
worked before the divorce and most of the
employed mothers were satisfied with their
jobs and childcare arrangements.

Perceptions proved to be as important as ac-
tual differences between the family types.
When asked to compare their children's in-
volvement in activities to that of other children,
employed mothers accurately assessed their
child's involvement as less than that of the
child's peers. However, only children with
divorced mothers perceived their participation
as less. Children with married, employed
mothers did not perceive any difference in their
participation and that of their peers, even
though their participation was less than that of
children with married, nonworking mothers.
Children in single parent families may not
realize their lower level of involvement could be
due to maternal employment.
Employed mothers also described their
children's involvement with friends as less
than that of other children. However, only boys
with working mothers perceived their involve-
ment as less. Girls with employed mothers
rated their involvement as similar to that of
their peers. At this age, girls may be satisfied

in maintaining contact with one or two close
friends, but boys may feel deprived if they can-
not be part of a group or team (Berndt, 1981).
Because boys with employed mothers par-
ticipated less in sports activities, they may
have had less opportunity to associate with a
group of boys.
Many of the disadvantages reported by
children from divorced homes in interacting
with peers (such as amount of visitation with
friends or feelings of social competence) were
a result of income differences rather than fami-
ly type differences. It is noteworthy that in-
come still had an effect, even with a select
sample of well educated mothers and a
relatively small family size.
Gender appeared to be more salient than
family type or employment status in deter-
mining the children's responsibilities. Chores
158 FAMILY RELATIONS January 1986

2019 06:24:16 UTC
were assigned along stereotypic lines. Girls
were more likely to be expected to care for
themselves by making their bed or cleaning
their room while boys were expected to help
with outside work like raking or cleaning the
garage. Mothers also reported that girls were
more likely to help with meal preparation,
cleaning, and childcare.
Gender was also a determinant of children's
involvement in extracurricular activities. Boys
participated more in athletic activities than
girls. Not surprisingly, boys rated themselves
higher in physical competence. The absence of
a father in the home did not seem to adversely
affect boys' participation in sports or their feel-
ing of physical competence.
Several implications can be drawn from this
study. First, the study supports policies which

provide assistance to single parent families,
both in terms of economic support and child-
care provisions. The growing phenomena of
latchkey kids suggest the need for readily
available, inexpensive childcare for school
aged children. Second, those who work with
single parents and their children need to guard
against preconceived ideas about how divorce
affects families. Although this study may not
generalize to larger families headed by poorly
educated women, the families in our sample
appeared to be coping effectively with the
changes in their lives. A third implication is ap-
plicable to those who work with stepfamilies
as well as with single parent families. The con-
fidant relationship divorced mothers shared
with their children in this study may place an
undue responsibility on children. Divorced
mothers may need help with role renegotiation
when they remarry because the failure to
realign roles and achieve a new structure can
make the development of symptoms in step-
families more likely (Keshet, 1980). A final im-
plication is the need to address both percep-

tions and realities about life in single parent
families. Practitioners may need to develop in-
terventions to help divorced families deal with
feelings about supposed differences, instead
of focusing only on strategies to manage their
responsibilities and time more effectively.
The effects of maternal employment and the
impact of perceived differences must be con-
sidered in understanding the benefits and
drawbacks of growing up in a single parent
family. Clearly, we cannot understand the
social and emotional environment of children
in divorced families simply by comparing them
with intact families in which the mother is not
employed or by examining actual differences
without regard to the reality of perceived dif-
ferences.
REFERENCES
Bahr, S. J. (1974). Effects of power and division of labor in the
family. In D. W. Hoffman and F. I. Nye (Eds.), Working
mothers (pp. 167-185). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Berndt, T. J. (1981). Relations between social cognitions, non-
social cognitions, and social behavior: The case of friend-
ship. In J. H. Flavell and L. D. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive
development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp. 176-199).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Blechman, E. A. (1982). Are children with one parent at
psycho-
logical risk? A methodological review. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 44, 179-195.
Brandwein, R. A., Brown, C. A., & Fox, E. M. (1974). Women
and
children last: The social situation of divorced mothers and
their families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 36,
498-514.
Buehler, C. A., & Hogan, M. J. (1980). Managerial behavior
and
stress in families headed by divorced women: A proposed
framework. Family Relations, 29, 525-532.

Gold, D., & Andres, D. (1978). Comparisons of adolescent
chil-
dren with employed and non-employed mothers. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 24, 243-254.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children.
Child Development, 53, 87-97.
Heatherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1976). Divorced
fathers. Family Coordinator, 25, 417-428.
Hoffman, L. W. (1974). Effects on children. In L. W. Hoffman
and F. I. Nye (Eds.), Working mothers (pp. 126-166). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keshet, J. K. (1980). From separation to stepfamily. Journal of
Social Issues, 1, 517-532.
Messinger, L., Walker, K., & Freeman, S. (1978). Preparation
for
remarriage following divorce: The use of group techniques.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 263-272.
Pedersen, F. A. (1976). Does research on children reared in

father-absent families yield information on father in-
fluences? The Family Coordinator, 25, 459-464.
Propper, A. M. (1972). The relationship of maternal
employment
to adolescent roles, activities, and parental relationships.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34, 417-421.
Schwirian, P. M. (1977). Effects of the presence of a hearing-
impaired preschool child in the family on behavior patterns
of older "normal" siblings. Annals of the Deaf. 121, 373-379.
Trimberger, R., & MacLean, M. J. (1982). Maternal
employment:
The child's perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
44, 889-900.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1976). Current Population Reports.
Series P-20, No. 71. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981). Current Population Reports.
Series P-60, No. 127. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Walker, K., & Messinger, L. (1979). Remarriage after divorce:
Dissolution and reconstruction of family boundaries. Family
Process, 18, 185-192.
Weinraub, M., & Wolf, B. (1983). Effects of stress and social
support on mother-child interaction in single and two parent
families. Child Development, 54, 1297-1311.
Weiss, R. S. (1979). Growing up a little faster: The experience
of growing up in a single parent household. Journal of
Social Issues, 35, 97-1 11 .
Woods, M. B. (1972). The unsupervised child of the working
mother. Developmental Psychology, 6, 14-25.
2019 06:24:16 UTC
Contents153154155156157158159Issue Table of
ContentsFamily Relations, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Single Parent
Family (Jan., 1986), pp. 1-224Front Matter [pp. 1-212]Single
Parent Families [pp. 3-8]Demographic, Theoretical and Legal

PerspectivesOne Parent Families: A Social and Economic
Profile [pp. 9-17]Life Cycle Stages for Types of Single Parent
Families: Of Family Development Theory [pp. 19-29]The
Changing Legal Status of the Single Parent [pp. 31-35]The
Single ParentSingle Parents and the Work Setting: The Impact
of Multiple Job and Homelife Responsibilities [pp. 37-43]Single
Parents in the U. S. Air Force [pp. 45-52]Single MothersSingle
versus Two Parent Families: A Comparison of Mothers' Time
[pp. 53-56]When Parent Becomes Peer: Loss of
Intergenerational Boundaries in Single Parent Families [pp. 57-
62]Disadvantaged Single Teenage Mothers and Their Children:
Consequences of Free Educational Day Care [pp. 63-68]Single
Mothers with Handicapped Children: Different from Their
Married Counterparts? [pp. 69-77]Temporary Single
Parenthood--The Case of Prisoners' Families [pp. 79-
85]Mothers without Custody and Child Support [pp. 87-
93]Single FathersCan Men "Mother"? Life as a Single Father
[pp. 95-102]Economic IssuesThe Impact of Income Issues and
Social Status on Post-Divorce Adjustment of Custodial Parents
[pp. 103-111]The Impact of Informal Support Systems on the
Well Being of Low Income Single Parents [pp. 113-123]Health
IssuesHealthy Single Parent Families [pp. 125-132]Personal
Health Practices in Single Parent and Two Parent Families [pp.
133-139]Children in Single Parent FamiliesThe Role of Selected
Family Environment Factors in Children's Post-Divorce

Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring .docx

Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring .docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring .docx

Semelhante a Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring .docx (10)

Mais de lmelaine

Mais de lmelaine (20)

Último

Último (20)

Family Issues Research Paper Sociology of the Family, spring .docx