Marriage, Divorce, and Children′s Adjustment

Robert E. Emery

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 1999
• Print ISBN: 9780761902522
• eBook ISBN: 9781452237671
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

"Robert Emery casts a keen eye on the tangle of findings and opinions regarding children?s adaptation to divorce and presents a thoughtful, balanced discussion of what science can tell us about complex social phenomenon."

--Contemporary Psychology

This is an authoritative, research-based book on children and divorce. Completely updated with the most recent findings from psychology, sociology, economics, and the law, this second edition presents an integrated, multidisciplinary account of children?s experience of divorce, including historical, cultural, and detailed demographic perspectives. The author highlights children?s resilience, yet is sensitive to children?s pain throughout the divorce process and beyond. Robert E. Emery examines how children?s risk or resilience is predicted by interparental conflict, relationships with both parents, financial strain, legal/physical custody, and other factors. The author uses his family systems model to integrate research findings into a theoretical whole and to evaluate psychological interventions with divorcing and divorced families. Emery concludes with an incisive discussion of divorce law and policy, including a review of trends for the next decade of legal reform.

First Edition was the recipient of Choice Magazine?s 1989 Outstanding Academic Book Award.

1

OVERVIEW

If one thing characterizes all divorces, it is change. Some changes begin well before the physical separation; others continue long after the legal divorce. Changes can make the family environment better or worse, but changes do require children to adapt. Thus, the psychological effects of divorce on children must be considered on two levels. The first is the process of adaptation to change, a process that is almost always difficult but less stressful if a divorce entails fewer disruptions and stability is reestablished more quickly. The second level concerns children’s long-term psychological adjustment. The stability that is reached in the postdivorce family environment may be better, worse, or merely different from that which existed before the divorce. Particular patterns of family interaction, as well as various characteristics of the child, are associated with more positive or more negative long-term outcomes.

In considering how children cope with divorce, we must neither minimize the difficulties involved in the process of transition nor overstate the risk for abnormal outcomes. Divorce is very common in the United States today. To suggest that its psychological impact on children is inevitably pathological is an injustice to a great number of families. To suggest that divorce is an insignificant transition simply is insensitive. Perhaps what is most insensitive and unjust is to arrive at conclusions about divorce and its effects on children without carefully considering what we know, not just what we believe.

GAINING PERSPECTIVE ON CHILDREN AND DIVORCE

It is difficult to gain perspective on assumptions about a subject that is such a prominent social concern and, for many, a very personal concern. Our views about children and divorce force us to examine our beliefs about family and child rearing. Indeed, any discussion of divorce inevitably confronts us with views of “normal” families and “healthy” child rearing.

Not only individuals find it difficult to gain perspective on divorce. Due to assumptions made by a particular field of study, entire professional disciplines may develop a restricted view of divorce. Mental health professionals traditionally focus on the individual as the unit of analysis. This directs the search for the causes and consequences of divorce “within the skin” of the individual. Because of this conceptual approach, external events often are reduced in significance to their psychological meaning.

The individual perspective can be valuable, but its value is enhanced if children and divorce also are viewed from other perspectives. Psychologists, legal professionals, economists, sociologists, anthropologists, and historians all have different perspectives on divorce that reflect professional assumptions about the appropriate level of analysis. No one view is “right.” Rather, each conceptualization is nested within increasingly broader levels of abstraction. For example, a psychologist may view noncompliance with child support awards as stemming from a former husband’s unresolved marital hostility. A lawyer may see the same problem as being due to a judge who should enforce support awards more stringently. An economist might cite the need to connect child support payments with visitation rights. A sociologist might note the continuing economic inequities for women in American society. An anthropologist may suggest that child rearing is supported in different ways in different cultures. Finally, a historian might view the problem as a part of the incomplete evolution of family and social support structures.

Each view may be correct—or incorrect. Like the telescope compared to the microscope, diverse disciplines offer different lenses through which we may view children and divorce. A central theme of this book is that a more complete understanding of marriage, divorce, and children comes from the use of the different lenses offered by various academic disciplines.

SOME FAMILY TRANSITIONS IN DIVORCE

Much psychological literature has dealt with subtle aspects of children’s conceptions of, and reactions to, divorce. Ironically, one reason for the complexity is that divorce sometimes is viewed simplistically. Divorce is often conceptualized as a uniform psychological event rather than as a process that may or may not entail various social, psychological, and economic changes.

Contemporary researchers are much more concerned with the process of divorce and the changes divorce entails. Children may be exposed to parental conflict before a divorce, in the courtroom itself, and in postdivorce family life. Because children are a continuing link between former partners who remain parents, unresolved anger over the marriage or the divorce can be channeled into disputes about child rearing. Even when parents cooperate relatively well, most children feel tom by loyalties to each parent.

Divorce also commonly causes children to lose substantial contact with one parent, typically their father. The resulting separation distress may be prolonged, as the possibility of a marital reconciliation is kept alive and trial separations are attempted or as the nonresidential parent fails to maintain consistent, predictable contact with the children. What is predictable is that contact between children and their nonresidential parent will be greatly diminished.

The need for a new job and a new social life may also make residential parents less physically available to their children. The burden of becoming a single parent can make them less psychologically available as well. Out of necessity, some parents adopt higher expectations for their children following divorce. Role strain or preoccupation with their own emotional state can lead others to become less nurturant and more harsh in their discipline. The opposite effects can be produced by guilt, self-doubt, or limited contact with the children.

Financial hardship is a change that is hardly subtle for divorced families. Economic problems may force children to move from the family home and to change schools or child care placements. Divorced mothers often must reevaluate and redefine the roles they assumed in marriage, as they seek employment for the first time, try to find better-paying jobs, or apply for public assistance. Although their financial circumstances are better, on average, fathers may feel that the divorce reduces their paternal role to one that is measured solely in dollar terms.

Finally, children are likely to face a new challenge at some time after the divorce: the remarriage of one or both of their parents. A remarriage may rekindle parental anger, further reduce contact with the nonresidential parent, or introduce a stepparent and perhaps stepsiblings into the household. A stepparent may become a new source of support for the children, or he or she may be viewed as an intruder and rival. These are some of the significant events that demand at least as much attention as psychological subtleties. Indeed, that most children successfully cope with the myriad of changes is a measure of their resilience.

AN OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK

Psychological research is the primary focus of this book but, for the reasons outlined, the text also offers evidence and perspectives from other social sciences and from law and policy. These perspectives sometimes challenge psychological assumptions about child development and child psychopathology. In turn, the perspective offered by another discipline can be incomplete or unfocused, and the psychological research is illuminating. In focusing on psychological research, no single theoretical perspective is adopted. Neither is the review atheoretical. Divorce is a multifactorial process, and no one theory of development adequately accounts for its multiple potential influences. There are areas in which competing theoretical views can be contrasted, however. In these circumstances, alternative predictions are examined and critically evaluated.

Although most of the research discussed here emphasizes the psychological aspects of family relationships, an attempt is made to consider some of the additional functions that families fulfill. American couples may marry for love, but their union serves many other purposes. In addition to nurturing and socializing children, families provide for their members’ economic support and help to educate children and define their roles in the larger community. Like more direct child care responsibilities, divorce often disrupts these family functions. Such changes can affect children’s psychological development directly—or indirectly, by changing family relationships.

The book begins with broad perspectives, moves to increasingly individualized discussion, and then returns to the broad overview. In Chapter 2, some cultural and historical differences in the definition of families are noted, a brief history of children and divorce is sketched, and a demographic portrait of contemporary divorce is outlined in some detail. Chapter 3 discusses conceptual and methodological issues in interpreting research on children and divorce. Chapter 4 is an overview of normative evidence based on studies comparing the average adjustment of children from married and divorced families. In contrast, Chapter 5 is concerned with individual differences, presenting evidence on the processes that predict different outcomes for children. Chapter 6 offers a family systems perspective on the process of change in divorce and reviews research on psychological interventions. Finally, in Chapter 7, legal interventions are reviewed in light of existing research findings, which help to define the goals of divorce law and policy.

2

SOME CULTURAL, HISTORICAL, AND DEMOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES

This chapter examines some views on families from the broad perspectives of anthropology, history, and sociology. This brief overview serves several purposes in setting the stage for a discussion of more focused psychological research in later chapters. The broad context is critical to understanding current social, legal, and psychological assumptions about children and families. In addition, the demographic literature confronts us with realities about the prevalence of divorce and other family structures in the United States today and how divorce rates are influenced by such factors as age, race, education, and children themselves.

Perhaps most important, a consideration of families across cultures and time indicates that the family is not a single, fixed entity. Rather, family forms and functions adapt according to the demands of the larger society. Since the definition of family depends upon broader social supports and demands, so does the meaning of divorce. Divorce will have different consequences for children, depending on the “family” functions fulfilled by other social structures.

The effect of divorce on children, therefore, partially depends on the child-rearing supports offered outside of the family. This conclusion raises an important question for both academics and social policymakers. When the state offers increased child-rearing support, is this a cause or a consequence of changes in the family? If increased support causes families to change, the government can be construed as undermining the family. In contrast, if government support is a response to changing family needs, then the state is attempting to supplement rather than supplant traditional child-rearing functions.

THE CHANGING FAMILY

Some contemporary advocates for family diversity argue vehemently against the idea that the two-parent nuclear family is inherently “normal” or “healthy” (e.g., Demo, 1993). Rather, they assert that family is defined by a pattern of relationships, not necessarily by a husband and wife with a son and a daughter. This view is consistent with the findings of anthropologists, who have noted a variety of family forms across cultures. Historians also have suggested that the Western family is a continually evolving system, one that responds to changing social and economic demands.

Divorce in Two Tribal Societies

In the early 1950s, divorce rates among the Hadza, a hunter-gatherer society in eastern Africa, were five times greater than in the United States. After divorce, a father typically moved to reside with a different band of Hadza, whereas the children remained with their mother. Like children who had a biological father in residence, Hadza children of divorce were cared for emotionally and economically by all members of their small band, a population that continually changed and intermingled with other bands (Bilge & Kaufman, 1983).

Among the Hopi Indians of the American Southwest, an estimated 66% of all first marriages ended in divorce during the early part of the 20th century. In matriarchal Hopi society, women and their male and female relatives were charged with the primary responsibility for child care, whether or not the marriage was intact. Following divorce, children therefore remained in the care of their mothers. Divorced fathers returned to reside with their own mothers but could freely visit their biological children (Bilge & Kaufman, 1983).

In Hadza and Hopi cultures, separation and divorce were not considered detrimental to children. In fact, divorce did not greatly change children’s life experiences. No stigma was associated with divorce, and marital dissolution minimally disrupted the family’s material resources and social support (Bilge & Kaufman, 1983).

It may seem irrelevant to consider divorce in cultures so different from American society, but this, in fact, is the point. Because the consequences of divorce can differ greatly across cultures, the effects of divorce in the United States today are neither universal or immutable. Divorce research is bound by culture and time. At another point in history or in another culture, divorce might lead to different events for families and therefore to different psychological outcomes for children. For similar reasons, divorce can be expected to have different consequences for children living within various subcultures in contemporary American society.

A consideration of divorce in diverse cultures also underscores the point that divorce is a process, not an event. Marital dissolution does not result in the same life changes for children in different cultures, nor does it result in the same life changes for different children within the same culture. Thus, we highlight not only cultural diversity but also individual differences when viewing divorce as a series of changes in family life.

Diversity is important to recognize, but so is similarity. As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, some broad and useful generalizations can be drawn about the consequences of divorce for American children. Unlike in Hadza and Hopi cultures, on average, divorce in the United States today leads to considerable disruption in children’s lives. Many disruptions are temporary, but problems continue for a significant proportion of children and families. Simply put, divorce is not innocuous for most children living in the United States today.

The Evolution of Western Family Structure

The history of Western families also raises questions about contemporary assumptions about what constitutes a healthy family. The structure of the Western family has undergone a continual change, albeit a very gradual one, as family size has decreased from bands and tribes to extended families to nuclear families. Historians speculate that the extended, patriarchal family developed from tribal organization as a result of changing economic conditions, especially the inheritance of property and the development of agriculture (Engels, 1942/1970). Extended family groups whose activities centered around agriculture seem to have been the most common family form throughout most of recorded European history, and farm families clearly predominated in early American history. However, the Industrial Revolution dramatically changed the structure of the typical American family throughout the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century (Hernandez, 1993). Labor demands were fulfilled more effectively by the smaller nuclear family, with its specialized breadwinner and caretaker roles.

The steady increase in divorce over the past 100 years and the more recent rise in nonmarital childbirth (discussed shortly) have continued this historical shrinkage in family size. The “traditional” nuclear family, with its breadwinner and caretaker roles, is less of a financial necessity today, because of evolving economic conditions and child-rearing supports. The individual worker, or more accurately, the dual-earner household, is becoming a unit that rivals the nuclear family in meeting economic demands. As male and female family roles become more supplementary than complementary, and as further child-rearing supports are developed to aid workers, divorce becomes a feasible possibility, albeit one with incentives for eventual remarriage (or repartnering). Put another way, contemporary relationships increasingly are organized around the workplace instead of the home. In this regard, legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon (1980) has observed that laws tying the company to the worker have become more restrictive at the same time that laws regulating the ties between husband and wife have become less restrictive.

The historical perspective suggests that, in an absolute sense, the two-parent nuclear family is more idealized than ideal (Cherlin, 1992). Still, the idea that family structure adapts according to broad economic conditions also means that, relatively speaking, the nuclear family is suited to meet demands in contemporary society. The two-parent nuclear family efficiently fulfills a number of contemporary child-rearing functions—as documented by research on the consequences of divorce. Historical and anthropological perspectives suggest, however, that other family forms may become equally or more adaptive.

A Note on Evolutionary Psychology

In focusing on the social history of Western families, it is important to acknowledge that mating and childbearing are influenced by biological as well as social motivations. For example, some intriguing observations from evolutionary psychology suggest substan...

Table of contents

• Cover page
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Series Editor’s Introduction
• Preface
• 1. Overview
• 2. Some Cultural, Historical, and Demographic Perspectives
• 3. Methodological and Conceptual Issues
• 4. Children’s Adjustment in Divorced and Married Families
• 5. Family Processes and Children’s Divorce Adjustment
• 6. Therapeutic Intervention: Approaches and Research
• 7. Legal Intervention: Laws, Policies, and New Directions
• References
• Index
• About the Author