- Email: [email protected]
Parental divorce and adolescent maladjustment: Scientific inquiry vs public information
Behau. Res. Ther. Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 319-327, Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
1992 Copyright
0
WOS-7967/92 $5.00 + 0.00 1992 PergamonPressLtd
INVITED ESSAY PARENTAL DIVORCE AND ADOLESCENT MALADJUSTMENT: SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY VS PUBLIC INFORMATION REX FOREHAND University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A. (Received 24 October
1991)
Envision the following scenario. John is a 13 yr old adolescent whose parents divorced last year. Since that time he has become increasingly sullen, withdrawn, and hostile toward his mother. When he is asked to take out the garbage, he responds by stating “Why do I have to do everything” and stomping out of the room. When his mother tries to initiate a conversation with him regarding his day at school, he simply says “It’s none of your business”. Discussions between John and his mother almost invariably end in an argument and John stating “I’m going to live with my father as soon as I can because I hate you”. Consider a second scenario. Margaret is a 16 yr old adolescent whose parents divorced when she was twelve. When her parents told her they were divorcing, she showed little emotion. Anytime her parents attempted to talk to her about the divorce and explain it to her, she simply said “It is all right. I understand”. Following the divorce, Margaret continued to do well in school, kept her old friends and had good relationships with them, and gave her mother few problems at home. However, with the passage of 4yr, negative consequences began emerging from the divorce. Margaret is hanging out with a ‘wilder crowd’, she does not abide by the curfew established by her mother, she has had three very intense but brief sexual relationships within the last 6 months, and her grades are beginning to fall. The two examples described in the preceding paragraphs present views which are often portrayed to the public regarding adolescents’ reactions to parental divorce. On the one hand, adolescents are presented as becoming immediately rebellious and difficult. On the other hand, when this does not occur, the possibility of a ‘sleeper effect’ is often presented. That is, while appearing to adjust well to the divorce and its immediate aftermath, adolescents at some point later will suddenly display adjustment problems which are attributed to the divorce. The issue to be addressed in this essay concerns the discrepancy between such images which are portrayed to the public and the empirical data that are evident in the scientific literature. Is the information being presented to the public congruent with, or based upon, that which is in the psychological literature? If it is, then both we as professionals and the news media are doing our jobs adequately. However, if it is not, there is a concern that must be addressed. The position taken in this essay is that parental divorce is a stressor for many adolescents. However, I maintain that the extent of the disruption in their functioning is substantially less than is typically portrayed in the media. This position is presented graphically in Fig. 1. As is evident from this figure, the working assumption is that the scientific literature does support that there are some difficulties in functioning for adolescents from divorced families relative to those from intact families. However, the second working assumption is that the information presented to the public is substantially exaggerated in terms of adolescent maladjustment effects. Thus, the point of concern is represented by the difference between scientific inquiry and public information. In addition to the hypothesis that there is an overstatement to the public concerning the effects of divorce on adolescents, I also intend to present evidence that considering divorce ‘effects’ in isolation is an oversimplification of the issue, as there are many mediating variables that need to 319
320
REX FOREHAND
Scientific Data
Scientific Data
Media Presentation
Fig. 1. Proposed relation between the scientific data and the media presentation. Note that intact divorced refer to adolescents from married and divorced families, respectively.
be considered, Thus, to broadly generalize concerning portrayed to the public, is unwarranted.
THE
MEDIA
and
the effects of divorce, especially as is
STORY
The influence of divorce on children and adolescents has received substantial attention in the media, particularly in recent years. For example, I conducted a computer search of the general periodicals under the heading of Children of Divorced Parents in a university library. From 1989 through March of 1991 (27 months), 29 articles were listed as appearing in popular magazines and newspapers. Included were articles in the New York Times (5), Parents’ ~uguzine (4), P~yc~u~5gy Today (41, Christianity Today (2), Newsweek (2), Time (l), and U.S.A. Today (1). Many of the titles of the various articles clearly portray divorce as a traumatic event with lasting effects. Titles included “Children after Divorce: Wounds that Don’t Heal”, “Children of the After Shock”, “Children’s Divorce Trauma”, and “The Lasting Wounds of Divorce”. Obviously, such titles are intended to attract attention and draw readers. The work of Wallerstein (e.g. Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989; Wallerstein & Corbin, 1989) has been in the forefront of much of the public media attention to divorce. Wallerstein’s work focuses on following children from divorced families for l&15 yr following parental break-up. Her study has been appropriately criticized on a number of scientific grounds. As Kelly and Emery (1989) pointed out in a review of Wallerstein and Blakeslee’s book Second Chances, “there is no comparison group, the sample is limited and self-selected, and the vast majority of the data are case studies. One hardly needs to be a methodologist to note the study’s flaws” (p. 82). These reviewers further note that “the book is full of conclusions that are scientifically invalid, ignore contradictory research, and unrelentingly emphasize the negative” (p. 82). However, the conclusions reached in Second Chances are anything but tentative. “There is no hedging and only rare disclaimer” (Kelly & Emery, 1989, p. 85). Kelly and Emery emphasize that a focus on the negative is particularly alarming in a book written for public consumption.
While this portrayal is undoubtedly accurate for some members of some families, the conclusions about pervasive generational scarring surely are inaccurate and damaging for many others. Those who have done well by their children and themselves will fear their achievements are illusory, This is especially true because of the dreaded ‘sleeper effect’ that Wallerstein discusses at length. She suggests that girls--even those who show few apparent ill-effects of divorce-are likely to see serious and unexpected damage arise in their young adult life (p. 82).
Parental divorce and adolescent maladjustment
321
Has Wallerstein’s work attracted public attention? The conclusions of Second Chances have been repeated in the popular press numerous times, including Time (6 February 1989), Newsweek (6 February 1989), Parents’ Magazine (6 August 1990), Society (March/April, 1989), New York (8 October 1990), Christianity Toduy (12 May 1989), and The New York Times Magazine (22 January 1989). Each of the ‘attention grabber’ titles noted previously was attached to an article reporting on the book. Much of the media attention to divorce does not focus on adolescents. Rather, the attention is on pre-adolescent children or children in general without differentiation across age groups (it should be noted that this pattern is not unlike that within the scientific literature). However, it is important to note that adolescents do not escape unnoticed in Second Chances and its attention in the media. One Wallerstein and Blakeslee conclusion, noted by Elkind (1990) in Parents’ Magazine (p. 160), is that “those who enter adolescence, in the immediate wake of their parents’ divorce, had a particularly hard time. . . . An alarming number of teenagers felt abandoned physically and emotionally”. More recently, in an article in Newsweek (22 July 1991) entitled “Girls Who Go Too Far”, teenage girls are depicted as affection-starved individuals who will do anything to have a boyfriend. One ‘cause’ of this boy crazy problem is presented as parental divorce. Wallerstein is quoted in the article as stating that following divorce “many girls are terrified of being abandoned or betrayed. One response we’re seeing in a number of young women is to throw themselves into a lot of relationships” (p. 59). In Second Chances, Wallerstein and Blakeslee expand on the ‘going too far’ theme. They note that divorce in adolescence is particularly difficult for girls and can lead to promiscuity, which is ‘characteristically combined with drug and alcohol use’ (p. 168). At a different point, they emotionally describe adolescents of divorce who engage in delinquent acts: Made wretched by the experience of divorce, most feel rejected and abandoned by both parents. After the family structure collapses in adolescence, they do not recover. These young people are not generally engaged in crimes of violence. They steal cash to buy drugs or alcohol but do not use knives, guns, or other weapons (p. 153). In summary, the image presented in the public media about adolescent functioning following parental divorce is one of severe disruption. Is this warranted?
THE
SCIENTIFIC
DATA
Relative to younger children, adolescents’ responses to parent divorce have been ignored in the scientific literature. For example, in a recent meta-analysis of parental divorce and child well-being, Amato and Keith (1991) reported on 22 studies examining academic achievement of pre-adolescents (pre-school and primary grades) but only 11 studies on the same topic with adolescents (secondary grades). Similarly, for social adjustment there were 22 and 5 studies reviewed for pre-adolescents and adolescents, respectively. Thus, conclusions that can be reached even in the scientific literature, much less in the public media, about parental divorce and adolescents have to be viewed quite tentatively. The current review will take two approaches and will serve more as a condensed summary than a comprehensive review. First, two studies, one employing a methodology common to sociology and one employing a methodology common to psychology, will be reviewed as examples of the work in this area. Second, conclusions from Amato and Keith’s meta-analysis will be summarized. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of 1197 children and adolescents, Allison and Furstenberg (1989) compared those from intact families (869 youth) to those from divorced families (328 youth). Data were collected from parents, teachers, and children at two points in time, separated by 5 yr. The results for the sample as a whole indicated that marital dissolution was associated with poorer academic performance, more problem behavior, and more distress.
REX FOREHAND
322
However, for adolescents, the difficulties were limited to one area of functioning: a measure of delinquency. Of 10 regression analyses performed, only two (a child report of delinquency and a parent report of delinquency) were significant. Considering the number of analyses performed, the two significant findings may have emerged, at least partially, by chance. A further analysis of a particular subset of adolescents-those whose parents divorced between the two assessmentsfailed to find any differences in functioning when compared to those whose parents had not divorced. Perhaps what is of even more importance is the magnitude of the effects. While significant differences did emerge in several areas for the sample as a whole, the proportion of variance accounted for was never more than 3%. As Allison and Furstenberg note, gender differences accounted for more variance than did divorce! A study by Forehand, Thomas, Wierson, Brody and Fauber (1990) was conducted exclusively with an adolescent sample. Youth (mean age = 13 yr) from 121 intact and 93 recently divorced (< 12 months) families, respectively, were included in the sample. The results indicated that adolescents from divorced homes were functioning significantly poorer than those from intact homes in all four areas assessed: externalizing problems, internalizing problems, social competence, and cognitive competence. However, the magnitude of the effect was relatively small and is displayed for two measures in Fig. 2. These measures, completed by teachers, are from Quay and Peterson’s (1987) Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. What is obvious from the figure is that the mean difference between the two groups for each measure is <2 on scales that range from 0 to 66 and 0 to 22. Thus, while significant differences exist between adolescents from intact and divorced families, the magnitude of the difference is quite small and, thus, the clinical significance of the findings appears questionable. A subset of this sample was re-assessed 1 yr later and the findings remained the same at l-2 yr post-divorce (Forehand, Wierson, Thomas, Fauber, Armistead, Kempton & Long, 1991). The two reviewed studies suggest that, while there are associations between marital disruption and adolescent functioning, the magnitude of the effect is small. Such a conclusion is confirmed by the meta-analysis conducted by Amata and Keith (1991). This project involved reviewing 92 studies, all of which compared children from divorced and married families. When different age groups were compared, the authors concluded that the effect sizes were somewhat larger in primary (pre-adolescent) and secondary (adolescent) school age samples than in preschool or college samples. However, the median effect size over all age groups was only 0.14, indicating that children from divorced families were functioning approx. one-seventh of a standard deviation worse than those from intact families. Thus, while differences exist between children from these two types of families, the magnitude of the difference is small. As Amata and Keith conclude, children of divorce do experience more difficulties than those from intact families; however, the effect sizes are “weak rather than strong” (p. 30). They go on to note that: Some authors appear to hold the view that divorce has profound detrimental effects on children-a notion that is not supported by our relatively modest findings. This
RBPC
Conduct Disorder
RBPC
AnxietyWithdrawal
Fig. 2. Data for two measures comparing adolescents from divorced and intact families.
Parental divorce and adolescent
maladjustment
323
perception is probably reinforced by the manner in which results are often reported. Researchers tend to spend a good deal of time discussing outcomes that attain significance, but tend to ignore those that do not. This tendency to focus only on significant findings may lead to the impression that the differences between divorced and intact groups are stronger and more pervasive than the data warrant. Because we averaged all effect sizes within samples for a given outcome (significant or not), our results yield a relatively objective assessment of what the literature actually shows (P. 30). In summary, adolescents intact families. However, perspective, of questionable reviewed picture presented
from divorced families do appear to function worse than those from the magnitude of the difference is quite small and, from a clinical importance. This conclusion certainly stands in contrast to the earlier in the public media.
LET
THE
ADOLESCENTS
SPEAK
Beyond the experimentally controlled scientific data, another way to examine the question being posed is to directly ask adolescents about their experience with, and perceptions of, their parents’ divorce. As part of our research, a 21 item questionnaire was developed and administrated to a sample of 81 young adolescents (ages 12-16; 38 females, 43 males) whose parents had divorced within the past 2 yr. The questions were answered on 5 point scales ranging from ‘yes’ to ‘no’ or from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’. After ascertaining that there were no gender differences in responses, the results were summarized and are presented in Table 1. For presentation purposes scores of 2, 3, and 4 were collapsed to form a category of ‘somewhat’ or ‘not sure’ whereas scores of 1 and 5 were retained as endpoints (yes or no categories). The percentage of Ss whose score fell in each category is reported in Table 1. Questions were grouped into three general areas: adolescent perceptions of (a) divorce issues, (b) emotions and cognition, and (c) parental behavior since divorce. An examination of Table 1 indicates that the adolescents generally felt parents did the right thing by divorcing and that they neither wished nor expected them to get back together. Both parents, but particularly mothers, were seen as happier Table
I, Adolescents’ story about parental divorce*
Area I. Divorce: general (1) parents did right thing by divorcing (2) wish parents would get back together (3) think parents will get back together II. Divorce: emotions and cognition (4) mother happier now (5) father happier now (6) when parents first decided to divorce, I felt it was my fault (7) at present I feel it was my fault (8) angry at mother for divorce (9) angry at father for divorce (I 0) when parents divorced, I was (a) embarrassed (b) sad (c) relieved (d) angry III. Divorce: parent behavior (11) mother loves me less since divorce (12) father loves me less since divorce (13) Mother tries get me on her side in arguments (14) father tries get me on his side in arguments
Yes (%)
Somewhat or not sure? (%)
44
40
23 2
36 20
15 41 78
54 36 9
35 53 29
I1 II 62
5 6 9
20 21 23
75 73 68
3 50 11 22
87 35 32 40
10 11 52 28
8 7 9
17 16 34
75 77 54
10
29
61
*Percentages do not always total 100% as some adolescents did not answer some questions. +Questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and I4 were rated with ‘somewhat’, while questions I, 3, 4, 5. 11 and 12 were rated with ‘not sure’.
324
REXFOREHAND
since the divorce. Adolescents did not perceive the divorce as their fault and were not angry at their parents for divorcing. The primary emotion reported was one of sadness. A decrease in love for the adolescent by either parent was not reported by the youth. Finally, adolescents felt that neither parent try to convince them to take a side in arguments between the parents. These results suggest that adolescents generally support the parents’ decision to divorce, perceive that it is best for their parents’ adjustment, do not accept blame for the divorce, experience sadness but not anger, and feel that their parents post-divorce parenting is appropriate. In short, when adolescents speak, the resulting picture is not one of trauma, anger, turmoil, rejection, or guilt.
OVERSIMPLIFICATION
OF
THE
PICTURE
Much of the literature regarding divorce and children is specifically designed to determine the ‘effects’ of divorce. In this context divorce is treated as a discrete event which occurs at one point in time. In reality divorce is a long, evolving process between two adults. This process starts well before the legal act of divorce and may continue for an extended time after the divorce decree. As a result, there is the opportunity for numerous factors to moderate the divorce ‘effects’ as they typically have been studied (i.e. comparing youth from intact and divorced families). Thus, whenever conclusions are reached about parental divorce and child or adolescent adjustment, the picture presented is likely one which is oversimplified. Some evidence for such a viewpoint exists in the study by Forehand et al. (1990) which was reviewed earlier. For the externalizing problem measure (reported in Fig. 2) the standard deviation for adolescent boys from the divorced group was twice as large as that for boys from the intact group. This suggests that the adjustment of male adolescents from divorced homes is quite varied, probably as a result of the presence vs absence of moderating variables. A thorough review of factors which moderate divorce ‘effects’ is not within the scope of this paper. Others (e.g. Atkeson, Forehand & Rickard, 1982; Emery, 1988) have provided such reviews. Nevertheless, a brief review of some factors will serve to illustrate how complex the divorce process can be. One factor that is only beginning to receive empirical support is the role of pre-divorce variables. That is, is it the legal divorce per se that leads to poorer child or adolescent functioning or is the poorer functioning already occurring prior to the divorce. Three studies (Block, Block & Gjerde, 1986; Cherlin, Furstenberg, Chase-Lansdale, Kierman, Robins, Morrison & Teitler, 1991; Neighbors, Forehand & Armistead, 1992), as well as indirect evidence from another study (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991), have provided some support for the hypothesis that youth in divorcing families may display difficulties several years prior to the divorce. Thus, marital dissolution per se is not implicated but rather factors which exist prior to the divorce. For example, one of the studies suggests that interparental conflict may play an early role in the child’s or adolescent’s pre-divorce maladjustment (Block et al., 1986). Substantial research collaborates the view that interparental conflict is a primary moderating variable in the functioning of children (e.g. Johnston, Gonzalez & Campbell, 1987) and adolescents (e.g. Forehand, McCombs, Long, Brody & Fauber, 1988) during divorce (for reviews see Emery, 1982, 1988). When such conflict occurs at a low level, adolescents from divorced families actually function similarly to those from intact families (Long, Slater, Forehand & Fauber, 1988); however, elevated interpersonal conflict is detrimental (Emery, 1982, 1988). Going a step further, interparental conflict itself can be a complex variable. Data are beginning to emerge to indicate that various parameters of such conflict (e.g. duration, intensity, frequency, resolution) may be of differential importance in adolescent functioning (Kempton, Thomas & Forehand, 1989). The point here is that divorce ‘effects’ should not be considered without taking interparental conflict into consideration and, even then, the dimensions of such conflict have to be considered. Obviously, such a task is complex and should not be undertaken lightly by either researchers (e.g. when designing studies) or clinicians (e.g. when discussing the impact of divorce with parents). A number of other factors also have been shown to be important influences in moderating divorce ‘effects’. These include the parent-adolescent relationship, gender of adolescent, time
Parental divorce and adolescent maladjustment
325
since divorce, pre-divorce adjustment level, extrafamilial support, and the noncustodial parent (for reviews see Atkeson et aE., 1982; Emery, 1988). Although the evidence is by no means uniform in any of these areas, there are sufficient data to suggest that such factors should be considered when the influence of divorce on youth is studied or reported. In summary, when the influences of divorce are considered in the literature and then presented to the public, the thesis here is that not only is there an exaggeration of effects but also an oversimplification when the many potential moderating influences are not noted.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
RESEARCHERS
The thesis of this paper has been that, when divorce is associated with impaired functioning of adolescents, the extent of the impairment is far less than has been portrayed in the media. This situation poses a dilemma for the researcher. He or she can continue to generate data in this area and hope that the data filter into the public arena. However, the existing situation would suggest that such a strategy is probably not an effective one. Alternately, the researcher can move beyond conducting studies and ‘go public’. This is obviously what Wallerstein and Blakeslee did in their book Second Chances. Unfortunately, as Kelly and Emery (1989) so poignantly note, Wallerstein and Blakeslee present their data as scientific evidence when it is not. It would appear that ‘hard nosed’ researchers need to step forward. Only in this way can the scientific data be presented. Unfortunately, our very training, which emphasizes experimental control, caution about our findings, and modesty, is designed to prevent us from going to the public media. Obviously, such a philosophy prevents the public from being exposed to our most scientifically valid findings. Several solutions, or at least partial solutions, appear feasible. First, some aspect of training needs to involve the principle that presentation of the data to the public is acceptable when the data are reasonably well-established. Second, and perhaps a more realistic approach, is to use press agents. These individuals could have some knowledge of research design and experimental methodology but also be trained in journalism skills. Payment for such persons might be incorporated into research grants or, alternately, hired by granting agencies. The William T. Grant Foundation, a private foundation which has supported divorce research, has successfully used the latter approach. When researchers go public, it is necessary that the data be well-established. If conclusions are going to be reached that are not based on carefully controlled scientific data, the limitations of such data must be stressed. Unfortunately, as Kelly and Emery (1989) point out, Wallerstein and Blakeslee’s Second Chances, which has received more public attention than all other efforts in the area of divorce and children, fails to do this. In fact, Wallerstein (1991) has recently made an appeal for the use of clinical methods and case studies: Taken altogether, these studies reflect a complexity that was unanticipated when the work of divorce research began. The findings by their very ambiguity shed light on the complexity of interacting family processes, particularly parent-child relationships, and on the unexpected delayed ‘sleeper’ effects of childhood experiences. It is because of the complexity of the issues that are unfolding that there is cause for concern if there is too single-minded a focus on a single research paradigm, such as much of the current preoccupation with quantitative methods, carefully controlled samples, designated control groups using group-aggregated data and statistical determination of significance. If these methods were to be adopted to the exclusion of intensive clinical methods and case studies, it might well cost the individual voice of the child. Given not only the complexity of family issues but also the vast numbers of future citizens whose lives will have been profoundly changed by divorce, it is especially important that future research gives weight to the testimony of the inner world of human experience; in this instance to the child’s experience. The particular feelings, suffering, and experiences of the child represent the very essence of what needs to be systematically ordered, understood, and addressed at individual, family, and societal levels (p. 359).
326
REXFOREHAND
3.3
\
Q 3.1 P A 2.9
Fig. 3. Data
demonstrating
Low Conflict \
\
the interaction
between
parental
divorce
and interparental
conflict.
It is easy to empathize with Wallerstein’s concern for the individual. However, when findings from case studies and clinical methods are presented as ‘fact’ and as a general picture of adolescent response to divorce, more harm than good can be done. As noted earlier, Kelly and Emery (1989) point out that some youth from some families are scarred by divorce. However, as suggested by the scientific data, many are not. The reporting of only those case studies where functioning is poor is misleading and detrimental. As Kazdin (1980) has noted, case studies clearly have their place in our research strategies. However, the role is not to draw definitive conclusions from single cases, but instead these are to be used as heuristics for scientific research, so that strong scientifically based conclusions may be reached.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
CLINICIANS
The hypothesis proposed, and I believe supported, in this paper also has implications for the practicing clinician. One such implication is that clinicians need to keep abreast of the scientific literature and not rely on what is in the public media at this time. While this would appear to be a fairly obvious implication, in reality clinicians rarely have access to the wide variety of professional journals where research is published or the time to stay abreast of the literature. Second, a logical conclusion based on the relatively small magnitude of effects of divorce is that not all adolescents are in need of clinical treatment following parental divorce. It is important to not automatically assume that adolescents must have problems if their parents divorce. This is especially salient in light of Wallerstein’s (1991) proposal of a sleeper effect where “children will show responses that arise de novo at subsequent postdivorce developmental stages” (p. 359). Such a proposal could lead a clinician to assume that all post-divorce children and adolescents should be treated to prevent the sleeper effect, even though at this time there is no scientific data to support such an assumption.* A question frequently posed to clinicians is “Should we stay married for the sake of the children?” A good answer, and one that fits well into the repertoire of clinical psychologists who frequently do not give direct answers, is ‘it depends’. To a large extent it depends on what parents are going to do after the divorce. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 3 from some of our data with young adolescents, if parents are going to continue to engage in high levels of interparental conflict after divorce, then an adolescent is exposed to two potential stressors and his/her grades will suffer more than exposure to one stressor. If level of conflict decreases with divorce, then based on the evidence suggesting that conflict is more detrimental than divorce (e.g. Emery, 1982), divorce may be an option to consider. CONCLUSIONS
The scientific evidence suggests that parental divorce is associated with poorer adolescent functioning. However, in contrast to the extreme negative image often presented in the media, the *It should be noted that the sleeper effect is a construct rigorous fashion. If you test for the effect at some explanation that can always exist is that the effect the effect does not exist as it may appear at some
which would be extremely difficult to test and reject in a scientifically age (e.g. early adulthood) and fail to find the effect, the alternative simply has not emerged yet. One could almost never conclude that later time.
Parental
divorce
and adolescent
maladjustment
321
‘effects’ are quite modest. Both researchers and clinicians are faced with issues resulting from the discrepancy in the scientific data and what is reported in the media. Hopefully, this paper has illuminated the discrepancy and helped clarify some of the issues that need to be considered and addressed. Acknowledgements-The writing of the current University of Georgia’s Institute for Behavioral those of either supporting agency.
paper was supported in part by the William T. Grant Foundation and the Research. The opinions expressed are those of the author, not necessarily
REFERENCES Allison, P. D. & Furstenberg, F. F. Jr (1989). How marital dissolution affects children: Variations by age and sex. Developmenr Psychology, 25, 540-549. Amata, P. R. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 110, 2646. Atkeson, B. M., Forehand, R. & Rickard, K. M. (1982). The effects of divorce on children. In Lahey, B. B. & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 255-281). New York: Plenum Press. Block, J. H., Block, J. & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57, 821-840. Capaldi, D. M. & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental tranactions to boys’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting. Development Psychology, 27, 489-504. Cherlin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. F. Jr, Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Kierman, K. E., Robins, P. K., Morrison, D. R. & Teitler, J. 0. (1991). Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 13861389. Elkind, D. (1990). How divorce affects teens. Parems, 65, 160. Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychology Bulletin, 92, 31&330. Emery, R. E. (1988). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. Beverly Hills. Calif.: Saae. Forehand, R., McCombs, A.,-Long, N., Brody, G. H. & Fauber, R. (1988): Early.adolescent\djustment to recent parental divorce: The role of interparental conflict and adolescent sex as mediating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 624627. Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., Wierson, M., Brody, G. & Fauber, R. (1990). The role of maternal functioning and parenting skills in adolescent functioning following parental divorce. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 278-283. Forehand, R., Wierson, M., Thomas, A. M., Fauber, R., Armistead, L., Kempton, T. & Long, N. (1991). A short-term longitudinal examination of young adolescent functioning following divorce: The role of family factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 91-I 11. Johnson, J. R., Gonzales, R. & Campbell, L. E. G. (1987). On going postdivorce conflict and child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Children and Psychology, 15, 493-509. Kelly, J. & Emery, R. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. Conciliafion Courts Review, 27, 81-83. Kempton, T., Thomas, A. M. & Forehand, R. (1989). Dimensions of interparental conflict and adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 297-307. Long, N., Slater, E., Forehand, R. 8c Fauber, R. (1988). Continued high or reduced interparental conflict following divorce: Relationship to young adolescent adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 461469. Neighbors, B., Forehand, R. & Armistead, L. (1992). Is parental divorce a critical stressor for young adolescents: GPA as a case-in-point. Adolescence. In press. Quay, H. D. & Peterson, D. R. (1987). Revised behavior problem checklist. Unpublished manuscript, University of Miami. Wallerstein, J. S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 349-360. Wallerstein, J. S. & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Wallerstein, J. S. & Corbin, S. (1989). Daughters of divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiutry, 59, 593604.
1992 Copyright
0
WOS-7967/92 $5.00 + 0.00 1992 PergamonPressLtd
INVITED ESSAY PARENTAL DIVORCE AND ADOLESCENT MALADJUSTMENT: SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY VS PUBLIC INFORMATION REX FOREHAND University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A. (Received 24 October
1991)
Envision the following scenario. John is a 13 yr old adolescent whose parents divorced last year. Since that time he has become increasingly sullen, withdrawn, and hostile toward his mother. When he is asked to take out the garbage, he responds by stating “Why do I have to do everything” and stomping out of the room. When his mother tries to initiate a conversation with him regarding his day at school, he simply says “It’s none of your business”. Discussions between John and his mother almost invariably end in an argument and John stating “I’m going to live with my father as soon as I can because I hate you”. Consider a second scenario. Margaret is a 16 yr old adolescent whose parents divorced when she was twelve. When her parents told her they were divorcing, she showed little emotion. Anytime her parents attempted to talk to her about the divorce and explain it to her, she simply said “It is all right. I understand”. Following the divorce, Margaret continued to do well in school, kept her old friends and had good relationships with them, and gave her mother few problems at home. However, with the passage of 4yr, negative consequences began emerging from the divorce. Margaret is hanging out with a ‘wilder crowd’, she does not abide by the curfew established by her mother, she has had three very intense but brief sexual relationships within the last 6 months, and her grades are beginning to fall. The two examples described in the preceding paragraphs present views which are often portrayed to the public regarding adolescents’ reactions to parental divorce. On the one hand, adolescents are presented as becoming immediately rebellious and difficult. On the other hand, when this does not occur, the possibility of a ‘sleeper effect’ is often presented. That is, while appearing to adjust well to the divorce and its immediate aftermath, adolescents at some point later will suddenly display adjustment problems which are attributed to the divorce. The issue to be addressed in this essay concerns the discrepancy between such images which are portrayed to the public and the empirical data that are evident in the scientific literature. Is the information being presented to the public congruent with, or based upon, that which is in the psychological literature? If it is, then both we as professionals and the news media are doing our jobs adequately. However, if it is not, there is a concern that must be addressed. The position taken in this essay is that parental divorce is a stressor for many adolescents. However, I maintain that the extent of the disruption in their functioning is substantially less than is typically portrayed in the media. This position is presented graphically in Fig. 1. As is evident from this figure, the working assumption is that the scientific literature does support that there are some difficulties in functioning for adolescents from divorced families relative to those from intact families. However, the second working assumption is that the information presented to the public is substantially exaggerated in terms of adolescent maladjustment effects. Thus, the point of concern is represented by the difference between scientific inquiry and public information. In addition to the hypothesis that there is an overstatement to the public concerning the effects of divorce on adolescents, I also intend to present evidence that considering divorce ‘effects’ in isolation is an oversimplification of the issue, as there are many mediating variables that need to 319
320
REX FOREHAND
Scientific Data
Scientific Data
Media Presentation
Fig. 1. Proposed relation between the scientific data and the media presentation. Note that intact divorced refer to adolescents from married and divorced families, respectively.
be considered, Thus, to broadly generalize concerning portrayed to the public, is unwarranted.
THE
MEDIA
and
the effects of divorce, especially as is
STORY
The influence of divorce on children and adolescents has received substantial attention in the media, particularly in recent years. For example, I conducted a computer search of the general periodicals under the heading of Children of Divorced Parents in a university library. From 1989 through March of 1991 (27 months), 29 articles were listed as appearing in popular magazines and newspapers. Included were articles in the New York Times (5), Parents’ ~uguzine (4), P~yc~u~5gy Today (41, Christianity Today (2), Newsweek (2), Time (l), and U.S.A. Today (1). Many of the titles of the various articles clearly portray divorce as a traumatic event with lasting effects. Titles included “Children after Divorce: Wounds that Don’t Heal”, “Children of the After Shock”, “Children’s Divorce Trauma”, and “The Lasting Wounds of Divorce”. Obviously, such titles are intended to attract attention and draw readers. The work of Wallerstein (e.g. Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989; Wallerstein & Corbin, 1989) has been in the forefront of much of the public media attention to divorce. Wallerstein’s work focuses on following children from divorced families for l&15 yr following parental break-up. Her study has been appropriately criticized on a number of scientific grounds. As Kelly and Emery (1989) pointed out in a review of Wallerstein and Blakeslee’s book Second Chances, “there is no comparison group, the sample is limited and self-selected, and the vast majority of the data are case studies. One hardly needs to be a methodologist to note the study’s flaws” (p. 82). These reviewers further note that “the book is full of conclusions that are scientifically invalid, ignore contradictory research, and unrelentingly emphasize the negative” (p. 82). However, the conclusions reached in Second Chances are anything but tentative. “There is no hedging and only rare disclaimer” (Kelly & Emery, 1989, p. 85). Kelly and Emery emphasize that a focus on the negative is particularly alarming in a book written for public consumption.
While this portrayal is undoubtedly accurate for some members of some families, the conclusions about pervasive generational scarring surely are inaccurate and damaging for many others. Those who have done well by their children and themselves will fear their achievements are illusory, This is especially true because of the dreaded ‘sleeper effect’ that Wallerstein discusses at length. She suggests that girls--even those who show few apparent ill-effects of divorce-are likely to see serious and unexpected damage arise in their young adult life (p. 82).
Parental divorce and adolescent maladjustment
321
Has Wallerstein’s work attracted public attention? The conclusions of Second Chances have been repeated in the popular press numerous times, including Time (6 February 1989), Newsweek (6 February 1989), Parents’ Magazine (6 August 1990), Society (March/April, 1989), New York (8 October 1990), Christianity Toduy (12 May 1989), and The New York Times Magazine (22 January 1989). Each of the ‘attention grabber’ titles noted previously was attached to an article reporting on the book. Much of the media attention to divorce does not focus on adolescents. Rather, the attention is on pre-adolescent children or children in general without differentiation across age groups (it should be noted that this pattern is not unlike that within the scientific literature). However, it is important to note that adolescents do not escape unnoticed in Second Chances and its attention in the media. One Wallerstein and Blakeslee conclusion, noted by Elkind (1990) in Parents’ Magazine (p. 160), is that “those who enter adolescence, in the immediate wake of their parents’ divorce, had a particularly hard time. . . . An alarming number of teenagers felt abandoned physically and emotionally”. More recently, in an article in Newsweek (22 July 1991) entitled “Girls Who Go Too Far”, teenage girls are depicted as affection-starved individuals who will do anything to have a boyfriend. One ‘cause’ of this boy crazy problem is presented as parental divorce. Wallerstein is quoted in the article as stating that following divorce “many girls are terrified of being abandoned or betrayed. One response we’re seeing in a number of young women is to throw themselves into a lot of relationships” (p. 59). In Second Chances, Wallerstein and Blakeslee expand on the ‘going too far’ theme. They note that divorce in adolescence is particularly difficult for girls and can lead to promiscuity, which is ‘characteristically combined with drug and alcohol use’ (p. 168). At a different point, they emotionally describe adolescents of divorce who engage in delinquent acts: Made wretched by the experience of divorce, most feel rejected and abandoned by both parents. After the family structure collapses in adolescence, they do not recover. These young people are not generally engaged in crimes of violence. They steal cash to buy drugs or alcohol but do not use knives, guns, or other weapons (p. 153). In summary, the image presented in the public media about adolescent functioning following parental divorce is one of severe disruption. Is this warranted?
THE
SCIENTIFIC
DATA
Relative to younger children, adolescents’ responses to parent divorce have been ignored in the scientific literature. For example, in a recent meta-analysis of parental divorce and child well-being, Amato and Keith (1991) reported on 22 studies examining academic achievement of pre-adolescents (pre-school and primary grades) but only 11 studies on the same topic with adolescents (secondary grades). Similarly, for social adjustment there were 22 and 5 studies reviewed for pre-adolescents and adolescents, respectively. Thus, conclusions that can be reached even in the scientific literature, much less in the public media, about parental divorce and adolescents have to be viewed quite tentatively. The current review will take two approaches and will serve more as a condensed summary than a comprehensive review. First, two studies, one employing a methodology common to sociology and one employing a methodology common to psychology, will be reviewed as examples of the work in this area. Second, conclusions from Amato and Keith’s meta-analysis will be summarized. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of 1197 children and adolescents, Allison and Furstenberg (1989) compared those from intact families (869 youth) to those from divorced families (328 youth). Data were collected from parents, teachers, and children at two points in time, separated by 5 yr. The results for the sample as a whole indicated that marital dissolution was associated with poorer academic performance, more problem behavior, and more distress.
REX FOREHAND
322
However, for adolescents, the difficulties were limited to one area of functioning: a measure of delinquency. Of 10 regression analyses performed, only two (a child report of delinquency and a parent report of delinquency) were significant. Considering the number of analyses performed, the two significant findings may have emerged, at least partially, by chance. A further analysis of a particular subset of adolescents-those whose parents divorced between the two assessmentsfailed to find any differences in functioning when compared to those whose parents had not divorced. Perhaps what is of even more importance is the magnitude of the effects. While significant differences did emerge in several areas for the sample as a whole, the proportion of variance accounted for was never more than 3%. As Allison and Furstenberg note, gender differences accounted for more variance than did divorce! A study by Forehand, Thomas, Wierson, Brody and Fauber (1990) was conducted exclusively with an adolescent sample. Youth (mean age = 13 yr) from 121 intact and 93 recently divorced (< 12 months) families, respectively, were included in the sample. The results indicated that adolescents from divorced homes were functioning significantly poorer than those from intact homes in all four areas assessed: externalizing problems, internalizing problems, social competence, and cognitive competence. However, the magnitude of the effect was relatively small and is displayed for two measures in Fig. 2. These measures, completed by teachers, are from Quay and Peterson’s (1987) Revised Behavior Problem Checklist. What is obvious from the figure is that the mean difference between the two groups for each measure is <2 on scales that range from 0 to 66 and 0 to 22. Thus, while significant differences exist between adolescents from intact and divorced families, the magnitude of the difference is quite small and, thus, the clinical significance of the findings appears questionable. A subset of this sample was re-assessed 1 yr later and the findings remained the same at l-2 yr post-divorce (Forehand, Wierson, Thomas, Fauber, Armistead, Kempton & Long, 1991). The two reviewed studies suggest that, while there are associations between marital disruption and adolescent functioning, the magnitude of the effect is small. Such a conclusion is confirmed by the meta-analysis conducted by Amata and Keith (1991). This project involved reviewing 92 studies, all of which compared children from divorced and married families. When different age groups were compared, the authors concluded that the effect sizes were somewhat larger in primary (pre-adolescent) and secondary (adolescent) school age samples than in preschool or college samples. However, the median effect size over all age groups was only 0.14, indicating that children from divorced families were functioning approx. one-seventh of a standard deviation worse than those from intact families. Thus, while differences exist between children from these two types of families, the magnitude of the difference is small. As Amata and Keith conclude, children of divorce do experience more difficulties than those from intact families; however, the effect sizes are “weak rather than strong” (p. 30). They go on to note that: Some authors appear to hold the view that divorce has profound detrimental effects on children-a notion that is not supported by our relatively modest findings. This
RBPC
Conduct Disorder
RBPC
AnxietyWithdrawal
Fig. 2. Data for two measures comparing adolescents from divorced and intact families.
Parental divorce and adolescent
maladjustment
323
perception is probably reinforced by the manner in which results are often reported. Researchers tend to spend a good deal of time discussing outcomes that attain significance, but tend to ignore those that do not. This tendency to focus only on significant findings may lead to the impression that the differences between divorced and intact groups are stronger and more pervasive than the data warrant. Because we averaged all effect sizes within samples for a given outcome (significant or not), our results yield a relatively objective assessment of what the literature actually shows (P. 30). In summary, adolescents intact families. However, perspective, of questionable reviewed picture presented
from divorced families do appear to function worse than those from the magnitude of the difference is quite small and, from a clinical importance. This conclusion certainly stands in contrast to the earlier in the public media.
LET
THE
ADOLESCENTS
SPEAK
Beyond the experimentally controlled scientific data, another way to examine the question being posed is to directly ask adolescents about their experience with, and perceptions of, their parents’ divorce. As part of our research, a 21 item questionnaire was developed and administrated to a sample of 81 young adolescents (ages 12-16; 38 females, 43 males) whose parents had divorced within the past 2 yr. The questions were answered on 5 point scales ranging from ‘yes’ to ‘no’ or from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’. After ascertaining that there were no gender differences in responses, the results were summarized and are presented in Table 1. For presentation purposes scores of 2, 3, and 4 were collapsed to form a category of ‘somewhat’ or ‘not sure’ whereas scores of 1 and 5 were retained as endpoints (yes or no categories). The percentage of Ss whose score fell in each category is reported in Table 1. Questions were grouped into three general areas: adolescent perceptions of (a) divorce issues, (b) emotions and cognition, and (c) parental behavior since divorce. An examination of Table 1 indicates that the adolescents generally felt parents did the right thing by divorcing and that they neither wished nor expected them to get back together. Both parents, but particularly mothers, were seen as happier Table
I, Adolescents’ story about parental divorce*
Area I. Divorce: general (1) parents did right thing by divorcing (2) wish parents would get back together (3) think parents will get back together II. Divorce: emotions and cognition (4) mother happier now (5) father happier now (6) when parents first decided to divorce, I felt it was my fault (7) at present I feel it was my fault (8) angry at mother for divorce (9) angry at father for divorce (I 0) when parents divorced, I was (a) embarrassed (b) sad (c) relieved (d) angry III. Divorce: parent behavior (11) mother loves me less since divorce (12) father loves me less since divorce (13) Mother tries get me on her side in arguments (14) father tries get me on his side in arguments
Yes (%)
Somewhat or not sure? (%)
44
40
23 2
36 20
15 41 78
54 36 9
35 53 29
I1 II 62
5 6 9
20 21 23
75 73 68
3 50 11 22
87 35 32 40
10 11 52 28
8 7 9
17 16 34
75 77 54
10
29
61
*Percentages do not always total 100% as some adolescents did not answer some questions. +Questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and I4 were rated with ‘somewhat’, while questions I, 3, 4, 5. 11 and 12 were rated with ‘not sure’.
324
REXFOREHAND
since the divorce. Adolescents did not perceive the divorce as their fault and were not angry at their parents for divorcing. The primary emotion reported was one of sadness. A decrease in love for the adolescent by either parent was not reported by the youth. Finally, adolescents felt that neither parent try to convince them to take a side in arguments between the parents. These results suggest that adolescents generally support the parents’ decision to divorce, perceive that it is best for their parents’ adjustment, do not accept blame for the divorce, experience sadness but not anger, and feel that their parents post-divorce parenting is appropriate. In short, when adolescents speak, the resulting picture is not one of trauma, anger, turmoil, rejection, or guilt.
OVERSIMPLIFICATION
OF
THE
PICTURE
Much of the literature regarding divorce and children is specifically designed to determine the ‘effects’ of divorce. In this context divorce is treated as a discrete event which occurs at one point in time. In reality divorce is a long, evolving process between two adults. This process starts well before the legal act of divorce and may continue for an extended time after the divorce decree. As a result, there is the opportunity for numerous factors to moderate the divorce ‘effects’ as they typically have been studied (i.e. comparing youth from intact and divorced families). Thus, whenever conclusions are reached about parental divorce and child or adolescent adjustment, the picture presented is likely one which is oversimplified. Some evidence for such a viewpoint exists in the study by Forehand et al. (1990) which was reviewed earlier. For the externalizing problem measure (reported in Fig. 2) the standard deviation for adolescent boys from the divorced group was twice as large as that for boys from the intact group. This suggests that the adjustment of male adolescents from divorced homes is quite varied, probably as a result of the presence vs absence of moderating variables. A thorough review of factors which moderate divorce ‘effects’ is not within the scope of this paper. Others (e.g. Atkeson, Forehand & Rickard, 1982; Emery, 1988) have provided such reviews. Nevertheless, a brief review of some factors will serve to illustrate how complex the divorce process can be. One factor that is only beginning to receive empirical support is the role of pre-divorce variables. That is, is it the legal divorce per se that leads to poorer child or adolescent functioning or is the poorer functioning already occurring prior to the divorce. Three studies (Block, Block & Gjerde, 1986; Cherlin, Furstenberg, Chase-Lansdale, Kierman, Robins, Morrison & Teitler, 1991; Neighbors, Forehand & Armistead, 1992), as well as indirect evidence from another study (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991), have provided some support for the hypothesis that youth in divorcing families may display difficulties several years prior to the divorce. Thus, marital dissolution per se is not implicated but rather factors which exist prior to the divorce. For example, one of the studies suggests that interparental conflict may play an early role in the child’s or adolescent’s pre-divorce maladjustment (Block et al., 1986). Substantial research collaborates the view that interparental conflict is a primary moderating variable in the functioning of children (e.g. Johnston, Gonzalez & Campbell, 1987) and adolescents (e.g. Forehand, McCombs, Long, Brody & Fauber, 1988) during divorce (for reviews see Emery, 1982, 1988). When such conflict occurs at a low level, adolescents from divorced families actually function similarly to those from intact families (Long, Slater, Forehand & Fauber, 1988); however, elevated interpersonal conflict is detrimental (Emery, 1982, 1988). Going a step further, interparental conflict itself can be a complex variable. Data are beginning to emerge to indicate that various parameters of such conflict (e.g. duration, intensity, frequency, resolution) may be of differential importance in adolescent functioning (Kempton, Thomas & Forehand, 1989). The point here is that divorce ‘effects’ should not be considered without taking interparental conflict into consideration and, even then, the dimensions of such conflict have to be considered. Obviously, such a task is complex and should not be undertaken lightly by either researchers (e.g. when designing studies) or clinicians (e.g. when discussing the impact of divorce with parents). A number of other factors also have been shown to be important influences in moderating divorce ‘effects’. These include the parent-adolescent relationship, gender of adolescent, time
Parental divorce and adolescent maladjustment
325
since divorce, pre-divorce adjustment level, extrafamilial support, and the noncustodial parent (for reviews see Atkeson et aE., 1982; Emery, 1988). Although the evidence is by no means uniform in any of these areas, there are sufficient data to suggest that such factors should be considered when the influence of divorce on youth is studied or reported. In summary, when the influences of divorce are considered in the literature and then presented to the public, the thesis here is that not only is there an exaggeration of effects but also an oversimplification when the many potential moderating influences are not noted.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
RESEARCHERS
The thesis of this paper has been that, when divorce is associated with impaired functioning of adolescents, the extent of the impairment is far less than has been portrayed in the media. This situation poses a dilemma for the researcher. He or she can continue to generate data in this area and hope that the data filter into the public arena. However, the existing situation would suggest that such a strategy is probably not an effective one. Alternately, the researcher can move beyond conducting studies and ‘go public’. This is obviously what Wallerstein and Blakeslee did in their book Second Chances. Unfortunately, as Kelly and Emery (1989) so poignantly note, Wallerstein and Blakeslee present their data as scientific evidence when it is not. It would appear that ‘hard nosed’ researchers need to step forward. Only in this way can the scientific data be presented. Unfortunately, our very training, which emphasizes experimental control, caution about our findings, and modesty, is designed to prevent us from going to the public media. Obviously, such a philosophy prevents the public from being exposed to our most scientifically valid findings. Several solutions, or at least partial solutions, appear feasible. First, some aspect of training needs to involve the principle that presentation of the data to the public is acceptable when the data are reasonably well-established. Second, and perhaps a more realistic approach, is to use press agents. These individuals could have some knowledge of research design and experimental methodology but also be trained in journalism skills. Payment for such persons might be incorporated into research grants or, alternately, hired by granting agencies. The William T. Grant Foundation, a private foundation which has supported divorce research, has successfully used the latter approach. When researchers go public, it is necessary that the data be well-established. If conclusions are going to be reached that are not based on carefully controlled scientific data, the limitations of such data must be stressed. Unfortunately, as Kelly and Emery (1989) point out, Wallerstein and Blakeslee’s Second Chances, which has received more public attention than all other efforts in the area of divorce and children, fails to do this. In fact, Wallerstein (1991) has recently made an appeal for the use of clinical methods and case studies: Taken altogether, these studies reflect a complexity that was unanticipated when the work of divorce research began. The findings by their very ambiguity shed light on the complexity of interacting family processes, particularly parent-child relationships, and on the unexpected delayed ‘sleeper’ effects of childhood experiences. It is because of the complexity of the issues that are unfolding that there is cause for concern if there is too single-minded a focus on a single research paradigm, such as much of the current preoccupation with quantitative methods, carefully controlled samples, designated control groups using group-aggregated data and statistical determination of significance. If these methods were to be adopted to the exclusion of intensive clinical methods and case studies, it might well cost the individual voice of the child. Given not only the complexity of family issues but also the vast numbers of future citizens whose lives will have been profoundly changed by divorce, it is especially important that future research gives weight to the testimony of the inner world of human experience; in this instance to the child’s experience. The particular feelings, suffering, and experiences of the child represent the very essence of what needs to be systematically ordered, understood, and addressed at individual, family, and societal levels (p. 359).
326
REXFOREHAND
3.3
\
Q 3.1 P A 2.9
Fig. 3. Data
demonstrating
Low Conflict \
\
the interaction
between
parental
divorce
and interparental
conflict.
It is easy to empathize with Wallerstein’s concern for the individual. However, when findings from case studies and clinical methods are presented as ‘fact’ and as a general picture of adolescent response to divorce, more harm than good can be done. As noted earlier, Kelly and Emery (1989) point out that some youth from some families are scarred by divorce. However, as suggested by the scientific data, many are not. The reporting of only those case studies where functioning is poor is misleading and detrimental. As Kazdin (1980) has noted, case studies clearly have their place in our research strategies. However, the role is not to draw definitive conclusions from single cases, but instead these are to be used as heuristics for scientific research, so that strong scientifically based conclusions may be reached.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR
CLINICIANS
The hypothesis proposed, and I believe supported, in this paper also has implications for the practicing clinician. One such implication is that clinicians need to keep abreast of the scientific literature and not rely on what is in the public media at this time. While this would appear to be a fairly obvious implication, in reality clinicians rarely have access to the wide variety of professional journals where research is published or the time to stay abreast of the literature. Second, a logical conclusion based on the relatively small magnitude of effects of divorce is that not all adolescents are in need of clinical treatment following parental divorce. It is important to not automatically assume that adolescents must have problems if their parents divorce. This is especially salient in light of Wallerstein’s (1991) proposal of a sleeper effect where “children will show responses that arise de novo at subsequent postdivorce developmental stages” (p. 359). Such a proposal could lead a clinician to assume that all post-divorce children and adolescents should be treated to prevent the sleeper effect, even though at this time there is no scientific data to support such an assumption.* A question frequently posed to clinicians is “Should we stay married for the sake of the children?” A good answer, and one that fits well into the repertoire of clinical psychologists who frequently do not give direct answers, is ‘it depends’. To a large extent it depends on what parents are going to do after the divorce. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 3 from some of our data with young adolescents, if parents are going to continue to engage in high levels of interparental conflict after divorce, then an adolescent is exposed to two potential stressors and his/her grades will suffer more than exposure to one stressor. If level of conflict decreases with divorce, then based on the evidence suggesting that conflict is more detrimental than divorce (e.g. Emery, 1982), divorce may be an option to consider. CONCLUSIONS
The scientific evidence suggests that parental divorce is associated with poorer adolescent functioning. However, in contrast to the extreme negative image often presented in the media, the *It should be noted that the sleeper effect is a construct rigorous fashion. If you test for the effect at some explanation that can always exist is that the effect the effect does not exist as it may appear at some
which would be extremely difficult to test and reject in a scientifically age (e.g. early adulthood) and fail to find the effect, the alternative simply has not emerged yet. One could almost never conclude that later time.
Parental
divorce
and adolescent
maladjustment
321
‘effects’ are quite modest. Both researchers and clinicians are faced with issues resulting from the discrepancy in the scientific data and what is reported in the media. Hopefully, this paper has illuminated the discrepancy and helped clarify some of the issues that need to be considered and addressed. Acknowledgements-The writing of the current University of Georgia’s Institute for Behavioral those of either supporting agency.
paper was supported in part by the William T. Grant Foundation and the Research. The opinions expressed are those of the author, not necessarily
REFERENCES Allison, P. D. & Furstenberg, F. F. Jr (1989). How marital dissolution affects children: Variations by age and sex. Developmenr Psychology, 25, 540-549. Amata, P. R. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 110, 2646. Atkeson, B. M., Forehand, R. & Rickard, K. M. (1982). The effects of divorce on children. In Lahey, B. B. & Kazdin, A. E. (Eds), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 255-281). New York: Plenum Press. Block, J. H., Block, J. & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 57, 821-840. Capaldi, D. M. & Patterson, G. R. (1991). Relation of parental tranactions to boys’ adjustment problems: I. A linear hypothesis. II. Mothers at risk for transitions and unskilled parenting. Development Psychology, 27, 489-504. Cherlin, A. J., Furstenberg, F. F. Jr, Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Kierman, K. E., Robins, P. K., Morrison, D. R. & Teitler, J. 0. (1991). Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States. Science, 252, 13861389. Elkind, D. (1990). How divorce affects teens. Parems, 65, 160. Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychology Bulletin, 92, 31&330. Emery, R. E. (1988). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. Beverly Hills. Calif.: Saae. Forehand, R., McCombs, A.,-Long, N., Brody, G. H. & Fauber, R. (1988): Early.adolescent\djustment to recent parental divorce: The role of interparental conflict and adolescent sex as mediating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 624627. Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., Wierson, M., Brody, G. & Fauber, R. (1990). The role of maternal functioning and parenting skills in adolescent functioning following parental divorce. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 278-283. Forehand, R., Wierson, M., Thomas, A. M., Fauber, R., Armistead, L., Kempton, T. & Long, N. (1991). A short-term longitudinal examination of young adolescent functioning following divorce: The role of family factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 91-I 11. Johnson, J. R., Gonzales, R. & Campbell, L. E. G. (1987). On going postdivorce conflict and child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Children and Psychology, 15, 493-509. Kelly, J. & Emery, R. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. Conciliafion Courts Review, 27, 81-83. Kempton, T., Thomas, A. M. & Forehand, R. (1989). Dimensions of interparental conflict and adolescent functioning. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 297-307. Long, N., Slater, E., Forehand, R. 8c Fauber, R. (1988). Continued high or reduced interparental conflict following divorce: Relationship to young adolescent adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 461469. Neighbors, B., Forehand, R. & Armistead, L. (1992). Is parental divorce a critical stressor for young adolescents: GPA as a case-in-point. Adolescence. In press. Quay, H. D. & Peterson, D. R. (1987). Revised behavior problem checklist. Unpublished manuscript, University of Miami. Wallerstein, J. S. (1991). The long-term effects of divorce on children: A review. Journal of the American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 349-360. Wallerstein, J. S. & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Wallerstein, J. S. & Corbin, S. (1989). Daughters of divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiutry, 59, 593604.