IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I lllllllllllllllIllllll'llll’lllllll 3 1293 00796 3832 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that tlz: thesis entitled TRANSITIONS IN THE LIVES OF SINGLE PARENTS: HEADING A HOUSEHOLD AND PARENTING ALONE presented by Polly Ann Fassinger has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Sociology degree in % M Major professor Date March 2, 1987 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘ MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from _ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. r “'17 1993 3 63 ._ ”88'1. 1.7;:2‘79» 1*. , OCT 0 3 inch ’ 8&1504 TRANSITIONS IN THE LIVES OF SINGLE PARENTS: HEADING A HOUSEHOLD AND PARENTING ALONE By Polly Ann Fassinger A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1987 ACN- t “firms is; m. menu; A «aucr:'~:_« u. Whine-v mleh :ng- .. :‘WWm claim: M mau- . .m- . .1. .. 4,3.” A ”fin-urn one. we... as ,w ‘ ‘MU 0'“ mwfl-r M w w .-.W “in!!! to Mai". !Iw ‘e+a:.'1 ., we: W ‘0 “'31me {Law-iw.«- :-.-.g,gw~.« " a“ ”new its: r» :i‘miué WLe (a: “like viii-nus a w Warm. L‘- a «mum» “was hue-mu m m i “*3" only}: m all ABSTRACT TRANSITIONS IN THE LIVES OF SINGLE PARENTS: HEADING A HOUSEHOLD AND PARENTING ALONE By Polly Ann Fassinger Parents's lives can change dramatically when they divorce or are widowed and become solely responsible for running a household. They may find themselves doing new tasks around the house, managing a budget alone for the first time, spending less time at work, and/or feeling greater parenting and decision-making pressures. I designed this grounded theory study to explore the nature of single parents’ transitions with respect to decision-Iaking, financial nanagenent, paid work, housework, and parenting and to uncover patterns within parents’ varied responses to their altered lives. The data for this qualitative study case froa transcribed interviews with a convenience sample of thirty-two single mothers and fifteen single fathers. The intervievs were semi-structured, eliciting Ian's and vosen’s reactions to changes in their daily lives since they becaae single parents. Through the constant comparative sethod of data analysis, I discovered that adults' feelings about Polly Ann Fassinger single parenting often varied according to the type of marriage they once experienced, or their 'marital history type.‘ Drawing upon parents' descriptions of their pasts, I identified four marital history types: 'segregated,‘ 'modified-segregated,l 'integrated,‘ and “primarily wife-shaped.‘ The division of labor of the married couple is central to the typology. For example, in segregated marriages husbands were the sole wage-earners, financial managers, and dominant decision-makers, while wives were full-time homemakers responsible for the care of the children and the house. In integrated marriages men and women worked full-time and shared equally in decision-making, financial management, and housework. While parenting in integrated marriages was mother-centered, the husbands were highly involved with their children. Comparing and contrasting the experiences of single parents who had different 'marital history types,‘ I discovered that single mothers' responses to being household decision-makers, financial managers, paid workers, and single parents varied reliably by their marital history type. Women's feelings about their daily lives also were influenced by their mothering ideology and by whether or not they had initially wanted to end their marriages. Ken’s perceptions about being responsible for a household, decision-making, and some parenting matters varied predictably by their marital history types. Other factors, such as the father’s degree of job autonomy, also affected men's responses to single parenting. d ‘flflo’. advtc: .. - " ,0 :o pf_b;' a, “.4 Mb” Janq wimp; :- 2“.” DM’ szn‘n‘c-3 ( ;'. 51‘ ‘AM tn» .vnrwm . -' . “o ‘30 ‘-" ' g I .‘M _ _ «((1 I . To 31¢ 3"" v ‘ “ -' ‘ .L'r '0 . 1. .- I Q“ a 'i a t O '34 y. u '3 , . - two our frienéu. '_ , _ ,. 4! m'vgnwm '2'.‘ \‘(s‘ .. > '1‘ : ,1 " U -. awn exf—‘MJ. .1 '3'» ”and cuekrt. z’pl A. ' 3‘3 < .v, ' I. .'.,‘ ’ k) \ ACKNOWLEDGHENTS Good advice and support are essential for any task. I have had an abundance of both and owe thanks to many persons. Barrie Thorne has worked long distance with me for years. I greatly appreciate all the help and encouragement she has offered me. Many thanks also are due to the committee of Harry Schwarzweller, Harilyn Aronoff, Craig Harris, and Margaret Bubolz for their thoughtful and insightful comments. The single parents with whom I spoke changed my life in many ways. I thank them for helping me with this project. I feel most indebted to them for showing me the richness and complexity of my community. With every unknown face, I now wonder about the personal struggles and Joys that have shaped its past. Hy colleagues at Concordia College, Larry Falk, Nick Ellig, Harths Ice, and Jo Engelhardt, have been understanding and generous in their assistance. Hany thanks especially to Nick and Martha for making my teaching load a bit lighter while I was working on this project. Two dear friends, Cheryl and George, I must thank for being my dependable avenues of much needed respite. And finally, I owe an enormous amount of thanks to Rich, a constant source of patience, relief, and comfort. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF TABLES....... ......................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES..... ....... . .................. . ............... viii CHAPTER I. A BRIEF INTRODUCTION.. .............. . ............. 1 CHAPTER II. HACRO- -LEVEL AND HICRO- LEVEL RESEARCH ON SINGLE PARENTS: A LITERATURE REVIEW ............................... 4 Hacro-Level Analyses................ ..................... 7 Demographic Patterns........................ .......... 7 Economic Patterns........................ ........ ..... 16 Summary.......................... ...... ............... 21 Hicro-Level Analyses: Work and Family Concerns ........... 21 Adjustment Literature....................... .......... 22 Social Networks... ............. . ..................... . 25 Role Analyses... ...... . .............. ..... . .......... 32 Assessment of the Literature........................... . 45 Hethodological Shortcomings............... ...... ...... 4S Conceptual Weaknesses ............................. .. . 48 Perspectives in the Literature................... ..... . . 52 Foci of this Study... ...... .... .......................... 57 CHAPTER III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HETHOD................. 64 Initial Statement of the Research Questions............ . 64 Hethod.......... ......... .. . ............. . ...... ...... 64 Study Site......................... ..... . ..... ........ 66 Sample and Interviews.................... ....... .... . 68 Data Analysis........ ....... ................. ....... . 80 Revised Statement of the Research Duestion............... 89 Contribution of the Study................................ 89 iv CHAPTER IV. CHANGES IN RESPONSIBILITIES AS HEADS 0F HOUSEHOLDS... .............................................. 92 The Women ...... . .......... . .............................. 95 The Hen ........ ... ....................................... 109 CHAPTER V. FEELINGS ABOUT FINANCIAL HANAGEHENT ............... 123 The Women... ....................... . ...... . .............. 124 The Hen ...................... . ........................... 133 CHAPTER VI. WORK AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT ....................... 137 The Women ................................................ 139 Women in Poverty ...................................... 158 The Hen ....... . ............ . ............................. 163 Summary .......... . ............................... . ....... 173 CHAPTER VII. KEEPING UP A HOHE ............................... 176 The Women.. ............................ .. ........... ..... 177 The Hen.. ............................................... . 188 Summary ........................................... . ...... 200 CHAPTER VIII. REACTIONS TO PARENTING RESPONSIBILITIES ........ 202 The Women.... ............................................ 203 Satisfaction with Control ............................ 209 Discipline. ...... . ............... . ......... . ...... .... 213 Children's Help .................. . ...... ....... ..... .. 219 Finding a Balance.... ........ . .................... .... 223 Summary. . ..... . ........... . ..... .. ........ ..... ...... . 228 The Hen. ............ .. ........................... 229 Change in Responsibility .......... ...... ............ .. 232 Children’ s Help.... ........ . ....... . ..... ............. 236 Balancing Needs ...... . ............. . .................. 239 Discipline ..... .. ....... ... ..... ...... ............... . 244 Summary..... ...... ........... ........... ..... ..... .... 24S CHAPTER IX. SUHHARY AND CONCLUSION........................... Origins of the Study..................................... Strengths and Limitations of the Project................. Summary.................................................. Heading a Household................................... Financial Hanagement.................................. Work and Financial Support..... ...... ................. Keeping Up a Home..................................... Parenting............................................. Insights into Gender and Family Life..................... Conceptualizing Gender................................ The Intersection of Family Structure and Gender....... Conclusion............................................... ENDNOTES...................................................... APPENDIX...................................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY............................ onaaaaoaooo-o-ooasaaoo 247 247 248 253 253 254 255 257 258 261 261 266 268 271 277 291 10 ll 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Harital Status of Single Parents in the United States, by Gender of the Parent, Percent Change 1970-1980........ Harital Status of Single Parents in the United Status, by Gender of the Parent, 1980............................ Age of Female Single Parents in the United States, 1970 and 1980.............................................. Work Experience of Female Single Parents Below the Poverty Line in the United States, by Race, 1980...... Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Subset, by Gender of the Parent.................................. Educational Experiences of the Sample Subset, by Gender of the Single Parent.................................. Occupational Positions of Sample Subset, by Gender of the Single Parent......................................... Demographic Characteristics of the Entire Sample, by Gender of the Parent.................................. Educational Experiences of the Entire Sample, by Gender of the Single Parent.................................. Occupational Positions of the Entire Sample, by Gender of the Single Parent..................................... Harital History Type of Single Parents by Parent’s Gender (Sample Subset Only).................................. Sample Subset of Single Parents by Harital History Type and Gender of Parent.................................. Sources of Contacts for Interviews....................... 12 13 15 74 75 76 77 78 79 94 96 278 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Characteristics of Families in the United States, by Type, Harch 1980....................................... 2. Characteristics of Families by Type, Fargo-Hoorhead Area, 1980........................ ....... .............. viii 67 CHAPTER I A BRIEF INTRODUCTION Like many children nowadays, I was raised in a single-parent home. Hy mother and father separated when I was in the sixth grade. As I grew up, I could not help but notice that my family experiences fell outside the norm and contrasted with our culture's ideal. Perhaps as a result of this, I developed an interest in understanding many kinds of family forms. However, as time passed, I realized that my insight into and interest in single-parent families was heavily skewed towards the vantage point of the child. This dissertation project is a reflection of my desire to obtain a more rounded view. During the past few years I have read the research literature, spoken with single parents, and conducted and analyzed interviews in an effort to get a better grasp of the circumstances that shape the lives of adults in single-parent homes. In the fall of 1982, while working on a term paper for a course on work and the family, I began my more formal exploration into this intensely personal topic. After I completed a literature review, I slowly tried to formulate a series of research questions about how single parents organize their work and family activities. I was quickly stymied and frustrated because it seemed to me that much of the research on single parents was seriously flawed by both methodological and conceptual problems. In the next chapter I will review existing research on single parents and outline my numerous concerns about our present research-based knowledge. I developed and redeveloped plans for a research project that would build upon the current literature on single parents. Yet, for months I could dredge up little confidence in or enthusiasm for my ideas because of my discomfort with the quality of most of the past research. That stumbling block was removed when I realized that I did not need to construct a traditional hypothesis-testing study but could develop understanding in a more inductive way. As described in Chapter III, this project was not intended to test hypotheses that have been derived from earlier research. Instead, I followed the model of grounded theory investigations, drawing on loosely structured interviews with thirty-two single mothers and fifteen single fathers. I set out to discover the similarities and differences between single mothers and single fathers with respect to their work and family activities. In the course of my inquiry, I also sought to probe the nature of, and possible reasons for, variations in the experiences of single parents. While the interviews touched upon numerous facets of single parents' lives, they focused on the parents' perceptions of transformations that had occurred in their work and family activities after they became single parents. Our discussions emphasized: 1) alterations they experienced in their daily activities as heads of households, and 2) changes that transpired with respect to their parenting after they became divorced, separated or widowed. In Chapter IV through Chapter VIII, I describe the parents' reactions to their daily household, parenting, and paid work responsibilities and explain how behavior and sentiments differ between women and men and vary according to the type of marriages the parents had experienced before they became single parents. The ninth and final chapter of this report offers an assessment of the typology described in Chapter IV through Chapter VIII and outlines the findings of this research. It concludes with recommendations for future study of the lives of single parents. CHAPTER II HACRO-LEVEL AND MICRO-LEVEL RESEARCH ON SINGLE PARENTS: A LITERATURE REVIEW There have always been single-parent families in the United States. How common this family form was in earlier times is not easy to ascertain, but evidence indicates that about one in ten families were female-headed from 1850-1880 (Seward, 1978), and many of these were undoubtedly single-parent households. Within the past two decades, the number of single parents in the United States has grown substantially, and parents who raise their children alone have become a relatively common sight. Government sources indicate that these predominantly female-headed families comprised 11.41 of all families (with own children)[1] in 1970 and 21.4% in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a). In fact, the number of two-parent families that contained children at home actually decreased slightly (-3.3%) during the 19703 while the number of single-parent families grew dramatically (*1811) moving from 7.3% to 11.6% of all family households (with and without children) (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a). The swelling ranks of single-parent families have been documented by a growing body of research, and the effects of this family form on its members have been described by countless studies. 4 Three perspectives have dominated these sociological investigations. The earliest works, originating in the 1950s and 19603, may be best categorized under the rubric of “single parents as a social problem.‘ Research in this vein attempted to document the deleterious effects of growing up in a single-parent home and called for social programs which would facilitate stability and reconstitution of nuclear family units (Schorr and Hoen, 1979). A plethora of such inquiries provided us with clues about how single parenting affected for example, delinquency rates, gender identification, and children's independence (Blechman, 1982). However, most of this research was riddled with methodological problems ranging from reliance on clinical samples to poorly controlled or uncontrolled variables, such as income (Blechman, 1982; Brandwein et al., 1974; Levitin, 1979). Nonetheless, research based on the pathological perspective has been profuse. Through such studies single-parent homes commonly came to be called I'incomplete," 'broken,’ "fatherless,'I and 'deviant' (Brandwein et al., 1974; Collette, 1979b; Schlesinger, 1979). Households headed by single mothers, in particular, were seen as the source of their own numerous problems rather than as victims of a set of societal programs, institutions, and laws which were formulated under the belief that each family has two adult caretakers and that women predominantly rely on men for life long support (cf. Pierce, 1980). Early in the last decade, Jane Burgess (1970) was one of the first to recognize the potentially stigmatizing effect of the pathological perspective for single parents. Burgess thought of single parents not as a social problem, but rather as a sociological problem. She called upon sociologists to explore the everyday lives of single-parent families for evidence of normal functioning, adaptation to difficult circumstances, resourcefulness, and coping mechanisms. Out of such ideas, two other major approaches to the study of single parents evolved. The second perspective, which permeated much singlerparent research in the 19705, assumed that single-parent families were mainly short term, or transitional, family units. Ross and Sawhill (1975), perhaps the leading advocates of this perspective, recognized that for most persons, single parenthood is a normatively brief (five to six years) experience, in part because about one-half of all divorcees remarry within three years after marital disruption (Cherlin, 1981). Hore recent studies contain a third perspective which acknowledges single-parent families as transitional and as long-term experiences for many households (see Smith, 1980; Verzaro and Hennon, 1980; for an early recognition of this, see Sprey, 1969) and focus on the stable, daily patterns exhibited by these families as well as their initial transitional experiences. As a body of literature, studies of single parents in the United States and Canada include both macro-level and micro-level analyses. Hacro-level inquiries provide us with demographic and economic portraits of single parents in the 19703-19803. Hicro-level analyses inform us of single parents' emotional stresses, experiences with social networks, and their social and familial roles and activities. The following literature review examines dominant themes in both macro-level and micro-level research on single parents. Its goal is to summarize current social scientific information on single parents and assess the strengths and weaknesses of this literature. This review focuses on the characteristics, experiences, and behaviors of single parents rather than on the effects of growing up in a single—parent household. By concentrating on adults' experiences, most of the studies utilizing the pathological perspective have been excluded, since these studies tend to focus on the behavior of children and neglect the single parents' reactions to their daily lives. Hacro-Level Analyses Demographic Patterns The best source for demographic information on single parents in the United States is the United States Bureau of the Census. In order to make the following discussion and statistics comprehensible, it is important for the reader understand clearly the definitions employed by this bureau and distinguish between single-parent families and other household units. Single-parent families, for present purposes, include all family households headed by women or men who a) have either never married or are widowed, divorced, or married but have an absent spouse and who b) reside with their own children. Of course, the households of single parents may contain other adult members who are not householdersIZJ. Unfortunately, this definition excludes all parent-child subfamiliest3l (that is, single parents and children who reside in households that are headed by another adult relative) because the Bureau of the Census does not provide detailed information on the characteristics of adults in subfamilies. Only for 1980, in fact, are published data available on the number of mother-child and father-child subfamilies in the United States (see Figure 1). lSingle-parents' are not synonymous with either 'female householders' or "female family householders,“ according to the Census Bureau. 'Female family householders' do not necessarily reside with their own children, but may live with siblings or other relatives. 'Householders' do not live with their own children, by census definition, because the coresidence of parents and children constitutes a 'family household' and not a 'household't4]. Only those female or male family householders whose own children live with them are considered single parents in this reportISJ. Although some researchers have referred to noncustodial parents as single parents (e.g., see Rosenthal and Keshet, 1980), I distinguish between parents who reside with their children most of the time and “visiting parents' who do not. It is important to remember that census data is cross sectional by nature and thus cannot reveal the longitudinal flows of persons into and out of single-parent families (see Ross and Sawhill, 1975; Slesinger, 1980). Because single-parent families often have a relatively short longevity, static cross-sectional information no doubt underreports the number of families who are ever headed by single parents. Because of this, census figures utilized in this ommp IUMCZ ommr sous: Amccmmcocu cflv .mmwe wm .mmefifim DmBHZD HEB 2H mMHAH2¢h m0 mUHBmHmmBU€M¢IU "F mmDOHm .v— 0cm P moanma .Ampmm—v mcmcwo on» no common .m.s "mousom .mofiaflsmwncm cflflnouucwumm 0cm coucaflco :30 hams» cufl3 common 0:3 mumcHonomcon haasmm*« 3E.8 .mwumum owuflco as mass: camconpcwnmm mamsww no mama Astmm cmcmmmlmamswm mamooolcmwmmmz _ L_ L Aonv.mmv mcaonmmcom aafismm report should be seen as rather conservative estimates of the number of adults and children who recently have lived in single-parent households. The discussion which follows briefly describes the personal characteristics of the men and women who were single parents in the United States in 1970 and 1980. Their marital status, number of children with whom they lived, race, and age are outlined. Females dominate the ranks of single parents. In both 1970 and 1980, approximately 90% of all single parents in the United States were women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a). Perhaps because of the preponderance of mothers within these families, the United States Bureau of the Census publishes more detailed information on female single parents than on male single parents. When available, I have included descriptive statistics on both mothers and fathers who parent alone. Harital Status Single-parent families accounted for over 20% of all families with own children in the United States in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1981a). The prior decennial census enumeration indicated that 11.4% of all families with children had been headed by one parent (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971). The 2,415,000 family increase in single-mother homes from 1970—1980 is partly the result of a dramatic increase in the number of divorced women who became single parents. Between 1970 and 1980 an additional 1,384,000 divorced mothers headed families, a 1451 increase. Never-married mothers had the greatest relative increase over their 1970 numbers (up 2761); 644,000 more 11 never-married women were single parents in 1980. Women who were separated from their spouses grew in number by 509,000 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a) (see Table 1). During the 19703, widows became a decreasing proportion of all female single parents (from 22% to 12.5%). By 1980, most single-parent women were either divorced (43.7%) or were separated from their spouses (23.9%). Hale single parents were also most likely to be divorced in 1980 (47.1%) (see Table 2). Children In the decade of the 19708, the number of children being raised in single-parent homes rose by 3,319,000 (from 7,571,000 to 10,890,000) (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a), although the average number of children per single-parent household declined from 2.36 to 1.87 from 1970-1980 for single-mother families and declined from 2.02 to 1.52 for single-father units (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 19813). By the latter 19703, almost one child in five (18.9%) in the United States lived in a single—parent home and 15% of all preschoolers were being raised by a single parent (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1981a). Hany projections assume that these patterns will continue. Some suggest that for children born in the 19703, as many as 30% (Bane, 1977; Bumpass and Rindfuss, 1979; Hoore and Hofferth, 1979) or even 50% (Schorr and Hoen, 1979; Hoore and Hofferth, 1979) will spend some time as members of single-parent households before they reach the age of eighteen. Bumpass and Rindfuss (1979) project that, on the average, children of single parents will spend about four and one-half years in single-parent homes before age eighteen. 12 JAE . ,;.y"‘. ' " TABLE 1 - .‘I A.” , 0 WIm STATUS OF SINGLE PARENTS’ IN THE UNITED STATES, " 3k". ‘ moss or 'I‘HE PARENT, psacm'r CHANGE 1970—1980 ‘ . .mu.:!‘:_l'. mm v. ~; ‘ L 7' fl ‘ ' Gender of Parent ‘ Mite-1 Status Hale '. Female .4 .. >m 1"»L' 40.6% 2.8% ' "'4'" magic 7 ' ' ' 181.0% 276.4% ‘ 9:“ (spouse absent, divorced, . ..‘. 910,9“. am iapatated) 124.5% .. “mesa ... 145.4% W hum n 43.1; . ism - .. 55.3. ‘5 fif‘iIflQlc parents are family householders who reside with their own ~915an yum... ' '11; a pawn: -~r 6 ‘ shunts. mreau of Census (1971), Table 13, (1981:), Table 13. . . rofl,' TABLE 2 MARITAL STATUS OF SINGLE PARENTS* IN THE UNITED STATES, BY GENDER OF THE PARENT, 1980 (in thousands) Gender of Parent Marital Status Male Female Widowed 101 (16.6%) 665 (12.5%) Single, never married 59 ( 9.7%) 877 (16.4%) Divorced 287 (47.1%) 2,336 (43.7%) Spouse Absent 162 (26.6%) 185 ( 3.5%) Separated ** . 1,277 (23.9%) TOTAL 609 (100%) 5,340 (100%) *Single parents are family householders who reside with their own children. **Not available. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981a). The likelihood of being a single parent varies dramatically by race in the United States. Blacks are disproportionately represented among female single parents. In 1970, 30.6% of all female single parents were Black; 32.7% were Black in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 19813). Black male and female single-parent households represented one-third of all Black families with children in 1970; by 1980 they constituted almost half (49.7%) of all Black families with children while white single parents represented 15.3% of all white families with own children (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a). In comparison with white single mothers, Black single mothers are younger, more likely to be separated or never married, less likely to be employed, more likely to be unemployed, less educated, and have more children (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1971, 1981a; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978). Their children are often younger at the time of marital disruption (for those with ever-married mothers) and tend to live in single-parent homes longer than do white children (Bumpass and Rindfuss, 1979). .225: The greatest increases in female single-parents have been among younger women. The age cohorts of single mothers which expanded the most between 1970 and 1980 were women between thirty and thirty-four years of age (¢ 156.5%) and those 25-29 years old (+ 119%) (see Table 3). Divorced or separated women usually become single parents when their children are in preschool or elementary school, inasmuch as the TABLE 3 AGE OF FEMALE SINGLE PARENTS* IN THE UNITED STATES, 1970 AND 1980 (in thousands) Percent Change Age 1970 1980 1970—1980 Under 25 years 372 (12.7%) 657 (12.3%) + 76.6% 25-29 436 (14.9%) 955 (17.9%) +119.0% 30-34 444 (15.2%) 1,139 (21.3%) +156.5% 35-44 919 (31.4%) 1,671 (31.3%) + 81.8% 45-54 637 (21.8%) 766 (14.3%) + 20.3% 55-64 108 ( 3.7%) 133 ( 2.5%) + 23.1% 65-74 9 ( 0.3%) 17 ( 0.3%) + 88.9% 75+ — —— 1 _- __ N = 2,925 (100%) 5,340 (100%)** + 82.6% *Female family householders who reside with their own children. **Numbers are those given by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Due to rounding, sum is not exact. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census (1981a), Table 3; (1971), Table 6. median years of marriage for divorced women with one child was 5.4 (in 1975) and for those with two children, 9.2 years (Aldous, 1978). About half of all marriages break up when the children are under six years old (Bumpass and Rindfuss, 1979). Economic Patterns Single-parent families have a unique and largely disadvantaged position in the United States economy. Their standard of living is lower than that of married-couple families, they are often impoverished, and their labor force participation rates show greater employment and unemployment rates than among married women. One economic fact which is difficult to refute is the adverse position that women have had in the United States economy in comparison with men. It stands to reason then that the economic resources of families which are headed mostly by women would reflect this disadvantaged economic position. The median income of single mothers stands far below that of husband-wife families. In 1975, single mothers had a median income of $6,023 which amounted to 36.7% of the median earnings of husband-wife families with children ($16,430). Single-parent fathers also fare better than do single mothers; their median income was $12,797 in 1975 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1978). By 1983, female single parents had gained minimal ground; they earned approximately 37.6% of the median income of husband-wife families with children. In 1983, female single parents brought home a median income of $9,153 while married couples with children earned a median of $24,324. Single-parent fathers earned a median of $19,950 that year, which was 82% of the median l7 two-parent family income (Norton and Glick, 1986). Economists explain single mothers' low family income by pointing to characteristics that correlate with reduced income: their youth, race, labor force participation, presence of children, and occupation. In addition, single mothers' homes are more likely than are other family households to have no income earners and less likely to have two earners or more (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980). In 1979, for example, for every four single-mother families, one of these households contained no income earners while for every ten single-father families, only one suffered similarly. Upon divorce, mothers and their children tend to suffer a substantial drop in their standard of living (Weiss, 1984; Weitzman, 1985). Host never fully recover economically from the impact of marital dissolution. Hoffman's (1977) longitudinal analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics suggested that upon divorce, men’s economic situation improves, relatively, while divorced women's economic well-being declines. The divorced or separated women in his representative sample experienced an almost 30% drop in income between 1967 and 1973. By calculating the ratio of the family's income to the family’s needs (a figure based on the government’s estimate of necessary food budgets, adjusted to family size, and ages and gender of family members), the depressed conditions of single-mothers’ homes became clearer. Harried couples' income/needs ratio increased between 1967 and 1973 by 20.8% and divorced men's rose between 1967 and 1973 by 16.5% which means both groups experienced real income gains in comparison with the amount of money 18 they needed for subsistence. However, divorced women lost economic ground between 1967 and 1973; their income/needs ratio declined by 6.7%. Even more disconcerting is Weitzman's (1985) finding that, one year after divorce, men in her sample had experienced a 42% increase in their standard of living while divorced women had sustained a 73% decrease in their standard of living. Thus, particularly for divorced women who are single parents, the economic picture is often bleak. The losses in income are often staggering. But more than income is lost upon marital disruption. When a family with two parents evolves into a single-parent unit, the family loses the economy of scale it possessed and thus expenses multiply for rent, transportation, and food (Vickery, 1978). In addition, when families contain only one parent, members no longer benefit from the unpaid labor which another parent may have contributed to their emotional quality of life and material standard of living. Poverty Families headed by mothers are the most impoverished families in the United States. In 1982, 48.7% of all female single-parent families were poor while only 9.6% of married-couple households with own children were impoverished. Black single-parent women have been hardest hit by poverty; in 1982, 65.6% were poor while 40.3% of all white single-parent women were poor (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1984). Families of single mothers are not only often money poor but they are also frequently time 222:. That is, of the 2,463,000 female single parents in 1980 whose incomes were below the poverty level, 41.2% worked during the year for pay; 24.5% of poor single mothers 19 TABLE 4 WORK EXPERIENCE OF FEMALE SINGLE PARENTS* BELOW THE POVERTY LINE IN THE UNITED STATES, BY RACE, 1980 Race Work Experience White Black All Employed in 1979 608 (44.7%) 380 (36.2%) 1,014 (41.2%) (in thousands) Employed full-time in 1979 345 (25.3%) 243 (23.1%) 604 (24.5%) (in thousands) Average number of weeks worked_in 1979 27.3 31.6 29.1 Total single parents below poverty level (in thousands) 1,361 (100%) 1,051 (100%) 2,463 (100%) *Female family householders who reside with their own children. SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Census (1982d), Table 29. 20 worked full-time during the year 1979 (see Table 4). In addition to suffering from the plight of living with little money, these families also had to endure constraints on the time their householders could devote to the unpaid labor (e.g., cooking, cleaning) needed for family survival (Brown, 1982) and spend with other family members. Labor Force Participation The labor force participation rates of single mothers have been consistently higher than those of married mothers, in part because women commonly have sought work following marital disruption (Espenshade, 1979). In 1950, 18.4% of all married women with children were in the labor force, while 54.9% of all widowed, divorced or spouse-absent mothers worked (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1976)[6]. Since 1950, both married mothers with children at home and single-parent women have become more likely to join the labor force. By 1979, 54.5% of all women with children at home were in the labor force, including 54% of all married mothers and 65.7% of all single mothers. Divorcees are the most likely of single mothers to be employed or looking for work (79%) while widows are the least likely (49.6%). Unemployment, however, also has been consistently higher among single-parent women. In 1979, 20.7% of all never-married mothers, 12.6% of husband-absent mothers, 9% of all widows with children, and 7.6% of divorcees with children were unemployed versus 6.2% of all married mothers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1980). Like most women, these mothers mostly work in low paying, gender-segregated jobs where women predominate. 21 Summary Demographic and economic trends are clear. Single parents are becoming more common, and the rise is closely tied to the growing number of divorces in the United States. Children are increasingly likely to spend some time living in a home that contains only one parent. This is especially true for Black children inasmuch as about one-half of all Black families with children were headed by single parents in 1980. Single mothers are often impoverished, have median incomes well below that of two-parent households, often are employed, and have higher unemployment rates than do wives who live with their spouses. This macro-level portrait furnishes a valuable description of the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of single parents in the United States. With it, we can locate single parents' dominant characteristics, the components of their growth, and identify their over-arching economic circumstances. While this backdrop is necessary, it delivers only part of the picture. To gain insight into the daily lives of single parents and discover single parents' reactions to their experiences, we must turn to a separate body of research. Thus, our attention now moves to a micro-level set of inquiries into the work and family lives of single parents. Hicro-Level Analyses: Work and Family Concerns Hicro-level analyses of single parents' work and family experiences focus on parents’ perceptions and daily interactionst71. This body of research clusters around three basic foci. The first, personal adjustment studies, explore the emotional and psychological 22 well-being of parents during their transition to single parenthood. This is relevant to single parents' work and family concerns because emotional adjustment can have a significant impact on parenting and family activities. Second, there are numerous inquiries into single parents' social support networks. The third - most extensive - body of literature focuses on the single parents’ performance of their numerous roles (such as parent or homemaker). Of course, many pieces of research incorporate a combination of these three foci. However, for the purposes of this review these areas of concern will be separately summarized. Adjustment Literature Divorce is an emotionally wrenching experience. Great emotional upheavals are common, particularly within the first year (Hetherington et al., 1976) to second year of being single (O’Brien, 1980; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Weiss, 1979c). Stress that results manifests in both physical and psychological forms (Bloom et al., 1979). Host studies of single parents' emotional adjustment focus on two common problems. First, single parents often have lingering feelings of attachment to their prior spouse; the sensations of bonding and connection with one's ex-mate often dwindle slowly (Spanier and Casto, 1979; Weiss, 1975; 1979a). Second, loneliness is frequently mentioned in this research (George and Wilding, 1972; Luepnitz, 1982; O'Brien, 1980; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Smith and Smith, 1981; Weiss, 1979c). Strains from uncomfortable feelings of solitude are frequently felt as much as one and one-half to two years 23 after divorce (Hetherington et al., 1976; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). Following separation or loss of a spouse, men and women struggle with distress, anger, and an array of confusing, often ambivalent feelings. For most single parents, it seems that the loss of partner and thus the transition to being an unmarried person is much more difficult to adjust to than is single parenthood (Smith and Smith, 1981; Hipgrave, 1982; O'Brien, 1980). Single parenthood often results from divorce, and many have recognized that divorced women's usual, rapid economic decline can significantly affect single parents’ emotional well-being (e.g., see Buehler and Hogan, 1980; Colletta, 1979a). Unfortunately, there is little empirical information on the emotional effects of many single parents' depressed living standards. We have just hints of the strong effects of economic problems on separated women (Spanier and Casto, 1979). In one study of divorced women, Grella (1985) discovered that not all of women’s reactions to economic downward mobility following divorce are negative. Women who feel greater control over their lives after divorce are often satisfied with their situations. Having more say over one's personal life and over how and when money and time are spent may be quite liberating for women who have lived within the confines of a restrictive marriage. In addition, Grella (1985) studied the effects of economic decline on divorced women's construction of self. The women she interviewed compared themselves with three different kinds of reference groups. They experienced negative feelings and devalued self-assessments when they compared themselves with reference groups to which they had 24 previously belonged (e.g., married women); on the other hand, some women elevated their self-esteem by comparing themselves with other disadvantaged divorced women and seeing themselves as luckier or different than these women. Emotional adjustment and satisfaction may be more difficult for those who feel helpless, and single mothers feel powerless more often than do heads of two-parent families. The single mothers in Smith's (1980) study felt they had less control over their lives and less ability to plan for the future than did the heads of two-parent families. Of course, males are usually the 'heads' of two-parent families, thus Smith’s findings may actually reflect gender differences in men's and women’s feelings of control over their lives. However, it also may be that economic decline following divorce may be shaping women's perceptions of their ability to mold their fates. The importance of one's economic circumstances is highlighted by Bould’s (1977) study of the relationship between women's sense of control over their personal fate and their amount and sources of income. Poorer women and women who rely on such government funding as Aid to Families with Dependent Children report feeling less able to control their lives. Thus, feelings of autonomy and security are negatively related to two things which many single parent women experience: poverty and dependence on funding from Aid to Families with Dependent Children. A final impediment to some single parents' emotional satisfaction is the stigma of being a single parent in a society in which nuclear families are supported both ideologically and 25 materially. Hany single mothers and fathers report feeling isolated from and stigmatized by neighbors, friends and members of their communities (e.g., see Brandwein et al., 1974; George and Wilding, 1972; Ferri and Robinson, 1976; Schlesinger, 1979; Smith and Smith, 1981; Sprey, 1969). (In contrast, Luepnitz (1982) found that over half of the single fathers she interviewed felt their social status had been enhanced by single parenthood.) In light of all of the above, it is not surprising that single mothers are less satisfied with their lives than are married mothers (Colletta, 1979a). Social Networks Under the rubric of social networks, I include research that merely mentions some of the sources of support that single parents may have, as well as those reports that have developed typologies of support networks. Single parents typically rely on kin, friends, ex-spouses and single-parent organizations. Kin relations, especially parents and siblings, supply many single parents with material and emotional support. Stack’s (1974) field study of poor Black mothers indicates that these women were immersed within and highly dependent upon a kin-based system of emotional and material aid. Anspach's (1976) study of divorced women suggests, not surprisingly, that upon marital dissolution, divorced mothers may receive less aid from and have diminished contact with their former in-laws. However, divorced mothers and married mothers are similar in the amount of contact they have with their own (consanguineal) kin. Thus, divorce may not result in women’s greater reliance on kin181. In fact, fewer kin are likely to be contacted 26 since affinal kin contact is apparently curtailed. Unfortunately, Anspach did not explore the types of support procured through these contacts, or how they might vary by social class or ethnicity. Research findings on single fathers' reliance on kin are mixed, at best. The men in Hendes' (1976b) sample had little contact with relatives, but then few had kin in the immediate area[9]. In contrast, Orthner et a1. (1976) found that most of the single-parent fathers they studied were in touch with their parents at least once a week. The aid these kin provided included child care, money, housekeeping, and emotional assurance. The single fathers in Risman's (1986) study had contact with their kin at most on a monthly basis (although one-third got regular baby sitting aid from kin). Gasser and Taylor (1976) and O'Brien (1980) suggest that kin were very significant for the single fathers they studied, although the type of aid the kin supplied to these men was not mentioned. One study which clearly contrasted the experiences of men and women examined divorced persons' contacts with their consanguineal and affinal kin. Spicer and Hampe (1975) found that divorced women interact more with both kinds of kin than do divorced men. Single mothers actually are most likely of all divorced persons to see kin, while single fathers interact with kin less than single mothers or divorced men and women who are not parents. However, information on the aid these relatives provided, their dependability, or the single parents’ desire for their aid, is not disclosed. Thus, it seems that the picture is far from clear regarding kin support for single parents. We have some indication that mothers 27 tend to rely on kin more than fathers but we have no notion of what type of aid they request or receive. The reader should recognize, too, that aid from relatives is sometimes accompanied by costs to the single parent. Weiss (1979c) reported that parents’ unsolicited advice or criticism caused stress for some single parents. The single parents Luepnitz (1982) spoke with also mentioned minor resentment of their parents' input. Friends are another commonly cited resource for single parents (Risman, 1986). Divorced persons often grow away from their old friends (who are often married) (Hetherington et al., 1976) and develop new friendship networks with other single persons (Spanier and Casto, 1979; Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Luepnitz, 1982; Weiss, 1979c). The single fathers in the Gasser and Taylor (1976) and the O'Brien (1980) studies acknowledged either that they currently had more friends than when they were married or that friends were their most important source of aid. However, few studies hint at the dynamics of these friendship networks or what causes the variations in aid that they provide. For example, we know that the single fathers in Ambert's (1982) study were more likely than single mothers to report that their neighbors admired them and their friends were supportive of them. These men also received more baby sitting help and invitations to dinner from their friends. Unfortunately, Ambert's (1982) findings are difficult to interpret because the single fathers in her sample had much higher incomes and standards of living than did the single mothers. Thus, the effects of social class and gender can not be clearly delineated. Weiss (1979c) found 28 that friends, whose help is more spontaneous than that of kin, provided single parents with mostly emotional support. In addition, friends' favors and acts of aid were designed to be reciprocated by single parents. Ample evidence suggests that single mothers have very strong friendship networks with other women (Greenberg, 1979; Stack, 1974). In contrast, Greenberg (1979) noted that single fathers more often report that women, not men, are their source of emotional aid; single fathers do not seem to develop same gender friendships as often as do women, nor are their friends usually as numerous (Weiss, 1979c). Additionally, because women are more likely than men to seek support during the divorce process, especially from friends (Chiriboga et al., 1979), it seems reasonable to assume that friendship systems are very important to single mothers. Still, we need more information on similarities and differences in the content and use of friendship support networks of single fathers and mothers. A third social relationship which may serve as a source of support for the single parent is the former mate. Two researchers indicate that noncustodial fathers, for example, may be very important conduits between their children and their kin group. In the poor urban Black community that Stack (1974) studied, the mere acknowledgement of paternity by a man paved the way for his kin to include a child in their support system. Anspach (1976) discovered that children of divorced mothers have more contact with their paternal kin if they also see their fathers frequently. Although Anspach suggested that these former in-laws rarely provide assistance 29 for single mothers, the degree to which they support their grandchildren, emotionally or financially, is open for investigation. According to Greenberg (1979), it is much more common for single mothers than for single fathers to report that they receive emotional or material help from their ex-spouse. While Greenberg does not describe the support these former mates may offer, Ahrons (1979a) found that an ex-spouse is often related to in one of three different ways. Some ex-spouses remain bitter enemies and avoid interaction with one another. However, a 'best friend' type of relationship occurs when an ex-spouse is treated as a friend, sought out for advice and/or is a co-parent. This differs from the most common way that ex-spouses interact with one another, which is as 'neither enemies nor friends,I according to Ahrons (1979a). In other words, Ahrons discovered that the majority of the relatively affluent divorced parents she studied see one another on a limited basis and their interactions focus on parenting. Nonetheless, sharing the demands and concerns of parenting is a rare benefit which many single parents say they would welcome (Weiss, 1979c). Contact with a former spouse may have a disruptive or unsettling effect on a single parent (O'Brien, 1980) which may, in turn, translate into tension in the single parent-child relationship (Hetherington et al., 1976). On the other hand, there is also some indication that supportive interactions with one's former spouse (especially regarding child rearing) may enable a divorced parent to be a more effective parent (Hetherington et al., 1976) or that relatively frequent visitation by 30 the noncustodial parent may result in increased satisfaction for custodial single fathers (Greif, 1985). While it is unclear how often former spouses may interact, we do know that contact among noncustodial parents and their children is often high at the onset of the parents' separation, that visits commonly become less frequent as time passes (Hetherington et al., 1976; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980), and that ex—spouses' interaction levels parallel the parent—child's initially high quantity and precipitous decline (Hetherington et al., 1976). A final source of support for single parents comes from single parent organizations. The majority of the single fathers and mothers in Luepnitz's (1982) study and most of the single fathers in Gasser and Taylor's (1976) sample became involved in single-parent groups as did half of the above average income fathers interviewed by Orthner et al. (1976), many of whom reported that the groups were helpful environmentallol. Weiss' (1973a) year long observations of 3 Parents Without Partners chapter led him to conclude that this organization was responsive to four basic needs of single parents. The group provided a sense of community for these adults and combated social isolation (of. Hendes, 1976b). Parents Without Partners was also an arena in which single parents were able to cultivate new friendship and support networks. Third, the organization's activities gave members a chance to build self-esteem, and finally, members of Parents Without Partners dated one another fairly often, which helped fill an emotional void in some of their lives. Aside from suggesting which of these social relations appear to 31 be the most salient for single parents, few studies describe how the full constellation of single parents' networks function or discuss parents' motivations for developing various support systems. Hendes (1979) did provide a typology of five unique management styles of single parents and suggested the situations within which a single parent may seek support of either friends, relatives or his/her ex-spouse. For example, Hendes (1979) argued that there are I'sole executive' single parents. These individuals feel solely responsible for their family, but may also decide to allocate some family tasks to other persons, such as friends, relatives or institutions (e.g., day care centers or churches). “Auxiliary parents' share parenting, usually with a former spouse. Those who share parenting with non-family members (e.g., a boyfriend) manage within the "unrelated substitute“ style. Relatives are highly relied upon by a fourth subset of single parents. A fifth group, the titular parents, are relatively isolated and have generally abandoned their parental responsibilities. However, Hendes’ (1979) failed to explain why single parents choose (if indeed they consciously do) one management style over another. HcLanahan et a1. (1981) is the most noteworthy study of single parents' support systems. They discovered three unique support networks utilized by their sample of 45 white, divorced single-mothers, and explored the parents’ motivations for creating these systems. Single parents' personal goals are catalysts for support system development. Those mothers who want to alter substantially their pre-divorce identity create an extended network 32 composed of many new female friends who provide direct services (e.g., baby sitting), emotional support, and new role models. On the other hand, those who want to keep their pre-divorce identity (whom HcLanahan et al. call '3tabilizers') form either a family of origin, or a conjugal network. Family of origin networks, consisting of parents and relatives who provide direct aid and emotional support, somewhat isolate single parents from other contacts and are not able to meet fully single mothers' needs for intimacy. 'Conjugal networks,‘ in contrast, have a boyfriend at the hub of the system. Intimacy is a major benefit of this particular network type, along with emotional support and direct services. Hothers who develop an extended network tend to be more educated (as college graduates) and affluent (with a median $20,000 income in the late 19703) than are 'stabilizers,‘ who are largely high school graduates (with a median income of $8,000 in late 19703). Of course, the life span of support systems (e.g., transitional or long term) may vary. Because single-parent families apparently negotiate an initial period of crisis (Sprey, 1969), some of their support systems may be developed for only a limited, albeit critical time. Or perhaps new personal or familial goals may spark periodic renovation of support systems (HcLanahan et al., 1981), including the sharing of a residence with another adult (see Smith, 1980; Slesinger, 1980). Role Analyses The majority of micro-level studies of single parents implicitly or explicitly employ role theory. Huch of this research 33 examines single parents' perceptions of their abilities to accomplish the various duties (e.g., homemaking) of single parenthood. Roles mentioned most frequently in the literature encompass the activities of financial management, domestic tasks, decision-making, child- rearing, and paid employment. The findings relevant to each of these themes are discussed below. Financial Hanagement As noted earlier, single parents are often in a financially precarious position. The greater financial distress of single-parent versus two-parent families has been noted from time to time in the micr0‘level literature (e.g., Schlesinger, 1978a; 1979; Brandwein et al., 1974). However, few studies have investigated how stressed finances affect single parents’ ability to perform their various activities or roles, nor have many analyses examined how single mothers and fathers respond to their financial responsibilities. Spanier and Casto’s (1979) study of separated men and women (which included nonparents) clearly suggested that gender distinctions are critical. They found that separated men and women differed dramatically with respect to economic well-being. In fact, Spanier and Casto found that economics colored many women's entire existence during separation. Unfortunately, these authors provided no qualitative elaboration or further description of these dissimilarities among women and men. Luepnitz (1982) found that money was the greatest source of stress for single mothers and the third greatest source of stress for single fathers. Yet, she discovered that single fathers, regardless 34 of educational level, worried less about money than they did when they were married. The opposite was true for single mothers. Stress rose for these mothers due to unreliable child support payments, changing work demands, the need to move, the unfamiliar task of managing a household budget, and difficulty in obtaining credit. Studies of other western societies, such as Britain, Canada and Australia, indicate that single fathers often suffer a drop in income with the loss of their spouse, and have difficulty managing to survive on their earnings or government benefits (Schlesinger, 1978a). One U.S. survey found that coordinating finances is difficult for single fathers; money was often tight according to the single fathers in Gersick's (1979) sample. Interestingly, though, in Gersick's study, the custodial fathers were described as being of a higher social class, and older and more "established'' than the noncustodial fathers. Also, because men fare much better financially following divorce than do women, one might speculate that these men were far better off than most single mothers. The 'tight money' experience of these men may have reflected their lack of expertise with managing a budget and household finances, which has been mentioned by other single fathers (Hendes, 1976b; Schlesinger 1978a). Stack (1974) discovered that impoverished, Black single-mothers dealt with their oppressive economic conditions by developing a support system cemented by I'3wapping," or the exchange of services, aid, and material goods. Friends and relatives were the members of this survival mechanism in the community Stack researched. However, poverty was chronic among the families Stack studied, and systems of 35 exchange and swapping may occur less often among persons who have a lifestyle above a subsistence level. In 1974, Brandwein et 31. called for studies sensitive to the special problems of single mothers as economic providers. They urged social scientists to uncover the psychological impact of downward mobility and tap single mothers' reactions to their economic conditions. As noted earlier, Bould (1977) focused on the deleterious psychosocial consequences of single mothers’ poverty and found that both the amount and source of women's incomes was related to their feelings of control over their personal fate. Women who were poorer and those with funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children were less likely to feel as if they could plan their lives or control their experiences. Domestic Activities Perhaps because researchers have assumed that housework is a customary job for women, most studies of single parents’ domestic activities have been studies of fathers (e.g., see Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Hipgrave, 1982; Keshet and Rosenthal, 1978; Hendes, 1976b; Orthner et al., 1976; Risman, 1986; Schlesinger, 1978a; Smith and Smith, 1981). Unfortunately, most of these probes into single fathers’ homemaking have been framed simplistically and have yielded limited information. For example, we know that some fathers consider management of domestic activities to be stressful (Hendes, 1976b) while others have found that fathers appear basically comfortable with the demands of housework (Luepnitz, 1982; Greif, 1985). Contextual clues about what might cause these divergent responses are 36 missing from these reports. The bits and pieces of insight into mothers' domestic activities have proven more fruitful. It appears that in the first year following separation, single-mothers’ families are somewhat less organized in their domestic activities than are two-parent families (Hetherington et al., 1976) and are characterized by less regularity of events such as meals, less structure for allocating responsibilities, and more difficulty in accomplishing regular tasks (Hetherington et al., 1976). Housework routines, somewhat unlike those of two-parent households, eventually do emerge. For example, children apparently provide more aid to their mother in single-parent compared with dual-parent households (Colletta, 1979a; Luepnitz, 1982; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). Single fathers also report that children are regular helpers (Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Luepnitz, 1982; Schlesinger, 1978a; Smith and Smith, 1981; Orthner et al., 1976; Weiss, 1979c). In fact, Greif (1985) reported that single fathers rely more on children than do single mothers. Aid from nonhousehold members is rare, even for middle to upper income single fathers (Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Greif, 1985; Keshet and Rosenthal, 1978; Orthner et al., 1976; Risman, 1986). Housework is no doubt a qualitatively different undertaking in single-parent homes in comparison with dual-parent homes. Weiss (1979c) suggested, for example, that the meaning of homemaking changes for the mother after the loss of her spouse. What was once done as a display of love for a mate, such as cooking special dinners, may become less rewarding when only one adult remains at 37 home. As a result, less effort and creativity may be applied to housework. Of course, less effort may also be applied because of reduced time and energy. Luepnitz (1982) extended the concept of housework to include overall maintenance of a home and found that women became more involved in household maintenance after they became single parents. Intriguingly, over one-half of the single mothers in her study derived a sense of accomplishment from these new duties. Feelings of greater independence and higher esteem appeared to be a by-product of these activities for single mothers. In contrast, the single fathers in Luepnitz's (1982) study spoke casually and rather disinterestedly about domestic activities; few felt they had to acquire new domestic skills after they became single parents. Even though we know that children in single-parent homes do more housework and parents may feel less motivated to do housework, other major questions, which Brandwein et a1. raised in 1974, remain unanswered. For example, how often do single parents take short cuts or drop tasks from their agenda as did some of Weiss' (1979c) respondents? How flexible are single parents' routines to special needs and demands (cf. Glasser and Navarre, 1965)? How much do they miss the lost household labor of their former spouse? In what ways do they sense and deal with the degree to which they are 'time poor' due to their nonmarket housework demands (cf. Vickery, 1978; Brown, 1982)? Which activities do single parents juggle to distribute their time satisfactorily? These and numerous other questions await further inquiry. 38 Decision-flaking: Acting as an Authority For years, social scientists and policy makers have been concerned with single mothers' ability to be authority figures for their families. In 1965, Glasser and Navarre argued that children of single parents would grow up with distorted views of power and authority because they would associate familial power with only one gender. Brandwein et al. wondered in 1974 if women garner less training than men for their authority positions in single-parent homes. They saw this lack of preparation as especially problematic because they believed that women are taken less seriously by their communities and thus must overcome numerous threats to their legitimacy as family leaders. Thus Brandwein et al. wanted to know how successfully single parents negotiate the demands of being head of household both in and outside their homes. However, Weiss (1979c) argued that being an only adult at home, whether male or female, makes it difficult to act authoritatively. Reports have suggested that some single fathers feel troubled by disciplinary decision-making (Schlesinger, 1978a). Single parents commonly mention experiencing stress from having to make decisions without the aid of another adult (Kopf, 1976; Orthner et al., 1976; cf. Schorr and Hoen, 1979) and often feel rather ambivalent about the costs and benefits of this independence (Greenberg, 1979). Of course, some single parents do manage to share decision-making responsibilities either with their ex-spouse or with a reliable aide such as a grandparent (Ahrons, 1979a; Hendes, 1979). Weiss (1979b) believed that the membership structure of the single parent home 39 allows children to have a greater role in household leadership. He found that single parents often rely on offspring to shoulder some adult responsibilities. There are some indications of major differences regarding the discipline of male and female single parents and of custodial and noncustodial single parents. For example, Smith and Smith (1981), Luepnitz (1982), and Orthner et al. (1976) found that fathers believe they grew less disciplinary when they became single parents. Hetherington et al. (1976) found that single mothers with custody are more restrictive and authoritarian than are fathers without custody. The mothers in Luepnitz’s (1982) study said they became more strict with their children after they became single parents, especially due to changes in their time and energy levels. This difference highlights the complaint of many custodial single parents about noncustodial parents. Their concern is that 'visiting parents' present a positive yet unrealistic authority figure to children because noncustodial parents do not need to enforce rules or be disciplinarians during visits (Spanier and Casto, 1979). However, these differences may lessen over time. Hetherington et al. (1976) discovered that the visiting fathers in their sample gradually grew more restrictive with their children. Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) found that in the early months of single parenting, separated mothers with custody feared that their children would reject them if they tried to enforce much discipline. However, this concern lessened after the first year and one-half of single parenting. Interview and observational studies have revealed that both 40 noncustodial and custodial fathers are more successful than single mothers at gaining their children's compliance (Hetherington et al., 1976; Ambert, 1982). Ambert (1982) discovered that children speak more appreciatively of their custodial fathers than do children of single mothers. Unfortunately, many of these findings are difficult to interpret because social class or income of the single parents were not carefully examined (e.g., Hetherington et al., 1976; Ambert, 1982)(ll]. The problems of poor controls on important dimensions such as income also crop up in research that compares groups of single mothers. For example, although Colletta (1979a) initially discovered that single mothers use more physical punishment and expect quicker compliance from their children than do married mothers, her later study, which controlled for income, found that moderate-income single mothers have parenting styles similar to moderate-income married mothers. In contrast, low-income single mothers are the more restrictive and demanding parents (Colletta, 1979b). Raising Children: Emotional and Physical Care Researchers of the pathological perspective have voiced doubts about single parents' ability to provide adequate emotional nurturance for their children. In 1965, Glasser and Navarre argued that children from single-parent households are likely to be emotionally crippled because they learn to associate love with only one gender and they may feel less able to express themselves in these smaller households for fear of alienating others. While these claims are not substantiated, other concerns have arisen. For example, great emotional stress for girls and boys can stem from children's 41 relationship with the noncustodial parent. Ahrons (1980a), Leckband (1981) and Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) asserted that greater emotional problems appear in children who infrequently visit their absent parent. It seems that the best way for a divorced single parent.to facilitate the emotional adjustment of his or her children is to develOp a supportive and cooperative co-parental relationship. Single fathers have voiced concerns about their ability to meet children's emotional needs. Some doubt their patience with children (Orthner et al., 1976) and wish they could be more emotionally involved with their sons and daughters (Hipgrave, 1982). Yet, the findings of Greif (1985), Smith and Smith (1981), and Risman (1986) suggest that such doubt is not commonplace among single fathers. Some single fathers' uncertainty about the quality of their emotional relationship with their children may stem from their lack of preparation for single parenting and lack of original desire to become a single parent (Hendes, 1976a) and may be reflected in their frequent reliance on others for help in these matters (Keshet and Rosenthal, 1978). One upbeat finding regarding the emotional care of single parent children is that after they become single parents, custodial parents often feel they grow emotionally closer to their children (Greif, 1985; Leckband, 1981; Weiss, 1979c; Smith and Smith, 1981; Keshet and Rosenthal, 1978). hendes (1976a) argues that fathers who actively sought to become single parents in the first place are most likely to feel this way (see also Risman, 1986). Even though single parents operate under great constraints on their time (Schorr and 42 Hoen, 1979), the lack of a second parent in the household may allow for more parent-child interactions and facilitate children's emotional expression (cf. Weiss, 1979c). Hissing from the literature is a clear sense of single mothers' and single fathers' quality of care, common parenting techniques, and descriptions of parents' communication and disclosure with their children. Studies of arrangements for the physical supervision of single parent children describe the types of regular and occasional child care services use by single parents. According to Orthner et al. (1976), Kammerman (1980), and Turner and Smith (1983), single parents rely mostly on out-of-home care for their preschoolers, particularly day care centers (Hendes, 1976b; Turner and Smith, 1983). Although information is sparse, it seems that elementary school-age children of single parents often go unsupervised when not at school (Greif, 1985; Turner and Smith, 1983; Orthner et al., 1976; hendes, 1976b)[12]. However, which child care services single parents would prefer may be a different matter. The choices of single parents are often severely constrained by their limited incomes and the costs and availability of care takers (Schlesinger, 1978a; 1979). It would be useful to know why single parents make these child care decisions and how satisfied they are with them. Single parents also require occasional or irregular child care. Some studies suggest that relatives are an especially important resource for child care during the early transition to single parenthood (Orthner et al., 1976) but we can not say how often relatives are used in the more stable periods of single parents' 43 lives. hendes (1976) suggests that the type of persons a single parent relies on for occasional child care depends upon the single parent's management style. Some seek little aid from other persons while others may share parenting with friends, siblings, uncles, or visiting fathers. An ex-spouse's participation in physical child care seems related to the quality of his or her relationship with the custodial parent (Ahrons, 1979a). Paid Employment Host single parents in the United States work to support their families, and yet we know little about this fundamental component of their daily lives. Few studies have garnered more than impressionistic data. Evidence we do have suggests that there are important differences in men’s and women's interpretations of how single parenting influences them as employees. A few studies indicate that single fathering is accompanied by a re-evaluation of work and family priorities and the decision to make career and job demands secondary to family needs (e.g., Gersick, 1979). How these new values might transform fathers' behavior is uncertain. Hiddle to upper income fathers acknowledge that single parenting means fewer hours at work (Luepnitz, 1982), fewer chances for job mobility, fewer transfers, and diminished earnings (Keshet and Rosenthal, 1978), although the extent to which these changes are self-imposed or ordained by employers is not clear. Greif (1985) found that fathers reduce work-related travel, are more likely to miss work, and cut more of their work days short after they become single parents. However, another group of economically advantaged 44 fathers did not feel that single parenthood had any impact on their work (Orthner et al., 1976). Hothers, of course, usually face the labor market and work experiences from an entirely different structural position than men. Their lives are not filled with decisions about overtime or transfers. Single mothers are faced with such constraints as inflexible work hours, few chances for part-time employment with sufficient wages (Schorr and hoen, 1979), changes in jobs, and transformation from part-time to full-time work (Luepnitz, 1982). Host single mothers report much difficulty in managing work and family responsibilities (Greif, 1985). Pleck et al. (1980), in fact, discovered that incompatible job schedules and family schedules is the most common work-related conflict of single mothers. What we still do not know, however, is how single mothers handle the competing responsibilities of parenting and work. Based on interviews with single mothers, Kammerman (1980) argued that these women make their parenting conform to the needs of the work world. However, Kammerman's interpretation seems a bit shortsighted, for it ignores the ways in which single parents can violate their employers' rules or challenge employers' expectations for workers. For example, Kammerman’s survey disclosed that single parents often, in violation of employers' rules, use their own sick days to care for their children. Single parents may use other informal or formal techniques to make their work lives complement their children's needs. Job choice, scheduling patterns, work location, and use of vacation time are all options about which married women have made decisions meant 45 to complement family commitments (Barrett, 1979). How single mothers and single fathers may make such decisions deserves our attention. Assessment of the Literature Macro-level research on single parents lays a solid foundation for understanding the social historical trends, material circumstances, and growth of this family form. Rampant poverty and poor labor market opportunities are only part of the dismal economic and social situations of many single parents. Micro-level images of single parents' social networks and patterns of daily family life are much less clear, in part because few questions have been well conceptualized or systematically addressed. Conclusions often fail to be supported by the data. I will now outline numerous methodological and conceptual limitations of this micro-level research. Hethodological Shortcomings 1. It is presently very difficult to locate a given population of single parents in the United States. Divorced persons move frequently, and addresses quickly become dated. Thus, representative sampling is a nearly impossible task. Snowball sampling or convenience sampling abounds in micro-level research on single parents. This would not be a concern if articles would assess the impact of such biases on their findings, particularly with respect to how samples compare with the general population of single parents. However, this is rarely done. Examples of studies which rely on nonrepresentative samples include Ahrons (1979a), Ambert (1982), 46 Anspach (1976), Colletta (1979a, 1979b), Defrain and Eirick (1981), Gasser and Taylor (1976), Greenberg (1979), Hipgrave (1982), Leckband (1981), Luepnitz (1982), thanahan et al. (1981), Hendes (1976a, 1976b), O'Brien (1980; 1982), Orthner et al. (1976), Risman (1986), Rosenthal and Keshet (1981), Smith and Smith (1981), Turner and Smith (1983), Wallerstein and Kelly (1980), and Weiss (1973a, 1973b, 1979c). 2. The next common methodological shortcoming of this research is the lack of adequate or sometimes total absence of contrast or comparison groups within a study (e.g., Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). Single parents are rarely compared with married parents (Ambert, 1982 calls for this) and single mothers are infrequently compared with single fathers. This practice would not be as problematic if researchers would clearly justify their sampling of only one gender or family type. If, for example, the parent's gender is thought to be very important, it should be directly analyzed through comparisons of men and women and not implicitly explored through samples of only one gender. Especially troublesome are single-gender studies that assert similarities or differences between women and men (e.g., Gersick, 1979; Risman, 1986; Smith and Smith, 1981). Projects containing groups which could be compared (e.g., women and men) but whose results fail to do so clearly or systematically are also unfortunate (e.g., Leckband, 1981; Weiss, 1979c). 3. The third substantial problem is the tendency to overlook important social factors in the lives of single parents. Researchers rarely control for length of time one has been a single parent (e.g., 47 Ambert, 1982; Leckband, 1981), employment status of the single parent (Colletta, 1979a), presence of other adults in the household (e.g., Keshet and Rosenthal, 1978; George and Wilding , 1972; Rosenthal and Keshet, 1981), children's age (thanahan et al., 1981; Leckband, 1981; Luepnitz, 1982), social class (e.g., Anspach, 1976; Colletta, 1979a; Ferri and Robinson, 1976; Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Hendes, 1976b; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980) and race (e.g., Anspach, 1976). Ethnicity is constantly ignored. When controls are instituted, imprecise operationalizations still flaw many studies. For example, Ambert's (1982) attempt to compare single-parent fathers and mothers of high socioeconomic status is marred by the fact that average incomes of men and women were highly divergent within her upper-income group. As a result, we lack a socially situated appreciation of single parents' diverse circumstances as urban and rural dwellers, members of closely-knit enclaves or isolated, indifferent communities, or participants in varied ethnic life styles and networks. These serious omissions prevent us from understanding the rich variety that exists among single parents. Without a socially situated understanding of single parents, we cannot account for the many, seemingly contradictory findings in this literature. We should not search for or expect to find one typical, unitary pattern of behavior or perceptions among single parents, thus we need to examine the circumstances that give rise to diversity among single fathers and mothers in order to heighten the reliability and validity of our observations. 48 Conceptual Weaknesses 1. Loosely defined or undefined concepts are common in this literature. For example, a common theme is the “adjustment“ of the single parent to single parenting. However, it is practically impossible to find a description of what adjustment is or how one might validly measure it (see Hendes, 1976a; Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Orthner et al., 1976; Spanier and Casto, 1979). Similar questions may be asked about the use of such concepts as “coping“ (Defrain and Eirick, 1981; Luepnitz, 1982), “single parent role“ or “lifestyle“ (DeFrain and Eirick, 1981; Spanier and Casto, 1979; Hendes, 1976a), “mother-child functioning“ or “parent effectiveness“ (Hetherington et al., 1976), “social life“ (Orthner et al., 1976), “family harmony“ (O'Brien, 1980), “task involvement“ (Gasser and Taylor, 1976), “role strain“ (Smith and Smith, 1981), “support“ or “support systems“ (Hetherington et al., 1976; Anspach, 1976), and “work involvement“ (Orthner et al., 1976). Perhaps most frustrating is the failure to define social class or offer explanations of its relevance. 2. Concern with transitions and changes in the lives of single parents has led to a virtual neglect of single-parent families as stable, nontransitory units. Pew investigations inquire about parents’ current behavior without juxtaposing it with their patterns of marital behavior (e.g., Gasser and Taylor, 1976; George and Wilding, 1972; Perri and Robinson, 1976; Defrain and Eirick, 1981; Smith and Smith, 1981; Orthner et al., 1976). While longitudinal research could best uncover information on the transitions of single parents, such studies are uncommon (exceptions include Wallerstein 49 and Kelly, 1980; Smith, 1980). 3. Single parents are often portrayed as a rather homogeneous group and many articles tend to distract readers from variations among single parents. Often this is done by reporting only frequency distributions of answers to questions, such as “Have your ways of disciplining your children changed since the divorce?“ (DeFrain and Eirick, 1981: 271). A rather flat image of single parents' behavior is created by analyses which contrast single parents along only one characteristic (e.g., gender of parent, marital status) with respect to a number of isolated behaviors (e.g., discipline practices, frequency of dating) and fail to suggest any underlying patterns or holistic sense of single parents' responses. As a result, many reports conclude that “some“ or “most“ single parents act in particular ways or agree with select statements (e.g., as in the above case, “the vast majority of parents had not changed discipline practices following divorce,“ DeFrain and Eirick, 1981: 271). Usually the number of respondents constituting “most“ or “some“ is not specified. This pattern of data analysis robs the reader of the opportunity to explore connections between response patterns and single parents' characteristics. There seems to be no clear rationale for reporting data in this restrictive manner. Similar problems exist in studies by Perri and Robinson (1976), Gasser and Taylor (1976), Greenberg (1979), Hetherington et al. (1976), Keshet and Rosenthal (1978), Leckband (1981), Luepnitz (1982), Hendes (1976b), Orthner et al. (1976), Rosenthal and Keshet (1981), Smith and Smith (1981), Wallerstein and Kelly (1980), and Weiss (1975, SO 1979a, 1979b, 19790). This method of reporting data is particularly frustrating when single parents’ multiple family responsibilities are discussed. For example, when homemaking, child care tasks, and decision-making are considered, they are usually described separately. Few researchers systematically explore interrelations among parents' reactions to their duties. For example, it seems likely that single parents' activities and goals as employees are shaped by homemaking and child care duties, yet those interdependencies are usually ignored. This impedes developing typologies of single parents' behaviors or reactions to their multifaceted lives (e.g., see Rosenthal and Keshet, 1981; Weiss, 1979c; Perri and Robinson, 1976; Luepnitz, 1982; Orthner et al., 1976; Gasser and Taylor, 1976). 4. Social support networks of single parents (such as friends, relatives and neighbors) are often vaguely portrayed as “safety nets“ for single parents. Numerous studies assert that single parents rely on these affiliations for child care, financial aid, emotional support and even help with housework (Weiss, 1979c; Ambert, 1982; Perri and Robinson, 1976; Orthner et al., 1976; Risman, 1986). However, we know little about how support is actually used, how patterns of support may be interrelated, which conditions may facilitate or impede the creation of these networks, or how support systems may vary by social class, ethnicity or race (for an important exception, see HcLanahan et al., 1981). 5. Single parents are usually thought of as sole parents and the role of absent parents in single-parent families is rarely 51 considered. Thus, a rather simplistic conceptualization of “parental absence“ permeates this literature (e.g., see Weiss, 1979c; Glasser and Navarre, 1965; Colletta, 1979a, 1979b; Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Risman, 1984). It implicitly equates divorce and separation with the severing of all practical ties between former spouses. However, noncustodial parents vary in the amount and kind of contact they have with their children and ex-spouses (Rosenfeld and Rosenstein, 1973). Connections between ex-spouses may merely dwindle or take on new directions, rather than break off (e.g., see Holley and Rankin, 1979). There are only occasional reminders that divorced parents may engage in forms of coparenting (see Ahrons, 1979a, 19803; Greif, 1985; Luepnitz, 1982; Schlesinger, 1979). Although ex-spouses are sometimes recognized as direct or indirect sources of support or conflict in single-parent households (e.g., see Anspach, 1976; Ambert, 1982; Keshet, 1980; Gersick, 1980; Greenberg, 1979; Hetherington et al., 1976; Hendes, 1979; Leckband, 1981; O'Brien, 1980, 1982; Weiss, 1979c) the effects of their support are rarely illuminated. Fortunately, Ahrons's (1979a) conceptualizations of the binuclear family and patterns of coparenting have helped initiate more complex portraits of single parents' familial relationships (of. Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). However, these typologies will remain limited unless we gain further insight into how and why these forms of coparenting develop and how they influence single parents' reactions to their responsibilities. These methodological and conceptual weaknesses should not direct our attention completely away from previous research, for 52 there is still much to learn from this literature. The most fruitful way we can build upon present knowledge and devise more sophisticated methodological and conceptual frameworks is to appreciate the dominant thrusts of existing perspectives in the literature which attempt to explain the causes of diversity among single parents and between single-parent households and nuclear families. Perspectives in the Literature Research on single parents contains numerous interpretations of what shapes these parents' experiences and creates differences either among single parents or between single-parent and two-parent households. Host believe that variety among single parents stems from either the parent's gender, social class, marital status, motivation for becoming a single parent, or length of time as a single parent. Other researchers frequently argue that the differences between single-parent and married-couple family structures lead to divergent behavior patterns within each of these family forms. While some authors have argued that a combination of these factors mold single parents' lives, I touch upon each separately, in order to lend clarity to each argument. To begin with, gender socialization and a system of stratification based in part on gender are believed to create numerous circumstances whereby women and men behave differently as single parents. One explanation for this difference is that women and men are prepared differently for the responsibilities they assume as single parents. For example, Brandwein et al. (1974) wondered if women are less prepared to be authority figures in the family. Smith 53 and Smith (1981) asserted that the child rearing problems experienced by the single fathers in their sample arose because fathers lack preparation for single fatherhood and are confronted with nebulous, changing role expectations for men (of. Hendes, 1976b; Weiss, 1979c). The importance of gender also arises in discussions of single parents' social networks and social supports. For instance, Spicer and Hampe (1975) found that single mothers have much more contact with their kin than do single fathers, thus they also possess more potential sources of aid. Greenberg (1979) discovered that single mothers have more extensive networks of friends than do males, and receive help more often from their ex-spouses. Two other factors also point to the significance of gender differences among single parents. To begin with, single fathers and mothers reportedly receive unequal social pressures and dissimilar acknowledgement for their actions. As Ambert (1982) noted, single fathers are more likely to say that their co-workers, neighbors, and children's teachers admire them and that their friends are supportive of them. Brandwein et a1. (1974) argued that divorced mothers are heavily scrutinized by society and that these women are often seen as the sources of their own problems. Greenberg (1979) recognized that single fathers seem to have greater freedom with regard to dating and sexuality than do single mothers. Finally, male and female single parents usually have greatly disparate economic resources at their disposal (Schlesinger, 1979; Brandwein et al., 1974) which can adversely color women's entire existence (Spanier and Casto, 1979). The above findings, in combination, present persuasive evidence that 54 single fathers experience single parenting differently than do single mothers. A second theme which emerges in this literature is the belief that social class creates important differencesamong single parents. Single parents and married parents are often seen as similar, as are single fathers and single mothers, given the same income, educational, and/or occupational characteristicsllBJ. Those single parents who are impoverished are believed to experience the problems and stresses common to all poor families (Bilge and Kaufman, 1983). Researchers who espouse this perspective argue that we really know very little about single parenting because these fathers and mothers rarely have been compared with properly matched couples of the same socioeconomic background. The two studies that most directly support this thesis were designed by Ambert (1982), who was unable to study matched samples, but found that higher income was related to better overall family situations (including e.g., health, satisfaction) for single mothers, and Colletta (1979b), who found that social class was related to differing child rearing practices of single mothers. A third trend in this literature asserts that differences among single parents reflect the pathways individuals took into single parenthood. This viewpoint assumes that, for example, widowed single parents have qualitatively different experiences from divorced or separated single parents (Greif, 1985; Rosenfeld and Rosenstein, 1973; Schorr and Hoen, 1979; Weiss, 1979c). Some also postulate that motivations for becoming a single parent are significant. For 55 example, Hendes (1976a) found that some divorcing fathers aggressively seek to become single parents, often against the wishes of their wives, while others are more conciliatory and negotiate the arrangement with their spouse. Widowers, in contrast, do not seek to become single parents but assent to the situation, as do some men who are deserted by their wives. Hendes argued that whether a father chooses single parenthood or not and how actively he chooses it influences parent-child relationships and the father's satisfaction with and perception of single parenting (cf. Gasser and Taylor, 1976). Risman (1986) found that single fathers were more satisfied with parent-child relations if they fought for and obtained custody of their children. A fourth explanation for variation among single parents is the belief that an adult's behavior modifies according to the length of time one has been a single parent. Hetherington et al. (1976) discovered that mothers and fathers have early experiences with single parenting that are markedly different from later ones. For example, mothers' contact with the noncustodial father, although originally quite frequent, declines steadily with time. During the early, transitional period, single mothers may feel quite isolated and social contacts and new friendship networks may build only slowly. Conflicts between ex-spouses may be particularly high early in single parenting; one year following divorce was apparently the most stressful period for Hetherington et al.'s (1976) sample and was a time when parent-child relations were very strained. Indications are that one to two years following divorce, the single parent's 56 situation greatly improves (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Weiss 1979c). Additionally, several other factors are believed to create variety among single parents. Calls have been made for greater attention to such factors as rage (e.g., Schorr and Hoen, 1979; Weiss, 1979c), age and gender of children (e.g., Schlesinger, 1978a; Ambert, 1982), number of children at home (Colletta, 1979a), and employment status of the single parent (e.g., Colletta, 1979a). Those who concentrate on understanding differences between single parents and married parents usually assert that single-parent families are unique in comparison with two-parent families because of their one-parent family structure. Three differences commonly surface. To begin with, single parents seem to frequently feel socially isolated (see Weiss, 1973a; Hetherington et al., 1976; Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980). They know fewer of their neighbors and participate in community affairs less than do married parents (Smith, 1980). Feelings of being socially rejected or ostracized are not uncommon and no doubt exacerbate this isolation (see Smith and Smith, 1981; Gasser and Taylor, 1976). Second, because they are the only parent in a household, single mothers and fathers are thought not to have reliable, accessible adult aides; as a result, they experience numerous time pressures and role overload (Gasser and Taylor, 1976; Glasser and Navarre, 1965; Weiss, 1979c; Smith and Smith, 1981; Kammerman, 1980; Spanier and Casto, 1979; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980)[14]. Finally, single parents generally engage in more egalitarian 57 relations with their children than do married-couple parents (see Weiss, 1979c; Glasser and Navarre, 1965; Keshet, 1980; Colletta, 1979a). Of course, this perspective does not recognize that some single parents do share housing with other adults (Smith, 1980; Rosenthal and Keshet, 1981; Slesinger, 1980) or that ex-spouses may be involved in coparenting. In sum, parents' gender, social class, marital status, and tenure at parenting are seen in the literature as the most crucial factors shaping variations among single parents, while family structure is seen as the root of the different life styles of single-parent and two-parent families. Huch less frequently mentioned and researched are the relevance of age, gender, and number of children, race, and employment status of the parent for differences among single parents. We have not determined the relative importance of each of these factors for parents' behavior and reactions to single parenting and the combined effect of these factors has yet to be examined even initially. Poci of This Study As noted in Chapter I, this study was not designed to test hypotheses emerging from the research literature. However, I did use this body of research on “micro“ themes as a catalyst for ideas. Hajor facets of single parents' work and family lives that I originally decided to examine (e.g., responsibilities of parenting, decision-making, financial management) were clearly brought to my attention through this literature review. The one definite conclusion I could make based on my summary 58 and assessment of this literature is that single parents do not respond uniformly to their work and family responsibilities. However, I could not comfortably hypothesize about which factors seemed to cause the divergent responses or why these characteristics played significant roles in single parents' thoughts and behaviors. Hy research assessment helped me to develop an informed guess about which variables most influence single parents' reactions to their work and family responsibilities. To begin with, it seemed to me that we need a more careful investigation of the effects of gender. Too often studies have made assumptions about single mothers and single fathers without collecting comparable data. From analyses of married couples we know that for reasons of both socialization and social structure, men and women experience family life in different ways. For example, social scientists have distinguished the “two marriages“ that Jessie Bernard (1972) calls “his“ and “hers.“ Discussions about the division of labor in families are usually framed within a gendered context (e.g., see Vanek, 1974; Hood, 1983) as are analyses of conjugal decision-making and authority in couples (e.g., Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Scanzoni, 1982), studies of the legal bases and ramifications of marriage (e.g., Weitzman, 1981), investigations into communication among intimates (e.g., Fishman, 1978), and examinations of family violence and abuse (e.g., see Breines and Gordon, 1983; Russell, 1982). In sum, there is a strong tradition of research and theory which asserts that women's and men's experiences in families are frequently dissimilar. Thus, it seemed reasonable to assume that gender plays a large role in how single 59 parents organize their work and family lives, even though the literature on single parents provides only scattered insights into‘ the importance of gender. As a consequence, I designed this study to explore if and how single mothers and single fathersexperience their daily work and family activities differently. Hy literature assessment also indicated that a second major factor, family structure, seemed to shape parents' responses to their daily activities. Family structure is a concept that incorporates patterns of family composition (e.g., number of adult family members), decision-making, and familial division of labor. Host studies have found that father and mothers recognize vast differences in their married experiences in comparison with their experiences as singles (e.g., Greenberg, 1979; Weiss, 1979c). The importance of family structure for single parents may seem obvious, yet a number of studies have also asserted that no substantive differences exist between married and single parents (e.g., Luepnitz, 1982). While many researchers seem fairly certain that parents' lives change when they divorce or are widowed, to date they have failed to conceptualize “family structure“ in more than a very elementary fashion. That is, the literature has contrasted two-parent experiences with single-parent experiences as if they represented two homogeneous family groupings. In contrast, I thought it best to remain sensitive to differences between married and single parents and differences among married parents and among single parents in order to provide a more complex portrait of family structure and further delineate its possible effects. This means that, among other things, the 60 post-divorce involvement of noncustodial parents has to be taken into account when assessing the family structure of single parents. Thus the focus of this study is on the effects of gender and family structure on the work and family experiences of single parents. Before I describe the study further, however, let me clarify what I mean by “gender.“ Gender has been conceptualized in numerous ways (see Thorne, 1978). Some focus on gender as a personal trait or characteristic that shapes individuals' behavior and self-concepts. This creates the impression that gender has a relatively static, yet encompassing, effect on individuals. Second, and most common among sociologists, gender has been perceived as a role. Role theorists believe that gender is a status with a corresponding set of expectations for appropriate behavior. Thus gender is one role among many that human beings play. For example, women's gender role is sometimes described as encompassing behavior such as nurturance, emotionality, and sensitivity. Third, gender may be understood as a part of one's self that is shaped through social action and interaction. Instead of being a static component of self that one brings to interaction or a role one plays, gender may be thought of as a malleable part of one's self-concept that develops and changes over time and in different social contexts. Finally, gender may be thought of as a social categorytlSJ that is used to place persons in various institutions or situations (e.g., in stratification systems, labor forces, or familial divisions of labor). In this sense, gender is a part of the social structure whose relevance is manipulated by those with the 61 power to do so. These formulations lead to strikingly different interpretations of gender's effect on adults' behavior and self-concepts. Those who argue that gender is a personal trait would assume there are overwhelming parallels in the behavior or self-concepts of females, regardless of the kinds of families in which they live. Role theorists could expect married mothers to behave differently than single mothers since in single-parent homes the complementary adult gender role is absent from family dynamics. Those who argue that one's gender is reformulated through daily interactions might anticipate that adults in nuclear families develop different perceptions of themselves and their behavior than do single parents in part because they have different daily responsibilities, kinds of interaction patterns, and because different cultural ideologies may be invoked. The fourth interpretation of gender reminds us that the larger social structure (which the other three interpretations tend to ignore) incorporates a differential allocation of positions and resources based on gender. I believe the third and fourth conceptualizations of gender are most useful for the study of single parents. To begin with, it is unhelpful to perceive of gender as a fixed trait because it is a part of one's self whose salience or meaning may vary in different situations or over the life course (Thorne, 1978). Thus, the relevance of gender for behavior is often in flux. If we considered gender a trait, we would remain insensitive to circumstances within which a single parent's gender is more or less germane to daily 62 life. Second, role theory is often criticized for its failure to adequately conceptualize the effects of gender on daily behavior (see Lopata and Thorne, 1978; Thorns, 1978) and to illuminate how and why power and inequality are gendered phenomena (Connell, 1983). Role theory also does not appreciate how gender molds expectations and evaluations of the performance of all roles, such as parent or sole provider (Thorne, 1978), which may be essential for understanding single parents. A role theorist assumes that the loss of one parent makes (or allows) a father or mother to play the role of the other parent. This is the assumption of researchers who ask questions such as “Can men mother?“ (e.g., see Risman, 1986; Luepnitz, 1982). Answers to such queries usually entail an enumeration of the behaviors of single fathers that are parallel to those of mothers. However, this is a rather simplistic approach to examining the effects of gender on parents. If men successfully diaper and clothe babies, it does not necessarily follow that they feel more androgynous or have even accepted this behavior as anything but a temporary aberration in their normal patterns. Nor does it imply that the meanings men attach to their activities or their behavior patterns are identical with mothering. How single parents interpret their behavior contains far more telling information about their self-concepts and daily lives. The fourth conceptualization is necessary, too, because it continually reminds us of the effects of gender on women's and men's placement in families and the labor force. Because I believe that gender is a part of one's self-concept and a part of social situations whose meaning is modified through 63 social interactions, I anticipate that single mothers and single fathers will acknowledge changes in their self-concepts and behavior in light of changes in their family structure (due to death of a spouse or divorce) and their different patterns of daily interaction. The following pages outline the original statement of the research problem developed in light of my summary and assessment of the literature. The next chapter also describes the transformation of the study problem; the initial research focus shifted during the course of my interviews to encompass better the concerns and responses of the single parents upon whose lives this study was based. CHAPTER III RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHOD Initial Statement of the Research Questions The initial question which this research project addressed is, ”What strategies do single parents develop for performing their daily paid work and family activities?‘ I thought of family activities as encompassing domestic work, child care, decision-making for the family, and household financial management. I wondered about the effects of paid work activities, particularly as they overlapped with or affected family life for single parents. For example, scheduling of work and the ability to contact children while at work might be significant. Critical additional questions held my interest, including what single parents' varied strategies were for finding outside help, why they followed the patterns they had developed, how satisfied they were with their patterns of daily management, and what they perceived to be the costs and benefits of their strategies. Hethod This study has both initial and revised research questions because it was designed to be a grounded theory investigation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) into the daily lives of single parents. This approach allows the researcher to develop a theory that emerges from the interests and concerns of the subjects of investigation. In 64 65 other words, the goal of this study was to develop inductively an understanding of varied ways single parents manage their daily activities. I also felt that our understanding of single parents could be greatly enhanced by more case studies. In contrast with the preponderance of closed-ended survey research on single parents, such in-depth interviews could help us probe single parents' perceptions, uncover the texture of single parents' days, further illuminate the meanings single parents give to their experiences, and provide more holistic, contextually rich portraits of single parents' daily lives. Accordingly, I used semi-structured questions to interview single parents and analyzed the data with a version of the constant comparative method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 1983) as explained in the data analysis section of this chapter. I began this study with the broad goal of discovering patterns in single parents' management of their daily lives. However, in keeping with the grounded theory approach, I sought to remain sensitive to unexpected themes or patterns in my data. I tried to incorporate into my developing framework unanticipated themes which could shed light on my research questions. It is not uncommon for grounded theory research to take on new directions during the data gathering and analysis. Hy data, the transcribed words of single parents with whom I spoke, persuaded me to revise my original study focus in order to grasp issues of major concern to those I interviewed. I will now describe my subjects and methods of study, and then outline the analytic focus that emerged in the course of my research. 66 Study Site This study was undertaken in the midwestern Standard Hetropolitan Statistical Area (SHSA) of Fargo, North Dakota - Hoorhead, Hinnesota, whose population was approximately 138,000 in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1982a). This area, although quite typical of the central United States, differs from the country as a whole in that it is predominantly white (98% of the population in 1980, U.S. Bureau of Census, 1983a) and the proportion of all family households with children that are headed by single parents is below that of the nation as a whole (14% versus 21% in 1980, U.S. Bureau of Census, 1981a, 1982a; see Figure 2). This difference, in part, may be traced to the small percentage of Blacks living in this SHSA and the lower than national average divorce rates of both Hinnesota and North Dakota (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1980a). Hy purpose was not to test hypotheses with representative samples of the population but to develop a detailed case study. Thus, although the proposed site is sociodemographically unlike the United States as a whole, this is not inherently problematic for the goals and purposes of this grounded theory investigation. Typologies and hypotheses developed from this project, of course, could be examined later with representative samples. One would expect that the findings of this project would be most applicable to other white single parents who reside in the central United States and who have characteristics similar to those of my sample. 67 .me— .8 rm mmHAHZm uozudz Amnm.mc 0mm? .Ummnuoozuooumm :fl mu:0mmm mam:fim AdBOB Ammmv AmmP.NV :muoaflno :30 :0H3 :muoafino :30 :ufi3 :ufl3 mu:wumm mam: :uH3 mucmmmm mamsmm Apmm.mpv :muoaflno :30 :ufl3 moamsoonomfluumz 44909 Aaeoa Adaoe _ _ A