1mm»wwwmnwnmn

 

321 301066 5036
1 Bi sue—a». A flingsg
L - - -..u- ‘a':
'.""”..'. 9 5:" ‘W‘,

L'4—uc‘u-Ae_ 'LFCWa Q‘Hl‘kf

‘b'v'

 

 

7 _O
. -901”. 1,
-' --- J W-Iwa't.

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

CHILDREN FROM INTACT AND DIVORCED FAMILIES:
PERCEPTIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR AND
LOCUS OF CONTROL

presented by

Rowena Heather Krakauer

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein PSyChOIOQy

 

Kiwi flak

Major professor

Ellen A. Strommen

Date 5/8/85

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

MSU

LIBRARIES

v

 

 

 

wag? ‘

  

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

CHILDREN FROM INTACT AND DIVORCED FAMILIES:
PERCEPTIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR

AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

BY

Rowena Heather Krakauer

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1985

Copyright by
ROWENA HEATHER KRAKAUER

1985

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN FROM INTACT AND DIVORCED FAMILIES:
PERCEPTIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR
AND LOCUS OF CONTROL

BY

Rowena Heather Krakauer

This study examined the effects of divorce on
later latency children from a nonclinical population.
Perceptions of parent behavior and locus of control were
assessed for 68 middle class children (34 boys and 34
girls) aged 9 to 12 years selected from 150 volunteer
families from a total solicited sample of about 1000
families. Forty children from intact families and 28
children from divorced families completed the Children's
Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) and the
Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale. Demographic
data were obtained from parents for each family. Families
which volunteered to participate constituted only 15
percent of those contacted. The representativeness of
these families must be questioned, a problem common to most
divorce studies working with volunteer families.

Results showed a general absence of differences
between children from divorced and intact families in their
perceptions of parent behavior and locus of control. There
were no significant differences between children from

divorced and intact families on the three factors of the

Rowena Heather Krakauer
CRPBI (Acceptance - Rejection, Psychological Control -
Psychological Autonomy, and Firm Control - Lax Control), 17
of 18 scales of the CRPBI, and the Nowicki-Strickland Locus
of Control scale. However, the Possessiveness scale of the
CRPBI indicated that children of divorce perceived both
their mothers and fathers as significantly more possessive
than did children from intact families.

Children saw their mothers as significantly more
psychologically controlling than their fathers. Within the
divorced sample, several indices suggest that children
viewed parents as more rejecting with increasing age.
Father's remarriage, the years since father's remarriage,
and custody arrangement were the divorce variables that
affected children's perceptions the most.

The results showed that parental divorce did not
impact strongly on children's perceptions of parents and
locus of control and suggest minimal adverse effects
of divorce, at least for children from the volunteer
nonclinical population studied. Cautions that must be
exercised in attempting to generalize the results from
this study, in common with previous work, are discussed.
Implications for future research and clinical interventions

are also discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank the members of my dissertation
committee: Dr. Ellen Strommen, Chairperson, Dr. Gilbert
DeRath, Dr. John Hurley, and Dr. John Hunter. I am
especially grateful to Dr. Strommen for assuming the
leadership of this committee; she provided me with support
and expert advice throughout my doctoral studies and
research.

A resounding thanks goes to Dr. Bruce Tabashnik for
his steadfast support and scientific contributions to every
phase of this project. Bruce's patience, enthusiasm, and
loving partnership inspired me as I conducted my
dissertation research.

I would like to thank Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson for her
fine teaching, support, and guidance. Dr. Ferguson greatly
influenced my development as a family therapist and
researcher.

A number of people facilitated the recruitment of
subjects. I wish to thank the following individuals for
their cooperation: Dr. Jeremy Hughes, Superintendent of
the Haslett Public Schools, James Pocock, Ingham County
Friend of the Court, Toni McFarland, Karen Glickman, Erni

Goldstein, Joey Letterman, Thea Glicksman, Dr. Lawrence

iii

Schiamberg, William Rosenthal, and Barbara Scott. Maurice
Moses and Scott Bennett were dedicated research assistants.

I am extremely grateful to the children and parents
who volunteered to participate in this study. Their
participation made this research possible!

I appreciate the helpful comments and friendship of
Elizabeth DeRath, Fred Rogosch, Jane Pearson, Nick Ialongo,
Laurie Jayne and Randy Pepper, and Vicki and Duane
Silverthorn.

Suzy Pavick was always available with information and
assistance during my graduate program. She deserves a
special thanks.

I am especially grateful to my parents, Dr. Bernard
and Edith Krakauer, for their constant love and their
generous support of my education. I thank my grandmother,
Sylvia Schacter; my brother, Dr. Jesse Krakauer; and my
sisters, Sabrina Krakauer and Melissa Krakauer for their
encouragement and support. I also want to thank Phyliss
and David Friedman, Dr. Ines Krakauer, Leah Tabashnik,
Susan Tabashnik, and David Tabashnik for cheering me on
during this study.

I was supported in part by a National Institute of
Mental Health Clinical Training Fellowship, a Graduate
School Scholarship, and by the Department of Psychology.

I thank Dr. Gordon Wood and Roger Halley for facilitating

financial assistance and research reimbursements.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O 0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE . . . . .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . .

Background on Children of
Later Latency Children of
Children's Perceptions of

and Locus of Control .

Divorce . . . .
Divorce . . . .
Parent Behavior

Children of Divorced and Intact Families
from a Normal Population . . . . . . .

HYPOTHESES O O O O O C O O O 0

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Design . .
Subjects .
Procedure .
Instruments

RESULTS 0 I O O I I O O O O 0

Comparisons between Children from

Divorced and Intact Families . . .
Comparisons between Mother and Father

Effects of Age . . . . .

Effects within the Divorced Group . .

Effects of Demographic Variables on
Children's Perceptions of Mother .

Effects of Demographic Variables on
Children's Perceptions of Father .

Effects of Demographic Variables on

Locus of Control .

Comparisons between the Custodial
and Non-Custodial Parents . . . . .

V

mum-.5

11

14

16

16
16
21
22

29

DISCUSSION 0 O I O O O I O O I O O O O O O O 0

Comparisons between Children from
Divorced and Intact Families . . .
Comparisons between Mother and Father
Sex Differences and Effects of Age .
Effects within the Divorced Group . .
Implications for Future Research
and Clinical Interventions . . . . . .

APPENDICES O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O

A. Children's Reports of Parent Behavior
Inventory (CRPBI) and scoring sheet . .

B. Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale

C. Letter to Parents . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Parent Demographic Survey Form . . . .

REFERENCES 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

Page
. 55

55
60
63
64

.100

.103

LIST OF TABLES

Sample Sizes . .

Mean Ages and Standard Deviations

Page
19

for Children 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O C O O O 1 9

Demographic Data for the Parents
Of subjects 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 20

Children's Reports of Parent Behavior
Inventory Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Locus of Control Scores for Children
from Divorced and Intact Families . . . . . . . 31

Two-way ANOVA of CRPBI Factors
and Locus of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Children's Reports of Parent Behavior
Inventory Scales for Mother . . . . . . . . . . 34

Children's Reports of Parent Behavior
Inventory Scales for Father . . . . . . . . . . 35

Effects of Mother's Remarriage on CRPBI
Scales for Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Effects of Custody Arrangement on CRPBI
Scales for Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

vii

INTRODUCTION

The high divorce rate in contemporary American society
has raised questions about the psychological effects of
divorce. Initial psychological research on divorce
focused on the adult experience of marital breakup.
However, the fact that millions of American children now
experience the divorce of their parents has fostered
investigations of the impact of parental divorce on
children.

The present study provides a child's-eye view of the
effects of divorce. Much of the previous literature on the
effects of divorce on children is based on the viewpoint
of parents, teachers, or mental health professionals.
Although the adult perspective continues to be useful, it
is also important to understand the child's experience.

In the present study, later latency children from
divorced and intact families were compared in their
perceptions of parent behavior and locus of control.
Divorce-related variables (e.g., parental remarriage, time
since divorce) were also examined for their effects on
children's perceptions. The results of this study should
enhance our understanding of the effects of divorce on

children.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to improve our
understanding of how divorce affects children. The study
was conducted to provide information useful to mental
health professionals, parents, teachers, and others who
help children cope with the divorce of their parents.

This study examined perceptions of children from
divorced and intact families. A primary objective was to
determine if there were differences between children from
divorced and intact families in their perceptions of
parental behavior. Three major components of children's
perceptions of parents' behavior were studied: (1)
acceptance vs rejection, (2) psychological autonomy vs
psychological control, and (3) firm control vs lax control.
Another primary objective was to determine if children from
divorced and intact families differ in their perceived
"locus of control," i.e., the extent to which they believe
that their destiny is controlled by internal vs external
factors.

As secondary and more exploratory objectives,
children's perceptions of their mothers were compared with
their perceptions of their fathers, and for children of
divorce, perceptions of custodial versus non-custodial
parents were compared. I also tested for the effects of
sex and for possible family x sex interactions on

children's perceptions of parent behavior and locus of

3
control. Exploratory comparisons examined the effects of
age, and for children of divorce, the effects of
demographic variables (e.g., time since divorce) on
children's perceptions of parent behavior and locus of
control.

To address the objectives described above, children of
divorce were studied by comparing them to a control group
of children from intact families. The sample was drawn
from a normal population of children in later latency.

A review of the literature relevant to the specific
aspects of this study is given below. In particular, it
will be demonstrated how previous studies led to the
development of the present study. First, a review of
research on children of divorce will be provided. Then,
literature and rationale will be given for the following
three specific features of the present study:

1) Later latency children of divorce;

2) Children's perceptions of parent behavior and locus of
control;

3) Children of divorced and intact families from a normal

population.

L_

 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Background on Children of Divorce

Over the last two decades, the divorce rate in the
United States has increased dramatically. Current figures
indicate that about 47% of new marriages will end in
divorce. More than one million children a year now
experience the divorce of their parents. There are
approximately twenty million children of divorce in the
United States today (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980).
Demographic projections estimate that in 1990, one-third of
American children will have lived with a divorced parent
before they are eighteen years old (Glick, 1979).

Clearly, children of divorce make up a sizable part of
the population and will continue to do so in the future.
Children of divorce have special psychological needs and
better systems for the delivery of services to meet their
needs are warranted (Benedek and Benedek, 1979). However,
the literature on children of divorce is relatively small.
Further research is called for to better understand and
serve these children. A review of past research in this
area will be presented here.

Levitin (1979) has divided the literature into three
major research approaches: the single parent family
research tradition, the clinical research tradition, and
the classic studies. Single parent family research was
conducted in the 1950's and 1960's and typically focused on
the "father absent" household. Levitin (1979) notes that

4

5
in some cases, the cause of father absence (e.g., death,
divorce) was not specified and that frequently the single
parent family was regarded as a deviant form of the intact
family. In contrast, there have also been studies which
have not assumed that children of divorce will fare more
poorly than children from intact families (For example, see
reviews of Biller, 1970, 1976; Herzog and Sudia, 1973).

In the clinical research tradition, subjects are drawn
from a patient population. The scientist-practitioner
often uses his or her own case studies of children of
divorce. The focus of clinical literature has been on the
symptoms displayed by the child of a divorced family. For
example, Gardner (1976) provides a thorough discussion of
the problems and treatments of children of divorce.

Westman et a1., 1970, reported that 15% of all cases seen
in a child psychiatry clinic were emotionally disturbed
children of divorce. In another study of a child
psychiatric population, children of divorce were
distinguished from children from intact families by such
symptoms as running away from home, delinquency, poor home
behavior, and poor school behavior (McDermott, 1970).
McDermott also found that one-third of children in the
divorce group experienced moderate to severe forms of
depression. In his review of the records of 400 children
referred for outpatient psychiatric evaluation, Kalter
(1977) reported that children of divorce appeared at almost

twice the rate of their occurrence in the general

6
population. Nearly one-third of the referrals were
children of divorce.

The "classic studies" include two longitudinal studies
which both began in the 1970's. One study by Hetherington,
Cox, and Cox (1976, 1978, 1979) investigated the effects of
divorce on preschool children. They matched their sample
of 48 preschool children of divorce on age and sex with 48
preschool children from intact families. Hetherington et
a1. noted an increase in negative behavior among children
of divorce and a negative parent-child interaction in many
divorce families. The mother-son relationship was
especially difficult. One year after divorce, disturbances
in play and social relations were observed in girls and
boys of divorce. These disturbances had mainly disappeared
in girls two years after the divorce. Many boys, however,
continued to show developmental deviations two years
following parental divorce.

The second major longitudinal study of divorce is by
Wallerstein and Kelly (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1983).
Their sample included 131 children and adolescents from 60
divorcing families in Marin County, California. Clinical
interviews and preventive, child-focused intervention were
provided to the children and parents at the time of
parental separation. One year, five year, and ten year
followups have been conducted with these families.
Wallerstein and Kelly divided their sample of children by

developmental stages. They report that a central

7
determinant of the child's reaction to divorce is its age
and developmental stage. The Wallerstein and Kelly study
is a major contribution to the literature on the impact of

divorce on children.

Later Latency Children of Divorce

Children of later latency age (9 - 12 years old) were
chosen as the target population for the present study for
the following reasons: As described above, Wallerstein and
Kelly found that the child's age and developmental stage
greatly affect the child's response to divorce. Therefore,
in studying the important problem of the effects of divorce
on children, it is best to select a particular age group
for study. The present study focuses on later latency
children of divorce because many children referred to
mental health clinics are of later latency age (9 - 12
years old), but there are few studies which examine the
effects of divorce on this age group (see review by
Rohrlich et a1., 1977). Further, later latency children
were selected for a practical reason -- most children in
this age group can read and respond to written questions.
Thus, the cognitive abilities of later latency children
made them excellent candidates for the present study which
is based on children's reports of their perceptions of
parent behavior and their locus of control. The next
sections will describe the rationale for studying the
effects of divorce on children's perceptions of parent

behavior and locus of control.

8

Children's Perceptions of Parent Behavior
and Locus of Control

A major intention of this study was to obtain the
child's perspective of the effects of divorce. Much of the
previous research on the effects of divorce on children
relies on the reports of parents, teachers or mental health
professionals. Although the adult perspective is useful,
it is also essential to directly examine the child's
experience and viewpoint. The recent literature on
children of divorce shows increasing awareness of the
child's perspective (Kurdek and Berg, 1983), but many
important questions remain unanswered. Therefore, the
present study addresses some key questions related to
two important aspects of children's perceptions: (1)
children's perceptions of parent behavior and (2)
children's perceptions of their own locus of control.

Children's perceptions of parent behavior were studied
because such perceptions are important in their own right
and because children's perceptions are good indicators of
many other important attributes. Schaefer (1965a) has
pointed out that many studies have shown that children's
reports of parental behavior are significantly related to
other data on parent-child relationships (e.g., Andry,
1957; Bronson, Katten and Livson, 1959), to inventory
measures of child adjustment (e.g., Berdie and Layton,
1957; Serot and Teevan, 1961), to observers' reports of
child behavior (Brown et a1., 1947; Bronfenbrenner, 1961),

to school achievement (Morrow and Wilson, 1961) and to

9

other criteria of the child's adjustment (Ausubel et a1.,
1954; Cooper and Blair, 1959). Studies have also shown
that children's reports of parent behavior differentiate
normal subjects from psychiatric patients (e.g.,
Greenfield, 1959; Garmezy et a1., 1961). In some cases,
the child's adjustment may be more closely related to the
child's perception of its parents' behavior than to the
actual parental behavior (Schaefer, 1965a). Further, I
chose to study children's perceptions of parent behavior
because there is evidence suggesting that this parameter
may be affected by divorce, as described below.

Previous studies have described various negative
effects of divorce on later latency children that have been
viewed as characteristic of the later latency child's level
of self-reflective social reasoning (Longfellow, 1979).
From their study of 31 later latency children (age 9 - 10),
Wallerstein and Kelly (1976) concluded that later latency
children of divorce were most clearly distinguished by
their intense anger towards one or both parents. Other
reactions of the later latency child included fears of
being unloved and abandoned (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1976).
Wallerstein and Kelly (1976) also reported that parents
were often so involved with their own problems during
divorce that there was a sharp withdrawal of interest in
their children.

In sum, previous work suggests that later latency

children of divorce experience anger towards parents, fear

10
of rejection, and withdrawal of parental interest. These
experiences would be expected to influence the later
latency child's perception of parental acceptance/
rejection. Thus, a key issue addressed in the present
study is the effect of parental divorce on the later
latency child's perception of parental acceptance/
rejection. Results from previous work, as described above,
suggest that divorce may cause later latency children to
perceive their parents as less accepting/more rejecting.
This is the first major hypothesis tested in the present
study.

Weiss (1979) proposed that the echelon structure of a
two-parent household enables children to remain dependent.
In contrast, he noted that children growing up in single-
parent households displayed an earlier maturity prompted by
demands on them for autonomy and responsibility. If these
demands for autonomy are reflected in the later latency
child's perceptions of parent behavior, then children of
divorce would be expected to perceive their parents as less
controlling and more granting of autonomy to the child.
This idea was tested as the second major hypothesis in the
present study.

It has been suggested that divorced parents often
experience difficulty in exercising authority and firm
discipline (Hetherington, 1979; Tooley, 1975). Thus, the
later latency child's perceptions of parents' disciplinary

control may be affected by divorce. The third major

11
hypothesis tested in the present study is that later
latency children of divorce perceive their parents as
exercising less disciplinary control.

Some investigators have suggested that children of
divorce are likely to develop external frames of reference,
because a variety of events during divorce are outside the
child's control (e.g., parental separation and divorce,
changes in residence, school, and income; Duke and
Lancaster, 1976; Kulka and Weingarten, 1979; Wallerstein
and Kelly, 1980). If this suggestion is true, children of
divorce would be expected to have an external locus of
control. Thus, the fourth major hypothesis tested here was
that later latency children of divorce develop external
locus of control.

Previous studies have demonstrated that parental
divorce may affect boys differently than girls
(Hetherington, 1979; Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Kurdek
and Berg, 1983; Slater et a1., 1983). Therefore, in
testing the four primary hypotheses described above, the
sex of the child was taken into consideration.

Children ofyDiyorced and Intact Families
from a Normal Population

There have been many excellent studies of children and
divorce, but most have looked only at children from
divorced families without inclusion of a control group
(e.g., Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980; Kurdek et a1., 1981;

Hingst, 1982). The present study examined the effect of

12
divorce pg; gg by comparing children from divorced families
with a control group of children from intact families.

An "intact" family is defined here as a family in
which: (1) both of the child's biological parents are
present, and (2) there has never been a legal divorce. It
is recognized that the parents in an "intact" family may be
"emotionally divorced" (Despert, 1962), but for the
purposes of this study the variable of legal divorce was
examined. Thus, "children of divorce" are defined as
children whose parents are legally divorced and no longer
live together.

Levitin (1979) observed that "since the children who
are in therapy are apt to be the most distressed of
children, the clinical literature on children of divorce
describes the most extreme and pathological patterns of
response." By using a normal population in the present
study, the potentially confounding effect of interviewing
the most disturbed children was reduced.

Sampling_and the Problem of
Generalizability

As stated above, the present study improves upon prior
research by studying a non-clinic sample of children of
divorce in comparison with a control group of children from
intact families. However, there is another problem with
the studies reviewed that also applies to the present work.
Families of divorce approached to participate in research

frequently refuse to do so. There are many reasons why

13
this may be so: Concern that such research may complicate
the process of adjustment for children, defensiveness in
the face of still-prevalent stigmatization of families of
divorce, reluctance to cope with yet another demand on
strained family resources. For those families that
participate, there is no way of knowing how representative
they are of families of divorce in general. Are they among
those which are not coping well but hope to obtain some
help through the research process? Are they among those
which are coping well and are proud enough of the fact to
want to show others how well they are doing? Clearly,
either of these descriptions would imply quite different
family characteristics and therefore quite different
interpretations of research findings. This problem has not
been sufficiently acknowledged in prior research reports.
Given the nature of divorce and the difficulties faced by
divorcing families, it may be a functionally unresolvable
problem. In any case, the results not only of the present
study but of prior research must be read with this

limitation on generalizability in mind.

HYPOTHESES

The general trend in the literature suggests that
divorce will have a negative impact on children.
Therefore, the theme underlying the major hypotheses in
this study was that later latency children of divorce would
differ from children from intact families by showing more
negative perceptions of parent behavior and more external
locus of control.

Based on the literature reviewed in the previous
section, the following four major hypotheses were tested:

1. Later latency children of divorce will perceive
their parents as less accepting/more rejecting.

2. Later latency children of divorce will perceive
their parents as less controlling and more granting of
psychological autonomy to the child.

3. Later latency children of divorce will perceive
their parents as exercising less disciplinary control.

4. Later latency children of divorce will show an
external locus of control.

While testing the four major hypotheses, the effects
of sex of the child were also examined.

The first three hypotheses are related to the three
primary factors of the Children's Reports of Parent
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI): (1) Acceptance vs Rejection,
(2) Psychological Control vs Psychological Autonomy, and
(3) Firm Control vs Lax Control (Schaefer, 1965a, 1965b).
Therefore, the first three hypotheses predict that later

14

15
latency children of divorce will perceive their parents as
lower on the Acceptance, Psychological Control, and Firm
Control factors. Definitions for the three CRPBI factors
and descriptions of the CRPBI scales which load on each
factor are given below in the Method section. The fourth
hypothesis relates to children's locus of control.

As corollaries to the three primary hypotheses
relating to the three factors of the CRPBI, subsidiary
hypotheses relating to the 18 scales of the CRPBI were also
tested. It was hypothesized that scales loading on a
particular factor would reflect the differences expected
for that factor. For example, the Acceptance scale has a
positive loading on the Acceptance-Rejection factor. Thus,
in line with the first major hypothesis, children of
divorce were expected to be lower on the Acceptance scale.

In addition to the four major hypotheses and the
corollary hypotheses, a number of exploratory comparisons
were made. Children's perceptions of their mothers were
compared with their perceptions of their fathers. Other
exploratory analyses looked at the effects of age, and for
the divorced group, the effects of demographic variables on
children's perceptions of parent behavior and locus of
control. For children of divorce, there were also
comparisons of the children's perceptions of custodial vs

non-custodial parents.

METHOD

Design

A two-way design was used. The first independent
variable was the child's family type: divorced versus
intact. The second independent variable was sex of the
child. Among the children from divorced families, there
were eight other independent variables: mother's
remarriage, father's remarriage, custody arrangement,
visitation by the non-custodial parent, siblings living
with the child, years since divorce, years since mother's
remarriage, and years since father's remarriage. The
dependent variables were the children's perceptions of
parent behavior as indicated by their responses to the
Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
devised by Schaefer (1965a) and the children's locus of
control as measured by the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of

Control scale (1973).

Subjects
Sixty-eight 9-12 year old subjects participated in

this study. Criteria for inclusion of the subject were:
1) age between 9-12 years, 2) family structure defined as
intact or divorced, 3) ability to read and write in
English, and 4) residence with at least one of the child's
biological parents. The definitions of intact vs divorced

family structure (See Review of the Literature) were

16

17
strictly adhered to. Adopted children were excluded from
the study.

Subjects were recruited from the East Lansing/Lansing,
Michigan area and other surrounding communities.
Recruitment of subjects was arranged with the cooperation
of church and synagogue youth education groups, the Haslett
Public Schools, and the Ingham County Friend of the Court.
Class lists and addresses of families with age appropriate
subjects were obtained from the above groups. A letter to
parents (See Appendix C) explaining the study was sent to
approximately one thousand families. Parents were asked to
return an enclosed postcard indicating whether they were
interested in participating with their children. Of the
approximately 1000 initial contacts, 300 postcards were
returned, yielding a 30% return rate. About one half of
these postcards were refusals and the other half were
positive replies. Interested parents were contacted by
phone to answer further questions about the study. If
selection criteria were satisfied after the telephone
screening, appointment times were set up.

From the pool of 300 returned postcards, a total of 66
potential subjects were eliminated due to selection
criteria (e.g., age, family type, adoption) with the
majority excluded because the children didn't meet the age
criteria. Another 42 potential subjects from intact
families were screened by telephone and appeared to satisfy

the selection criteria. However, these children were not

18
tested because there was already an adequate number of
subjects from intact families. All of the appropriate
subjects from divorced families were tested. The
relatively low number of appropriate subjects obtained from
divorced families may have been due to a low frequency of
divorced families in the population contacted and/or a
lower rate of responding.

Following screening, seventy-two subjects were tested.
However, two subjects were discarded after testing because
they were deemed inappropriate by the selection criteria.
Another two subjects were lost when the procedure criteria
were not satisfied.

The final sample was composed of 68 subjects from
middle class neighborhoods. Sample sizes for subject
groups by family type and sex are given in Table 1.
Subjects ranged in age from 9.0 to 12.9 years. See Table 2
for mean ages and standard deviations by family type and
sex. Eighty-six percent of the children from divorced
families had siblings; 92% of the children from intact
families had siblings.

Within the divorced group, the time since parental
divorce ranged from one to eleven years. For girls from
divorced families, the mean number of years since parental
divorce was 6.4 years (SD = 2.8 years). There was a mean
time of 6.1 years (SD = 2.7 years) since parental divorce
for boys. Children's custody arrangements included: 82%

mother custody, 11% father custody, and 7% joint custody.

19

Table 1. Sample Sizes

 

Divorced Intact Total

 

Boys 15 19 34
Girls 13 21 34
Total 28 40 68

 

Table 2. Mean Ages and Standard Deviations
for Children

 

 

 

 

 

Divorced Intact Total
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Boys 11.1 1.0 11.2 1.0 11.1 1.0
Girls 11.5 1.0 11.1 1.2 11.2 1.2

Total 11.2 1.0 11.1 1.1 11.2 1.1

 

20

 

 

In: nun wmv «mm coauumemu aaucmuuoo
mmm mom emu Sam mumsomumumom
ANN wov yam we. mmeafloo
wmm won see we» Hoosom amen
scaumoscm
em . mm mm . om me u on «a n on mmamu mme
m.mm m.mm ¢.Am «.mm one new:
umsumm nonuoz umnumm nacho:

 

 

uomucH

ooouo>wo

 

muomnnsm mo mucoumm may now mama canmmumOEon

.m OHQMB

21

Children's current living arrangements showed 79% living
with mother, 14% living with father, and 7% living
alternately with mother and father. About 89% of the
children were visited by their non-custodial parent.

Demographic data for the parents of the 68 subjects
appear in Table 3. For the intact group, the mean length
of parents' marriage at the time of the study was 15.9

years (range: 12 - 24 years).

Procedure

All subjects were tested in their homes at the
convenience of the parents and children. It was required
that a parent be at home during testing. Informed consent
was obtained with the parent's signature on an explanatory
consent form prior to their child's participation. Verbal
assent was obtained from the children. Children and
parents were assured that their responses were strictly
confidential. Parents were then asked to fill out a
demographic survey form containing such information as
family type (divorced versus intact), custody arrangement,
time since divorce, and number and ages of children. A
copy of the parent form is found in Appendix D.

After the parent's forms were completed, the
experimenter tested the child in a quiet, private room.
There was a brief initial period during which the
experimenter conversed and established rapport with the
child. A short explanation was given by the experimenter

to every child about the researcher's interest in studying

22
children's feelings about their parents. The CRPBI and the
Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale were administered
to each child with standardized instructions. The entire

administration per subject lasted approximately one hour.

Instruments
Children's Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI)

The accumulating evidence of the validity of
children's reports of parental behavior motivated Schaefer
(1965a) to develop "short, reliable scales for a systematic
sample of parental-behavior concepts"; thus he devised an
instrument called the Children's Reports of Parental
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI). The present study employed
Schaefer's CRPBI, because unlike earlier inventories, it
describes the child-parent interaction rather than
marital/parental adjustment. This important feature
enabled a focus on the child's perspective. The CRPBI also
distinguishes maternal from paternal behavior, which is
necessary to compare children's perceptions of mothers vs
fathers and custodial vs non-custodial parents, as stated
in the secondary objectives (see above).

Schaefer (1965b) reported a configurational analysis
of the CRPBI in which he found three replicated factors:
Acceptance versus Rejection, Psychological Autonomy versus
Psychological Control, and Firm Control versus Lax Control.
These factors were used in the present study to compare

children from divorced and intact families.

23

The original CRPBI is composed of 26 scales which each
contain 10 items. Schludermann and Schludermann (1970)
developed a shortened form of the CRPBI which consists of
18 scales. Six of these scales contain 8 items per scale;
the other 12 scales contain 5 items per scale. They chose
the 18 scales using the criteria of high scale reliability,
variability, and applicability to parental behavior. Those
items which were inappropriate for ethnic and religious
minority groups were eliminated in order to make the
instrument suitable for diverse groups. The same 108 items
were used on separate maternal and paternal forms.

Schludermann and Schludermann (1970) conducted a
methodological study of the factor structure of the
modified CRPBI using two different independent samples.
They found that the three factors (Acceptance versus
Rejection, Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological
Control, and Firm Control versus Lax Control) were highly
replicable across parental forms, sex groups, and
independent samples. Since the CRPBI factors showed such a
high replicability, Schludermann and Schludermann
recommended using the three factors to describe results
rather than reporting the 18 scale scores (Schludermann and
Schludermann, 1970, 1971, 1983).

"The Acceptance vs Rejection factor describes the
subject's perception of different degrees of parental
acceptance or rejection" (Schludermann and Schludermann,

1983). The scales with positive loadings on the Acceptance

24
vs Rejection factor are Acceptance, Childcenteredness,
Possessiveness, Positive Involvement, and Acceptance of
Individuation; the Rejection and Hostile Detachment scales
load negatively on this factor.

The Psychological Control vs Psychological Autonomy
factor is defined by scales which "describe covert,
psychological methods of controlling the child's activities
and behaviors that would not permit the child to develop as
an individual apart from the parent" (Schaefer, 1965b).

The following scales which comprise the Psychological
Control vs Psychological Autonomy factor all have positive
loadings on this factor: Intrusiveness, Control through
Guilt, Hostile Control, Inconsistent Discipline, Instilling
Persistent Anxiety, and Withdrawal of Relations.

The Firm Control vs Lax Control factor "indicates the
degree to which the parent makes rules and regulations,
sets limits to the child's activities, and enforces these
rules and limits" (Schaefer, 1965b). Scales loading
positively on this factor are Control and Enforcement. The
Nonenforcement, Lax Discipline, and Extreme Autonomy scales
have negative loadings on the Firm Control vs Lax Control
factor.

The CRPBI has been administered in such diverse
studies as the following: normal school children and
delinquent boys (Schaefer, 1965a); French-speaking Belgian
high school students (Renson et a1., 1968); Manitoban

university students (Schludermann and Schludermann, 1970);

25
Canadian Hutterite adolescents (Schludermann and
Schludermann, 1971); and Canadian and Indian adolescents
(Schludermann and Schludermann, 1983). The three basic
factor dimensions were replicated in all studies. There
appears to be good evidence for the CRPBI's cross-cultural
validity (Renson et a1., 1968; Schludermann and
Schludermann, 1971, 1983).

The shortened 108-item version of Schaefer's
Children's Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) was
used to measure children's perceptions of their parents'
behavior (Schaefer, 1965a, 1965b; Schludermann and
Schludermann, 1970, 1971, 1983). The 108 items describing
parental behavior were found on separate but equivalent
forms for mother and father. The language on the maternal
and paternal forms was appropriate for the parent's gender.
Subjects were instructed to rate each item as "Like,"
"Somewhat Like," or "Not Like" their parent's behavior
(e.g., "Gives me a lot of care and attention"; "Is very
strict with me"). Every child was reminded to report on
his or her biological mother and father. The maternal and
paternal forms of the CRPBI were administered to subjects
in counterbalanced order. Items on the CRPBI received
scoring values ("Like" = 3; "Somewhat Like" a 2; and "Not
Like" a 1). These item scores were totaled and multiplied
by a coefficient to determine the scale scores. Factor
scores were obtained by adding designated scale scores and

dividing by the number of scales. Each child received 3

26
factor scores and 18 scale scores for both the maternal and
paternal forms of the CRPBI. See Appendix A for a copy of
the CRPBI, a sample scoring sheet, and complete scoring

instructions.

Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale

The "internal-external locus of control" construct was
derived from social learning theory (Rotter, 1954, 1966).
MacDonald (1973) summarized the construct in the following
way: "Internal-external locus of control refers to the
extent to which persons perceive contingency relationships
between their actions and their outcomes." At one end of
the scale are "Internals" who believe that they have some
control over their destinies. In contract, "Externals"
believe that their outcomes are determined by factors
extrinsic to themselves, such as luck or powerful others.

There is a large literature on the locus of control
construct which MacDonald (1973) attributes to its
generalizability and social relevance. Internal locus of
control is seen as a distinct social advantage. For
example, significant relationships between internal locus
of control and achievement have been found (Coleman et a1.,
1966; Nowicki and Roundtree, 1971).

The locus of control variable has been shown to have
considerable relationship to children's behavior. One of
the reasons this study included a locus of control measure
is because previous investigators have found that locus of

control is a significant predictor of children's divorce

27

adjustment. Children with internal locus of control
orientations were more likely to show better adjustment to
their parents' divorce (Kurdek et a1., 1981). Other
studies have suggested that internal locus of control
(especially for boys) is significantly related to academic
achievement, social maturity, and independent, self-
motivated behavior (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973).

Researchers have developed instruments to study the
locus of control dimension in children (see Bialer, 1961;
Battle and Rotter, 1963; Crandell et a1., 1965; Nowicki and
Strickland, 1973). In his 1973 review, MacDonald remarked
that:

"The Nowicki and Strickland Locus of Control Scale

is a 40-item yes-no paper-pencil test that has

been used extensively with subjects ranging from

the third grade through college. Information on

the scale's internal consistency reliability,

test-retest reliability, and convergent and

discriminant validity indicates it to be the best
measure of locus of control as a generalized
expectancy presently available for use with
children."

The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale was used
because of its strength as a reliable and valid measure.
Another positive feature was the short form of the
instrument recommended by the authors, which was employed
in this study to reduce the demand on subjects.

The Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale was
administered last to each child. This 40-item scale
required the child to answer "yes" or "no" to straight-

forward questions (e.g., "Do you believe that most problems

will solve themselves if you just don't fool with them?").

28
Items were scored using a point system to derive a locus of

control score for each subject. See Appendix B for a copy

of the Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale.

RESULTS

The results relating to the four primary hypotheses
are described below. Next, results relating to the
corollary hypotheses are described. Finally, results of
the exploratory comparisons are presented. Exploratory
comparisons are reported in the following sections:
comparisons between mother and father, effects of age, and
effects within the divorced group.

Comparisons between Children from
Divorced and Intact Families
Primary analyses: CRPBI factors and locus of control

Means and standard deviations for the CRPBI factors
and locus of control appear in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.

The results show that in the present study children of
divorce and children from intact families did not differ
significantly in perceptions of parent behavior as measured
by the three CRPBI factors. Two-way ANOVA showed no
significant main effects of family type for the three CRPBI
factors for mother or for father (See Table 6). These
results do not support the three primary hypotheses
predicting differences between children from divorced
families and children from intact families.

The results also show no significant difference
between children from divorced and intact families in locus
of control. Two-way ANOVA showed no significant main

effect of family type on locus of control (See Table 6).

29

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.~ o.m~ o.m F.P~ m.~ P.0N m.~ m.P~ nonumm

P.m m.~m m.~ m.Pm m.m m.P~ m.~ F.NN wonuoz
Howucou xmq u Honucou Ewan

F.N ~.¢F ~.~ P.vp o.~ P.¢P >.— m.vp wonumm

m.m o.mp m.~ —.mP m.~ o.mp ~.N h.mp nosuoz
meocousd HobamoHono>mm I Houucou HobamoHonoamm

F.v m.v~ N.m F.v~ o.m m.¢~ m.F h.mN Hmcumm

N.¢ >.v~ v.m m.mN F.~ m.¢~ m.P h.m~ Hocuoz
c0wuomfiom|oocmummoo<

am com: um coo: am now: am coo: Houomm
mauaw whom maufiw mmom
uomucH poouo>ao

 

mucuomm muoucm>cH uofl>mnmm ucmumm mo manommm m.cmuoafinu

.v manna

31

Table 5. Locus of Control Scores for Children
from Divorced and Intact Families

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Divorced Intact
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
12.7 4.2 13.1 3.6 11.8 5.0 11.7 4.1

 

This observed lack of difference between children from
divorced and intact families conflicts with the hypothesis
predicting that children of divorce would have more
external locus of control.

In summary, the four primary hypotheses predicting
differences between children from divorced and intact
families were not supported by the data. Two-way ANOVA
also showed no significant effects of sex and no
significant family type x sex interactions on either the

CRPBI factors or the locus of control (See Table 6).

32

Table 6. Two-way ANOVA of CRPBI Factors
and Locus of Control

 

Probability Values for Effects*

 

Factor Family Sex Family
x Sex

 

Acceptance-Rejection
Mother 0.68 0.36 0.96
Father 0.42 0.79 0.18

Psychological Control - Psychological Autonomy

Mother 0.37 0.84 0.98

Father 0.54 0.63 0.41
Firm Control - Lax Control

Mother 0.52 0.91 0.41

Father 0.22 0.87 0.16
Locus of Control 0.29 0.89 0.80

 

* No differences were significant at p < 0.05.

33
Secondary analyses: Individual CRPBI scale score;

Means and standard deviations for the individual CRPBI
scales are given in Tables 7 and 8. Results for each CRPBI
scale for each parent were analyzed by two-way ANOVA to
test for main effects of the two independent variables
family type and sex and for potential family type x sex
interactions. The data for boys and girls were also
analyzed separately by one-way ANOVA to test for effects of
family type on each sex independently. By making these
numerous comparisons, the probability that true differences
go undetected is reduced, but the chance for type I errors
is increased. Therefore, interpretation of the results
will focus on differences that are highly significant or
that represent a pattern in the results for both parents.
The two-way ANOVA showed no effects of family type or sex
for 17 of the 18 CRPBI scales for mother and father. The
one exceptional scale showing significant main effects was
Possessiveness. The means for Possessiveness were
significantly higher for children of divorce than for
children from intact families for both mothers, F(1,64) =
9.5, p < 0.005, and for fathers, F(1,64) = 4.6, p < 0.05.

One-way ANOVA yielded significant main effects of
family type for boys on 2 of the 18 CRPBI scales for
mother. The means were significantly higher for boys of
divorce than for boys from intact families on mothers'
Possessiveness, F(1,32) = 4.3, p < 0.05, and on mothers'

Instilling Persistent Anxiety, F(1,32) = 5.1, p < 0.05.

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~.m m.mP m.m ~.4. m.m m.4p A.4 n.4F meocouaa msmuuxm
m.m P.m. m.~ P.mp 4.m n.4p A.m m.~. mcofiumflwm «0 Haamuonufiz
4.4 m.~P k.~ w.PP m.~ m.~F ~.P A... ucmssomuwa maflumom
m.m «.4, A.m m.~. ~.m ~.4. m.m m.mp sumfixc< bemumflmumm acfiflflfiumcH
~.4 4.4F m.m P.5F 4.4 m.np 4.m m.a_ ocaaaflomfio xaq
5.4 ..mm o.4 m.m~ m.m m.m~ m.~ m.m~ :04uman>HcEH mo moemuaoooa
m.m m.mP m.4 m.mp ..4 4.m. 4.m n.4, unmemououcmcoz
«.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. o.4 ~.m. 4.m «.m. ocaaauomfio bemumfimaoocH
o.m n.4, A.m m.m. o.m n.4, a.~ «.4, Houucoo wfiflumom
o.m m.mp m.4 P.m. _.m 4.mp m.4 P.mP uHHsu nmsounu Houueoo
m.m n.5, 4.4 4.4, o.4 ~.m. o.4 n.4, mmmcm>nmsuucH
4.4 ..o~ ~.m 4.m~ ..m m.o~ 4.~ m.o~ unwem>ao>cH m>auumom
m.4 o.AP m.m m.4P m.m c.4P 4.4 «.A4 bememououcm
m.4 m.o~ 5.4 A.aP m.m m.m. m.4 m.F~ Houucou
m.4 m.mp A.~ m.~F o.m P.4P 4.~ m.m. couuomflmm
..m m.AF m.4 4.4. o.m o.o~ m.~ m.F~ mmwam>ammommom
m.m m.m~ o.4 c.4m 4.m n.4m ..4 m.4~ mmmcomumuemooafino
~.m ~.4~ o.m m.m~ m.~ m.o~ 4.m m.4~ mocmuamou<
am GMT: Om Gmwz Om 6mm: Om GMT: wdmom
maufiw m>om mauau whom
HOGUCH ©00HO>HQ

 

Honuoz you moamom auouco>cH uoH>mnmm acmumm mo muuommm m.counafico .n magma

uwzuoa you mwacom >u0ucm>CH u04>m£0m ucmumm MO muhOQOm m.:muh~w£U .m ONQME

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.5. 4.4 4.4. 450:0444 0204044
5.4 5.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4... 4.4 4.4. 4:0.04404 40 443040:043
5.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 ..4. 4.. 4... 0402400000 0440404
4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4004444 4404444404 4444440444
4.4 4.5. 4.4 4.5. 4.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 0444440444 444
4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 40.04004>4004 40 0044040004
4.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.5. 4.4 4.4. 0:050000440402
4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 0444440444 000044040044
4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4000400 0440404
4.4 4.4. 4.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 44.00 2440040 4004400
4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 ..5. 4.4 4.4. 44040>4400444
4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 ..4 4.44 4.. 4.54 Damsm>40>04 0>404404
4.4 4.5. ..4 4.4. ..4 4.4. 4.4 5.4. 00050000444
4.4 4.44 4.4 4.4. 4.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 4040:00
4.4 4.4. 5.4 4.4. 4.4 5.4. 4.. 5... 404000404
4.4 4.5. 4.4 5.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 44040>44404404
4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 4.4 ..44 440000000400044s0
..4 4.44 4.4 4.44 4.4 4.44 4.4 5.44 00:0000004
am com: am com: am new: om coo: mamom
maufiw mmom wauau whom
DomucH omouo>4o
Monumm How mmamom huouco>cH uofi>msom ucmwmm mo muwomom m.:0H©H4nU .m manna

36

There was only one CRPBI scale for mother for which
one-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect of family
type for girls. Girls from divorced families had
significantly higher means for mothers' Possessiveness than
did girls from intact families, F(1,32) = 5.4, p < 0.05.

A significant main effect of family type for boys was
revealed by one-way ANOVA on just one CRPBI scale for
father. On the fathers' Positive Involvement scale, boys
from divorced families had significantly higher means than
boys from intact families, F(1,32) = 6.1, p < 0.05.

One-way ANOVA also showed a significant main effect of
family for girls on only one CRPBI scale for father. The
means for fathers' Enforcement were significantly lower for
girls of divorce than for girls from intact families,
F(1,32) = 5.1, p < 0.05.

In summary, there were few significant differences
between children from divorced and intact families in their
perceptions of parent behavior as indicated by the CRPBI
scales. Possessiveness was the only CRPBI scale which
showed significant main effects of family type for boys and
girls combined. Overall, children of divorce perceived
both their mothers and fathers as significantly more
possessive than did children from intact families. The
probability that both of these differences occurred by
chance is less than 0.00025. Thus, the difference in the
Possessiveness scale most likely reflects a true difference

between the children from divorced and intact families.

37
Since the Possessiveness scale has a positive loading on
the Acceptance vs Rejection factor, this result was in the
opposite direction of the corollary hypothesis that
children of divorce would perceive their parents as less
accepting and hence less possessive.

When the data were analyzed separately for boys and
girls, 4 of the 5 significant main effects of family type
on the CRPBI scales were also in the opposite direction of
the corollary hypotheses. However, the finding that girls
of divorce perceived their fathers as significantly lower
on the Enforcement scale than girls from intact families
supported a corollary hypothesis; the Enforcement scale has
a positive loading on the Firm Control factor and children
of divorce were hypothesized to be lower on the Firm
Control factor. Thus, the corollary hypotheses were
generally not supported by the data because there were few
effects of family type on the CRPBI scales and because
nearly all of the effects that were observed were not in

the expected direction.

Exploratory Comparisong

Comparisons between Mother and Father
Paired t-tests were used to compare mothers' and
fathers' CRPBI factor scores. Girls of divorce perceived
their mothers as significantly higher on the Psychological
Control factor than their fathers (t = 2.6, df = 12, p <

0.03). On the Firm Control factor, girls of divorce also

38
saw their mothers as significantly higher than their
fathers (t = 2.2, df = 12, p = 0.05). Boys of divorce
viewed their mothers as significantly higher than fathers
on the Psychological Control factor (t = 2.4, df = 14, p <
0.05).

Girls from intact families perceived no significant
differences between mothers and fathers. They perceived
mother and father as similar on all three factors.

However, boys from intact families gave their mothers
significantly higher Psychological Control factor scores
than their fathers (t = 3.0, df = 18, p < 0.01). It is
striking that all children except girls from intact
families saw mother as significantly higher than father on
the Psychological Control factor.

Mother versus father scale scores on the CRPBI were
compared using paired t-tests. Girls from divorced
families viewed their mothers as exerting significantly
greater Hostile Control than their fathers (t = 2.8, df =
12, p < 0.02). The girls from divorced families also
perceived their mothers as significantly higher than their
fathers on two other scales: Instilling Persistent Anxiety
(t = 2.4, df = 12, p < 0.05) and Withdrawal of Relations (t
= 3.2, df = 12, p < 0.01). Boys of divorced families gave
their mothers significantly higher scores on the Rejection
scale than their fathers (t = 3.6, df = 14, p < 0.005). On

the Instilling Persistent Anxiety scale, boys from divorced

39
families saw their mothers as significantly higher than
their fathers (t = 3.1, df = 14, p < 0.01).

There were no significant differences on mother versus
father CRPBI scale scores for girls from intact families.
These girls saw their mothers and fathers as alike on all
18 scales!

Boys from intact families reported the most
differences in their perceptions of mother vs father. The
boys from intact families viewed their mothers as
significantly higher than their fathers on the following
five scales: Possessiveness (t a 2.5, df = 18, p < 0.05),
Positive Involvement (t = 3.0, df = 18, p < 0.01),
Intrusiveness (t = 3.0, df = 18, p < 0.01), Hostile Control
(t = 2.6, df = 18, p < 0.02), and Instilling Persistent
Anxiety (t a 2.1, df = 18, p < 0.05). Note that on the
Instilling Persistent Anxiety scale mother's scores were
significantly higher than father's for all children except

girls from intact families.

Effects of Age

Regression analysis of the CRPBI scales was performed
to determine effects of age. For children of divorced
families, perceptions of maternal Rejection increased as
age increased, F(1,26) = 9.0, p < 0.01. Also, for girls
from divorced families, mothers' Rejection scores increased
with the girls' ages, F(1,11) = 8.4, p < 0.02. There were
no other age effects on any maternal scales for children

from intact or divorced families.

40

On the CRPBI scales for father, regression analysis
revealed more effects of age. Paternal Acceptance scores
decreased as the age of children from divorced families
increased, F(1,26) = 6.2, p < 0.02. Children from intact
families did not show an age effect on paternal Acceptance.
Another age effect was seen in the fathers' Acceptance of
Individuation scale for boys but not for girls. As age
increased for boys, the fathers' Acceptance of Individuation
scores increased, F(1,32) = 4.2, p < 0.05.

Three strong age effects were found for boys of
divorce on the paternal scales. Fathers' Acceptance
decreased as age increased for boys of divorce, F(1,13) =
6.0, p < 0.03. As the age of divorced boys increased,
paternal Possessiveness also increased, F(1,13) = 6.8, p =
0.02. Scores on the fathers' Acceptance of Individuation
scale increased as age increased for boys of divorce,
F(1,13) = 6.4, p < 0.03. It is striking that there were
strong effects of age on the paternal CRPBI scales for boys
of divorced families but there were no significant age
effects for girls of divorced families.

For girls of intact families, fathers' Extreme
Autonomy decreased as the girls' ages increased, F(1,19) =
5.8, p < 0.03. In addition to this strong effect, a weaker
age effect was found on the paternal Hostile Control scale.
As the age of girls from intact families increased,

fathers' Hostile Control scores decreased, F(1,19) = 4.3, p

41
= 0.05. There were no age effects on the paternal scales
for boys from intact families.

Overall, there was a pattern in which children of
divorce showed age effects in their perceptions of parental
rejection while children from intact families did not show
such age effects. With only one exception (fathers'
Acceptance of Individuation for boys), all significant age
effects for children of divorce showed increasing parental
rejection with increasing age. From the pattern of results
observed here, it may be worth investigating further the
effects of age on the perceptions of children of divorce.

No age effects were evident on the locus of control
measure for children from divorced families, for children

from intact families, or for boys or girls.

Effects within the Divorced Group

The variables of mother's remarriage, father's
remarriage, custody arrangement, visitation by the non-
custodial parent, and siblings living with the child were
crossed with sex of child in separate two-way ANOVAs to
test for effects on the CRPBI factors and on the CRPBI
scales. As noted above, there were no main effects of sex
of child on the CRPBI factors or scales. The results
reported here include effects of the aforementioned divorce
variables and divorce variable x sex interaction effects.
In addition, correlation analysis was used to examine the

relationship between the CRPBI scales and years since

42
divorce, years since mother's remarriage, and years since
father's remarriage.
Effects of Demographic Variables on Children's Perceptions
of Mother

There were no significant main effects of mother's
remarriage on any of the three factors for mother.
However, a mother's remarriage x sex of child interaction
was seen on the maternal Acceptance factor, F(1,24) = 4.3,
p < 0.05. If mother was remarried, boys saw mothers as
lower on Acceptance than boys whose mothers were not
remarried; the reverse pattern was true for girls. The
variable of father's remarriage showed no significant main
or interaction effects on the three factors for mother.

Custody arrangements yielded a significant main effect
on the maternal Firm Control factor. On the Firm Control
dimension, scores for mother were highest for children in
mother custody (M a 22.7), intermediate for children in
joint custody (M = 18.6), and lowest for children in father
custody (M = 17.3), F(2,22) = 6.1, p < 0.01.

There were no significant main effects of visitation
by the non-custodial parent on the three maternal factors.
A visitation by non-custodial parent x sex interaction was
revealed on the maternal Acceptance factor, F(1,24) = 4.2,
p = 0.05. Boys who were visited by the non-custodial
parent saw mothers as higher on the Acceptance factor than

boys who were not visited. In contrast, the girls who were

43
visited by their non-custodial parent gave lower maternal
Acceptance scores than girls who were not visited.

No main effects of living with siblings were present
on the three maternal factors. There was a living with
siblings x sex interaction on the maternal Firm Control
factor, F(1,24) = 5.9, p < 0.03. For boys who lived with
siblings, maternal Firm Control was higher than for boys
who did not live with siblings. Girls living with siblings
gave lower maternal Firm Control scores than girls not
living with siblings.

There were no significant main effects of mother's
remarriage for any of the 18 scales for mother, but
mother's remarriage x sex interactions, F(1,24), p < 0.05,
were found on four of the scales for mother (See Table 9).
For boys, Acceptance, Childcenteredness, Acceptance of
Individuation, and Lax Discipline scores for mother were
lower for remarried mothers than for mothers that were not
remarried. Girls showed the opposite pattern on these four
scales; girls awarded higher scores to their mothers if

they were remarried.

44

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. ..4 4.4. 4.4 0.4. 00000000 0000000
4.4 4.4. 0.4 4.4. 4.4 0.4. ..4 0.4. 000000000 00 0030000003
5.4 0.4. 4.. 4... 4.4 4.4. 0.. 4.4. 0000000000 000040:
4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 0.4. 4.4 4.4. 4000000 0000000000 0000000400
5.4 0.4. 0.4 4.5. 0.4 0..4 ..4 4.4. 0000000400 000
4.4 4.44 4.. 4.54 4.4 4.44 4.. 4.44 00000000>0000 00 0000000000
0.4 0.4. 4.4 4.4. 0.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 00000000000002
4.4 4.4. 5.4 4.4. 0.4 0.5. 0.4 4.4. 0000000400 000000000000
0.4 5.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.5. 4.4 0.4. 0000000 0000400
0.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 5.5 0.4. 5.4 0.4. 00000 0000000 0000000
4.4 5.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 0.5. 4.4 4..4 44000>0000000
..4 4.44 0.4 ..54 4.4 ..44 4.4 0.44 00000>00>00 0>000000
4.4 4.4. 5.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 5.4 0.4. 00000000000
5.4 4.4. 4.4 4.0. 0.4 0.0. 0.4 4.44 0000000
4.4 4.4. 4.4 4.4. 4.4 ..4. 4.4 4.4. 000000400
4.4 4.04 4.4 4..4 0.. 4..4 0.4 4..4 04000>00000000
4.4 ..44 4.4 0.44 4.. 0.54 4.4 4.44 00000000000000000
4.4 0.44 4.. 4.54 4.0 4.54 4.4 4.44 0000000000
0m :mmz Gm GMT: Om GMT—z Gm GMT: Tamom
00000 m>om 00000 maom
000uumsom 002 002002 peauumeom 00:00:
00:00: 00m moamom Hmmmu :o 000000050m 0.00:002 mo muomuum .m manme

45

Father's remarriage affected the Enforcement and
Instilling Persistent Anxiety scales for mother. The mean
Enforcement score for mother was higher if the father was
remarried (M = 18.7) than if he was not (M = 15.1), F(1,24)
= 6.6, p < 0.02. The mean Instilling Persistent Anxiety
score for mother was also higher if father was remarried (M
= 17.2) than if he was not remarried (M = 13.5), F(1,24) =
7.2, p < 0.02. The other 16 scales for mother were
unaffected by father's remarriage.

There was significant variation in scores for mother's
Inconsistent Discipline, Lax Discipline, and Extreme
Autonomy among children living in different custody
arrangements. Inconsistent Discipline scores for mother
were higher for children in joint custody (M = 22.0) than
for children in mother (M a 14.6) or father custody (M =
15.3), F(2,22) = 4.8, p < 0.02. For maternal Lax
Discipline, children in mother custody (M = 16.5) reported
lower scores than children in joint (M = 22.0) or father
custody (M = 18.7), F(2,22) = 3.6, p < 0.05. Extreme
Autonomy scores for mother were highest for children in
joint custody (M = 23.0), intermediate for children in
father custody (M = 20.7), and lowest for children in
mother custody (M = 14.5), F(2,22) = 6.8, p = 0.005.

No significant main effects of visitation by the non-
custodial parent occurred on any of the 18 scales for
mother. However, an interaction effect of visitation by

the non-custodial parent x sex was found on the

46
Childcenteredness scale for mother, F(1,24) = 6.2, p =
0.02. Boys who were visited by their non-custodial parent
perceived mother as higher on Childcenteredness than boys
who were not visited. In contrast, girls who were visited
by the non-custodial parent gave mother a lower
Childcenteredness score than girls who were not visited.

Children who lived with siblings reported a
significantly higher score for mother on Lax Discipline (M
= 18.3) than children who did not live with siblings (M =
14.2), F(1,24) = 5.4, p < 0.03. There were living with
siblings x sex interactions on the scales for Acceptance of
Individuation F(1,24) = 4.2, p = 0.05, and Lax Discipline,
F(1,24) = 9.4, p < 0.01. On both scales, boys living with
siblings had lower scores than boys not living with
siblings, but the opposite pattern occurred for girls.

For the divorced group, Possessiveness was the only
maternal scale that was correlated with years since divorce
(r a 0.38, df = 26, p < 0.05). There was also a single
maternal scale that was correlated with years since
father's remarriage; children gave their mothers higher
Control scores as years since father's remarriage increased
(r a 0.61, df = 26, p < 0.05). There were no significant
correlations between any of the scales for mother and years
since mother's remarriage for the divorce group (boys and
girls lumped).

For boys of divorce, maternal Hostile Control scores

were correlated with years since divorce (r = 0.61, df =

47
13, p < 0.02). Girls showed no significant correlations
between any of the maternal scales and years since divorce.
There were also no correlations between the scales for
mother and the years since mother's remarriage for boys or
girls.

Boys' scores for maternal Nonenforcement were
negatively correlated with years since father's remarriage
(r = 0.56, df = 13, p < 0.03). Girls' perceptions of
mother showed the greatest influence of years since
father's remarriage with strong correlations on three of
the maternal scales. As the years since father's
remarriage increased, girls saw mothers as lower on
Acceptance of Individuation (r = -0.97, df = 11, p < 0.03).
Girls also perceived increasing maternal Hostile Detachment
as years since father's remarriage went up (r = 0.98, df =
11, p < 0.02). A near-perfect positive correlation was
found between girls' perceptions of maternal Withdrawal of
Relations and years since father's remarriage (r = 0.997,
df = 11, p < 0.005).

Effects of Demographic Variables on Children's Perceptigpg
of Father

Mother's and father's remarriage had no significant
effects on the three factors for father.

The custody arrangement affected the Firm Control
factor for father. The paternal Firm Control scores were
highest for children in mother custody (M = 21.5),
intermediate for children in joint custody (M = 18.0), and

48

lowest for children in father custody (M = 17.1), F(2,22) =
4.9, p < 0.02. This same pattern of custody arrangement
effects was seen above on the maternal Firm Control factor.
In addition, there was a custody arrangement x sex
interaction on the paternal Acceptance factor, F(2,22) =
7.9, p < 0.003. In mother custody, boys and girls rated
father alike on Acceptance. In father and joint custody,
boys viewed fathers as higher on Acceptance than did girls.

Visitation by the non-custodial parent and living with
siblings did not affect any of the three paternal factors.

No significant main effects of mother's remarriage
were seen on any of the 18 scales for father. However,
there was a mother's remarriage x sex interaction on the
Possessiveness scale for father, F(1,24) = 4.8, p < 0.05.
If their mothers were remarried, boys gave their fathers
lower Possessiveness scores than if their mothers were not
remarried. In contrast, girls rated their fathers as
higher on Possessiveness if their mothers were remarried.

Father's remarriage was associated with significant
main effects on the Rejection and Hostile Detachment scales
for father. The mean Rejection score for father was higher
if the father was remarried (M = 13.0) than if he was not
remarried (M = 11.5), F(1,24) = 8.6, p < 0.01. The mean
Hostile Detachment score for father was also higher if
father was remarried (M a 14.2) than if he was not
remarried (M = 11.9), F(1,24) = 14.2, p = 0.001. In

addition, there were father's remarriage x sex interaction

49
effects on the paternal scales for Rejection, F(1,24) =
5.3, p = 0.03, and Hostile Detachment, F(1,24) = 5.4, p <
0.03. Girls with remarried fathers gave higher paternal
Rejection and Hostile Detachment scores than girls whose
fathers were not remarried. If their fathers were
remarried, boys showed no effect on paternal Rejection and
little effect on paternal Hostile Detachment. In summary,
if father remarried, he was seen as more rejecting and as
showing more hostile detachment; this was especially true
for girls.

There were four scales for father that were
significantly affected by custody arrangement: Control (p
< 0.05), Inconsistent Discipline (p < 0.005), Hostile
Detachment (p < 0.03), and Extreme Autonomy (p < 0.001),
(df = 2,22; see Table 10). Control scores for father were
lower in joint custody than in mother or father custody.
Father's Inconsistent Discipline and Hostile Detachment
scores were highest in joint custody, intermediate in
father custody, and lowest in mother custody. Surprisingly,
fathers received the highest scores for Extreme Autonomy
from children in father custody! Children in mother
custody reported the lowest scores for father's Extreme
Autonomy.

Custody arrangement x sex interactions were found
on five scales for father: Acceptance (p < 0.05),
Childcenteredness (p < 0.05), Possessiveness (p < 0.03),

Positive Involvement (p < 0.01), and Hostile Detachment

50

 

 

 

4000000 00006

4000030 002004

4000000 00000:

0.4. 0.44 0.04 0.44 4.4. 0.4. 40000000 0000000
o.o. 0.4. o.o. o.o. o.~. o.~. 00000000m no 0030000003
m.m~ o.o. 4.0. m.~. ..m. m... ucoenomuoa 000000:
o.o. o.o. o... o.m. m.~. m.m. 4000xc< 0000000000 000040000H
o.m. o.om o..~ o.v~ m.h. 4.4. 0c0090000n 400
m.mm m.4~ m.w~ o.m~ o.m~ m.v~ 00000300>0©0H «0 0000000000
o.4~ 0.0. o.m. o.m. 4.0. 4.m. 00000000ucwcoz
o.m. o.4~ o.m. o.o~ m.v. 4.m. 0000000000 00000000000H
o.m. o.m. m.~. o.m. o.m. m.4. 0000000 000000:
o.o. 0.0. o.~. 0.0. 4.4. «.m. 00009 :msounu 0000000
o.om o.~m o.v. o.- 4.4. o.o. mmocm>000000H
m.m~ o.om m..~ m.m~ v.4m m.m~ ucmeo>ao>sm o>0ufimom
0.4. 0.0. o.m. o.m. 4.4. 4.0. 00050000msm
0.4. o.4. o.0. o.o~ o.o~ m.m. Houucou
m.4. o.o. m.~. m.~. m.~. 4... :00uowflmm
o.o~ o.o. o.m. o.¢~ m.m. 4.0. mmocm>0mmommom
o.w. o.om 0.0. o.- 4.m~ m.4~ mmocnmuoucwopaano
m..m o.om ..mm o.m~ m.m~ m.m~ mocmumoooc
00000 040m 0000U 040m 00000 040m mamom

 

.Honumm 00w moamom Hmmmu :o Damswmcmuu< 4000050 no muoomum .o. manna

51
(p < 0.005), (df = 2,22; see Table 10). In mother custody,
boys and girls viewed father alike on these five scales.
In father and joint custody, however, boys perceived father
as higher on Acceptance, Childcenteredness, and Positive
Involvement than girls perceived father. In addition, in
father custody, boys saw fathers as higher on
Possessiveness than did girls. In joint custody, girls
gave fathers a much higher score on Hostile Detachment than
did boys.

As reported above for the maternal scales, there were
no main effects due to visitation by the non-custodial
parent on the paternal scales. A significant interaction
effect of visitation by the non-custodial parent x sex was
noted on the Hostile Detachment scale for father, F(1,24) =
4.2, p a 0.05. Boys visited by the non-custodial parent
reported a higher score for father's Hostile Detachment
than boys who were not visited; the reverse was true for
girls.

The mean paternal Inconsistent Discipline score was
higher for children living with siblings (M = 16.1) than
for those not living with siblings (M = 12.9), F(1,24) =
6.0, p < 0.03. There were no other effects of living with
siblings on the paternal scales.

There were no significant correlations for the entire
divorced sample between any of the scales for father and
years since divorce or years since father's remarriage.

However, there was a significant correlation between one

52
paternal scale and years since mother's remarriage; as
years since mother's remarriage increased, children gave
their fathers lower Control through Guilt scores (r =
-O.66, df = 26, p = 0.05).

Boys of divorce showed no significant correlations
between any paternal scales and years since divorce, years
since mother's remarriage, or years since father's
remarriage. In contrast, girls' views of their fathers
were more influenced by the divorce variables. For girls,
there was a correlation between paternal Acceptance of
Individuation and years since divorce (r = 0.56, df = 11,
p < 0.05). Also as years since divorce increased, girls
perceived fathers as lower on Withdrawal of Relations (r =
-0.63, df = 11, p < 0.03). Another negative correlation
was noted for girls between paternal Nonenforcement and
years since father's remarriage (r = -0.97, df = 11, p <
0.05). Again, there were no significant correlations for
girls between any of the paternal scales and years since
mother's remarriage. It is striking that only one scale in
this entire analysis was correlated with years since
mother's remarriage.

In summary, the time since father's remarriage
affected children's perceptions of their parents more than
time since divorce or time since mother's remarriage.
Also, girls' views were more greatly influenced by the time
since father's remarriage than were boys' perceptions of

their parents.

53

Effects of Demographic Variables on Locus of Control

Within the divorced group, there were no significant
main effects or interaction effects on the locus of control
score for the following variables: mother's remarriage,
father's remarriage, custody arrangement, visitation by the
non-custodial parent, and siblings living with the child.

For the total divorce sample, there were no
significant correlations between locus of control and years
since divorce, years since mother's remarriage, and years
since father's remarriage. However, when examining the
effects of the above variables by sex, girls of divorce
showed a near perfect correlation (r = 0.99, df = 11, p =
0.01) between their locus of control scores and years since
father's remarriage. Locus of control scores for boys of
divorce were negatively correlated (r a -0.74, df = 13, p <
0.05) with years since father's remarriage. Thus, as years
since father's remarriage increase girls of divorce show
more external locus of control while boys of divorce show
more internal locus of control. The years since divorce
and years since mother's remarriage were not correlated

with locus of control for boys or girls.

Comparisons between the Custodial and Non-Custodial Parents

The comparisons between custodial and non-custodial
parents for the CRPBI factors and scales were performed via
paired t-tests. These comparisons showed results similar
to the mother versus father factor and scale score

comparisons because 82% of children were in mother custody.

54

Girls of divorce viewed the custodial parent as
significantly higher on the Firm Control factor than the
non-custodial parent (t = 2.3, df = 12, p < 0.05). For
boys of divorce, the custodial parent was seen as
significantly higher on the Psychological Control factor
than the non-custodial parent (t = 4.1, df = 14, p =
0.001).

Girls of divorce saw the custodial parent as
significantly higher on the Hostile Control (t = 2.2, df =
12, p = 0.05) and Instilling Persistent Anxiety (t = 2.9,
df = 12, p < 0.02) scales. The exceptions to the mother vs
father pattern were the differences on the Nonenforcement
scale and the absence of differences on the Withdrawal of
Relations scale. On the Nonenforcement scale, girls of
divorce rated the custodial parent as significantly higher
than the non—custodial parent (t = 2.6, df = 12, p < 0.03).
Boys of divorce gave significantly higher scores to the
custodial parent on Rejection (t = 3.2, df = 14, p < 0.01)
and on Instilling Persistent Anxiety (t = 3.8, df = 14, p <

0.005).

DISCUSSION
Comparisons between Children from
Divorced and Intact Families

A striking result of this study was the absence of
differences between children from divorced and intact
families on the three CRPBI factors for mother and father.
It was earlier hypothesized that children of divorce
would perceive their parents as lower on Acceptance,
Psychological Control, and Firm Control than children from
intact families. These hypotheses were based on studies
which found discipline problems and diminished parenting
for children of divorce (Tooley, 1975; Wallerstein & Kelly,
1976, 1980, 1983; Hetherington, 1979). However, in the
present study, overall, children of divorce do not appear
to view their parents more negatively than children from
intact families.

Since the CRPBI factors measure gross dimensions of
parent behavior, the CRPBI scales were used for more
detailed comparisons. The finding of no differences
between children from intact and divorced families on 17 of
the 18 scales again suggests less impact of divorce on
children's perceptions of parental behavior than was
expected.

The data also showed no significant differences in
locus of control between children from divorced and intact
families. This refutes the prediction that children of

<iivorce would have more external locus of control than

55

56
children from intact families. Other researchers have
found significantly more external locus of control for
children from divorced families when compared to children
from intact families (Lancaster & Richmond, 1983).
Likewise, a retrospective study indicated that children who
experienced father loss through divorce during the latency
phase of childhood had more external locus of control than
children from intact families (Parish & Nunn, 1983).
However, children from divorced and intact families in the
present study were considerably more internal than their
counterparts in the Lancaster & Richmond (1983) study. In
fact, children from divorced and intact families in this
study showed more internal locus of control than children
of comparable age in the standardization sample (Nowicki
and Strickland, 1973).

Why were the children from divorced and intact
families similar in their perceptions of parent behavior
and in their locus of control? A major reason for this
similarity may be that the experience of parental divorce
did not impact strongly on children's perceptions of
parents and locus of control. There is a growing body of
literature which suggests that overall, children's
perceptions and development are not negatively influenced
by parental divorce (Reinhard, 1977; Rosen, 1977; Kurdek &
Siesky, 1980; Kurdek et a1., 1981; Goldblum, 1984).
Studies which specifically addressed the issue of

children's adjustment found children of divorce to be well

57

adjusted (Kurdek & Siesky, 1980; Kurdek et a1., 1981;
Goldblum, 1984); some researchers even reported positive
outcomes of divorce such as children's increased
responsibility, sensitivity, growth, and autonomy
(Reinhard, 1977; Rosen, 1977; Weiss, 1979). Of course
these findings conflict with other reports of emotional
turmoil and maladjustment following divorce (McDermott,
1970; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1976, 1980, 1983).

Another potential explanation may involve the quality
of the parent-child relationship. Hess and Camara (1979)
reported that relationships between family members had more
influence on a child's behavior than marital status;
positive relationships with one or both parents greatly
decreased the negative effects of divorce on a child's
behavior. It has also been reported that a continuing
relationship with the non-custodial parent influences the
child's positive adjustment to divorce (Wallerstein &
Kelly, 1975, 1976, 1980; Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington,
1979). It is possible that the children of divorce in this
study maintained positive relationships with one or both of
their parents. Since 89% of the children in this sample
were visited by their non-custodial parent, these
continuing parent-child relationships may have contributed
to the children's positive divorce outcomes.

In view of the problems of sampling and general-
izability mentioned in the introduction, and in view of the

fact that only 15 percent of families initially contacted

58
agreed to participate in this study, it may be argued that
the children of divorce in this sample were volunteers
drawn from families with greater stability and sensitivity
about divorce-related issues. Kurdek and Berg (1983) found
moderate relationships between children's divorce
adjustment and both an internal locus of control and a high
degree of interpersonal understanding. The internal locus
of control displayed by the children of divorce in this
sample is indicative of their adjustment to divorce. The
control group of children from intact families showed a
similar internal locus of control. Although the act of
volunteering to participate in psychological research may
have attracted families with better adjusted children in
both groups, it could also have attracted help-seeking
families with maladjusted children. Without knowing how
representative these families are, one cannot say which
interpretation is more apt. Therefore, caution must be
exercised in attempts to generalize the results obtained
here. Of course, these concerns apply not only to the
present study but to previously published work as well. A
full comparison of demographic data could help to reduce
this problem in future studies.

Another consideration was that the current study
included subjects from a normal (nonclinical) population.
This was especially important for children of divorce
because clinical populations probably include the children

most disturbed by divorce. The studies cited above which

59
reported positive outcome and adjustment to divorce all
employed nonclinical subjects whereas the more negative
effects of divorce were often seen in clinical studies.

It could also be argued that time since divorce
affected the children in this sample. The average amount
of time since divorce in this study was about six years,
so it is possible that the effects of divorce were
ameliorated. Other studies have shown more acute problems
for children in the years immediately following divorce
(Hetherington, 1979; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). However,
the variable of time since divorce (ranging from one to
eleven years) was tested in this sample and showed little
or no effect on children's perceptions.

The main trend in this study showed children from
divorced and intact families to be similar in perceptions
of parent behavior, yet there were some significant
differences between the groups. Possessiveness was the
only CRPBI scale showing significant differences between
children of divorced and intact families for both boys and
girls and for both parents. Children of divorce rated both
their mothers and fathers significantly higher on
Possessiveness than did children from intact families.
Further, maternal Possessiveness was positively correlated
with years since divorce.

The Possessiveness scale has significant positive
loadings on the Acceptance versus Rejection factor

(Schludermann & Schludermann, 1983). Items such as

60
"Becomes very involved in my life," and "Wishes I would
stay at home where she/he could take care of me," are
included in the Possessiveness scale. High scores on the
Possessiveness scale connote an overinvolved form of
acceptance by the parents. A previous study using the
CRPBI included the Possessiveness scale as part of its
Maternal Neurosis Factor (Rode, 1971).

The perceptions of high parental Possessiveness by the
children of divorce in the present study suggests that
divorced parents cling to their children to combat the loss
of their marital relationship and to provide a sense of
continuity. Other researchers have noted the tendency of
some divorced parents to turn to their children for
emotional support and companionship (Beal, 1979;
Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Weiss (1979) reported that the
child often assumes a peer or partnership role with its
single parent. The heightened parent-child relationship
may result in the divorced parent behaving more
possessively toward his or her child. The positive
correlation between maternal Possessiveness and years since
divorce suggests that this effect intensifies for mothers

as the time since the divorce increases.

Comparisons between Mother and Father
Results showed that girls of divorce, boys of divorce,
and boys from intact families viewed their mothers as
significantly higher than their fathers on the

Psychological Control factor and on the Instilling

61
Persistent Anxiety scale. In contrast, girls from intact
families showed no significant differences in their
perceptions of mother versus father on any of the CRPBI
factors or scales.

The general trend for children in this sample to rate
mothers higher on Psychological Control than fathers
suggests the mothers' tendency of using psychological
methods to control their children. Mothers may resort to
more psychological means of control because of their
difficulty in exerting disciplinary control. Rode's (1971)
study of individually alienated adolescents concluded that
adolescent boys and girls perceived their mothers as
exercising psychological control via methods such as
instilling persistent anxiety. In his factor analysis of
the CRPBI, Cross (1969) found that males evaluated their
mothers primarily on the Psychological Control dimension
and related this to the more neurotic involvement of the
mother-son relationship. The intensified bond between
mother and son could account for boys in this study viewing
their mothers as more psychologically controlling than
their fathers. In a study of traditional Canadian
Hutterite adolescents, girls perceived their mothers as
higher on the Psychological Control factor than their
fathers while boys perceived no differences (Schludermann &
Schludermann, 1971). However, it is difficult to compare
these results with the present findings because of the

clear cultural differences.

62

Assuming the results of this study were reliable, why
might boys from intact families view their mothers as more
psychologically controlling and indeed show the most mother
versus father differences on the CRPBI scales? Some
researchers have reported that boys from intact families
showed more separation anxiety and lower levels of social
development than boys of divorce in mother custody or
father custody (Santrock & Warshak, 1979; Warshak &
Santrock, 1983). The boys from intact families in the
current study saw their mothers as significantly higher
than their fathers on the Possessiveness, Positive
Involvement, Intrusiveness, Hostile Control, and Instilling
Persistent Anxiety scales. With the exception of the
Positive Involvement scale, the other scales point to the
type of neurotic mother-son interaction cited above (Cross,
1969; Rode, 1971). The reduced compliance of sons,
particularly to mothers (Hetherington et a1., 1978), may
also necessitate increased control of boys by their
mothers.

The girls from intact families viewed their mothers
and fathers alike on all dimensions. Unlike the other
groups, these girls did not view their mothers as more
psychologically controlling. Possible explanations for
their views may include more compliant behavior by the
girls, less neurotic involvement with mothers, and the

absence of stress by divorce.

63
In this sample, girls of divorce perceived their
mothers (and custodial parents) as significantly higher
on Firm Control than their fathers (and non-custodial
parents). This result was unexpected, because previous
studies have reported divorced mothers' problems in

disciplining their sons (Tooley, 1975; Hetherington, 1979).

Sex Differences and Effects of Age

There was a profound absence of main effects of sex of
child on all of the CRPBI factors and scales for both
parents and on the locus of control measure. This was
noteworthy for children of divorce, because some
researchers have documented sex differences such that boys
of divorce showed more emotional and developmental problems
(Hetherington, 1979) and poorer divorce adjustment
(Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Kurdek & Berg, 1983) than girls
of divorce. However, other studies did not find
significant sex differences in children's divorce
adjustment (Reinhard, 1977; Kurdek et a1., 1981). Other
investigators have reported interaction effects such that
children living with the opposite sex parent (mother
custody boys and father custody girls) are less well
adjusted than children who live with the same sex parent
(Santrock & Warshak, 1979; Warshak & Santrock, 1983).
Interaction effects with sex of child were noted for
children in this sample and are discussed in this section.

The most compelling effects of age were seen among

children in the divorced sample. For children of divorce

64
and for girls of divorce, maternal Rejection increased as
age increased. Likewise, the children of divorce and boys
of divorce saw decreasing paternal Acceptance with
increasing age. The findings that these children of
divorce perceived their parents as more rejecting with
increasing time may be related to the observation that
older latency children experience intense anger towards
parents (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1976, 1980). As predicted
earlier, these intense angry feelings could cause children

to perceive their parents as more rejecting.

Effects within the Divorced Group

Mother's remarriage showed no main effects on any of
the CRPBI factors or scales for mother or father. It is
also notable that only one CRPBI scale in the whole
analysis was correlated with years since mother's
remarriage. In addition to the other 35 CRPBI scales, the
locus of control measure was also uncorrelated with years
since mother's remarriage. These findings suggest that
mother's remarriage had little impact on children's
perceptions of parents and on locus of control. Mitchell
(1983) reported no differences in parenting when comparing
remarried mothers with single divorced mothers. The
present data did contain an interesting mother's remarriage
x sex interaction on the maternal Acceptance factor. Boys
with remarried mothers viewed their mothers as lower on
Acceptance than boys whose mothers were not remarried. The

presence and possible displacement by the stepfather as a

65

new male figure in the household may cause boys to see
their remarried mothers as less accepting. The close
mother-son relationship discussed above may also be
weakened with the entry of a stepfather. In contrast,
girls perceived their remarried mothers as more accepting,
possibly because of their lower neurotic involvement with
mothers and lack of Oedipal competition for mothers' love.

Although father's remarriage did not affect the CRPBI
factors for either parent, it showed effects on CRPBI
scales for both parents. If father was remarried, mother
was perceived as significantly higher on Enforcement and on
Instilling Persistent Anxiety than if father was not
remarried. This suggests that the father's remarriage may
affect the mother's approach to discipline and control.
Father's remarriage also affected the children's
perceptions of paternal behavior. Remarried fathers were
seen as more rejecting and as showing more hostile
detachment; these perceptions were especially evident in
girls. The view of remarried fathers as more rejecting and
detached may relate to the observation of the rapidly
diminished availability of divorced fathers to their
children (Hetherington, 1979). The remarried father with a
new family may experience difficulty in maintaining ties
with children from his previous marriage. Other
researchers found that fathers maintained more frequent and
longer visits with sons than with daughters (Hess & Camara,

1979). The remarriage of her father to a new woman may

66

result in the girl's feelings of rejection by father;
unresolved Oedipal jealousies may be reawakened as well.

The finding that years since father's remarriage
affected children's perceptions of their parents more than
the years since mother's remarriage or the years since
divorce again underscores the influence of father's
remarriage. The girls' perceptions of parent behavior were
more affected by the time since father's remarriage than
were boys' perceptions. Locus of control scores for girls
and boys were also correlated with years since father's
remarriage but not correlated with years since mother's
remarriage or years since divorce. With increasing years
since father's remarriage, girls showed more external locus
of control but boys showed more internal locus of control.

All of these findings indicate an impact of father's
remarriage on girls' perceptions. The girls' more external
perceptions of themselves may be related to their feelings
of having little control over life changes such as father's
remarriage and decreased contact with father (Hess &
Camara, 1979; Kurdek & Berg, 1983). Some researchers have
argued that girls display better adjustment to divorce than
boys (Hetherington, 1979; Kurdek & Berg, 1983). However,
other studies have shown more negative effects for girls.
Slater, Stewart, and Linn (1983) reported poorer self-
concept and poorer perceptions of their family environment
for adolescent girls of divorce than for girls from intact

families; the opposite pattern was true for boys. Another

67
study showed increased dependent behavior by girls but not
by boys towards their custodial parents in the fourth year
after divorce (Goldblum, 1984). In the present study, the
years since father's remarriage seem to impact negatively
on girls' locus of control and perceptions of parent
behavior while for boys there are more positive effects
such as increased internality.

Custody arrangements significantly affected children's
views of maternal and paternal Firm Control. For both
parents, Firm Control was highest for children in mother
custody, intermediate for children in joint custody and
lowest for children in father custody. The high maternal
Firm Control reported by children in mother custody is
consistent with the idea that mothers assert more control
in the absence of a male authority figure (Slater et a1.,
1983). It is notable, however, that children in this study
rated non-custodial and joint-custodial fathers as more
controlling than custodial fathers. Apparently, fathers
exert more control when they are not the primary parent.

Further examination of the effects of custody
arrangement on the CRPBI scales shows that children
perceived more control and discipline by both parents in
the mother custody arrangement versus greater autonomy and
lax discipline in joint and father custody. Mother custody
is currently the more normative custody arrangement for
children, and it appears to be associated with more

parental discipline and structure. By virtue of their

68
alternative nature, joint and father custody arrangements
may attract parents who permit more autonomy and looser
discipline.

Other researchers have found that children living with
the same sex parent (father custody boys and mother custody
girls) were better adjusted than children living with the
opposite sex parent (Santrock & Warshak, 1979; Warshak &
Santrock, 1983). In the present study, there was a custody
arrangement x sex interaction on the paternal Acceptance
factor. Boys and girls in mother custody rated father
alike on Acceptance. However, in father and joint custody,
boys perceived fathers as higher on Acceptance than did
girls. The more positive perception of paternal acceptance
by the boys in father and joint custody in this study is
consistent with the Santrock and Warshak (1979) finding of
better adjustment for father custody boys. The issue of
custody arrangement x sex of child interactions merits
further investigation. I

Visitation by the non-custodial parent and living with
siblings had little or no effect on how children of
divorce perceived their parents. These variables also
showed no effects of children's locus of control. It
should be noted that the majority of children in the
divorced sample were visited by the non-custodial parent
and lived with siblings. Although effects were not

apparent here, the benefits of visitation by the non-

69
custodial parent have been documented (Rosen, 1977; Hess &

Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979).

Implication§_for Future Research and Clinical Interventions

The results showed similarities between children from
divorced and intact families in their perceptions of parent
behavior and locus of control for those families which
participated in the study. The findings highlight the need
for inclusion of a control group when studying children
from divorced families. Future studies of the impact of
divorce on children will be more likely to yield objective
assessments if they include children from both intact and
divorced families. In addition, determining some means of
assessing the representativeness of participating families
would strengthen future studies.

The results of the present study and other studies
(Reinhard, 1977; Rosen, 1977; Kurdek & Siesky, 1980; Kurdek
et a1., 1981; Goldblum, 1984) suggest that parental divorce
has less impact on children than was previously believed.
Nonetheless, divorce can be a time of family crisis
accompanied by great stress on children. My results do not
refute the idea that parental divorce can be difficult or
even traumatic for some children. However, the present
findings imply that for later latency children from a
nonclinical population whose families volunteer to
participate in research, divorce does not have major
effects on children's perceptions of their parents or their

locus of control.

70

Clinically, this study implies minimal long-term
effects of divorce for normal children. Although my study
did not include clinical subjects, the relative lack of
chronic effects observed here and in other research may
encourage clinicians to view divorce as a family crisis
with short-term effects on children.

Other results noted in this study deserve clinical
consideration. The finding that children of divorce saw
both of their parents as significantly more possessive than
children from intact families suggests the possibility of
undue parental demands on children of divorce. The age
effect seen in children of divorce with regard to
perceptions of parental behavior merits further
investigation. If divorced parents become increasingly
more rejecting of their children over time, this could have
consequences for the child's mental health and development
as the child moves towards adolescence.

The largely negative influence of father's remarriage
and increasing years since father's remarriage on children's
views of both parents could also have clinical
significance. Girls appeared to be particularly affected
by father's remarriage and showed more external locus of
control with increasing time since father's remarriage.
This increased externality could signify diminishing
adjustment and potential problems for the preadolescent

girl.

71
The findings for children of divorce noted above may
assist family therapists and child psychotherapists in
assessment and treatment of the later latency child.
Further research will be required to confirm the trend of

minimal impact of divorce on children seen here.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

Children's Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI)
and

Scoring Sheet

 

PLEASE NOTE:

Copyrighted materials in this document
have not been filmed at the request of
the author. They are available for
consultation. however, in the author's
university library.

These consist of pages:

72-92

 

93-97

 

 

 

 

Uni '
Micr Ilms
International

330 N. ZEEB RD. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106 (313) 761-4700

APPENDIX A

Children's Reports of Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
FORM FOR MOTHER
INSTRUCTIONS

We are interested in learning more about the
different experiences people have in their families.
Please read each item on the following pages and circle the
answer that most closely describes the way your mother acts

toward you. BE SURE TO MARK EACH ITEM.

If you think the item is LIKE your mother, circle L.
If you think the item is SOMEWHAT LIKE your mother,

circle SQ.

If you think the item is NOT LIKE your mother, circle EL.

72

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

73

FORM FOR MOTHER

Makes me feel better after talking
over my worries with her.

Isn't very patient with me.

Sees to it that I know exactly what
I may or may not do.

Wants to know exactly where I am
and what I am doing.

Soon forgets a rule she has made.

Is easy with me.

Doesn't talk with me very much.

Will not talk to me when I
displease her.

Is very strict with me.

Feels hurt when I don't follow
advice.

Is always telling me how I should
behave.

Usually doesn't find out about my
misbehavior.

Spends very little time with me.

Almost always speaks to me with
a warm and friendly voice.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

125.

126.

:27.

74

FORM FOR MOTHER

Is always thinking of things that
will please me.

Believes in having a lot of rules
and sticking to them.

Tells me how much she loves me.

Is always checking on what I've
been doing at school or at play.

Punishes me for doing something
one day, but ignores it the next.

Allows me to tell her if I think
my ideas are better than hers.

Lets me off easy when I do
something wrong.

Sometimes when she disapproves,
doesn't say anything but is cold
and distant for awhile.

Forgets to help me when I need it.

Sticks to a rule instead of
allowing a lot of exceptions.

Tells me exactly how to do my work.

Doesn't pay much attention to my
misbehavior.

Likes me to choose my own way of
doing things.

 

Some-
what Not
iike Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

-39.

‘40.

75

FORM FOR MOTHER

If I break a promise, doesn't
trust me again for a long time.

Doesn't seem to think of me
very often.

Doesn't tell me what time to be
home when I go out.

Gives me a lot of care and
attention.

Believes that all my bad behavior
should be punished in some way.

Asks me to tell everything that
happens when I'm away from home.

Doesn't forget very quickly the
things I do wrong.

Wants me to tell her about it if
I don't like the way she treats me.

Worries about me when I'm away.

Gives hard punishments.

Believes in showing her love
for me.

Feels hurt by the things I do.

Lets me help to decide how to
do things we're working on.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

76

FORM FOR MOTHER

Says some day I'll be punished
for my bad behavior.

Gives me as much freedom as I want.

Smiles at me very often.

Is always getting after me.

Keeps a careful check on me to
make sure I have the right kind
of friends.

Depends upon her mood whether a
rule is enforced or not.

Excuses my bad conduct.

Doesn't show that she loves me.

Is less friendly with me if I
don't see things her way.

Is able to make me feel better
when I am upset.

Becomes very involved in my life.

Almost always complains about
what I do.

Always listens to my ideas and
opinions.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

77

FORM FOR MOTHER

Would like to be able to tell me
what to do all the time.

Doesn't check up to see whether
I have done what she told me.

Thinks and talks about my
misbehavior long after it's over.

Doesn't share many activities
with me.

Lets me go any place I please
without asking.

Enjoys doing things with me.

Makes me feel like the most
important person in her life.

Gets cross and angry about
little things I do.

Only keeps rules when it suits
her.

Really wants me to tell her just
how I feel about things.

Will avoid looking at me when
I've disappointed her.

Usually makes me the center of
her attention at home.

Often praises me.

Like

Some-

what

Like

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

Not

Like

NL

NL

NL

NL

NL

NL

NL

NL

NL

NL

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

78

FORM FOR MOTHER

Says if I loved her, I'd do what
she wants me to do.

Seldom insists that I do anything.

Tries to understand how I see
things.

Complains that I get on her nerves.

Doesn't work with me.

Insists that I must do exactly as
I'm told.

Asks other people what I do away
from home.

Loses her temper with me when I
don't help around the house.

Does not insist I obey if I
complain or protest.

Cheers me up when I am sad.

Sees to it that I obey when she
tells me something.

Tells me of all the things she
has done for me.

Wants to control whatever I do.

Does not bother to enforce rules.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

79

FORM FOR MOTHER

Thinks that any misbehavior is
very serious and will have future
consequences.

Is always finding fault with me.

Often speaks of the good things
I do.

Makes her whole life center about
her children.

Doesn't seem to know what I need
or want.

Is happy to see me when I come
home from school or play.

Gives me the choice of what to do
whenever possible.

If I've hurt her feelings, stops
talking to me until I please her
again.

Worries that I can't take care of
myself unless she is around.

Hugged or kissed me goodnight when
I was small.

Says if I really cared for her, I
would not do things that cause her
to worry.

Is always trying to change me.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

80

FORM FOR MOTHER

Is easy to talk to.

Wishes I were a different kind
of person.

Lets me go out any evening
I want.

Seems proud of the things I do.

Spends almost all of her free
time with her children.

I have certain jobs to do and am
not allowed to do anything else
until they are done.

Is very interested in what I am
learning at school.

Doesn't like the way I act at
home.

Changes her mind to make things
easier for herself.

Can be talked into things easily.

Wishes I would stay at home
where she could take care of me.

Makes me feel I'm not loved.

Has more rules than I can remember,
so is often punishing me.

 

Some-
what Not
iike Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

106.

107.

108.

81

FORM FOR MOTHER

Says I make her happy.

Will talk to me again and again
about anything bad I do.

Lets me do anything I like to do.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

82

FORM FOR FATHER
INSTRUCTIONS

We are interested in learning more about the
different experiences people have in their families.
Please read each item on the following pages and circle the
answer that most closely describes the way your father acts

toward you. BE SURE TO MARK EACH ITEM.

If you think the item is LIKE your father, circle L.
If you think the item is SOMEWHAT LIKE your father,
circle s9.

If you think the item is NOT LIKE your father, circle Ni.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

83

FORM FOR FATHER

Makes me feel better after talking
over my worries with him.

Isn't very patient with me.

Sees to it that I know exactly what
I may or may not do.

Wants to know exactly where I am
and what I am doing.

Soon forgets a rule he has made.

Is easy with me.

Doesn't talk with me very much.

Will not talk to me when I
displease him.

Is very strict with me.

Feels hurt when I don't follow
advice.

Is always telling me how I should
behave.

Usually doesn't find out about my
misbehavior.

Spends very little time with me.

Almost always speaks to me with a
warm and friendly voice.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

84

FORM FOR FATHER

Is always thinking of things that
will please me.

Believes in having a lot of rules
and sticking to them.

Tells me how much he loves me.

Is always checking on what I've
been doing at school or at play.

Punishes me for doing something
one day, but ignores it the next.

Allows me to tell him if I think
my ideas are better than his.

Lets me off easy when I do
something wrong.

Sometimes when he disapproves,
doesn't say anything but is cold
and distant for awhile.

Forgets to help me when I need it.

Sticks to a rule instead of
allowing a lot of exceptions.

Tells me exactly how to do my work.

Doesn't pay much attention to my
misbehavior.

Likes me to choose my own way of
doing things.

 

Some-
what Not
iike Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

85

FORM FOR FATHER

If I break a promise, doesn't
trust me again for a long time.

Doesn't seem to think of me
very often.

Doesn't tell me what time to be
home when I go out.

Gives me a lot of care and
attention.

Believes that all my bad behavior
should be punished in some way.

Asks me to tell everything that
happens when I'm away from home.

Doesn't forget very quickly the
things I do wrong.

Wants me to tell him about it if
I don't like the way he treats me.

Worries about me when I'm away.

Gives hard punishments.

Believes in showing his love
for me.

Feels hurt by the things I do.

Lets me help to decide how to
do things we're working on.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

86
FORM FOR FATHER

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like

_T

41. Says some day I'll be punished

for my bad behavior. L SL NL
42. Gives me as much freedom as I want. L SL NL
43. Smiles at me very often. L SL NL
44. Is always getting after me. L SL NL

45. Keeps a careful check on me to
make sure I have the right kind
of friends. L SL NL

46. Depends upon his mood whether a

rule is enforced or not. L SL NL
47. Excuses my bad conduct. L SL NL
48. Doesn't show that he loves me. L SL NL

49. Is less friendly with me if I
don't see things his way. L SL NL

50. Is able to make me feel better
when I am upset. L SL NL

51. Becomes very involved in my life. L SL NL

52. Almost always complains about
what I do. L SL NL

53. Always listens to my ideas and
opinions. L SL NL

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

87

FORM FOR FATHER

Would like to be able to tell me
what to do all the time.

Doesn't check up to see whether
I have done what he told me.

Thinks and talks about my
misbehavior long after it's over.

Doesn't share many activities
with me.

Lets me go any place I please
without asking.

Enjoys doing things with me.

Makes me feel like the most
important person in his life.

Gets cross and angry about
little things I do.

Only keeps rules when it suits
him.

Really wants me to tell him just
how I feel about things.

Will avoid looking at me when
I've disappointed him.

Usually makes me the center of
his attention at home.

Often praises me.

 

Some-
what Not
iike Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

88

FORM FOR FATHER

Says if I loved him, I'd do what
he wants me to do.

Seldom insists that I do anything.

Tries to understand how I see
things.

Complains that I get on his nerves.
Doesn't work with me.

Insists that I must do exactly as
I'm told.

Asks other people what I do away
from home.

Loses her temper with me when I
don't help around the house.

Does not insist I obey if I
complain or protest.

Cheers me up when I am sad.

Sees to it that I obey when he
tells me something.

Tells me of all the things he
has done for me.

Wants to control whatever I do.

Does not bother to enforce rules.

 

Some-
what Not
iike Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

89

FORM FOR FATHER

Thinks that any misbehavior is
very serious and will have future
consequences.

Is always finding fault with me.

Often speaks of the good things
I do.

Makes his whole life center about
his children.

Doesn't seem to know what I need
or want.

Is happy to see me when I come
home from school or play.

Gives me the choice of what to do
whenever possible.

If I've hurt his feelings, stops
talking to me until I please him
again.

Worries that I can't take care of
myself unless he is around.

Hugged or kissed me goodnight when
I was small.

Says if I really cared for him, I
would not do things that cause him
to worry.

Is always trying to change me.

 

Some-
what Not
iike Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

90

FORM FOR FATHER

Is easy to talk to.

Wishes I were a different kind
of person.

Lets me go out any evening
I want.

Seems proud of the things I do.

Spends almost all of his free
time with his children.

I have certain jobs to do and am
not allowed to do anything else
until they are done.

Is very interested in what I am
learning at school.

Doesn't like the way I act at
home.

Changes his mind to make things
easier for himself.

Can be talked into things easily.

Wishes I would stay at home
where he could take care of me.

Makes me feel I'm not loved.

Has more rules than I can remember,
so is often punishing me.

Like

L

 

Some-

what Not

Like Like
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL
SL NL

106.

107.

108.

91

FORM FOR FATHER

Says I make him happy.

Will talk to me again and again
about anything bad I do.

Lets me do anything I like to do.

 

Some-
what Not
Like Like Like
L SL NL
L SL NL
L SL NL

92

.n ma ~33 i300 0303 .uu £0300 5 0030- 03 23. «03:00 5.735 .0380 B: .o 3 ~33 ‘33 033.— .ug c0300 5 .0300 v3
. 20.: also»: «qua-oasfinzoaza «9.28... 10:30:05.. .a .3 .33 .Ia—cu 0303 .3 8300 an .0300 2! 23. 6339:1135
000350000 .0 .3 00.05300 000..- .: .3000» 0:0 3 00.: 0300 0‘00. 9.200.330 3 00.30. 01.00 003090.. 303010 "23023 .000...-

coao 2.0.. 3 0.300 0100 330- 3.0 :3 439. 8300 3 2.302.000 3 33:3. ..4-cor 65—00 5 I.- vuou: 30 28.- 00300 00.30.

003 a: 2! ".303 £0.13. I03 3 032.3000 002.0 a. 00.000 .0: 3300 .7... .s...» .35 :00- ".003 unto—gnu» nan-cum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.300 «384.»
IMIIM... . .3 .33..
~33
0 0 :3 .u 8. n on N 8 £33 000.35 .—
3 r a 2 06030—0. .0 «0:02:32; 2
a .. :3 3.. «a . a_ c S n 2.09.038 02:0- 3
8. a a 3 . 03.3.6331 93:32.. 2
a a - 8. a a _ 8:323 5 z
9.... a a a. 2— . 82333....— a. 352.83 2
0 o nan—8.. 9 n J . 2— “00000-36000- «—
84 .9 a 1 o . 0033003 «cs-«.600..- Z
2.. 8 a 2 z a : 8.2.8 5.8- 2
8.. _ I a 2 :30 £000.30 «0.308 a
8.. 2 n0 2 300033.30- .
3.. 8. $— om 8 n 2 .8033: 83.8 n.
8.. 8. a a a 2.83.85 c
84 . I up 2 n . «0:08 a
. . .9 2.. 3. S = 1 3 a .828?- c
34 3.. 92 _ . an 0.3030003: n
8. 3 8 .n «— 0080000000036 .u
an; 8 n. o n 3 _ 003330000 .
.- . 032.30 43. i .
3.8: 30 h 00 I “I0.
.000 0.3033
«0: 0002.5 . «003003 .058.
.l:. .2: ill-1.208 .3... .8 .38.

Eu Iou>5n= as .0 #83 96.33 a ‘2 ..LS 2386

APPENDIX B :

Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale

APPENDIX B

Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control scale

INSTRUCTIONS

Please read each question on the following pages and
answer by circling either YES or NO. Be sure to answer

every question.

93

10.

11.

12.

94

Do you believe that most problems
will solve themselves if you just
don't fool with them?

Do you believe that you can stop
yourself from catching a cold?

Are some kids just born lucky?‘

Most of the time do you feel that
getting good grades means a great
deal to you?

Are you often blamed for things
that just aren't your fault?

Do you believe that if somebody
studies hard enough he or she can
pass any subject?

Do you feel that most of the time
it doesn't pay to try hard because
things never turn out right anyway?

Do you feel that if things start
out well in the morning that it's
going to be a good day no matter
what you do?

Do you feel that most of the time
parents listen to what their
children have to say?

Do you believe that wishing can make
good things happen?

When you get punished, does it usually
seem it's for no good reason at all?

Most of the time do you find it hard
to change a friend's (mind) opinion?

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

95

Do you think that cheering more than
luck helps a team to win?

Do you feel that it's nearly
impossible to change your parent's
mind about anything?

Do you believe that your parents
should allow you to make most of
your own decisions?

Do you feel that when you do
something wrong there's very little
you can do to make it right?

Do you believe that most kids are
just born good at sports?

Are most of the other kids your age
stronger than you are?

Do you feel that one of the best ways
to handle most problems is just not to
think about them?

Do you feel that you have a lot of
choice in deciding who your friends
are?

If you find a four leaf clover do
you believe that it might bring you
good luck?

Do you often feel that whether you
do your homework has much to do with
what kind of grades you get?

Do you feel that when a kid your age
decides to hit you, there's little you
can do to stop him or her?

Have you ever had a good luck charm?

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

96

Do you believe that whether or not
people like you depends on how you
act?

Will your parents usually help you if
you ask them to?

Have you felt that when people were
mean to you it was usually for no
reason at all?

Most of the time, do you feel that
you can change what might happen
tomorrow by what you do today?

Do you believe that when bad things
are going to happen they just are
going to happen no matter what you
try to do to stop them?

Do you think that kids can get their
own way if they just keep trying?

Most of the time do you find it
useless to try to get your own way
at home?

Do you feel that when good things
happen they happen because of hard
work?

Do you feel that when somebody your
age wants to be your enemy there's
little you can do to change matters?

Do you feel that it's easy to get
friends to do what you want them to?

Do you usually feel that you have
little to say about what you get to
eat at home?

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

97

Do you feel that when someone doesn't
like you there's little you can do
about it?

Do you usually feel that it's almost
useless to try in school because most
other children are just plain smarter
than you are?

Are you the kind of person who
believes that planning ahead makes
things turn out better?

Most of the time, do you feel that
you have little to say about what
your family decides to do?

Do you think it's better to be smart
than to be lucky?

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

APPENDIX C:

Letter to Parents

APPENDIX C

Letter to Parents

Dear Parent:

Our organization has been contacted by a researcher
from Michigan State University's Department of Psychology
who would like your help with an important project. The
purpose of the project is to gain a better understanding of
how children in different types of families perceive their
experiences.

As you know, the nature of the family and its role in
society is rapidly changing. It is important for parents,
teachers and others who deal with children to understand
how these changes in the family affect children.

This project will focus on 9 to 12 year old children.
Children whose parents are still married and children whose
parents are divorced will be included in the project. The
project is designed to provide information which will
improve understanding of children's needs. We hope that
such information will be useful to parents and
professionals.

Participants in this project will be volunteers. If
you agree to participate, you and your child will be asked
to complete a few questionnaires. One parent will be asked
to fill out a short family information form which takes
about 10 minutes. Your child will complete two
questionnaires which will require a total involvement of
about 1 hour. These materials will be personally delivered
to your home at your convenience. All responses will be
kept strictly confidential.

If you are interested in participating with your 9-12
year old child in this project, or would like further
information, please return the enclosed postcard. Please
check the box which indicates your interest. The director
of the project will contact you personally by telephone to
answer any questions and to set up an appointment time.

If you do not wish to participate, please check the
appropriate box and return the enclosed postcard. This is
to ensure that you will not be contacted again about this
project.

98

 

-4-

99

Thank you for your consideration of what should be a
very valuable project.

Sincerely,

Signature of Organization Leader

APPENDIX D:

Parent Demographic Survey Form

II.

APPENDIX D

PARENT DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY FORM

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

Child's name

 

Child's sex (circle): M F

Child's age Child's birthdate

 

Mo Day Year

Your name

 

Street address

 

City/State/Zip code

 

Your phone number

 

Your relationship to child

 

PARENTS

Please fill in the following information about the
child's original (biological) parents:

Father's name

 

Father's age (If deceased, year of death: 19

Father's occupation

 

Father's education

 

Mother's name

 

Mother's age (If deceased, year of death: 19

Mother's occupation

 

Mother's education

 

100

III.

101

FAMILY STATUS

(A)

(B)

1.

For

The child currently lives with (please check
one):

a. both original parents
(biological mother and father)

b. mother only
c. father only
d. other (please explain)

 

 

Have the children's original (biological)
parents been legally divorced at any time
since the child was born?

Yes No

If yes, please skip to Part (B).
If no, please answer question 3 below.

How long have the child's
parents been married? (years)

Please go to Part (C).

children with divorced parents only
When were the child's parents divorced?

date (give month & year
if possible)

Is the child's mother currently remarried?
Yes No
If yes, how long has mother been remarried?
(years)
Is the child's father currently remarried?
Yes No
If yes, how long has father been remarried?

(years)

102

9. Please specify the child's custody
arrangement:

a. mother

b. father
c. joint
d. other

 

 

10. Does the child visit the non-custodial
parent?

Yes No

11. If yes, how often does the child visit the
non-custodial parent?

 

 

(C) Please provide the following information about
the child's siblings:

Number of siblings

 

Name Age Sex Relationship with child
(M or F) to child* (yes or no)

*

Lives

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

please specify if sister, brother, step—sister, step—
brother, half-sister, half-brother, adopted sister or
brother

 

REFERENCES (

 

 

REFERENCES

Andry, R. G. Faulty paternal and maternal-child
relationships, affection and delinquency. British
Journal of Delinquency, 1957, Q, 34-38.

Ausubel, D. P., Balthazar, E. 8., Rosenthal, I., Blackman,
L. S., Schpoont, S. H., & Welkowitz, J. Perceived
parent attitudes as determinants of children's ego
structure. Child Development, 1954, 2;, 173-183.

Battle, E. S., & Rotter, J. B. Children's feelings of
personal control as related to social class and ethnic
group. Journal of Personality, 1963, 11, 482-490.

Beal, E. W. Children of divorce: a family systems
perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 1979, ;§,
140-154-

Benedek, R. 8., & Benedek, E. P. Children of divorce: can
we meet their needs? Journal of Social Issues, 1979,
3;, 155-169.

Berdie, K. P., & Layton, W. L. Minnesota Counseling
Ipventory Manual. New York: Psychological
Corporation, 1957.

Bialer, I. Conceptualization of success and failure in
mentally retarded and normal children. Journal of
Personality, 1961, 29, 303-320.

Biller, H. B. Father absence and the personality
development of the male child. Developmental

Bronfenbrenner, U. Some familial antecedents of
responsibility and leadership in adolescents. In
L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and
interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1961.

Bronson, W. C., Katten, E. S., & Livson, N. Patterns of

authority and affection in two generations. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, §§, 143-152.

103

 

 

104

Brown, A. W., Morrison, J., & Couch, G. B. Influence of
affectional family relationships on character
development. Journal 9; Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1947, 32, 422-428.

Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland,
J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L.
Eggality 9; educational opportunity, Washington,

D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966
(Superintendent of Documents, Catalog No. FS 5.238:
38001).

Cooper, J. B., & Blair, M. A. Parent evaluation as a
determiner of ideology. Journal 9; Genetic
Psychology, 1959, 91, 93-100.

Crandall, V. C., Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J.
Children's beliefs in their own control of
reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement
situations. Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-109.

Cross, H. J. College students' memories of their parents:
a factor analysis of the CRPBI. Journal 9: Consulting
and Clinical Psychologyp 1969, 3;, 275-278.

Duke, M. D., & Lancaster, W. A note on locus of control as
a function of father absence. Journal pf Genetic
Psychology, 1976, 129, 335-336.

Gardner, R. A. Psychotherapy with children 2; divorce.
New York: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1976.

Garmezy, N., Clarke, A. R., & Stockner, C. Child-rearing
attitudes of mothers and fathers as reported by
schizophrenic and normal patients. Journal 9;
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961, 6;, 176-182.

Glick, P. C. Children of divorced parents in demographic
perspective. Journal pf Social Issues, 1979, 35, 170-
182.

Goldblum, N. Changes in the the post-divorce family system
and children's adjustment (Doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1984).

Greenfield, N. S. The relationship between recalled forms
of childhood discipline and psychopathology. Journal
2; Consultinngsychology, 1959, 2;, 139-142.

Herzog, 8., & Sudia, C. E. Children in fatherless
families. In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.),
Review 9: child development research, Vol. III,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

 

 

 

105

Hess, R. D., & Camara, K. A. Post-divorce family
relationships as mediating factors in the consequences

of divorce for children. Journal 9g Social Issues,
1979' 1;, 79-96.

Hetherington, E. M. Divorce: a child's perspective.
American Psycholo ist, 1979, 33, 851-858.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. Divorced fathers.
The Family Coordinator, 1976, 33, 417-428.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. The aftermath of
divorce. In J. H. Stevens, Jr., & M. Mathews (Eds.),
Mother-child, father-child relations. Washington,

D. C.: NAEYC, 1978.

Hingst, A. G. Children and divorce: the child's view.
Unpublished manuscript.

Kalter, N. Children of divorce in an outpatient
psychiatric population. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1977, 31, 40-51.

Kelly, J. B., & Wallerstein, J. S. The effects of parental
divorce: experiences of the child in early latency.
American Journal Q§_Q£thopsychiat , 1976, 33, 20-32.

Kulka, R. A., & Weingarten, H. The long-term effects of
parental divorce in childhood on adult adjustment.
Journal 9; Social Issues, 1979, 33, 50-78.

Kurdek, L. A., & Berg, B. Correlates of children's
adjustment to their parents' divorces. In L. A.
Kurdek (Ed.), E2!.§$£ection§ for child development,
Vol. 19, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1983.

Kurdek, L. A., Blisk, D., & Siesky, A. E. Correlates of
children's long-term adjustment to their parents'
divorce. Developmental Psychology, 1981, 11,
565-579.

Kurdek, L. A., & Siesky, A. E. Children's perceptions of
their parents' divorce. Journal 9; Divorce, 1980, 3,
339-378.

Lancaster, W. W., & Richmond, B. O. Perceived locus of
control as a function of father absence, age, and
geographic location. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 1983, 133, 51-56.

Levitin, T. Children of divorce: an introduction.
Journal 2; Social Issues, 1979, 33, 1-23.

 

106

Longfellow, C. Divorce in context: its impact on
children. In G. Levinger & O. C. Moles (Eds.),
Divorce and sepgration: Context; causesL and
consequences. New York: Basic Books, 1979.

MacDonald, A. P. Internal-external locus of control. In
J. R. Robinson & P. R. Schaver (Eds.), Measures of
social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor: Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1973.

McDermott, J. F. Divorce and its psychiatric sequalae in
children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970, 33,
421-427.

Mitchell, K. The price tag of responsibility: a
comparison of divorced and remarried mothers. Journal
9; Divorce, 1983, g, 33-42.

Morrow, W. R., & Wilson, R. C. Family relations of bright
high-achieving and underachieving high school boys.
Child Development, 1961, 33, 501-510.

Nowicki, S., & Roundtree, J. Correlates of locus of
control in a secondary school population.
Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 477-478.

Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale
for children. Journal 9; Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1973, 33, 148-154.

Parish, T. S., & Nunn, G. D. Locus of control as a
function of family type and age at onset of father
absence. The Journal 9; Psychology, 1983, 113, 187-
190.

Reinhard, D. W. The reaction of adolescent boys and girls
to the divorce of their parents. Journal o; Clinical
Child Psychology, 1977, g, 21-23.

Renson, G. J., Schaefer, E. S., & Levy, B. I. Cross-
national validity of a spherical conceptual model for
parent behavior. Child Development, 1968, 33, 1229-
1235.

Rode, A. Perceptions of parental behavior among alienated
adolescents. Adolescence, 1971, g, 19-38.

Rohrlich, J. A., Ranier, R., Berg-Cross, L., & Berg-Cross,
G. The effects of divorce: a research review with a
developmental perspective. Journal 9; Clinical Child
Psychology, 1977, g, 15-20.

107

Rosen, R. Children of divorce: what they feel about
access and other aspects of the divorce experience.
Journal 23 Clinical Child Psychology, 1977, 3, 24-27.

Rotter, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology.
New York: Prentice-Hall, 1954.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs, 1966, 33, (1, Whole No. 609).

Santrock, J. W., & Warshak, R. A. Father custody and
social development in boys and girls. Journal 93
Social Issues, 1979, 33, 112-125.

Schaefer, E. S. Children's reports of parental behavior:
an inventory. Child Development, 1965, 33, 413-424.
(a)

 

Schaefer, E. S. A configurational analysis of children's
reports of parent behavior. Journal 93 Consulting
Psycholquyygg, 552-557. (b)

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. Replicability of
factors in children's report of parent behavior
(CRPBI). The Journal 93 Psychology, 1970, 33, 239-
249.

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. Adolescent perception
of parent behavior (CRPBI) in Hutterite communal
society. The Journal 23 Psychology, 1971, 33,

29-39.

Schludermann, S., & Schludermann, E. Sociocultural change
and adolescents' perceptions of parent behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 1983, 13, 674-685.

Selman, R. L., & Byrne, D. F. A structural-developmental
analysis of levels of role taking in middle childhood.
Child Develgpment, 1974, 33, 803-806.

Serot, N. M., & Teevan, R. C. Perception of the parent-
child relationship and its relation to child
adjustment. Child Development, 1961, 33, 373-378.

Slater, E. J., Stewart, K. J., & Linn, M. W. The effects
of family disruption on adolescent males and females.
Adolescence, 1983, 13, 931-942.

Tooley, K. Antisocial behavior and social alienation post
divorce: the "man of the house" and his mother.
American Journal 23 Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 33, 33-42.

108

U. S. Bureau of the Census. Mgrital status and family
status: March 1980. Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1981.

Wallerstein, J. S. Children of divorce: the psychological
tasks of the child. American Journal 93
Orthopsychiatry, 1983, 33, 230-243.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. The effects of parental
divorce: the adolescent experience. In E. J. Anthony
& C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child 33 his family:
children 33 psychiatric risk, Vol. 3, New York: Wiley
& Sons, 1974.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. The effects of parental
divorce: experiences of the preschool child. Journal
23 the American Academy 93 Child Psychiatry, 1975, 13,
600-616.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. The effects of parental
divorce: experiences of the child in later latency.
American Journal 93 Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 33, 256-
269.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. Divorce counseling: a
community service for families in the midst of
divorce. American Journal 93 Orthopsychiatry, 1977,
‘33, (1), 4-22.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. Surviving the breakup:
how children and parents cope with divorce. New York:
Basic Books, 1980.

Warshak, R. A., & Santrock, J. W. The impact of divorce in
father-custody and mother-custody homes: the child's
perspective. In L. A. Kurdek (Ed.), New directiops
323 child development, Vol. 19, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1983.

Weiss, R. Growing up a little faster: the experience of
growing up in a single-parent household. Journal g3
Social Issues, 1979, 33, 97-111.

Westman, J. C., Cline, D. W., Swift, W. J., & Kramer, D. A.
Role of child psychiatry in divorce. Archives 93
General Psychiatry, 33, 416-420.

urn

10.1)"

.I?

.00). 1 x

"11111111171111111111167)“