T'i1fi"': ,,,;,1 H 1111?}; “T, ‘p ‘11::
""‘11':'. ""1'1 111‘11'1'1" 1111,1111 ,1
1111111151 """' 1'11 11111 '11 ,1‘ ‘ 1111.111
”‘1” 1:1111111111‘11.1,1,1,1 1"111 1.1.1:; “11,11.

“'11 1;:
1111 1 111 111111 1111111 1""1"1"'
11,

 

1‘

11

.1'.1'J""';,' 1111 l, \
‘ 11 1,11 1111 111‘1111'11111'111111111.1.11""'
1. {'111'111 111111H1'111‘1'111111511111,111 1311',

' "'1"1"11 1.1"" 1111I 11'11'1'11',1"111"1'1'1'111111111'111 "' I1"
. 11.1,. 11.1.111111111.11.1 1 . .
11'1‘1"‘1111‘11,1 111 11- 1

1'» .

"U '1 "'111""1'11"1'1'111' 1 "'
11'. ‘ 1111111111, ‘ 11 11

1

  

   
   
   
 

   

   
    
 

1,11 1 11
‘ 111'1 ' F1151"

     
  
 

   
      
  

  

      
  

   
   
     
  
 
 

1.- .111

z: -‘
’ -.:
I .I‘ .'__._J\-
_ _ A __4:--
:13 ff”

  

' 1,1'111 .
O"
11' 1111111111111
'111 . ".1111"
1.1,: ,1,1.P11{1,,.1,,, ,,
1 '11“ "11.11.1111 11. 1 1
.1. 1
11 111.111.1111
11:. 1.1
'1," “1111111111., ..
W 2311"“.111111 .
.-' {11"111'1111 1
111 1111111111 ' .
1111111” 1111111 .
1' 1113;111'1‘1'11'1'
1. 11111." “1‘11
.' 53,111.. 111 : w hf,
.- .,1..,v '1 .
11131 5' '1'111' 11111131,; 1'"! 1'
1“ 1,111 ‘11 ‘

 
 
  

 
  
 
  
   
 
 
  

1
a. I‘ 1 , ‘ _
'V v .1 I .u ,.' ' ‘ , _ “1H,?!“ :‘
o u ‘uv, "A. ‘t:.,11-.,
v 0,: n ‘ 'A 1
4 O I . . 1 “fig ‘
O ' c .
L4 , ' .V f ' ‘
.. :1 ~ 1 , 1 .1111!“ I , ,
1 1 ; .1' " n1. 1 11:1 ~
5. .
:13. ‘1' 1: JH‘ I ‘ . 1, 1
. I
o .

' ~ '1'” 1111‘: a 1
-!‘ El. ’

   
 
     
  

  
 
 
   
 
 
 

- ..
._.A .1... . '.
.... -
.
-
l

     
 
 

“a”
_ 5. 4-- .
L — 1 -. _ — <:v
m C "‘ '. u - - —
n v . d ‘
“" -. .. v n _
" . .. - - , -
._:_._ ’ 'w'm . . .
- v --

GL1- '

 

-
- . -
.. .fl‘ .
‘- Y
.fl "—
... ._._.
_._- J-
‘ _,.“" mgvv H

.x

r,
5
gag“
2?. ’
.25:
M

[I

'I 1' ' t.1! ' 'o- ' 1 1 ‘
v !‘ ) f ”u. ‘. 1 o . . E. . 1"]? . .u
, ' 1-11-11 .1, j. 1 '11. 111.1111 1315,51 “31'" 1:11:11:
:' 1' . "'01 I. ' ' "Mi 11132: g" ' ?"1"11
', ‘ .'f . - ‘ ' '5 "1h 1 'fl'” '
' . ,1 0' Jo " ° '

.11.- 1 ‘11‘11'
“mclfi'f 111111 [£11

"1 {1111. U-‘1
1}" 11111111111
1’ 1.1111111

._
-.~t
. -. .
'é
.. .
.

A-.. ‘ 9 ~(
,.;~x. '- 9.

   

“—‘1-=:1‘:‘.
7.23.. 3
«if...
_...—-
‘5.”

~£’g—.—" "'

   

”355 --
155“
L‘—

     

- -
a” [
+9.3“;
.-

.
.._._.,.-
—' .I
. Q"? v
J. . .o‘ v _
- v... _
, ,. .
—~ "g... ;.-
-. .... -
‘ .

“:II-

   
 

  

1." 111111

1'1: .,. ...
.‘1 11111111
111,1, "1411,1111

“v
_;

 

4-7:...
.1 _.‘_.

 
  

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

OLDER PARENTS' REACTIONS AND
ADJUSTMENT TO THEIR

CHILD'S MARITAL SEPARATION
presented by

Jane Leslie Pearson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for ‘

Ph .D . degree in Psychology

 

gm J. m

Major professor

Date gm {é} fig:

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

 

 

 

IV1£31_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
—:—-—- your record. FINES will

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

Wffi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OLDER PARENTS' REACTIONS AND ADJUSTMENT

TO THEIR CHILD'S MARITAL SEPARATION

by

Jane Leslie Pearson

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1986

ABSTRACT
OLDER PARENTS' REACTIONS AND ADJUSTMENT

TO THEIR CHILD'S MARITAL SEPARATION

3?
Jane Leslie Pearson

Research on how marital disruption impacts the persons experiencing
it, and how children of divorced parents react and adjust has been
accumulating. However, little is known about how the parents of the
adults experiencing the marital discord react and adjust to the event.
The purpose of this study was to expand the limited information on older
parents' reactions, coping, and adjustment to their child's marital
separation.

Fourteen fathers and 29 mothers of adults who had recently
maritally separated responded to a questionnaire asking information on
how they had initially reacted, coped, and adjusted to the separation.
Additional information hypothesized to impact reactions, coping, and
adjustment was also gathered. Specific variables of interest that were
measured included parents' demographics, past experience with marital
discord, perceptions of the separated child's situation, quality of
relationships with child and child-in-law both prior to and since the
separation, reactions listed in parents' own words and responses to a
list of reactions, ways of coping listed in parents' own words and
responses to a list of coping behaviors, social support-- including
aspects of support satisfaction, proportion of family members, and
members' marital history, and adjustment measures of life satifaction,

depression, and physical symptomology.

The results of descriptive and inferential analyses on these
measures resulted in the following conclusions: In general, the marital
separation of a child had a negative effect on their parent. Parents
varied in their intensity of reactions according to perceived financial
burden, conflicting religious convictions, and presence of
grandchildren. The most common reactions felt by parents included
"loss”, “concern", and "sadness“, Only a few reported ”relief". One
factor that related to lower intensity of reactions was parents' prior
knowledge of their child's marital problems. Parents attempted to cope
with this event through many means, the most common being communicating
with their child, and prayer. Based on responses to a list of coping
behaviors, clusters of Active coping and Avoidance coping were
identified. Active coping was most beneficial in terms of depressive
and psychophysiological adjustment, and Avoidance coping was somewhat
detrimental to reports of current life satisfaction. In regard to
social support, parents who had a high percentage of family members in
their support network, as well as parents who were satisfied with
support, had less symptomatic adjustment scores.

Implications for future research on this topic, as well as

implications for marital and family therapy are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My foremost thanks go to my co-chairs, Ellen Strommen and Robert
Caldwell. Ellen has been my advisor and friend, and a constant support
throughout my years in graduate school. Bob has also provided me with
many aspects of support-- tangible aid, advice and information, and
emotional support. My other committee members, Gary Stollak and Jeanne
Gullahorn, also provided helpful suggestions and encouragement.

I would also like to express my thanks to the parents who
participated in the study, my friends and colleagues who assisted in
identifying the participants and patiently interviewed their children--
Julie Kriegler, Rob Weinstein, Ana Margarita Cebollero-- and Brian
Armbrustmacher, who did the majority of the data coding.

Finally, I want to express my appreciation to Nick, and to my

parents, for their love and patience.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.
LIST OF FIGURES .
LIST OF APPENDICES.
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION .
Purpose.
II. VARIABLES AND RATIONALE
Parental Background Variables.
Prior Parent- Child and Child-in-law Relations .
Child's Situation.
Parents' Initial Reactions .

Social Support and Other Ways of Coping.

Present Parent- Child and Child-in-law Relations .

Parent Adjustment.
Hypotheses .
III. METHOD .
Sample .
Measures .
IV. RESULTS.
Number of Separated Children .
Response Rate.
Representativeness of the Sample .

Relations Among Parents' Demographics.

Parents' Prior Experience with Marital Separation.

iii

Page

. vi

. vii

. 10
. IO
. 12
. 13
. 14
. 15
. 16
. 20
. 20

. ~20

. 25
. 25
. 27
. 27

. 28

Parents' Perceptions of Child's Situation .

Parents' Prior Relations with Child and Child-in-Law.
How Parents Heard about the Separation.

Parents' Reactions.

Parents' Ways of Coping .

Parents' Social Support .

Parents' Present Relations with Child and Child-in-law.

Parents' Adjustment .

Effects of Coping and Social Support on Adjustment.
V. DISCUSSION.

Representativeness of the Sample.

Parents' Rate of Separation and Divorce .

Parents' Prior Experience with Marital Separation .

Parents' Perceptions of Child's Situation .

Parents' Prior Relations with Child and Child-in-law.

Parents' Reactions.

Parents' Coping .

Parents' Social Support .

Parents' Present Relations with Child and Child-in-law.

Parents' Adjustment .

The Effects of Coping and Social Support on Adjustment.

Conclusions .
LIST OF REFERENCES.

APPENDICES.

iv

. 29

. 30

. 31
. 32
. 36

. 41

45

. 46
. 48
. 52
. 52
. 52
. 53
. S3
. 54
. 55
. 56

. 57

59

. 59

60

. 61

. 64

69

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

Parent Demographic Characteristics .
Initial Reactions Reported by Parents.

Reactiveness Scale Items, Mean Responses, Item-total
Correlations Corrected for Attenuation, and
Coefficient alphas.

Ways of Coping Reported by Parents .

Coping Scale Items, Mean Responses, Item-total
Correlations Corrected for Attenuation, and
Coefficient alphas.

Correlation Matrix of Selected Parent Status
Variables, Child Status Variables, Parents'
Reactiveness, Coping, and Social Support.

Multiple Regressions of Pre-separation Adjustement,
Reactiveness, and Mediating Variables on Current
Adjustment

. 26

. 33

. 3S

. 37

. 39

. 51

FIGURE

LIST OF FIGURES

Variables Examined in Older Parents' Reactions and
Adjustment to their Child's Marital Separation.

Potential Relationships among Variables.

vi

. 18

APPENDIX

LIST OF APPENDICES

Letter of Invitation to Participate in Study.
Return Postcard
Reminder letter

Questionnaire.

vii

. 7O

. 73

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The study described here explored the impact of an adult child's

marital separation on their older parent. Information was gathered
through a mailed questionnaire sent to parents whose child had separated
within the last year. Specific variables of interest that were obtained
included the parents' demographics, past experience with marital
discord, perceptions of the separated child's situation, quality of
relationship with their child and with their child-in-law, parent's
reactions, ways of coping, types of social support received, life
satisfaction, and psychological and physical adjustment. This chapter
explains the importance of obtaining more information on this issue.
V Research on how divorce impacts the family has been accumulating.
Reports have described how a marital disruption affects the persons
experiencing it (Albrecht, 1980; Bloom, Asher, & White, 1978) and how
the children of divorced parents react and adjust (Kurdeck, 1981;
Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). However, little research or even
speculation exists on how marital discord affects the extended family
(Duffy, 1982; Matthews & Sprey 1984), particularly on how the parents of
the adults experiencing the marital disruption react and adjust.

The importance of determining what the impact of an adult child's
marital disruption is on his or her parents has become increasingly
apparent. With the near-normative occurrence of divorce and the
increased likelihood of long-term child-parent relationships, dealing
with marital disruptions among one's adult children may become a common
life event for the older parent. There is little doubt among many

family researchers that critical life events experienced by one family

1

member create involuntary changes for other family members. Riley and
Waring (1976) have called these changes 'countertransitions'; Klein,
Jorgensen and Miller (1979) have called it ”developmental reciprocity".
The countertransition of adapting to a child's divorce is generally seen
as a negative change for the older parent. Eckels (1981), in examining
those life events considered stressful for a large sample of older
women, found that the divorce of a child was included as a stressful
event for three percent of her sample in a one year period.

In contrast, Kaslow and Hyatt (1982) have suggested that marital
disruption can become a positive experience for persons in the extended
family in the following two ways: (a) The divorced person can serve as
a model who successfully deals with a major life crisis; and (b)
Existing emotional barriers among family members may be broken during
the crisis by the divorcee, and thus lead to new and better
relationships. It should be noted that the potential positive growth to
be gained by the extended family members may be dependant on either a
well-coping divorcee, or the ability to learn through watching what
behaviors up; to do. In addition, Hagestad, Smyer, and Stierman (1984)
have reported that a majority of the divorcees in their study believed
that their divorce had not seriously affected the relationship with
their parents, and when a change in the relationship was reported, it
was in a positive direction. However, it is not clear how long the
recall period was for the divorcees, nor was it reported how the parents
themselves felt about the event or changes in the relationships. Both
of these positive reports also imply an unspecified period of adjustment

for the divorcees and their parents.

Without suggesting either positive or negative outcomes, Johnson
and Vinick (1982) have suggested numerous factors affecting the
potential impact of a child's divorce on their parents. These included
the parent's religion, the adult child's previous and current life
situations, and the presence of grandchildren. In addition to these
factors, Johnson and Vinick (1982) note that parents have ‘vicarous’
feelings for their child who is going through the divorce, and thus
parents' feelings may reflect their child's reactions as well. In sum,
there is a diversity of speculation regarding the older parent's range
of reactions and adjustment to their child's divorce.

Despite the potential demographic and clinical importance of this
phenomenon, there are only five studies that address the potential
negative impact of an adult child's divorce on the older parent (Ahrons
& Bowman, 1981; Johnson, 1983; Johnson & Vinick, 1982; Kahana & Kahana,
1980; Matthews & Sprey, 1984). All but one of these studies (Johnson &
Vinick, 1982) have focussed on changes in grandparent-grandchild
relations. Two of these studies have included grandmgghgz-grandchild
relations only (Ahrons & Bowman, 1981; Johnson, 1983).

General reactions to the marital disruption of their child are
described in each of these studies. The types of reactions reported by
the older parents included anger, disappointment, frustration,
indifference, sadness, relief, and fear of added financial and child
care responsibilities. These reports are limited in several ways.
These limitations include (a) small samples restricted to grandparents,
excluding those older parents without grandchildren, (b) asking subjects
to recall reactions that they may have had up to eight years ago, (c)

lack of inclusion of psychological or physical adjustment measures, and

(d) no information provided on what social support or ceping behaviors

the older parents may have used to deal with their reactions.

Purpose
The intent of the present study was to expand the limited

information on parents' reactions to their adult child's marital
disruption in several ways. First of all, a sample was obtained that
was not limited to grandparents. Second, the examination of parents'
reactions and adjustment to their adult child's marital disruption was
limited to a time period of approximately one year since the separation.
This period was selected due to reports that the initial separation
period is the most distressful time in the divorce process for the
person experiencing the divorce (Albrect, 1980; Chiriboga, Roberts, &
Stein, 1978; Pearlin & Johnson, 1977), and may therefore elicit the most
intense or ‘vicarious' reactions in the parents, and be a time when
demands on parents as social supports are the greatest. In addition,
the recall period for parents to report on various aspects of their
relationships with their child and child-in-law was lamited to within
two years. Third, the present study has included measures of the
parents' psychological and physical adjustment. Fourth, information was
sought on what social support and other coping strategies the parents
have used to deal with this event. Figure 1 indicates both the

circumscribed time period, and the variables that were investigated.

 

co_uoumomm .mu_cmz

 

m.e__;u t_u;e on

an.—
uxuoau EOuaE>n ou_nanOu
co_uueuu_uen ea.—
xooc. to_nnecaoo

 

FZuthafia< a<u_m>:m az<
a<u.u°4°zu>ma .mh2u¢<a

 

mzo_h<au¢ 3<4|z—ua4.:9ih2u¢<a
oz< aa.zu-hzu¢<a hzwmuxa

m_e:o_mmouoca .>__Eau
.35.: 5.: 9.3::

ate: ota> .mc.>nca
..m.o .ao_u_>_ou~

mhzu¢<a >n cum:
mu.ouh<¢hm uz.aou

acosumamo< one m:o_auoe¢ .macocma coo—o :_ ooc_mem mo_nm_cm>

«mucosa
>u___a_n:oauot none:
euco_e>.nEe nae.
maoemno.cosoa uses“
nauseous—n >oq
on.uac:a Lesa
accede—oaaen_o cuuucou
50__ec >eEa_o
eucououu.o:_ u__:o
rotten Lease

 

mzo.hu<u¢ a<.h.z_ m.hzu¢<a

co_ueueaom mo coue_u.=_
nee—ueceaou

n:o_>oca .0 Loose:

Anooov ceeo__:o

esteem

one

 

2°.h<:h_m m.na_:u b4=a<

 

mz°_h<awx 3<nuz_naa_:u-pzu¢<a
oz< 94.:unh2m¢<a «0.x;

assoc.
co_ua:e
-n_o .eu_cee .mcozuo
co u_en no.3 oo:o_coexo
:o_uma:uuo
co_m__oe
eo_aeuaoo
coocoa
can

mu_:a<¢oozwo\uuzm.¢uaxu
¢O_¢a .mhzm¢<a

n. ot:m_e

SBTSVIHVA NOlld3383d 1V1N38Vd

 

zo_h<¢<awm m.na.:u aux—m

zo.h<¢<auw m.na_:u az.30440u >4wh<.owz:_

zo_h<¢<mwm m.oa_:u or ¢o_¢a

oo.¢ua
uz_h

 

CHAPTER II
RATIONALE

This chapter describes the variables examined in the study, many of
which extend beyond those collected in previous research. Following
this listing, a rationale for the variable selection is provided. In
order to begin to understand why certain parents may have certain
reactions, what they do about these reactions, and how the reactions
affect them physically and psychologically, the following aspects of
parents' reports of themselves and their separated children were
examined:

1. The parents' prior experience and background, specifically age,
gender, education, income, occupation, religion, and previous experience
with marital disruption;

2. The parents' perception of relations with their child and
child-in-law prior to the separation;

3. The parents' perception of the separated child's situation,
specifically his or her age, gender, financial situation, number and
age of grandchildren, time since the separation, whether it is his or
her first separation, and whether he or she initiated the separation, or
mutually agreed to it;

4. The parents' range and intensity of initial reactions to the
news of their child's separation;

5. The parent's social support and various coping strategies
reported in dealing with their reactions, specifically asking about
persons in their social network who they have found to be supportive,
and helpful coping activities such as praying or gardening;

6. The parents' present perception of relations with their child

6

and child-in-law as a potential subgroup of their social network, and
as a potential source of stress; and

7. The parents' reports of physical and psychological adjustment,
specificially changes in depressive and physical symptoms, and life

satisfaction since the separation of their adult child.

Parental Background Variables

Parental background variables were included to examine how
demographics and experiences are related to initial reactions and
adjustment. There is some evidence to suggest that there are few
differences that can be attributed to age or cohort when it comes to
opinions about social trends, such as more egalitarian marriages
(Nydegger, Mittness, & O'Neil, 1983). One question that arises from
this finding is whether age of the parent is related to the type of
reactions and degree of adjustment.

In regard to gender, research in family and intergenerational
relations has suggested that women are the I'family monitors“, or
'kinkeepers', based on reports of higher rates of kinship interaction
between female kin (Bahr & Nye, 1974; Booth, 1972). Conflicts and
problems in the family are more commonly recognized by women, and women
are more likely to be affected by family problems than men (Chiriboga,
1979; Hagestad, Smyer, & Stierman, 1984). These findings most likely
reflect long-term developmental sex-role socialization that influence
females to be more empathic (e.g., Hoffman, 1979) and more sensitive to
the needs and care of others (Gilligan, 1982) than males. In addition,
there is some evidence that women may react more symptomatically to

stressful life events in general,'compared to men (Caldwell, Pearson, &

Chin, in press; Cooke & Hole, 1983; Klerman & Weissman, 1980). The
questions that arise are whether mothers, compared to fathers, have
stronger or more intense reactions to their child's separation, and
whether gender differences in patterns of support, coping and adjustment
(possibly based on different reactions) appear.

Religious orientation and acceptance by one's own religious group
has been suggested to be a important factor in the decision to remain in
a marital relationship (Lewis a Spanier, 1979). Divorce, like marriage,
can be considered to be a religious or spiritual issue, as well as an
emotional and legal one. Many churches provide a type of social support
for separated and divorced people through sponsorship of supportive
singles and parenting groups. An anecdotal report (Johnson S‘Vinick,
1982) suggests that the older parents' religious orientation and
orthodoxy will affect both the type and intensity of their reaction, and
the type of support or counselling that they will seek. In this report,
a Catholic priest reported that an older parent parishoner wished to
speak to him about her dismay over her child's divorce, which she
believed violated the church's doctrine. Thus, inquiry as to how
religious convinctions have affected reactions to the marital separation
of their child was included.

Parents' previous experience with divorce may also influence their
reaction to their child's marital separation. There is modest support
for the so-called ”transmission of marital instability phenomenon"
(e.g., Kulka & Weingarten, 1979; Pope & Mueller, 1976), where children
from parental marriages disrupted by death or divorce during their

childhood have higher rates of divorce or separation in their own first

marriages than do children from intact parental marriages. Some of the
hypotheses proposed to account for the transmission of marital
instability have included one or more of the following variables:
parental personality (e.g., Dager, 1964); the economic situation of the
divorced mother (e.g., Bane, 1976); lack of parental control over child
behavior (e.g., Mueller & Pope, 1977); the communication of attitudes
towards marriage and divorce from parent to child (e.g., Rulka a
Weingarten, 1979); the adoption of maladaptive modeling (e.g., Mischel,
1970); and the experience of having a difficult childhood due to a
conflict-ridden home where divorce is an outcome (e.g., Wallerstein &
Kelly, 1980). Regardless of the mechanism involved in the transmission
of marital instability, reactions to a child's divorce can be
hypothesized to relate to a parent's previous experience with marital
disruption. For example, a divorced parent may feel less embarassed
about their child's separation having accepted divorce as a possible
solution.to their own marital conflict. Parents who have not
experienced a separation or divorce themselves, but have persons close
to them.who have (e.g., a sibling, another child, a close friend's
child), may have less intense negative reactions as well, and/or find
such people helpful in their coping with the event.

A parent's socioeconomic status, which includes income, education,
and occupation, is hypothesized to influence reaction types, types of
coping strategies and helpseeking behaviors, and degree of adjustment to
their child's marital separation. Numerous epidemiological studies have
found that lower classes are more likely to be exposed to more stress-
inducing events than upper classes, and are more likely to exhibit

mental and physical illnesses (e.g., Dohrenwend, 1973; Hollingshead &

10

Redlich, 1958; Myers, Lindenthal, & Pepper, 1974). Two questions
pertinent to the study are whether lower socioeconomic status (SES)
parents report more negative reactions which reflect an overall
increased stress pattern, and whether low 838 parents show poorer
overall adjustment. In addition, Kessler (1979) has suggested that
lower class persons are less likely to exhibit extreme responses to
stressors even though their coping resources are considered limited.
In present study, the range of reactions and adjustment of low 888
respondents are examined to see if a similar “floor effect“ exists for

the specific stressor of a child's divorce.

Prior Parent- Child and Child-in-Law Relations

Prior parent- child and parent- child-in-law relations were
expected to have an influence on parental reactions and adjustment. A
parent who considers their prior relationship with their child as
distant may not have as strong a reaction or as difficult an adjustment
as a parent who describes their prior relationship with their child as
very close. A similar pattern might occur between parents and their
children-in-law. The parent who has experienced a close and warm
relationship with their child-in-law may fear that they may never see

him or her again. On the other hand, if the parent has had a troubled

relationship with the child-in-law, the parent may feel relief in

reaction to the separation.

Child's Situation
The separated adult child's situation was also expected to affect

the type and intensity of parental reaction. Inclusion of parents'

ll

perceptions of their child's financial needs, and the number and age of
grandchildren is based on important findings from Johnson's (1983)
study. Johnson found that many grandmothers feared that both child care
and financial burdens would be placed upon them as the result of their
child's (usually daughter's) separation. Because mothers are
traditionally custodial parents of their children after divorce, and
that women suffer more than men financially (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1984), a daughter with custody of younger children may be perceived as a
greater financial burden to the older parent, compared to a
noncustodical son with a sufficient income.

A related issue to age of the grandchildren is the adult child's
age. The older parent may be more concerned over the separation of a
middle-aged-child who is less likely to remarry than a child in their
20's or 30's (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983). On the the other hand,
the middle-aged adult child may be less likely to have financial
problems or have a need for child care than a younger adult child.

An additional adult status variable considered in the present study
is whether the adult child initiated the separation or not. Hagestad
and Smyer (1981) have reported that a separation or divorce is less
stressful for the person who initiated it. Hagestad and Smyer (1981)
suggest that the initiator is likely to have begun to adapt to the
change of not being a spouse, and may have told her or his parents in
advance as well. However, the degree to which initiator status affects
adjustment for the person separating may be confounded by gender (Bloom
6 Caldwell, 1981; Pettit & Bloom, 1984) as is custody attainment and

financial status. Indeed, Petit and Bloom (1984) found that effect of

12

initiator status on postseparation adjustment was more pronounced for
women than for men. Furthermore, in their review of four studies
examining gender differences in pre- and post-separating men and women,
Bloom and Caldwell (1981) found that prior to separation, women reported
more severe psychological symptoms than did men. During the early post-
separation period, however, men reported significantly more severe
symptoms than did women. Thus, the adult child status variables may
have interactive and/or cumulative effects on the older parents'

perception of their child's situation.

Parents' Initial Reactions

The fourth area examined is the range of types of parents' initial
reactions to the news that their adult child had maritally separated.
Nineteen potential reactions are listed in Figure 1. ’Some of these were
compiled from previous studies (Johnson & Vinick, 1982; Matthews &
Sprey, 1984), and others were added based on several pilot
questionnaires. Johnson and Vinick (1982) have reported mothers'
reactions to their child's divorce to include fear, sadness, loss,
shame, guilt, and good. Matthews and Sprey (1984) asked parents to
ghgg§g_gng out of the following six reactions: anger, disappointment,
frustration, indifference, sadness, or relief. Parents in the present
study were asked to describe their reactions in their own words, and to
respond to a list of reactions. These reactions were of interest in
terms of their occurrence in potential clusters, and in relation to
parents' demographics (e.g., gender), prior experience with divorce,
child status variables, prior experience with the child, and adjustment

OUtCOIIBS .

13

Social Support and Other Ways of Coping

The fifth area examined was social support and other ways of coping
reported by the parents to deal with their reactions. In regard to
social support, source of support, support persons' experience with
marital disruptions, frequency of and satisfaction with emotional and
appraisal support specific to separation were of interest. Although
large-scale surveys have documented the strength and benefits of the
family as a support system to older adults (Shanas, 1979a; 1979b), the
negative aspects of social support have also been noted (Antonucci,
1985). Indeed, Alford (1982) found both higher levels of intimacy and
conflict within kin relationships compared to nonkin relationships.
Thus, questions arose as to what proportions of family members and
nonrelatives the parents would nominate, whether clergy or other helping
professionals would be nominated, whether level of satisfaction might be
related to types of support, whether there had been changes in frequency
in contact with support persons, and how various types of support would
be related to stress and adjustment.

In regard to coping strategies, parents' reports of coping were of
interest in terms of how they would describe strategies in their own
words, and how they would respond to descriptions of various ways of
coping, based on the work by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). Lazarus and
Folkman have proposed a complex theory of coping that involves three
general types of processes; information seeking, seeking emotional
support, and avoidance. Unfortunately, there is little empirical
evidence suggesting that specific types of coping exist and are

regularly used. Further, there is little consensus in regard to whether

14

ways of coping vary with the timing of certain stressful events in
relation to the life cycle. Gutmann (1974) has suggested that as men
age they move from active mastery, to more passive modes, to regressive,
magical modes. In contrast, Vaillant (1977) and Pfeiffer (1977) suggest
that coping becomes more effective and realistic with age for both men
and women, with more reliance on altruism, humor, and suppression. The
present study provides an opportunity to explore such issues by
examining reactions and ways coping to a specified event (i.e., a
child's marital separation), across middle aged and older adults.

As noted in previous sections, the relationships among support and
ways of coping with various parental background variables, child status,
prior child relations, and type and intensity of reactions were also of
interest.‘ Support and coping were also examined for their potential

effects on stress and adjustment.

Present Parent- Child and Child-in-Law Relations

Present quality of parent- child and child-in-law relations have
been examined as a specific aspect of social support for parents that
may help or hinder adjustment. Cohen and Wills (1985), in a recent
review of the effects of social support, concluded that the direct
a beneficial effects of support seemed to be a function of the structure
'(i.e., family, friends, professionals) of the support network, while
less direct, buffering effects were related to the functional (i.e.,
perceived supportiveness) aspects of the support network. Indeed, pilot
data indicated that frequent contact with a child-in-law was helpful for
some parents, but such contact was very distressful for others. From

this example, it appears that a test of the effects of social support

15

should consider the support (or lack of support) provided by specific
types of supportive persons (i.e., child and child-in-law) and the
quality of the relationship.

Present relations with a child-in-law or child may also depend or
the presence of minor children and custody arrangements. Johnson (1983)
reported that some paternal grandmothers formed coalitions with their
separated daughters-in-law in order to strengthen their relationships
with their grandchildren. Thus, it may be the case that some parents
attempt to maintain contact with the child-in-law in order to maintain
relationships with grandchildren, but may not see the relationship as
close, or supportive.

Parent Adjustment

Finally, the parents' recall of their psychological and physical
adjustment in the six months prior to their adult child's marital
separation, and report of their current adjustment was investigated.
Pre-separation and current adjustment measures were included in order to
assess the impact of this event on both psychological and physical
health, as well as how support and coping may mediate the effect of the
stress on adjustment. Although the negative effect of stress on
physical health is widely assumed, it is not unequivocally supported
(Plaut & Friedman, 1981). However, there is much evidence to suggest
that stressful events can negatively affect psychological well-being
(Bloom, Asher, & White, 1978; Core, 1978). In regard to social
support, authors of two comprehensive reviews have concluded that social
support influences both physical adjustment (Broadhead, Kaplan, James,
Wagner, Schoenbach, Crimson, Heyden, Tibblin, & Gehlbach, 1983), and

psychological health (Leavy, 1983). Three measures of adjustment--

l6

depression, life satisfaction, and physical symptoms-- are included
because of reports suggesting differences in types of adjustment based
on perceptions of events (Caldwell, Pearson, & Chin, in press; Zautra &
Reich, 1983). For example, Zautra and Reich (1983) concluded that
“positive" life events have different effects than "negative" events on
adjustment. They found that persons who experienced negative events
suffered no detriment in quality of life ratings, but did appear more
psychologically distressed; persons who experienced positive events did
not report changes in psychological distress.

Changes in adjustment through change scores (controlling for recall
scores) were examined in relation to parents' prior experiences and
background, child status, descrepancies between prior and present
parent-child and parent-child-in-law relations, type and range of
reactions, and types of help-seeking and coping strategies.

When:

The purpose of this study was to examine seven different areas
hypothesized to be important in influencing the reaction and adjustment
of an older parent to their adult child's marital separation. Many
possible relations among the seven areas were noted. These relations
are represented in Figure 2. Because many of the seven areas included
variables that differed qualitatively in ways that did not easily lend
themselves to forms of data reduction, an overall path model was not
tested. However, numerous links in the model were examined through
both descriptive and inferential statistics. The specific questions

that were investigated included the following:

l7

1. What are the demographic characteristics of this sample of
parents whose adult child is maritally separated? How representative is
this sample in terms of demographic characteristics? Is there a
disproportionately high rate of separation or divorce among these
parents?

2. What are the initial reactions reported by these parents? Do
the reactions fall into clusters across the total sample of parents? Do
reactions differ by parental age, gender, SES, or prior experience with
marital disruption, the adult child's situation, or previous closeness
in relationships with their child and child-in-law?

3. What coping strategies have these parents used? What type of
clusters exist among the coping strategies? Who are the people the
parents have found supportive in dealing with this event? Are the
parents satisfied with the people they have talked to? Do coping
strategies differ by parental demographics, parents' prior experience
marital disruption, the adult child's situation, prior or present
relationship with child and child-in-law, or initial reaction type and
intensity? Do coping strategies or specific aspects of social support
affect adjustment beyond initial reactions?

4. How have these parents reported their adjustment to their
child's separation? Does distress and life satisfaction vary by
parental demographics? By reactions? By discrepancies in prior and
present child- and child-in-law-parent relations? Based on
symptomatology patterns (i.e., depressive symptoms, life satisfaction,
physical symptoms), can certain variables such as demographics or
reaction types be identified as risk factors for these parents? Are

there variables that can be identified as predictors of relatively

18

 

 

hzmzhmawc<
4<u.woacxu>ma cz<
n<u.m>za mhzu¢<a

 

mo_nm.cm> mcoe< ma_cmco_uo_o¢ _m_ucouoa “N ocsm_m

 

m.:mzo_h<4m¢

 

 

l7

 

 

 

a.:mzo.h<aw¢

 

3<4uz.aoa_:u
uhzu¢<m oz< a4.:u
uhzm¢<m hzmmwza

 

 

mzc_hu<m¢
4<.h_z_
.mhzm¢<a

3<4nz_uon_:u
nhzu¢<a oz< on_:u
nhzw¢<a ¢o_¢a

 

 

 

 

mu_:a<¢uozmo
\muzw.¢mmxm

 

 

 

 

mm_uwh<¢hm uz.acu

hxoaaam 4<_uom

¢c_¢a .mhzm¢<m

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

l -

zo_h<:h.m
94.29 h42o<

 

19

"good” adjustment for these parents? Can certain coping strategies be

identified as more helpful than others in terms of adjustment outcome?

CHAPTER III
METHOD
Sample

A sample of 43 older parents, regardless of grandparent status,
with an adult child who maritally separated in the last three years,
responded to the questionnaire. The sample was obtained through a
larger study on the effects of marital separation on the family.
Separating adults in the larger study were asked for the name(s) and
address(es) of their parents and parents-in-law. A letter of
explanation inviting the older parents' participation was sent to them.
Included with the letter was a postage-paid postcard that could be
returned, indicating the older parents"interest in participating (see
letter and postcard in Appendix A). To all persons appropriate and
interested in participating in the study, the questionnaire described
below was sent, along with a self-addressed, postage-paid return
envelope. If the parents who requested a questionnaire did not return
it within two weeks, a reminder letter was sent to them,

Measures

A.14 page questionnaire, designed to elicit the information listed
in Figure 1 (above) was developed by the investigator. Most of the
questions are in a pre-coded format recommended by Dillman (1978).
However, several open ended questions were included to parallel some of
the pre-coded questions. Below, all questions are described as they
pertain to the variables of interest. The actual item order and the

format of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

20

21

 

The final nine questions in the survey elicited the parent status
variables of gender, age, education, race, income, occupation or
retirement, religion, and whether they care for their own parent or
inlaw, in pre-coded formats. Questions 18 through 21 asked in a pre-
coded format the parent's prior experience with separation or divorce,
including whether the parent him- or herself had been separated, and
whether a relative, friend, or other important person had experienced a
separation.

v - - w
Question 6 asked in a pro-coded format about the quality of the
parent- child and child-in-law relationships prior to separation, with
five responses ranging from "very close and warm" to "hostile”.
W

The first five pre-coded questions were written to elicit the adult
child status variables of age and gender, presence of and ages of
children, and whether this was their child's first separation. Question
10 asked whether or not the adult child's separation is a financial
burden, and asked for explanation of this possible burden. Question 11
asked in pre-coded format if the parents anticipate a financial burden
due to their child's situation in the future. Question 14 asked in a
pre-coded format the parents' perception regarding the initiator status
of their child's separation.

W

Question 12 asked in a preceded format when the parent first heard

about their child's separation. Question 13 asked in a open format how

they heard about it. Question 15 asked the parent to explain in their

22

own words their first reaction to their child's separation. Question 16
asked in a pre-coded format to what degree the parent suspected that
there were marital problems. Question 17 was a list of 19 reactions in
Likert format that asked the parent whether the reaction was 1--'not at
all my reaction" to 5--'very much my reaction“. This list was compiled
from previous research (Johnson & Vinick, 1982; Matthews & Sprey, 1984)
and pilot data. Question 22 asked if the parent's religious
convictions have made it difficult for them to accept/adapt to their
child's separation, and asked for a brief explanation.
PAW

Question 23 asked the parent to describe in their own words how
they have coped with their reactions. Question 24 was a list of 48
coping behaviors derived from Lazarus and Folkman (1984), and Chiriboga,
Jenkins, and Baily (1983). The coping list asked how often the parent
has felt or behaved for each item in regard to their coping with their
child's separation within the following categories: never, some, or a
lot.
W

Questions 26 through 31 pertained to important persons who had
provided support for the elder parents, and was fashioned after a social
support questionnaire developed by Norbeck (1982). First, parents were
asked to list up to 10 people who provided personal support for them in
regard to their child's separation. Then parents were queried about
these nominees in regard to 1) their relationship to the parent (e.g.,
spouse, minister); 2) their previous experience with separation or

divorce; 3) the changes in the frequency of contact with the nominees

23

since the separation; 4) the degree to which they had been consulted;
and 5) the degree of satisfaction the parents had felt in talking with
the nominees. As a specific support subgroup, parents were also asked
about their present and anticipated relations with their child and
child-in-law. Questions 7 and 8 asked about the quality of the of
present relationships with child.and child-in-law. Question 25 asked in
a pre-coded format whether contact with the adult child and/or child-in-
law would make it more difficult or easy for the parent to cope.
We

After the social support questions, the adjustment measures of
depression, physical symptoms, and life satisfaction were included. All
of these adjustment measures have been used in previous community-survey
studies. All were modified so as to obtain perceptions of psychological
and physical symptoms in the six months previous to the news of the
separation, and since the news of the separation. Question 32 was the
20 item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CBS-D;
Radloff, 1977). The CBS-D has been found to be reliable and valid
across a wide variety of demographic characteristics in the general
population (Radloff, 1977). Question 33 was the 25 item Composite
Symptom Checklist (CSC; Bloom & Caldwell, 1981). The CSC was originally
developed for use in a marital disruption study, and has been shown to
be reliable and sensitive to gender differences in adjustment to marital
separation, as well as to changes in adjustment over time (Bloom &
Caldwell, 1981). Question 34 was a compilation of items used by Andrews
and Withey (1976) in their nation-wide survey of Americans' life
satisfaction. Eighteen items were selected to reflect life satisfaction

in regard to self, home, job, health, psychological well-being, income,

24

adaptability, responsibility, relations with family and friends, and an
overall estimation of how things were going. The respondent was asked
to rate these areas on a seven point scale from “delighted“ to
”terrible”, and hence the name, the Delighted-Terrible Scale (DTS;
Andrews & Withey, 1976).

The last page of the survey included two forms; one for requesting
results and/or a referral for counselling, and a form for nominating
another parent who may be appropriate for the study. None of the
parents requested counselling referrals, and three parents nominated

other parents who qualified for the study.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
In this chapter, the results of both descriptive and inferential

analyses are reported. Descriptive information on both parents and
their separated children are first described, followed by a report of
the relationships among the remaining measured variables as described by
each heading. In the last section of this chapter, the effects of
reactiveness, coping, and social support on present adjustment are also

described.

Number of Separated Children

A total of 36 maritally separated children were reported on by this
sample of older parents. This number is less than the number of parents,
due to the fact that seven of the parents had spouses responding to the
questionnaire.

Response Rate

Forty-three older parents responded to the questionnaire out of a
total identified sample of 68 parents, resulting in a 63% return rate.
Of the remaining 25 (37$) who did not return a questionnaire, seven gave
no response to the letter of invitation, three returned a postcard
indicating that they did not want to participate, and 15 did not return
questionnaires that they had requested even after a reminder letter had

been sent to them.

Parent Demographics
The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in
Table l. Fourteen (33%) men and 29 (67%) women responded to the

questionnaire. Their ages ranged from 40 to 79, with an average of 62

25

26

Table 1

Parent Demographic Characteristics

 

I! W . .E W
Gender Education
Male 14 33% Completed grade school 1 2%
Female 29 67% Some high school 1 2%
ug;1§§1_§;5;ng Completed high school 14 33%
Harried 36 84% Some college 15 35%
Separated 1 2% Completed college 6 14%
Divorced 2 5% Some graduate work 4 9%
Widowed 4 9% A graduate degree 2 5%
Ag; (in years) Income
40 - 50 3 7% Under $4,999 2 5%
51 - 60 18 42% 5,000 - 9,999 5 12%
61 - 70 17 39% 10,000 - 14,999 4 9%
71 - 79 5 12% 15,000 - 19,999 6 14%
figligign 20,000 - 24,999 4 9%
Protestant 29 67% 25,000 - 29,999 4 9%
Catholic 6 14% 30,000 - 34,999 4 9%
7 Jewish 2 5% 35,000 - 39,999 3 7%
Other 3 7% 40,000 and over 11 26%

27

years. In regard to current marital status, 84% were married, 9% were
widowed, 5% were divorced, and 2% were separated. However, 23% reported
that they had been separated or divorced; one parent in the last year,
three parents within six to ten years ago, and four parents more than
eleven years ago. All repondents reported that they were Caucasian with
the exception of one Black male. Education levels ranged from having
completed high school, to obtaining a graduate degree, with some college
as the average and modal education level. Sixty-seven per cent of the
respondents listed themselves as Protestant, 14% as Catholic, and 5% as
Jewish. Annual income levels ranged from under $5,000 to over $40,000,
with an average of $22,000. Twenty-six per cent of the sample had

incomes in the $40,000+ bracket.

Representativeness of the Sample

Estimating from 1980 Census figures, this sample differs from the
larger population by having a greater income, higher levels of
education, an under-representation of minority races, and an over-
represenation of women (0.8. Bureau of the Census, 1983; 1984). In
regard to parents' rate of separation and divorce, it is difficult to
say whether it differs significantly from the larger population.
According to 1980 Census figures, the sample has fewer persons reporting
separation or divorce than would be expected. Further, if estimations
that 40% of all marriages end in divorce are accurate, this sample has
had fewer experiences with their own marital separation and divorce than
national samples .

Relations Among Parents' Demographics

Although no specific hypotheses were made in regard to relations

28

among the parents' demographics, these relations were potentially
important for interpretations of relations among demographics and other
variables. Men were significantly older, 1 - -.33, n < .01. Cohort may
have hed an effect on level of educational attainment, with older
respondents reporting significantly less education, 1 - -.37, p < .01.
Older respondents were also more likely to have experienced a marital
separation themselves, 1: - .27, p, < .04. As expected, income and
education were significantly related, 1 - .35, p < .01. Not expected
was a significant positive relation between income and having

experienced a marital separation, I - .51, p < .001.

Parents' Prior Experience with Marital Separation

Parents' prior experience with marital separation was of interest
in terms of how it might relate to parents' perceptions of relations
with their child, reactions, coping, and eventual adjustment to their
child's separation. Besides parents' experience with their own marital
separation (noted above), 26% reported that they had another child who
had separated, 19% said that their own parents had separated, 40% had a
sibling who had separated, 48% had a friend who had separated, and 74%
had a friend whose child had experienced a marital separation.
Excluding the parents' own separation, these five types of experience
with marital separation were summed, and considered a “separation-
experience“ scale. Parent's own separation.was excluded from the
separation experience scale because inspection of correlations revealed
differences in correlational patterns between parents' own separation,
and knowledge of other's separation. Twenty-six per cent of the parents

had one separation experience, 21% experienced two, 26% experienced

29

three, 12% experienced four, and one parent had experienced all five.
Thus, 86% of the sample had at least one an acquaintance or relative who
had experienced a marital disruption.

One area that separation experience affected was the parents'
awareness of their child's marital problems; the more experience the
parents had had with marital separation, the greater the likelihood that
their child had discussed their problems with their parents, I - .41, p
< .01. Separation experience was not significantly related to

Reactiveness, ways of coping, or social support (discussed below).

Parents' Perceptions of Child's Situation

It is important to note that seven of the parents had a spouse who
also responded to the questionnaire, and thus seven adult children's
characteristics are duplicated in the following results. Informal
inspection of these parent pairs suggested that beyond the demographic
information on their child, responses in terms of reactions, coping, and
adjustment appeared surprisingly dissimilar among parent pairs. Thus,
statistical tests of concordance among the parent pairs were not
conducted.

The average age of the children for which this group of older
adults reported was 35, with a range of 22 to 49 years. Twenty-four
(56%) of the older adults had sons who had separated, and 19 (44%) had
daughters. Separated daughters tended to be somewhat older than sons, ;
- .25, n<< .05. The average length of separation was one year, with a
range of one to 90 months. For 30% of the children, this was at least
their second marital separation. Twenty-four (56%) of the adult

children also had children under the age of 16. According to the older

30

parents' reports, 35% of the adult children had initiated the
separation, 40% said that their child-in-law initiated, and the
remaining 25% said it was a mutual decision between their child and
child-in-law. In regard to their children's financial status, 14%
reported that their child's separation.was a financial burden for them,
and an additional 14% reported that it may become a burden in the
future.

Financial burden was significantly and positively related to parent
age, z,- .31, n < .03, as was child age, 1 - .29, n < .05. Daughters
were more likely to be reported as being financial burdens than sons, 1
- .38, n,< .01, even though there was no relationship between presence
of grandchildren and sex of adult child. This could suggest several
scenarios for separated daughters: It may be that many of the daughters
were not employed post-separation; that they had additional financial
responsiblities compared to sons; they were less prepared
occupationally; that they receive lesser pay in general, as does the

population of women in general.

Parents' Prior Relations with Child and Child-in-law

Parents' prior relations with their child and child-in-law were
explored in terms of their correlation with child status, and parent
reactions, coping, and adjustment. Sixty-three per cent of the parents
described their relationship with their child in the year prior to the
separation as "very close and warm"; 30% described it as "somewhat
close”; 7% as “indifferent”; and 2% as ”distant and cool". In regard to
the parents' prior relationship with their child-in-law, 21% described

it as very close and warm; 63% as somewhat close; 7% as indifferent; 7%

31

as distant and cool, and 2% as hostile.

The intensity of the parents' pre-separation relations with both
child and child-in-law were significantly related to parent age.
Younger parents were more likely to report more negative relations with
their child-in-law, ; — .35, n <.01, and more positive relations with
their child, 1 - -.27, p < .05. Negative pre-separation relations
with both child and child-in-law were also correlated with child age, 3
- .30, p,< .05. Positive or warm parent pre-separation relations with
both their child and child-in-law were also related to the separation
being their child's first, both.; - .30, p <.05. A positive
relationship with the child was also related to the presence of

grandchildren, 1 - .30, p < .05.

How Parents Heard about the Separation

How parents heard about their child's separation was thought to be
important in terms of perceived parent- child and child-in-law
relations, and how the parents reacted. Most of the parents (78%)
reported that they had heard about their child's separation from their
child in person, through a letter, or via phone conversation. Seventeen
per cent, however, heard the news from their child-in-law. One parent
(2%) heard it from both child and child-in-law together, and another
parent (2%) heard from the adult child's sibling. Thirty-five per cent
of the parents said that their child had talked openly to them about the
possibility of separating, 19% of the parents said they strongly
suspected that their child would separate, 16% had wondered about it,
and 30% had no idea their child was considering a marital separation.

Children were more likely to discuss the possibility of separating with

32
their parent when the separation was not their first, I - .33, p < .01.

Parents' Reactions

As noted above, parents' reactions were asked in both an open-ended
format, and by a list of reactions in a Likert-type format, in order to
explore both the range and intensity of reactions. Table 2 lists the
initial reactions given by the parents in response to the request,
“please describe your first reaction to your child's marital
separation“. Although 65% of the parents did not report more that one
reaction, a diversity of reactions were reported. Reactions reported
that were not queried in the Likert-format reaction items included
opinions about their child's unwillingness to “work things out“, concern
for grandchildren, and pain and hurt.

Responses to the 19 Likert-type reaction items were submitted to a
cluster analyses in order to explore possible factor structures of
reactions experienced by the parents. Since there was no empirical
basis for assuming that there were reliable and distinct types of
reactions, the 19 reactions were initially examined all together as a
single cluster, resulting in a coefficient alpha of .73. Although this
alpha is suggestive of a general concept, it was difficult to
similarities across some reactions, such as "relief" and
"burden“. Therefore, further cluster analyses were undertaken, guided
by a priori groupings of what appeared to be three types of reactions.
This second analysis resulted in three clusters with coefficient alphas
ranging from .70 to .85 that appeared to tap reactions of loss,
responsibility, and relief. The intercorrelations of the clusters were

as follows: loss and responsibility, I - .51, loss and relief, ; - -

33

Table 2. Initial Reactions Reported by Parents

 

 

 

Reaction Number of Reports Reaction Number of Reports
Surprise 16 (37%) Indifference l
Sadness 9 (21%) Not again 1
Upset 4 (9%) Concern l
Concern for Worried about
welfare of 4 (9%) child's 1
grandchildren security

Pain/Hurt 2 (5%) Loss I 1
Relief 2 Expected it 1
Acceptance 2 Devasted 1
Sympathy for 2 Thought it was 1
Child hasty

Disbelief 2 About time 1
Thought it Didn't take it

could be 2 seriously I
worked out

Happy 1 Didn't approve l
Anger l Disappointment 1

 

Note: Percentages indicate the proportion of parents from the total
sample (N - 43) who reported the reaction. Due to multiple

responses, percent total exceeds 100.

34

.73, and relief and responsibility, 1 - -.30. Only one of the reaction
items, ”indifference“, did not correlate with the clusters, and was
omitted from the second cluster analysis. Indeed, 88% of the sample
indicated that indifference was “not at all my reaction“, which
highlights the significance of the child's marital separation in the

parents' lives.

Although relief and responsiblity appeared to be potentially
distinct types of reactions, loss and relief were highly negatively
related. Thus, another cluster analysis on all items was conducted,
reversing the relief items (joy, relief), and omitting reactions not
statistically contributing to the single cluster. The resulting cluster
contains all reaction items with the exception of the indifference and
bitterness items. Table 3 shows the resulting item-total correlations,
and the standardized alpha for the final, one cluster scale. For the
remaining analyses, this factor was considered a measure of
'reactiveness', or intensity of reactions. The mean for the
Reactiveness scale was 3.18 (based on scale of anchors of l to 5), with
scores ranging from 1.53 to 5.00.

Reactiveness did not differ across any of the parent demographics
(i.e., age, gender, education, income), nor did it correlate with
parents' own separation experience or knowing others who had experienced
a separation. As expected, parents who reported that their own
religious convictions made it difficult for them to accept or adapt to
their child's separation were likely to report higher levels of
Reactiveness, I - .46, n,< .001. Presence of grandchildren was

related to higher levels of reactions as expected, I - .35, p < .01.

35

Table 3. Reactiveness scale items, mean response*, item-total correlations

corrected for attenuation, and coefficient alphas (N - 40)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Mean Item-total Coefficient Alpha
1. Loss 3.4 .65

2. Sadness 4.3 .59

3. Surprise 3.2 .43

4. Disappointment 3.9 ‘ .76

5. Dismay 3.3 .71

6. Concern 4.6 .59

7. Powerlessness 3.7 .48

8. Upset 4.3 .70

9. Anger 2.1 .22

10.Cuilt 1.5 .36

11.Embarrassment 1.7 .36

12.Feeling Responsible 1.3 .33

13.Burden 1.8 .54

l4.Fear 2.1 .43

15.Had Mixed Feelings 3.4 .42

16.Relief (reversed) 1.6 .55

l7.Joy (reversed) 1.5 .48 .85
*

Scale anchors were "1 - not at all my reaction", and "5 - very

much my reaction".

36

Reactiveness was related to parents' knowledge of their child's marital
problems, with reaction intensity decreasing with more knowledge, 1_- -
.27, n < .05. Parents' prior positive relations with their child-in-law
were highly related to reaction intensity as expected, 1 - -.46, n <
.001. However, there was no significant relation between parents'
relations with their child prior to separation and parents'
reactiveness, as expected. Relations among Reactiveness and coping,

social support, and adjustment are discussed below.

Parents' ways of Coping

Similar to the inquiry about reactions to the separation, the ways
in which the parents coped were asked in both open-ended and pre-coded
formats in order to explore the range and frequency of coping behaviors.
Coping behaviors were also of interest in terms of their relation to
child status variables, parent status variables, parent - child
relations, reactiveness, and adjustment. Responses to the question,
”Please describe any events or experiences that seem to help, or hinder,
your coping with your child's separation“, are listed in Table 4.
Twelve parents listed one way of coping, 21 listed two ways, and six
listed three ways they had coped. The most frequently reported ways of
coping included prayer (26%), talking with their child (21%), and
attempting to maintain a relationship with their child-in-law (12%).

In order to explore the possible types of coping behaviors used by
the parents, the responses to the 45 precoded coping items were
submitted to a cluster analysis. Again, all items were submitted as if
they were one cluster, since there was little existing empirical

evidence to suggest otherwise. The coefficient alpha for this cluster

Table 4.

Ways of Coping Reported by Parents

 

Way of Coping

Number of Reports

 

Way of Coping

Number of Reports

 

Prayer 11 (26%) Acceptance
Talked with Child 9 (21%) Offer suggestions
Maintain relationship Tried to understand
with child-in-law 5 (12%) there was no hope
Offered support 4 (9%) Gardening
Financial help 4 Realize it's for the
best
Increase positive
contact with child 4 Rely on past experience
to draw on
Provide a place for
child to stay 3 (7%) Arrange for future
Visitation with
Denied it/Ignored it 3 grandchildren
Empathy 2 (5%) Feed child and
grandchildren
Hope 2
Talk with my other
Babysit grandchildren 2 children
Listen to child 2 Talk with friends
Support child Talk with spouse
psychologically 2
Try to understand
Keep feelings to self 1 both sides
Self-blame 1 Accept own emotions
Worry 1 Cry

 

Note:

Percentages indicate the proportion of parents from the total
sample (N - 43) who reported the type of coping. Due to multiple

responses, percent total exceeds 100.

38

was .73. Given the difficulty in conceptualizing what these diverse
items represented, further cluster analyses were conducted based on two,
a priori groupings. The two clusters that resulted were named Avoidance
Coping and Active Coping, with coefficient alphas of .84 and .85,
respectively. Table 5 shows these items, their mean reponses, item-
total correlations, and alphas. Fifteen items were excluded from the
two clusters for lack of either statistical relationship, or conceptual
relationship. The intercorrelation between the two clusters was -.25.
The mean response to the Avoidance Coping scale was .67 (scale anchors
ranged from 0 to 2), with scores ranging from .08 to 1.67. The mean
response to the Active Coping scale was 1.13, with scores ranging from
.19 to 2.0.

In regard to relations among coping scales and parent demographics,
mothers were more likely to report the behaviors described in the Active
Coping scale, x,- .38, p,< .01. None of the remaining demographics
(age, education, income) were significantly related to the coping
scales, nor were the child status variables, nor parents' prior
with separation. Active Coping was related to parents'
knowledge, with more knowledge related to more reports of active coping
behaviors, ; - .27, p < .05. Avoidance Coping was related to
Reactiveness, 1 - .36, p < .01, suggesting that either parents with
strong reactions are likely to use Avoidance behaviors to deal with
them, or, parents with Avoidance coping strategies cannot temper their
reactions. Relations among coping scales, social support, and

adjustment are discussed below.

Table 5.

corrected for attenuation, and coefficient alphas (N - 38)

39

Coping scale items, mean response*, item-total correlations

 

Active Coping

 

1.

10

12.

13

14

15

l6.

l7

Tried to learn from the
situation

. Changed or grew as a

person in a good way

. Changed myself so I

could deal with it better

. Found new faith or some

important truth in life

. Prayed about it

. Re-examined my goals

regarding my child

. Tried to find out more

about the situation

. Discussed the situation

with someone

. Sought emotional support
from my friends and family

.Rediscovered what is

important in life

Counted my blessings

.Let my feelings out somehow

.Anticipated difficulty and

tried to prepare myself
emotionally

.Asked someone I respected for

advice and followed it

Talked to my child about my

feelings

.Just took one step at a time

Mean

 

.89

.78

.87

.95

.97

.49

1.03

1.61

Item-total

.67

.77

.50

.63

.50

.60

.41

.42

.39

.53

.53

.49

.27

.47

.48

.36

Coefficient Alpha

 

.85

Table 5 continues .....

40

Table 5. cont.

Avoidance Coping Mean Item-total Coefficient Alpha

 

 

 

 

l. Imagined a better place and

time than the one I was in .51 .58
2. Took it out on other people,

somehow .26 .57
3. Kept others from knowing

how I was feeling .90 .48
4. Didn't let it get to me; I

refused to think about it .72 .44
5. Took a big chance or did

something risky .16 .66
6. Wished I could change the

way I felt .85 .69
7. Felt bad that I couldn't

change the situation 1.10 .63
8. Wished the situation could

go away or be over with 1.15 .51
9. Moped a miracle would happen .95 .46
10.Felt better by drinking.

eating or smoking .31 .61
11.51ept more than usual .22 .64

12.had a fantasy about how
things might turn out .49 .54 .84

 

41

Parents' Social Support

Parents' social support was queried in order to explore its
relations to parents' reactions, other types of coping, and adjustment
to the separation. Specific aspects of parents' social support that
were also of interest included their relations with their supports
(e.g., family, persons in the helping professions), and the amount of
experience with marital separation their supports had had. Parents were
asked to list up to 10 people who had provided them with personal
support regarding their child's marital separation. The average number
of support people listed was five, with a standard deviation of three.
Three parents (7%) indicated that no one had provided them support, and
six parents (14%) reported that ten people had been supportive. In
regard to the the type of people who provided them support, those
listing family members (including extended family) ranged from 0 to 9.
In terms of percentages, this range was 0 to 100%, with an average
proportion of family members listed being 55%. The average proportion
of friends listed as supportive was 30%. One parent listed two
neighbors as part of their separation support network, and two parents
listed one neighbor. Similarly, one parent listed one co-worker as
supports, and two parents listed two co-workers. Ten parents (23%)
listed one member of the clergy as supports, and three parents listed
:29 clergy as supports. Of the four parents who stated that their
religious convictions made it difficult to accept or adapt to the event,
two (half) listed a member of the clergy in their support networks.
Only two parents listed a physician as a support, and none of the
parents indicated that a counselor was a part of their support network.

In regard to the parents' support network's experience with marital

42

discord, an average of 28% of the network had experienced it themselves,
and an average of 33% had a child who had separated or divorced. In
terms of possible changes in frequency of contact with support network
members, responses ranged from I'l - significant decrease", to "5 -
significant increase”. The mean of the parents' network contact
frequency was 3.03, with about 70% of the parents having reported no
changes in contact since their child's separation. In response to the
question, “to what extent have you talked with each person about your
child's separation?', answers ranged from '1 - a little", to '5 — a
great deal', with the average response being 3.67. Support satisfaction
scores also ranged from 1 to 5, with '1 - not at all satisfied", to '5 -
very satisfied". Overall, the parents were satisfied with the support
they had received in regard to their child's separation, with the mean
support network score being 4.30 and standard deviation of .77.

Aspects of the parents' support network were compiled into eight
scales based on network characteristics found to be important in the
social support literature. These included Total number of Support
persons listed, and percentages of Family, Friends, Separated persons
(Sap-network), and Persons with Separated Children (Sep-Child-network).
Scales based on mean scores for changes in support contact (Sup-Freq),
how much they had talked to the supportive person specifically about
their child's separation (Sup-Talk), and satisfaction with Sup-Talk
(Sup-Sat) were also computed.

Correlations among aspects of social support, parent status,
reactiveness, and coping are presented in Table 6. In regard to

relations among social support variables and parent demographics,

43

parents with more income were more likely to report more Total support.
Younger and more educated parents were more likely to report a greater
percentage of family members in their networks. Parents who perceived
that their child's separation was or could be a financial burden were
less likely to report a large proportion of family members in their
support group, as were parents of daughters who had separated. If
there was a financial burden perceived, parents were more likely to list
friends, rather than family, in their network. Parents' positive,
current contact with their separated child correlated with the parents
listing a low percentage of friends in their support network, and a
tendency to list more family members.

In regard to the percent of the parents' network members who had
separated themselves (Sap-network), younger parents, and poorer parents,
were more likely to list such network members. Sap-network members were
likely to be friends. Parents who had a high percentage of Sap-network
were likely to report a low degree of intensity of reactions.

Those parents who had a high percentage of network members whose
child had separated (Sep-Child-network) were more likely to describe
having religious convictions that made it difficult to accept or adapt
to the separation. In contrast to the parents who listed a high
percentage of Sap-network members, the parents with high Sep-Child-
network members were more likely to describe more intense reactions.
Parents with a high percentage of Sep-Child-network members were more
likely to state that they had done more Active Coping.

In regard to changes in the frequency of contact with their support
network, parents with more education, more income, and more intense

reactions, reported an increase in frequency of contact with their

44

.00. v a u 0
.0. v a u e
S-V'I.

son. 2.- one. 00. 0.. no. no. can. 0.. 040.- 2.- 3.. 300. e .0. 00.- .00... as...

0.. 00.- .0. 0..- 0.. 0 00. e 00. 0... 0..- 0..- 0 00. 00.- 00. 0..-.000 0.P00

. em

0 .0. 0.. 0..- 0.. 00. e 00.. 0..- 00.- 00.- 00. . 0 00.- 00. 0 00.- .000 .000

0 00.- 0 00.- 00. 00.- e..- a 00.- 0 0e. 0.. 0..- a 00.- 0..- .0. .050

000.00

00. 00.. 00.- 00. 00. 0 00.- 0 00.- 00. 00. 00. 0 n0.- .00e .000

00.- 00. 00. .0. 00.- 00. 00.- e 00. 00.- 0..-.000 .e.0.

00.000

00.- 0 00. 00.- 00.- 0... 00.. 00.- 00. 00. .0.0>¢

00.000

00. 00.- 00. 0.. 0.. 0..- 00. 00.- e>..0e

0000

...- 00.- 0..- 0 00.- 0.. 00. 00. -0>..0eea

.00 \s 000

00.. 0 00.- 00. 00.- 0..- 00.- .000000

000000

a 00. .0.- 00.- 00.- e .0. .0000..

0.0000

9.. 00.- 0°.- 0.. x00 t..£u

...000

S.- 8.. no. .02...

.00500

a 00. .0.- 00000.

000000

0 00 .0000

.00500
.05.- .0000 0.30 .090 .03.. 00.000 00.000 .00).. 0.2.0}. 000.50 .00 . .000 00000. .0300 000
0..00 .000 .0.ee ...aea .e.0- .0.0>0 0a..00 .0000 .00.:00 .0000.. 0..00 . ..00 .00000 .00000 .0eeea

.000 .000000 0.0000 .00000 .

.00 0. 00 000. 00000 0.0. .000000 .0.000 000 .00.000

00000)..0008 .0.:0000 .00.80.00> 0500.0 3..8O .0.-80.00) 0aoloa 060000 DOoDO-Cu .0 n.0008 00.00.00009 .0 0.80-

45

support network. Those parents with a high percentage of friends in
their support network were likely to report a decrease in contact with
their network. Overall increases in network contact were also highly
related to the parents' specifically discussing their childs' separation
(Sup-talk).

Parents' support satisfaction (Sup-Sat) was not related to any of
the parent demographics, prior experience with marital separation, child
status variables, Reactiveness, ways of coping, or the other aspects of
social support measured. This is most likely due to a restriction in
variability of responses, as 80% of the parents reported that they were

very satisfied with the support they had received.

Parents' Present Relations with Child and Child-in-law

Parents' present relations with their child and child-in-law were
considered important as a specific subset of family social support.
Such relations were of interest in terms of changes in quality of
relations since the separation, and in terms of how present relations
were related to parent adjustment. Parents described their present
relationship with their child as generally positive, with 70% stating
that it was very close and warm, 23% as somewhat close, 5% as
indifferent, and one parent reporting that it was hostile. It appears
that there is a slight change from parents' reports of their
relationships with their children prior to the separation, with parents
becoming more extreme in their estimation of the quality of the
relationships (i.e., either more positive or negative). In regard to
parent's present relationships with their child-in-law, there are more

dramatic changes. Forty-four per cent of the parents reported that

46

their present relationship with their child-in-law was currently distant
and cool; 17% reporting that it was indifferent; 17% reporting it was
somewhat close; 17% stated it was very close and warm, and 7% said it

was hostile. In general, the parents' relationship with their child-in-
law had become more distant or hostile since the separation, for prior
relations 3 - 2.07, and for present relations, m - 3.07, 5 (40) - 6.75, p

< .001.

Parents' Adjustment

Measures of adjustment were included to assess the impact of
this event on the parents' physical and psychological health, and to
examine how ways of coping and support may be effective in mediating
stress based on adjustment. Thirty-nine parents completed the
adjustment measures. Recall Depression (CES-D) scores for the period
prior to hearing about their child's separation ranged from 0 to 35 out
of a total possible of 60, with an average score of 11. Twenty-six
percent of those parents completing the CES-D had scores of 16 or more,
which is considered representative of possible clinical depression
(Radloff, 1977). Current CES-D scores did not statistically differ from
the pre-separation scores; again, there was a wide range of depressive
symptoms reported, with scores ranging from 1 to 43, and the average
being 16, indicating an increase in depressive symptoms. It is
interesting to note that the same 26% of the parents who scored greater
than or equal to 16 on the CES-D recall scale also scored 16 or more on
the current CES-D.

Parents' Composite Symptom Checklist (CSC) recall scores for the

period prior to hearing about their child's separation ranged from 2 to

47

51 out of a total possible score of 66, with an average of 13. Current
CSC scores ranged from 2 to 52, with an average of 15, and did not
significantly differ from CSC pro-separation scores.

Parents' Life Satisfaction, as measured by the Delighted-Terrible
Scale (DTS), had a total possible score of 95 (answering all items as
“delighted"). Parents' recall DTS scores prior to hearing about the
separation ranged from 18 to 87, with a mean of 65, or an average
reponse across items falling between "pleased“ and 'mixed' categories.
Current DTS scores did not significantly differ from pre-separation
scores, with a range of 38 to 90, and an average of 68.

Change scores for adjustment measures were calculated by
subtracting reported adjustment scores prior to the child's separation
from current adjustment scores, in order to examine changes in each of
the adjustment measures. The change scores also allowed for examination
of relations among adjustment variables and parent status and child
status variables through simple correlations. The mean adjustment score
for the CES-D was 4.44, with a range of -8 to +34. The mean change
score for the CSC was 1.86, with a range of -5 to +30. Negative change
scores indicate a decrease in symptomatology since the separation, and a
positive score indicates an increase in symptomatology. The mean change
score for the DTS was 2.6, with a range of -9 to +48, with negative
change scores indicating decrease in satisfaction, and positive numbers
indicating a increase in life satisfaction. All correlations of adjustment
pre-existing adjustment) partialled out. In regard to the correlations
among adjustment change scores with recall scores partialled out, only

the CES-D and CSC were significantly related, I - .64, p < .001.

48

No significant age, education, or income level differences were
found on the adjustment measures. Mothers, however, were more likely to
report an increase in depressive (CES-D) symptomatology, I - .26, p <
.06, and psychophysiological symptomatology (CSC), ; - .30, p < .05.
Parents with more intense reactions were more likely to report an
increase in symptoms on the CES-D, I - .39, p < .01, and CSC, I - .33, p
< .05.

Neither of the coping scales were significantly related to changes
in the adjustment measures. However, the percentage of family members
listed in support networks was negatively related to increases on the
CES-D, ; - - .44, n < .01, and the CSC, ; - -.35, p,< .02. Support
satisfaction was also negatively related to increases on the CSC, z,-
-.37, n < .02. Increase in support frequency was positively related to

increased life satisfaction (DTS), 1 - .46, p < .01.

The Effects of Coping and Social Support on Adjustment

To explore the potential cumulative effects of reactiveness,
coping, and social support on current adjustment as outcome, 36
hierarchical multiple regressions were computed. The effects of the
following 12 coping and social support variables were examined in
relation to each of the three adjustment measures: Total support,
proportion of Family supports, proportion of Friend supports, proportion
of supports who had separated themselves (Sap-network), proportion of
supports who had children who had separated (Sep-Child-network), mean
changes in support frequency (Sup-Freq), to what extent they had talked
to each support (Sup-Talk), satisfaction with support (Sup-Sat), present

quality of contact with child, present quality of contact with child-in-

49

law, Active coping, and Avoidance coping. All regression equations were
in the following form: Prior adjustment score was entered first to
control for adjustment assumed unrelated to the separation event, then
Reactiveness was entered, followed by a coping or support variable, with
each equation predicting one of the three current adjustment measures.
Of the 36 multiple regressions conducted, four had significant
predictors that were support or coping variables. The results of these
four regressions are presented in Table 7. An additional eight
equations resulted in Reactiveness being a significant predictor of
current adjustment beyond prior adjustment, without a coping or social
support variable predicting any additional significance variance.

As can be seen in Table 7, current depression (CES-D) was predicted
by both Reactiveness, and absence of Family support. The directions of
the correlations and beta weights suggest that greater intensity of
reactions led to more depressive symptoms, while higher levels of family
support lead to a decrease in symptoms. Reactiveness was not predictive
of physical symptoms (CSC), but Support Satisfaction (Sup-Sat) was
related to a reduction in symptoms. Similarly, Reactiveness was not
predictive of life satisfaction (DTS), but Support Frequency and
Avoidance coping were. Greater increase in support frequency was
predictive of greater levels of life satisfaction. Increases in
Avoidance coping appeared to be a detriment to life satisfaction

ratings.

50

Table 7
Multiple Regressions of Pie—separation Adjustment, Reactiveness, and
Mediating Variables on current Adjustment

 

CharrentCES-Dm-3S)

 

 

2
Variable r beta R damage
c c c
Pre-CES-D .69 .64 .48
a a
Inactiveness .32 .19 .06
b a a
Fail-Y SW“ -038 -025 006
Current g (n . 33)
2
Variable r beta R change
c c c
Pro-ca: .93 .93 .87
Reactiveness .07 .10 .01
a a
SW $ti80 -016 -012 002

 

Table 7 continms......

Table 7, Continued

(narrating (n = 33)

51

 

 

2
Variable r beta R mange
c c
Dre-DTS .70 .78 .49
Reactiveness -.15 -.O4 .00
a a
Support Frequency .00 .27 .06
Current grg (n - 37)
2
Variable r beta R charge
c c
Pre-Urs .71 .63 .50
mm -017 004 000
a a
Avoidance Coping -.44 -.25 .05

 

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
This study examined how 43 older parents reacted, coped, and
adjusted to the marital separation of their child. In addition, several
areas hypothesized to influence reactions, coping, and adjustment were
also examined. This chapter summarizes the findings of the study, and

suggests areas for further research.

Representativeness of the Sample

This sample most likely differed from the larger population in
gender, education, income, and ethnicity due to the nature of the
solicitation effort. As it was the parents' children who initially
volunteered themselves, and then volunteered their parents' names, a
type of “double selection“ process may have taken place. In other
words, two generations had to feel sympathetic toward the purpose of the
study before participating. It is possible that more women, and more
educated, white subsamples of the population found more interest in the

study compared to other groups.

Parents' Rate of Separation and Divorce

It appears that this sample of parents has had fewer experiences
with their own marital separation and divorce than national samples.
This finding calls into question the “transmission of marital
instability phenomenon”. However, a larger and more representative
sample would be needed to better test the consistency of the phenomenon.

Keeping in mind such limitations in the present sample's
representativeness, several conclusions about parents' reactions,

coping, and adjustment can be made.

52

53

Parents' Prior Experience with Marital Separation
It appeared that the more experience parents had had with marital

separation of their own parents, siblings, friends, or friends'
children, the greater the likelihood that their child had discussed
their marital problems with their parents. As noted below, parents who
discussed marital problems with their children had less intense
reactions, and showed more Active ways of coping. Thus it appears that
open family communication about stressful family events facilitates the

reduction of the stress on possibly all family members.

Parents' Perceptions of Child's Situation

Perceived financial burden.was an important factor in the type of
support network parents were likely to have (discussed below).

Financial burden was also more likely to be reported for daughters.
However, this was independent of whether there were grandchildren or
not, which was not expected. It may be the case that daughters with
children in this sample were more likely to obtain support from their
separated husbands. Further data would be needed to substantiate such a
hypothesis. Alternatively, it may be that the separated daughters, like
women in the larger population, receive a lower income in general
relative to their expenses.

Contrary to expectations, the child's initiator status of the
separation was not related to any of the parent variables. While
initiator status is clearly important to the separating couple (e.g.,
Hagestad & Smyer, 1981), it may be that it is an aspect of the

countertransition that is less salient to the parent. Since it is the

54

aspect of perceived control that is important in initiator status,
parents, who have little control over their child's situation may simply

react to the disruptive situation in general.

Parents' Prior Relations with Child and Child-in-law

As expected, parents viewed their relations with their child in the
year prior to the separation in a very positive light. Descriptions of
their relations with their child-in-law were positive as well, but less
extreme. An unexpected finding was that younger parents were more
likely to describe more extreme qualities of the relationships with
their child (more positive) and child-in-law (more negative). Little
research exists as to why this might happen. One hypothesis is that a
younger cohort of parents may feel freer to describe more intense
emotions. Alternatively, Magestad (1984) has suggested that “younger“
middle-aged parents may focus more on their children compared to their
aging parents, and thus have more of an emotional investment in their
children. Emotional investment may also be involved in the relationship
between presence of grandchildren and a greater degree of warmth in the
older parents' relations with their child. This is consistent with
reports of grandmother's perceptions of family, particularly views of
grandchildren, and the role of grandmother reported by Johnson (1983).

Parents' positive or warm relations with both their child and
child-in-law in the year prior to the separation were also related to
the marital separation being an initial one. Again, it may be that
parents' emotional investment in their child decreases by the time their
child enters matrimony for a second or third time. This decrease in

emotional investment (and possible reactiveness) may also have been

55

sensed by the adult children, as they were more likely to discuss the
possibility of separating with their parent(s) when the separation was
not their first.
Parents' Reactions

Perhaps the clearest and most important finding was that these
parents were not indifferent in their reaction to their child's
separation. A small number of parents reported positive reactions, in
contrast to both Kaslow and Hyatt's (1982) suggestion, and Hagestad,
Smyer, and Stierman's (1984) report that such an event can be a
positive, growing experience. Rather, reactions receiving high ratings
included “sadness", “concern”, ”upset“, “loss”, similar to the findings
by Eckels (1981) that such an event is seen as negative and stressful.
Although there was some indication that there were clusters of reactions
that included loss, relief, and responsibility, a larger sample of
parents is needed to further explore such factors. In terms of
Reactiveness, or intensity of reactions in general, the parents did not
differ across age, gender, education, religion, or income. Thus,
mothers did not react with more intensity than fathers, contrary to
prediction. This lack of gender differences in stress appraisal has
been noted by others (e.g., Paykel, Prusoff, a Uhlenhuth, 1971). What
was related to a higher degree of Reactiveness were parent's reports of
religious convictions (not religious affiliation) that made it difficult
to accept marital separation, and the presence of grandchildren.
Johnson (1983) has described how grandmothers sometimes identify
themselves as “stabilizers“ for their child and grandchildren

experiencing a divorce. In order to act as a stabilizer, it may be that

56

a grandparent feels a heightened awareness of both their child and
grandchildren's current stressful experiences, which may lead to an
increase in their own reactivity. Parents with a higher percentage of
support network members whose child had maritally separated also
reported higher reactiveness. Parents with such supports may have
reported more intense reactions because of their empathy for others
going through a similar process, and/or were more likely to simply
acknowledge more intense reactions due to their greater exposure to this
event. The question asking parents how they had attempted to cope had
included as a prompt, previous experience with marital separation. As
Table 4 indicates, one parent did describe drawing on a previous
experience to cope with the event.

In regard to factors that reduced Reactiveness, parents' prior
knowledge that their child had been experiencing marital problems seemed
to help. If a high degree of Reactiveness can be considered a stressful
experience, it may benefit the younger generation, who wishes to lessen
the stress to their parents, to tell of their marital problems prior to
the separation, rather than “spare“ their parents of their difficulties.
Again, open communication patterns among family members would appear to

facilitate less stressful reactions on the part of older parents.

Parents' Coping
These parents described in their own words numerous ways in which
they had attempted to cope with the event. Again, many reported that
communicating with their child and child-in-law helped, perhaps as a
means of decreasing their reactiveness. Several also indicated that

they had used prayer to cope. In regard to the parents' responses to a

57

list of coping behaviors described by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), two
types of coping behaviors were identified through cluster analysis;
Avoidance and Active coping. Active coping is most likely a combination
of what Lazarus and Folkman have described as ”information seeking" and
“seeking emotional support“. Not surprisingly, Active coping, including
such items as “talked to my child about my feelings”, was related to
parents' having knowledge about their child's marital problems.
Furthermore, mothers were more likely to use this way of coping,
suggesting that they are indeed active 'kinkeepers'. Avoidance coping,
with items such as “wished the situation could go away“, in contrast,
was related to higher Reactiveness. If appraisal of stress
(Reactiveness) and coping behaviors interrelate as a continuous process
as Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest, it would appear that parents who
use avoidance ways of coping may be avoiding the process completely,
with the result being little decrease in perceived stress.

No age differences in Active or Avoidance coping were found,
contrary to suggestions by Gutmann (1974), Vaillant (1977), and Pfeiffer
(1977). It may be that if further information on parents' coping had
been gathered (i.e., such as in-depth interviews used by Gutmann),

differences across parent age would have been found.

Parents' Social Support
Social support, as another means of coping, was also utilized by
this group of parents. Although the parents listed an average of five
persons who had been supportive to them in regard to this event, three
parents indicated that they had no one to provide them this particular

support. Parent income was somewhat related to total support, perhaps

58

due to an increase in accessibility that can accompany higher income.
In terms of relationships that the parents had to the support network
members, the highest percentage was family members, followed by friends.
This would suggest that kin does play an important role for parents
attempting to deal with their child's separation, just as famdly support
is important to the separating adult (e.g., Caldwell & Bloom, 1982). It
is interesting to note, however, that when the parents perceived that
their child's situation was or could become a financial burden, they
were less likely to list family members as supports, and more likely to
list friends as network members. Work by Spanier and Hanson (1982) may
illuminate why this may be the case. In their study of the role of kin
in adjustment to marital separation, support from kin was either
unrelated or negatively related to the child's adjustment. They
suggested that support from kin could be particularly detrimental when
family sanctions such as criticism and disapproval of the separation
were apparent. Since financial dependency by a separated adult child is
probably seen as undesirable, the parents of financially dependent
children may have avoided family criticism by seeking support from
friends instead. It is also interesting to note that the parents who
listed a decrease in contact with network members had more friends than
family in their network. This finding is consistent with work by Alford
(1982), who concluded that more intense and intimate relations can be
found within kin relationships, compared to nonkin relationships.

In regard to parents' listings of support persons who were
professionals, nan; listed a counselor, two listed a physician, and 10
parents listed a person of the clergy as a support. This is consistent

with reports dated 1960, that people with marital problems were more

59

likely to consult a person from the clergy than a psychiatrist,
psychologist, or marriage counselor. These reports also suggested that
people who consulted clergy in regard to marital problems were more
satisfied than those who saw a psychotherapist (Weinglass, Kressel, &

Deutsch, 1978).

Parents' Present Relations with Child and Child-in-law

In general, parents' described their current relations with their
child and child-in-law as more extreme than those they recalled during
the year prior to the separation. Family loyalties seemed to come into
play as, on the average, parents were likely to describe more distant,
hostile current relationships with their child-in law, and warmer, more
positive relations with their child. This latter finding is consistent
with Hagestad, Smyer, and Stierman's (1984) report that divorcees
believed their divorce had not affected their relationship with their
parents, but when a change was noted, it was in a positive direction.

Statistically, there was no evidence that grandmothers attempted to
form coalitions with daughter-in-laws to maintain contact with their
grandchildren, as reported by Johnson (1983). However, several parents
described their fear of decreased contact with their grandchildren in
the future. Thus, the inclusion of a question about fear of decreased

contact with grandchildren in the future may have been more informative.

Parents' Adjustment
In general, parents reported a slight increase in depressive
symptoms, in psychophysiological symptoms, and a slight decrease in life

satisfaction as the result of their child's marital separation, as

60

measured by change scores. Mothers' reports of higher levels of
depressive and physical symptoms were consistent with other reports that
women experience more of these symptoms than men (Clancey & Cove, 1974;
Klerman 6 Weissman, 1980). A major factor that was related to higher
levels of depression and physical symptoms for both men and women was
higher levels of Reactiveness. This may be due to the fact that a
majority of the reactions endorsed by the parents could be considered
aspects of loss or grief. Thus, variables that could be considered
“risk factors” for parents' adjustment include gender and high levels of
reactiveness.

Having family members in their social support network and high
levels of support satisfaction were related to parents having fewer
physical and depressive symptoms, even though percentage of family
members and satisfaction were not related to lower reactivity. These
findings suggests that a network that is perceived as supportive, or
includes a high proportion of family members, can have positive effect

on adjustment.

The Effects of Coping and Social Support on Adjustment

In regard to the.effects of reactiveness, coping, and social
support on adjustment as computed through multiple regression equations,
current depression was increased by Reactiveness and decreased by family
support. In other words, the relationship between family support and
depression was significant beyond the effect of Reactiveness (or
stress). Although several other aspects of support and coping were
significant in the equations, their potential effects were not as clear,

as Reactiveness was not a significant predictor in the equations. The

61

only variables that were significantly related to life satisfaction in
the multiple regression equations that were not related to adjustment
measures were social support contact frequency (positively related) and
Avoidance coping (negatively related). This lack of sensitivity of life
satisfaction to stressful events is consistent with Zautra and Reich's
(1983) conclusions regarding the impact of positive and negative life
events on quality of life and psychological adjustment. In their
review, they found that persons who had experienced negative events did
not suffer significant detriment in quality of life ratings, but did
appear more psychologically distressed. Thus, for persons considering
future work in this area, it would seem that a life-satisfaction measure
may not be as sensitive to the impact of this particular stressful event

was other psychological adjustment measures.
Conclusions

The marital separation of a child has generally negative effects on
their older parent. Parents vary in their intensity of reactions to
this event, according to perceived financial burden, parents'
conflicting religious convictions, and presence of grandchildren related
to increased intensity. The most common reactions that parents in this
study reported included "loss”, "concern", and "sadness", with a small
minority reporting "relief”. One factor related to lower intensity of
reactions was parents' prior knowledge that their child had been
experiencing marital problems.

Parents attempted to cope with this event through many means, the
most common being communicating with their child, and prayer. Based on

responses to a list of coping behaviors, clusters of Active coping and

62

Avoidance coping were identified. Increased Active coping was related
to decreased depressive and psychophysiological symptoms, and a high
frequency of Avoidance coping was related to decrements in life
satisfaction ratings.

A specific aspect of parents' ways of coping that was examined was
social support in regard to the event. Having a high percentage of
family members in the social network, as well as being satisfied with
support, was related to better adjustment.

Future researchers of this topic may wish to consider more in depth
investigation of how family support, including contact with the
separated child, their spouse, and possible grandchildren, affects older
parents' adjustment. Quality of discussions of the child's marital
problems between parent and child prior to separation also merit further
examination. Larger samples, with more diverse socio-economic statuses,
would also allow for testing of hypotheses regarding the possible
differential impact of this event across SES. Finally, research
including a follow-up component measuring later reactions, coping, and
adjustment would also be informative, given that parents do recall
reactions up to eight years ago (see Chapter I), and that children of
divorced parents continue to describe distress up to ten years after
their parents' divorce (Wallerstein, 1985).

In terms of implications for marital and family therapy, the
findings presented here suggest several considerations. Couples who are
experiencing marital difficulties and perceive separation and divorce as
the best solution should be encouraged to discuss this possibility with

their parents if they wish to facilitate less intense reactions by their

63

parents. Therapists of multi-generational families experiencing marital
discord may better facilitate family adjustment through better
understanding about the older parents' religious conflicts concerning
divorce, the older parents' perceived support from family members, and

the older parents' possible fears of losing contact with grandchildren.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahrons, C.R. & Bowman, M.E. (1982). Changes in family relationships
following divorce of adult child: Grandmother perceptions.

Joana-Mme- 5. (1/2). 49-68.

Albrecht, E.L. (1980). Reactions and adjustment to divorce: Differences

in the experience of males and females. E3nily_figlgtign§, 22, 59-
68.

Alford, R.D. (1982). Intimacy and disputing styles within kin and
nonkin rolotionshipo- Mil-Limes. 3.- 361-374.

Andrus. Fun &Withoy- S B (1976) MW
Moricon' 8 perceptions of life anal-10W

Antonucci, T.C. (1985). Personal characteristics, social networks and
social behavior. In E. Shanas and R.H. Binstock (Eds.), figndhggk
, (2nd ed.). New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.

Bahr, H. M. & Nye, F.I. (1974). The kinship role in a contemporary
community: Perceptions of obligations and sanctions. loggngl_g§

WW- 5. 17-25.

Bane, M. J. (1976). Marital disruption and the lives of children.
Journal-41mm. 3.2. (1). 103-117.

Bloom, B.L. Asher, S.J., & White, S.W. (1978). Marital disruption as a

stressor: A.review and analysis. 231sh912giga1_§ulle§in. 85-
867-894.

Bloom, B.L. 6 Caldwell, RsA. (1981). Sex differences in adjustment

during the process of marital separation. lggxngl_gf_flgxziggg_gng
M111- 93.- 693-701.

Booth, A. (1972). Sex and social participation. Ang11§§n_§ggiglggiggl
We 11: 183-1920

Caldwell, R.A. & Bloom, B.L. (1982). Social support: Its structure and

impact on marital disruption. WW
Paschal-cs1- 19. 647-667.

Caldwell, R.A., Pearson, J.L., & Chin, R.J. (in press). The stress
moderating effects of social support in the context of gender and

locus of control. Remus-1W.

Chiriboga, D.A. (1979). Marital separation and stress: A life-course
PorSPootivo. AWL-Mas- 2. 461-470.

64

65

Chiriboga, D.A., Roberts, J., & Stein, J.A. (1978). Psycholological

well-being during marital separation. lgu:n51_2f_2122:§§. 2-
21-36.

Chiriboga, D.A., Jenkins, G., a Bailey, J. (1983). Stress and coping
among hospice nurses: Test of an analytic model. Hugging

W- 3.2- 294-299-

Clancey, K., & Gove, W. (1974). Sex differences in mental illness: An
analysis of response bias in self reports. Ane;1;gn_lgg;ngl_gf
5.201.219.01- 10. 205-216-

Cooke, D.J., & Hole, D.J. (1983). The aetiological importance of

strouful life events. W. 19.1. 397-
400.

Dager, E.Z. (1964). Socialization and personality development in the

child. In arr. Christensen (Edd. WWII-swung
fhlfllx- Chicago: Rand.McNally.

Dillman, D.A. (1978).
ngshgd. New York: John Wiley.

Dohrenwend, 8.8. (1973). Social status and stressful life events.
MW- 2&- 225-235.

Duffy, M. (1982). Divorce and the dynamics of the family kinship system.
W. 5.. (1/2). 3-18.

Eckels, E.T. (1981, November).
fgz_gldgz_gongn. Paper presented at the Joint Annual Meeting of
the Gerontological Society of America and the Canadian Association
on Gerontology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

011113-01, c. (1982). -
' Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gutmann, D. L. (1974). The country of old.men: Cross-cultural studies
in the psychology of later life. In R.A. Levine (Ed.), Culture
' New York: Academic
Press.

Hagestad, G. O. (1984). The continuous bond: A dynamic, multi-
generational perspective on parent-child relations between adults,

In M. Perla-utter mm. W
W.

v -
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hagestad, G.O. & Smyer, M.A. (1982). Dissolving long-term relation-
ships: Patterns of divorce in middle age. In S. Duck (Ed.),

Mammal-W- London: Academic Press.

66

Hagestad, G.O., Smyer, M.A., 5 Stierman, K. (1984). The impact of
divorce in middle age. In R.S. Cohen, B.J. Cohler, 5 S.H.

Heisman (Edam. W (pp-
247-262). New York: Guilford Press.

Hoffman, M.L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behaviors.
Barthel-ammonia- 811. 712-722.

Hollinsohoad- A. 5- Rodlioh- F. (1958). Willame-
New York: Wiley.

Johnson, C.L. (1983). A cultural analysis of grandmother. Begggzgh_gn
Asins- 5.- (4)- 547-557-

Johnson, E.S. 5 Vinick, B.H. (1982). Support of the parent when an

adult son or daughter divorces. lggxng1_gf_nizgzgg,,fi, (1/2), 69-
77.

Kahana. B. a mom- E. (1980. April). Wm
MW:
ghildggn. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Orthopsychiatry Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Kessler, R. (1979). Stress, social status, and psychological distress.
Warlor- 22. 259-273.

Klein, D.M., Jorgensen, S.R. 5 Miller, B. (1979). Research methods and
developmental reciprocity in families. In.R..M. Lerner 5 G.B.
Spanier (Eds )- Chi-Wily
WW. Now York: Madame Press

Klerman, C.L., 5 Weissman, M.M. (1980). Depressions among women: Their
nature and causes. In.M. Guttentag, S. Salasin, 5 D. Belle

(lids-)- W (913- 57-92). New York:
Academic Press.

Kulka, R.A. 5 Weingarten, H. (1979). The long-term effects of parental
divorce in childhood on adult adjustment. lgg:ng1_gf_figgigl

Isms- 35- 50-78.

Kurdek, LmA. (1981). An integrative perspective on children's divorce
odJustnont- W- 36- 856-866.

Lazarus- R.S. a Folkman. 8. (1984). Wis-11.401.29.210:-
New York: Springer.

Lewis, R.A. 5 Spanier, G.B. (1979). Theorizing about the quality and
stability of marriage. In W. Burr, R. Hill, J. Reiss, 5 F.I. Nye
(Eds.)- Wflmflx- (PP- 268- 294).
Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Matthews, S.H. 5 Sprey, J. (1984). The impact of divorce on

grandparenthood: An exploratory study. Gerontologigg, 24, 41-47.

67

Mischel, W. (1970). Sex-typing and socialization. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.)
' (3rd ed., vol. 2), (pp.
3-72). New York: Wiley.

Mueller, C.W. 5 Pope, H. (1977). Marital instability: A study of its
transmission between generations.

2mm. 22. 83-93.

Myers, J., Lindenthal, J., 5 Pepper, M. (1974). Social class, life
events, and psychiatric symptoms: A longitudinal study. In B.S.

Dohrom'ond 5 B-P- Bohr-mood (Eds-L MW:
nnsuxg_an1_gffggtfi, (pp. 191-205). New York: Wiley.

Norbeck, J.S. (1982). The social support questionnaire. University of
California, San Francisco.

Nydegger, C.N. 5 O'Neil, J. (1983). Experiencing social generations:
Phenomenal dimensions. Rugguzuh_un_fig1ng, 5, 527-546.

Paykel, E.S., Prusoff, B. 5 Uhlenhuth, E.H. (1979). Scaling of life
events. Wim- 22. 340-347.

Pearlin, L.I 5 Johnson, J.S. (1977). Marital status, life strains and
«pros-ion. Walnuts-1.892191. 92. 704-715.

Pettit, E.J., 5 Bloom, B.L. (1984). Whose decision was it? The effects
of initiator status on adjustment to marital disruption. luugnul

W- £16.- 587-595-

Pfeiffer, E. (1977). Psychopathology and social pathology. In J.E.

Birron and KM. Shaie (8:18.). Win:-
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Plaut, S.M., 5 Friedman, 8.8. (1981). Psychosocial factors in

infectious disease. In R. Ader (Ed.), Bszuhunuurgimmunulugy. (pp.
3-30). New York: Academic Press.

Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale. A self-report depression scale

for research in the general population. Appligd_2§y§hglggy
Measurement- 1- 385-401.

Riley, M.W., 5 Waring, J. (1976). Age and aging. In R. K. Merton, 5 R.
Nisbot (3:18.). Wan-1.9121203. 4th ed. New York:

Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.

Shanas, E. (1979a). The family as a social support system in old age.
Wist- 12- 169-175.

~Shanas, E. (1979b). Social myth as hypothesis: The case of the family
relations of old people. ngunuglggigu, 12, 3-9.

68

Spanier, G.B., 5 Hanson, S. (1982). The role of extended kin in the

adjustment to marital separation. lgu:ngl_ufi_nizu;gg, 5, (1/2),
33-48.

United States Bureau of the Census (1983).
ghgxguggzguigg. (United States Summary. PC80-l-Bl). Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

United States Bureau of the Census (1984). D:§0112§.222§1§§120

ghgnguugzguigg, Vol. 1, Part 1. (United States Summary. PC80-1-
Dl-A. Section A). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Wallerstein, J.S. 5 Kelly, J.B. (1980). '
New York: Basic Books.

Wallerstein, J.S. (1985). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a
lO-year follow-up of older children and adolescents. luu;nul_u£

WW- 2&. (5). 545-553.

Weinglass, J., Kressel,'K., 5 Deutch, M. (1978). The role of the clergy

in divorce: An exploratory survey. luurnal_uf_nixurgg. 2.
57-82.

Vaillant, G.E. (1977). Adan;19n_§u_lifg. Boston: Little, Brown.
Zautra, A.J. 5 Reich, J.W. (1983). Life events and perceptions of life

quality: developments in a two-factor approach. lgu;ngl_g£
- 11- 121-132.

APPENDIX A

YES, I am interested in participating in the
marital disruption study.

Please send me questionnaira(s), as my
spouse is/is not interested in participating
as well.

NO, I am not interested in participating in the
marital disruption study.

 

STREET ADDRESS

 

 

STATE AND ZIP CODE
PHONE

 

 

Date

Name
Address

Dear (older parent's name):

I am currently conducting a study examining how the marital separa-
tion of an adult child affects their parents. Your name and address
was obtained from (separated child's name) who is participating

in the study.

Although we are beginning to understand how a marital separation
affects the persons experiencing it, as well as how it affects their
children, we know very little about how the older parent or
grandparent reacts and adjusts to their child's marital separation.

The study that I am currently conducting asks parents of children who
have maritally separated in the two years to fill out an anonymous and
confidential questionnaire. Included in the questionnaire are
questions about 1) your reactions, 2) your prior experiences with
persons who have had marital problems, 3) your present physical and
psychological health, and 4) questions about any help or coping
strategies that you may have sought to deal with your child's marital
separation.

If you are interested in participating in the study, please complete
and return to me the postage-paid postcard enclosed. An anonymous
questionnaire, along with a postage-paid return envelope will be
sent to you, and that will be the extent of your participation in
the study.

Although I cannot provide any direct payment or benefit to you for
your time and effort in completing the questionnaire, 1 can send you
group results of the study. You can indicate you interest in
obtaining results of the study at the end of the questionnaire.

I hope that you will decide to participate in this research, so
that we can better understand how a marital separation affects
the family, including yuu, and hopefully provide better services
to those who request it.

Sincerely,

Jane L. Pearson, M.A.

Date

Name
Address

Dear (older parent's name):

About a month ago you should have received a questionnaire asking
about your reactions to your child's marital separation. If you
have completed it, and it's in the mail, I thank you.

If you have not completed it, but plan to, I would appreciate
your completing it and sending it to me in the postage-paid

envelope provided as soon as possible.

If you have decided not to complete it, do not return the
questionnaire.

If you have any questions or reservations about the question-
naire, please feel free to call me at 517-355-9561, and I will
get back to you.

Thank you for your anticipated participation.

Sincerely,

Jane L. Pearson, M.A.

APPENDIX B

Michigan State University
Department of Psychology

mama ADJUSTMENT T0 CHILD'S mums. SEPARATION smov

mos-"3.5m

I freely consent to take part in the doctoral dissertation study
of how the marital separation of my adult chlld effects no as an
older parent, conducted by Jane Pearson, M.A., Department of
Psychology, Michigan State university.

I have received a clear explanation of my part in this study,
which is to complete an anonymous questionnaire.

I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in
the study at any time without penalty.

I understand that the results of the study will be treated in
strict confidentiality and that I will remain anonymous.
within these restrictions, results of the study will be made
available to me at my request.

I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee
any beneficial results to me.

I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional
explanation of the study after my participation is completed.

I understand that my compliance in completing the questionnaire
constitutes my Informed consent for participation in the study.

Signed

 

Date

 

PARENTAL ADJUSTMENT T0 CHILD'S SEPARATION QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is to only be filled out by persons who have
an adult child who has separated from their spouse it; the Lag»;
sighmggthg. If you have more than one child who has maritally
separated in the last six months, please answer all questions

in response to the child who has most recently separated.

DIRECTIONS

The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information about
how the parents of adult children react and adjust to their adult
child's marital separation.

Please fill out the questionnaire without consulting anyone.
There are no right or wrong answers. He want to know what ygur
reaction is to your child's separation. Your answers will be
completely anonymous and confidential, so please answer as
honestly as you can.

Read the questions carefully before answering. Host answers
will involve circling or checking a response that represents
you. Other questions will ask you to explain something in
your own words.

when you have completed the questionnaire, return it, along with
your consent form, and request for results if you wish, in the
postage-paid return envelope.

3.

5.
6.

Today's Date

 

First of all, we would like some general information about your
separated son or daughter. Please circle one:

1 NY SON HAS SEPARATED FROM HIS SPOUSE
IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS

2 MY DAUGHTER HAS SEPARATED FROM HER
SPOUSE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS

What is the age of the son or daughter who separated?

 

Is this the first time your son or daughter has separated?

1 YES
2 NO

Does he or she have any children from their (most recent) marriage?

1 YES
2 NO

If yes, what are their ages?

 

Hhich of the following statements best describes your relationship
with your child during the year prior to their marital separation?

VERY CLOSE AND HARM
SOHEHHAT CLOSE
INDIFFERENT

DISTANT AND COOL
HOSTILE

which of the following statements best describes your relationship
with your child at the present time?

VERY CLOSE AND HARM
SOHEHHAT CLOSE
INDIFFERENT

DISTANT AND COOL
HOSTILE

which of the following statements best describes your relationship
with your son(daughter-in-law in the year prior to your child's
separation run them

VERY CLOSE AND HARM
SOMEHHAT CLOSE
INDIFFERENT

DISTANT AND COOL
HOSTILE

tthN—l Ulnwa—l

tn-wa—o

lO.

II.

12.

l3.

14.

Which of the following statements best describes your relationship
with-your son/daughter-in-la! at the present time?

VERY CLOSE AND HARH
SOMEHHAT CLOSE
INDIFFERENT

DISTANT AND COOL
HOSTILE

album—-

Is your child's marital separation a financial burden for you?

1 YES
2 NO

Please explain:

 

 

 

If no, do you believe that it could become a financial burden
for you in the future?

I YES
2 N0

when did you first learn of your child‘s separation, or plans
to separate from his or her spouse?

I HITHIN THE LAST MONTH

2' THO CR THREE MONTHS AGO
FOUR OR FIVE NONTHS AGO
SIX MONTHS AGO

MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AGO

03%“

How did you hear about it? Please explain:

 

 

 

Hhich of the following statements is most true? “My belief is that
my child‘s marital separation was...“

I NOSTLY MY CHILD'S DECISION
2 MOSTLY MY SON/DAUGHTER-IN-LAH'S DECISION
3 A MUTUAL DECISION

l5. Please describe the best you can ypur first reaction to your child's

marital separation:

 

 

 

 

 

l6. Hhich of the following statements are true about your reaction?
Please circle 'T' for true, and 'F' for false for each statement.

T
T
T
T

F

p
F
F

I HAD NO IDEA MY CHILD HAD MARITAL PROBLEMS
I HAD HONDERED IF MY CHILD HAD MARITAL PRODLEHS
I STRONGLY SUSPECTED HY CHILD HAD HARITAL PRODLEHS

MY CHILD HAD TALKED TO HE OPENLY ABOUT THEIR
HARITAL PROBLEMS

Other people have reported the following reactions to their child's divorce.
Some of these reactions may be similar to your own, and others may not.

l7. To what degree was r reaction like those listed below? Please
circle a number from to 5 on each scale, where l represents
“not at all my reaction“, and 5 represents “very much my reaction“.

ANGER
JOY
GUILT
EMBARRASSHENT

LOSS

FEELING
RESPONSIBLE

NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH LIKE

MY REACTION MY REACTION

l

O O O 2 O O O O 3 O O O O 4 O O I O s

RELIEF

SADNESS

SURPRISE

FEELING
BURDENED

DISAPPOINTHENT

FEAR

INDIFFERENCE

BITTERNESS

DISMAY

CONCERN

POHERLESSNESS

UPSET

HAD MIXED
FEELINGS

18.

19.

NOT AT ALL
MY REACTION

1

1

Have you ever been separated

O O O 2 O O O O 3 O O O

or divorced?

YES

2 NO

1
2
3
4

If yes, when was your most recent separation

IN THE LAST YEAR

THO TD FIVE YEARS AGO
SIX TO TEN YEARS AGO
ELEVEN TO 20 YEARS AGO

VERY MUCH LIKE

MY REACTION
4 O O O O 5

or divorce?

20.

2].

23.

Hhat is your present marital status?

1 MARRIED

2 SEPARATED
3 DIVORCED
4 HIDOHED

Have you had a relative, friend, or any other person important to you
separate or divorce? Please check all appropriate blanks.

I HAVE ANOTHER CHILD WHO HAS SEPARATED/DIVORCED

ONE OF MY PARENTS HAD SEPARATED/DIVORCED

I HAVE A BROTHER OR SISTER HHO HAS SEPARATED/DIVORCED
A FRIEND HAS SEPARATED/DIVORCED

A FRIEND OR RELATIVE HAS HAD A CHILD HHO HAS
SEPARATED/DIVORCED

 

 

 

Have you found that your own religious convictions have made it
difficult for you to accept or adapt to your child's marital
separation?

l YES
2 NO

Please explain:

 

 

 

 

Now we would like to know what strategies you have used to cope
with your child's marital separation. Please describe the best
you can any events or experiences that seem to help, or hinder,
your coping with your child's separation. (You may wish to
include the events Just listed, such as a best friend's experience
with.divorce, or activities such as praying, gardening, etc.):

 

 

 

 

 

 

IF YOU NEED MORE ROOM TO WRITE, PLEASE CONTINUE ON THE BACK OF
THIS PAGE.

:4. Listed below are ways pecple have described their coping strategies.
Please check whether you have felt or behaved in these ways as you
have coped with your reaction to your chi ld's separation.

Felt better by crying

Just kept feelings to myself
Blamed myself

Prayed about it Hoped a miracle would happen

Counted my blessings

Let my feelings out somehow

 

24. continued

 

voided being with people
for a while

Just took one step

 

at a time

 

Felt better by drinking.

Slept more than usual

 

‘ eati or smoking
GEt away for a while: tried’

to take a vacation

Had a fantasy about how

things might turn out

 

‘Tilked to my child about

Hent over the situation again and

again tgzing to understand it

 

 

. 5% feelipgs
5 ed were a stronger

 

 

 

 

 

 

”1‘50”

23. illiicb of the following statements are true about your coping with

your child's separation?

PRESENTLY:

T F CONTACT HITH MY CHILD MAKES IT

MORE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO COPE

T F CONTACT HITH MY CHILD MAKES IT
. EASIER FOR ME TO COPE
T F CONTACT HITH MY SON/DAUGHTER-IN-LAH
MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR.ME TO COPE
T F CONTACT HITH MY SON/DAUGHTER-IN-LAH
MAKES IT EASIER FOR ME TO COPE
IN THE FUTURE:
.T F CONTACT HITH MY CHILD HOULD MAKE IT °
MORE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO COPE
T F CONTACT WITH MY CHILD HOULD MAKE IT
' EASIER FOR ME TO COPE
T F CONTACT HITH MY SON/DAUGHTER-IN-LAH WOULD
MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO COPE
T F CONTACT WITH MY SON/DAUGHTER-IN-LAH HOULD

MAKE IT flSIER FOR ME TO COPE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26. what is each person's 551
relationship to you? Please write in,
for example,
l. spouse
23 ELILJUEED
etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Please turn to the next
lD. half page
27. Have any of these people KEY,
experienced a separation
or divorce themselves? 0 I DON'T KNDH
l - YES
2 - N0
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Please turn to the
10. next half page

 

 

28.

Do any of these people 551
have a son or daughter
who has been separated 0 - DON'T KNDH
or divorced? l - YES
2 - ND

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Please turn to the next
10. half page
29. Have there been any changes 5;!
in the frequency of your
contacts with these persons l ' SIGNIFICANT
since your child's marital DECREASE
separation? 2 8 SLIGHT DECREASE
3 - NO CHANGE
4 - SLIGHT INCREASE
l. 5 - SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE
2.
3.
4e
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 Please turn to the next

 

half page

 

30.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

To what extent have you
talked with each person

about your child's
separation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MbWN-l

I I I I I

.. r2 -<
Fri """
>

[-

Si

Please turn so that all
the half pages are up

The next questions ask about who may have provided you with personal
support regarding your child's marital separation.

Please list each important person in your life who provides you with
personal support in the LEFT column. You may wish to consider relatives,
friends, work associates, neighbors, clergy, family physician, or other

professionals. Use only first names or initials.

Next, answer the questions on the half sheet on the RIGHT that refer
to each of the persons you listed, by writing the appropriate number

based on each KEY next to each question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of important 3l. How satisfied are you with KEY
the support received from D - NOT APPLICABLE
persons: First this person in regard to l - NOT AT ALL
your child's separation? SATISFIED
names or initials 2 - A LITTLE SATISFIED
3 ' SDMEHHAT SATISFIED
4 - MODERATELY
l. l. SATISFIED
5 - VERY SATISFIED
2. 2.
3. 3.
4e ' 4e
5. 5.
6. 6.
7. 7.
8. 8.
9. 9.

 

 

10. 10.

 

Please check the box that indicates
how much of the time you felt or
behaved this way in the six months
before you heard about your child's
Ml separation.

 

-TH33er-
Rarely Some ately All

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please lift this half page

 

CES-D

32. Below are some statements about
how you might have felt or behaved.

Please check the box that indicates
how much of the time you felt or
behaved this way since you heard
about your child‘s marital separation.

 

r...
Rarely Some 'ater A11

 

la. Wafbothered by things that usually

 

don't bother me.

. not ee ike eating:

 

‘ appetite was boar.
c. feit that I could not shake off the blues

 

other people.

 

‘ even with hel from famil or friends.
a. I felt Efiat I was just as good as

 

l was doing.

‘ . I had trouble keeping my mind on what

 

.‘ I felt depressed.

 

- . I felt that everything I did

 

was an effort.
. I felt hopeful about the future.

 

i. I thought my life had been a failure.

 

J. I felt fearful.

 

. My sleep was restless.

 

l. I was happy.

 

 

1m. I talked less-than usual.

 

1n._ I felt lonely.

 

 

o. I felt that people were unfriendly.
I enjayéd life.‘

 

q. I had crying spells.

 

r. I felt sad.

 

s. I felt that peeple disliked me.

 

 

t. I could not get "going".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please check the box that indicates
how much of the time this symptom
occurred in the six months 22:222.

you heard about your child‘s
marital separation.

Some- Pretty Nearly all
flLuifigmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please turn this half page up.

CGMFOSITE SYHPTOM CHECKLIST

33. Below is a list of symptoms.

Please check the box that indicates
how much of the time this sywtom
occurred in the six months since
you heard about your child's
marital separation.

 

Some- ‘_PFEEE?'ENEar1y all“
Never times often l the time

 

. Did you ever tend to lose or gain
weight when you had something

 

important'botheripg you?

I. Here you ever bothered by having an
upset, acid. or sour stomach?

 

‘c. Did you ever féel you were bothered by
all sorts of pains and ailments in
different parts ofgyour body?

 

Did’you ever tend to feel tired in the
morning or find it difficult to get up

 

. in the mornipg?
. Did you ever have loss of appetite?

 

f. Here you ever troubled by headaches
or pains in the head?

 

 

. Here you ever troubled by your hands
or feet sweating so that you felt
damp and clamy? ’

 

to have a nervous breakdown?

 

Did you ever faint or black out?

 

Here there ever times when you could
not take care of things because you
A;Just couldn't get going?

 

Here you ever bothered by your heart
pounding?

 

r. Did you ever feel that you were going

'Hbre you ever’bothered by shortness
of breath when you were not exer-
cising or working hard?

 

. Did you ever have any nightmares?

l
r
t
i

 

n. Did your hands ever tremble enough
to bother you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F

Please check the box that indicates
how much of the time this syuptom,
occurred in the six months before
you heard about your child's
marital separation.

 

Never

Some-
times

Pretty Nearly all
often thp time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please lift this half page

 

Please check the box that indicates
how much of the time this symptom
occurred in the six months pipgp_
you heard about your child's
marital separation.

33. continued

 

Some- Pretty Nearly all
Never times often the time

 

0. Here you ever troubled by
“cold sweats“?

 

p. Did you ever have any trouble getting
to sleep or staying asleep?

 

q. Here you ever bothered by nervousness,
feeling fidgety, or tenseness?

 

r. Did you ever have spells of dizziness?

 

s. Did any ill health ever affect the
amount of work you did?

 

t. Did you ever feel weak all over?

 

u. SFor the most part did you feel
healthy enough to carry out the
things you wanted to do?

v. Did you have any particular
physical or health'problem?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please check the box that indicates
how you felt about each of these
areas in the six months rior

to hearing about your chgla's
marital separation.

 

Dis- Ter-

 

De-
‘ li h Pleased Mixed pleased rible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DTS

34. Below is a list of short questions.

Please check the box that indicates
how you felt about each of these
areas pippp_hearing about your
child's marital separation.

 

Dis- Ter-

De- I
li h Pleased Mixed _pleased rible

 

 

a. Tow do you feel afiut yourlife

as a whole?

 

b.

How do you feel about yourself?

 

C.

d.

The way you handle problems that

 

come pp in your life?

Your house or apartment?

 

what you are accomplishing‘in
your life?

 

f.

Now do you feel about your work?

 

g.

The amount of fun and en3oyment
4you have?

 

Your health and physical condition?

 

Your emotional and’psychological
well-being?

 

How do you feel about your income?

 

The extent to which you are devélbping
yourself and broadening your life?

 

The amount of pressure you are under?

 

‘The extent to which you can adjust to
changes inyour life?

 

n. The responsibilities you have for

members of your family?_

 

How much you are accepted andi
included by others?

 

How much you are accepted and ineluded
by close adult relatives?

 

How do you feel about your friends?

 

THE chance you have toVEEOw people with
whom you can really fee1 comfortable?

 

 

And’last, a very general question: How
do you feel about your life as a whole?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, we would like some background information. As with the rest
of the questionnaire, all information on this page will be kept
completely anonymous and confidential.

35. what is your sex?

1 MALE
2 FEMALE

36. What is your age?

37. which is the highest level of education that you have completed?

NO FORMAL EDUCATION
SOME GRADE SCHOOL
COMPLETED GRADE SCHOOL
SOME HIGH SCHOOL
COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL
SOME COLLEGE

COMPLETED COLLEGE

SOME GRADUATE HORK

A GRADUATE DEGREE

DQNOMDMN-fl

38. Nhat is your racial or ethnic background?

HNITE

BLACK

HISPANIC

AMERICAN INDIAN
ORIENTAL

OTHER (please specify)

GUIbUN—l

 

39. which of the following income groups best describes your family's
current income?

UNDER $4,999
5,000 - 9,999
10,000 - 14,999

15,000 - 19,999
20,000 - 24,999
25,000 - 29,999
30,000 - 34,999
35,000 - 39,999
40,000 AND OVER

WQNODUI-QUN—I

40. What is your occupation? If you are retired, what was your
occupation before retirement?

 

4l. If you have not been employed outside the home, what is (or was)
your spouse's occupation?

 

42. Are you responsible for the care of an elderly parent or in-law?

1 YES
2 NO

43. Hhat would you say is your present religious orientation or
tradition? Please circle, and specify sect or subgroup:

SECT 0R SUBGROUP
1 PROTESTANT

2 CATHOLIC
3 JEHISH
4
5

 

 

 

OTHER
NONE

 

Thank you for your time and effort in completing this questionnaire.
Do you have any comments, criticisms, or suggestions to inmrove the

questionnaire? Here there any important questions that we missed?

44. Please explain:

 

If you are interested in receiving a copy of the results of this study,
please fill out the information below, and detach it from the rest

of the questionnaire.

NAME

 

STREET ADDRESS

 

CITY

 

STATE AND ZIP CODE

 

would you like a referral in the Lansing area to discuss your feelings
about your child's marital separation? Please indicate your
phone number here:

 

(area code)

 

Do you know of anyone else who also has a son or daughter who has
recently separated, who might be interested in completing the
questionnaire? A postcard will be sent to them, asking if they

are interested in filling out the questionnaire.

NAME

 

STREET ADDRESS

 

CITY

 

STATE AND ZIP CODE

 

   

”'Tll'fitujflltijijfijfi!fififllfllflfliflifllfiifl“