INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently tacking from the document photographed is "Mining Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zaab Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 74-6039 FARQUHAR, Carolyn Lcwellen, 1928A STUDY TO DETERMINE THE NEEDS OF EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL YOUNGSTERS FROM SINGLEPARENT FAMILIES IN RELATION TO THEIR ADJUSTMENT IN ASSUMING THEIR NEW ROLES. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973 Education, curriculum development University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , A nn Arbor, Michigan © 1973 CAROLYN LDWELLEN TARQUNAR ALL Ricirrs RESERVED A S T U D Y T O D E T E R M I N E T H E N E E D S O F EAST L A N S I N G MICHIGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL YOUNGSTERS SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES TO T H E I R ADJU ST ME NT IN FROM RELATION IN A S S U M I N G T H E I R NEW ROLES By Carolyn Lewellen Farquhar A THESIS S u b m i t t e d to Michigan State University in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s for the d e g r e e o f D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y C o l l e g e of E d u c a t i o n 1973 , ABSTRACT A S T U D Y TO D E T E R M I N E TH E N E E D S O F E A S T L A N S I N G , MICHIGAN MIDDLE SCHOOL YOUNGSTERS FROM S I N G L E - P A R E N T F A M I L I E S IN R E L A T I O N TO T H E I R A D J U S T M E N T IN A S S U M I N G T H E I R NE W ROLES By Carolyn Lewellen Farquhar PURPUSE This study was th e m a i n c o n c e r n s parents if a n d h o w his areas studied in g e n e r a l . r o l e s of v a r i o u s programs designed fa mi lie s. The in o r d e r divorce into p o s ­ be s u g g e s t e d . an d his a d j u s t m e n t t o s c h o o l community o r deat h. sought handicap insights foster agencies and a l s o g i v e n to t h e in the p r o v i s i o n of the a d j u s t m e n t a n d c o m m u n i c a ­ t i o n of c h i l d r e n a n d p a r e n t s d u r i n g a n d of their i n c l u d e d the c h i l d ' s s e l f - c o n c e p t , C o n s i d e r a t i o n was to and study also might that for a d j u s t m e n t m i g h t urgency of concern, life children these concerns in o u r s o c i e t y , sible assistance Specific of m i d d l e - s c h o o l in s i n g l e - p a r e n t to d e t e r m i n e children u n d e r t a k e n to a s c e r t a i n a n d e x a m i n e a f t e r th e t r a u m a Caroly n Lewel len Farquhar PROCEDURE This study was parents on a volunteer c o n d u c t e d w i t h c h i l d r e n and t h e i r basis. Th e p o p u l a t i o n of the s a m p l e w a s g e n e r a l l y m a d e up of a c a d e m i c , an d b u s i n e s s p e o p l e . black f a mi ly , The families professional studied on e S p a n i s h - A m e r i c a n included one family--the remainder w e r e wh it e . S o u r c e s of D a t a Data were collected naire. the u s e of a q u e s t i o n ­ Interviews were conducted with both children their parents; child would plied through so m e the p a r e n t s ha v e a n s w e r e d . background The s c ho ol information about answering as t h e y In a d d i t i o n and p e r s o n a l counselors th e c h i l d ' s and thought th e p a r e n t s their sup­ data. provided some additional adjustment. F r o m ite ms o n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , scales were developed. Th e S c a l e s o f the C h i l d ' s W e l l - B e i n g included th e C h i l d ' s Self-Concept, his (the intensity of the c h i l d ' s th e d e a t h of on e o f Child's Adjustment. tains the scales of the A b s e n t P a r e n t Relationships, Support U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n c o n c e r n c a u s e d by t h e c r i s i s hi s p a r e n t s o r o f d i v o r c e ) The C h i l d ' s Emotional the C u s t o d i a l Relationship, of and t h e Support con­ Parent Relationship, the Significant Other an d t h e Q u a n t i t y a n d Q u a l i t y o f E m o t i o n a l Relationships. Additional are as examined included C aro lyn Lewellen Farquhar School Relationships, Counselor the T e a c h e r R e l a t i o n s h i p s an d t h e Relationships, the Peer Relationships. Treatment of Data The following hypotheses were Hypothesis t e s te d: 1: The c h i l d ' s s e l f - c o n c e p t a s p e r c e i v e d by the c h i l d h i m s e l f a n d t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to q u a n t i t y an d q u a l i t y of th e e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t the c h i l d r e c e i v e s . Hypothesis 2: T h e c h i l d ' s u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n as p e r c e i v e d by t h e c h i l d h i m s e l f a n d the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , w i l l be less w h e n he r e c e i v e s s t ro ng e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t . Hypothesis 3: Th e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t , a s p e r c e i v e d by the s c h o o l c o u n s e l o r , w i l l be go o d w h e n th e c h i l d r e c e i v e s s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l support. Findings The d a t a hypothesis s up po rt ed, at a minimal that a high self-concept was related q u a n t i t y a n d q u a l i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s . evidence that parent's r e l a t i o n s h i p and the meaningful the self-concept relationships with n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the relationship with level, t he to g o o d There was related first stronger to the c u s t o d i a l significant o t h e r s w h o had the child. Ther e w a s child's self-concept the sch oo l c o u n s e l o r . a and a Carol yn Lewel len Farqu har There was the s e l f - c o n c e p t scales. not a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n and the There also was individual N o n e of child's correlations were of the w i d o w e d In the second families were hypothesis, an d q u a l i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s support al l and strong emotional support, children usually tended the u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n quantity the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s The th e m o r e c o n c e r n les s the P a r e n t s of c h i l d r e n w h o ha d on t h e o t h e r hand, to t h i n k w e l l of t h o u g h t the themselves, their and c a p a c i t i e s . In s u p p o r t o f t h e t h i r d a dj u s t m e n t was related from th e p a r e n t ' s s u m of e m o t i o n a l th e c h i l d ' s support significant others hypothesis, to the c u s t o d i a l perspective. relationship between child's the c o r r e ­ negative. s i g n i f i c a n t ot he r , relationships, c h i l d s e e m e d to e x p e r i e n c e . abilities M a n y of f r o m th e p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e . fr o m t h e s e fr om th e w i d o w e d p a r e n t or significant. wa s s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to t h e relationship, support no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n . lations emotional There parent also was adjustment relationships. is a l s o p o s i t i v e l y the child's The relationship a positive an d t h e t o t a l s u p p o r t of r e l a t e d to the adjustment. A ga i n , there was the c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e of t h e a b s e n t p a r e n t indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n an d the c h i l d ' s relationships, a significant correlation. adjustment. between None from any perspective, Carolyn L e w e l l e n Farq uha r Th e a r e a of need categorized under as two broad revealed by th e d a t a ''families": ca n be Support and Tools for C o p i n g . F a m i l y of N e e d s Determined They a r e : S u p p o r t - - A p a r e n t and f r ie nds w h o care; a s e n s e of b e l o n g i n g ; time, s u p p o r t a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g to w o r k t h i n g s t h r o u g h and adj us t, ar e a p a r t of the s u p p o r t area. T o o l s for C o p i n g — i n c l u d e the s t a t e of w e l l - b e i n g , a s e n s e of s e l f - r e s p e c t , c o n f i d e n c e in self, c o p i n g ab il it y, a b i l i t y to t a k e ris k s and b e t t e r w a y s of relating with others. Other Findings The d i v o r c e d c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s better than th e w i d o w e d p a r e n t s the t r a u m a might involved be b e c a u s e in b e c o m i n g C h i l d r e n of w i d o w e d sympathy and s u p p o r t d iv or ce. Emotional to a d j u s t to the n e w s i t u a t i o n a f t e r a single parent. a non-supportive m o r e a b i l i t y to h a n d l e p r o b l e m s seemed environment Th is required immediately. families from teachers tend to r e c e i v e m o r e t h a n c h i l d r e n of a d j u s t m e n t p r o b l e m s of the latter may be i g n o r e d by the s c h o o l . W e l l - a d j u s t e d c h i l d r e n t e n d e d to h a v e b e c a u s e of the c r i s i s th e y w e r e e x p e r i e n c i n g well-adjusted children. relationship with least T h e y a l s o te nd e d t o their custodial one, o f t e n mo r e , parents and less t r a u m a tha n less ha ve a g o o d to h a v e at significant person close to them. Carol yn Lewellen Farquhar Su ggested programs So(ne of the p r o g r a m s w h i c h p r o v e d h e l p f u l w e r e (1) r e c r e a t i o n a l , of g o o d to p r o v i d e rapport between and b e t w e e n p a r e n t s , (3) opportunities parent (2) and c h i l d , emotional grou ps , and educational methods and s k i l l s of r e l a t i n g for d e v e l o p m e n t between peers support, instruction su ch as rap for i m p r o v i n g and i n t e r a c t i n g . Recommendations Areas n e e d i n g further research nee ds o f d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c g r o u p s , and c o m p a r i n g n e e d s of parent c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e , different communities, single parent family situations. before The families with traumatic period is an a r e a d e m a n d i n g a t t e n t i o n . family li f e is a very is n e e d e d find s u i t a b l e fertile to h e l p solutions tw o - for th e br e a k a c t u a l l y t a k e s place, research include examining a r e a for Single-parent s t u d y an d m o r e these parents and c h i l d r e n to their problems. DEDICATED TO my Roger, L i nd a, ch ild re n, Jacquelyn, ii Jim, Steve, and Mark A C K N O WLEDGMENTS I am i n d e b t e d to s o m e v e r y g r a c i o u s people, without whose been c o m p l e t e d . supportive h e l p thi s s t u d y w o u l d n e v e r h a v e T h e a c a d e m i c and p e r s o n a l generously g i ven and gratefully c o n t r i b u t i o n s to and a s s i s t a n c e was received. this w o r k w e r e m a d e Significant by the following people. Academic Dr. committee George an d p r o v i d e d guidance during thesis. He m a d e m a n y gaining entry his time tions the c h a i r m a n of the steady encouraging useful study. support and ti m e of t h e w r i t i n g of my suggestions in t h e a c t u a l I appreciate his he lp i n t o th e d o c t o r a l p r o g r a m an d throughout Dr. s e r v e d as th e d i f f i c u l t implementation of guidance Myers committee member, g a v e g e n e r o u s l y of for c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d o f f e r e d m a n y for p r o c e d u r e . d o c t o r a l pr o g r a m . f o r his the a c a d e m i c ye ar s. Te d War d , ati o n w e r e h e l p f u l in useful His u n d e r l y i n g c o n c e r n from e n t r y sugges­ and c o n s i d e r ­ to c o m p l e t i o n of the Dr. E i l e e n Ea r h a r d , practical encouragement committee member, and u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e n t e r i n g u p o n d o c t o r a l work, offered a s s i s t e d my an d c o n t r i b u t e d an e a r l y childhood curriculum emphasis. Dr. ba ck in g an d re s o u r c e Da le Ala m, inspired confidence. for c r e a t i v e Dr. committee member, a l s o s e r v e d as sultant and resource person on parents and their children. actively served the family as a c o n ­ l i f e of single In a d d i t i o n to a s s i s t i n g a r e a s of c o n c e r n for th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , served as a judge of t h e i t e m s of th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e determine their categorization He al s o g a v e a job hu n t i n g . Donald Melcer very with p l a n n i n g He gave unconditional t h o u g h t f u l aid he to for d e v e l o p i n g th e s c a l e s . in i n t e r p r e t i n g results from the c o l l e c t e d d a t a a n d d i s c u s s e d p r o b l e m s o f p o s s i b l e cause a n d e f f e c t Dr. relationships. Margaret Bubolz lems of q u e s t i o n n a i r e data. construction O n e of h e r c l a s s e s of s i n g l e - p a r e n t ga v e t i m e and and thought i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of inspired research on family socialization supported writing a proposal for the processes. further study ar e a She also to s u p p o r t and i m p r o v e the c o p i n g b e h a v i o r of s i n g l e - p a r e n t Dr. to p r o b ­ J a n e O y e r g e n e r o u s l y g a v e of he r t i m e families. for c o n s u l t a t i o n a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t d u r i n g a t r y i n g ti m e of adjustment. She s e r v e d as a judge of items scale development. for iv f o r the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n Dr. David development of th e implementing the Rev, Im i g m a d e suggestions interview questionnaire an d for for interview. Paige Birdwell categorization of items analyzing helpful the dat a . s e r v e d as a j u d g e to c o n s t r u c t In a d d i t i o n , fo r the th e s c a l e s he has use d in been a good friend for a lon g time. Sandy Vaughn, Loi s Frears, given much appreciated assistance providing in c o n s u l t a t i o n administrators Sal D i F r a n c o , providing a n d Dr. the o p p o r t u n i t y th e E a s t L a n s i n g in Dr. Tony Robert Egnatuk were assistance the c o n s u l t a t i o n Kennedy and Jo Ca r l in of from the O f f i c e of time of E d u c a t i o n and an d a d v i c e f r o m Mar y Lynn Cunningham. and Teddy Staser through their work with single-parent supportive helpful to work with single parents R e s e a r c h C o n s u l t a t i o n of t h e C o l l e g e especially Docking, Public Schools. I appreciate families and information. School Dr. a n d W a l l y J u a l l ha ve families friends w h o in t h e M i c h i g a n a r e a inspired th e have been g o o d f o cu s o n s i n g l e - p a r e n t for stud y. Mr. W i l l i a m S t a r m e r , d i r e c t o r of B r a n c h YMCA, w a s personnel, instrumental and a s s i s t e d the in c o n t a c t i n g in r e a c h i n g Parkwood th e s c h o o l single-parent families in the Ea s t L a n s i n g ou t p r o g r a m s area. for t h e s e He al s o w a s o p e n families at the YMCA. I feel v e r y a p p r e c i a t i v e tion o f f e r e d by th e p a r e n t s viewed single-parent to w o r k i n g of the time and c h i l d r e n o f and c o o p e r a ­ the inter­ fa mi l i e s . Pe r s o n a l Personal support when To a n d gave much it w a s n e e d e d . and her c h i l d r e n , Berl es; friends Calvin family; Ke n t Dymak; J a m i e a n d Todd; Doris Geraldine and H e l m a W i l c o x and family; John and Alice Jane Brattin; Gwenyth Stuart and their children, Eleanore encouragement an d T r u m a n M o r r i s o n ; all Kellerman Robert Fai a n d J o h n N o r m a n an d H o l l y a n d Ricky; lent s u p p o r t t o o u r family structure that helped at a t i m e of p r e s s u r e an d c o m p l i c a t i o n . vi and and k e e p us on a m o r e e v e n kee l T ABLE OF CONTEN TS Page LIST OF T A B L E S .............................................. xi i LI ST O F F I G U R E S ........................................... x v i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 N E E D F O R T H E S T U D Y ....................... PURPOSE ......................................... H Y P O T H E S E S O F T H E S T U D Y ............... 3 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE STUDY. . . . D E F I N I T I O N S O F T ER M S .......................... S C O P E A N D L I M I T A T I O N S ................... 7 O R G A N I Z A T I O N O F THE S T U D Y ................... II. REVIEW OF THE 1 3 5 5 8 R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E .......... 10 P S Y C H O L O G I C A L STATE O F TH E C H I L D . . . . C h i l d *b A d j u s t m e n t .......................... C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n ............... Child's Self-Concept ...................... A d j u s t m e n t of the C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t to the D e a t h or D i v o r c e of M a t e . . . EMOTIONAL SUPPORT .............................. Parental Relationships . . . . . . . S i g n i f i c a n t O t her s' R e l a t i o n s h i p s . . . 10 11 12 14 14 19 19 25 S U M M A R Y ............................................. 2 5 Chapter III. Page M E T H O D O L O G I C A L D E S I G N OF T H E S T U D Y . . . . S A M P L E ......................................... 28 ................. D e f i n i t i o n of P o p u l a t i o n S e l e c t i o n o f S a m p l e ...................... 28 29 F I E L D W O R K U N D E R T A K E N ...................... PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION ................. 30 31 J u d g e s ......................................... Counselors ...................... 32 33 ................................. 33 P r e p a r a t i o n ................................. Interview Technique ...................... 33 37 QUESTIONNAIRE .......................... SCALES DEVELOPMENT A N A L Y S I S O F D A T A .............................. HYPOTHESES TESTING .......................... S U M M A R Y ......................................... IV. 28 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS O F DATA . . . . ................................. INTRODUCTION SAMPLE RESPONSE .............................. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...................... T i m e S i n c e S e p a r a t i o n ...................... S i b l i n g s ..................................... S t a b i l i t y of R e s i d e n c e ................. Custodial Parent's Work Background . . A b s e n t P a r e n t ' s B a c k g r o u n d s ............... M a r i t a l B a c k g r o u n d .......................... C H I L D C A R E .......................... ... C H I L D C O N T A C T ................................. Custodial Parent ...................... ABSENT PARENT VISITATION EFFECTS . . . . E F F E C T S O F C R I S I S O N THE C H I L D . . . . SELF-ACTUALIZATION .......................... R E M A R R I A G E ..................................... I D E A L S I T U A T I O N .............................. vi ii 40 42 43 45 47 47 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 57 61 63 70 71 72 Page Chapter M E T H O D O F A N A L Y S I S .................................. 74 EVI D E N C E A P PLIED TO HYPOTHESIS 1 74 C o r r e l a t i o n s o f Child's S e l f - C o n c e p t . . 76 A n a l y s i s o f D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s on Scale A ......................................82 M a t c h i n g P a r e n t s for P a r e n t - C h i l d P a i r s ............................................. 87 E x a m i n i n g C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h S c a l e A: C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t for R e lationship Patterns ................... 91 E V I D E N C E A P P L I E D TO HYPOTHESIS 2 92 C o r r e l a t i o n s o f Chil d' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n .................................... 93 A n a l y s i s o f D i s t r i b u t i o n of Scale B Scores ....................... 98 M a t c h i n g S c o r e s for Par ent C h i l d P a i r s .................................... 101 E x a m i n i n g C o r r e l a t i o n s with S c a l e B: C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n for Relati o n s h i p Patterns ................... 108 E V I D E N C E A P P L I E D TO HYPOTHESIS 3 111 A n a l y s i s o f D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for S c a l e C: Child' s A d j u s t m e n t . . . 118 M a t c h i n g ............................................ 121 E xami n i n g Correlations with Scale C: C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t for R e l a t i o n s h i p P a tt er ns ................... 121 A N A L Y S I S O F S C A L E E: CUSTODIAL P A R E N T R E L A T I O N S H I P .......................... 12 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Scor es ...................... 125 M a t c h i n g S c o r e s for Paren tC h i l d P a i r s ................................. 127 A N A L Y S I S O F S C A L E F: ABSENT P A R E N T R E L A T I O N S H I P .......................... 130 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Sc or e s for E a c h Q u e s t i o n on the F S c a l e ................... 130 ix Page Chapter D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s of C us to di al P a r e n t s a n d T h e i r C h i l d r e n on S c a l e F: Absent Parent R e l a t i o n s h i p ............................. M a t c h i n g S c o r e s for P a r e n t C h i l d P a i r s ............................. ANALYSIS O F SCALE G 1 : OTHERS RELATIONSHIP 132 133 SIGNIFICANT ...................... 135 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S c o r e s for Q u e s t i o n s on th e G l S c a l e .......................... D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S c o r e s of C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s a n d T h e i r C h i l d r e n on S c a l e Gl : N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r R e l a t i o n s h i p s .................. M a t c h i n g S c o r e s for P a r e n t / C h i l d P a i r s ..................................... 135 136 138 A N A L Y S I S O F S C A L E G 2 : Q U A N T I T Y AND QUALITY O F RELATIONSHIPS ............... 141 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S c o r e s for E a c h Q u e s t i o n .......................... D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for Scale G 2 ................................. M a t c h i n g S c o r e s for P a r e n t C h i l d P a i r s ............................. ADDITIONAL Data 141 144 146 I N F O R M A T I O N ...................... from Analysis of Variance . . 149 . S U M M A R Y ......................................... V. SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N S AND RECOMMENDATIONS 154 . S U M M A R Y ......................................... F a m i l y o f N e e d s D e t e r m i n e d ............... N e eds of I n d i v i d u a l s in G e n e r a l . . . Limiting Characteristics of the S a m p l e ............................. x 150 157 157 157 158 159 Chapter Page F i n d i n g s R e l a t e d to the H y p o t h e s e s ................................. O t h e r F i n d i n g s .............................. 160 161 C O N C L U S I O N S ..................................... P R O P O S E D P R O G R A M S .............................. 163 16 5 ................... 169 Difficulties Encountered R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S FOR F U R T H E R S T U D Y . . . IN C O N C L U S I O N ................................. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................. 169 171 17 3 APPENDICES Appendix A. B. C. D. L e t t e r an d R e s p o n s e F o r m ........................ Q u e s t i o n n a i r e G i v e n to the C h i l d a n d th e P a r e n t ................................. C o d i n g a n d S c a l e s ............................... T a b l e s o f C o r r e l a t i o n s and A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e ..................................... xi 177 179 186 201 I LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1. 4.2. Page H o u r s Per Day S p e n t T o g e t h e r by C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t and C h i l d .............................. Absent Parent Residence to C h i l d . . . 58 in R e l a t i o n s h i p 59 ....................... 60 4.3. Absent Parent V i sitation 4.4. C o r r e l a t i o n s of S c a l e A: C h i l d ' s SelfC o n c e p t w i t h the C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t , I n d i v i d u a l S c a l e s E, F, G 1 , G 2 and T o t a l e d S c a l e s f r o m C h i l d ' s and Parent's P e r c e ptions Total Sample . . . 77 C o r r e l a t i o n s of S c a l e A: C h i l d ' s Self Concept with the C h i l d ' s Emotional S u p p o r t , I n d i v i d u a l S c a l e s E, F, G ^ , G 2 and To t a l e d S c a l e s f r o m C h i l d ' s and P a r e n t ’s P e r c e p t i o n s , W i d o w e d Fa m i l i e s a n d D i v o r c e d F a m i l i e s ...................... 79 D i s t r i b u t i o n of P o i n t s o n S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e Up S c a l e A: Child's Self-Concept ...................... 84 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s fo r C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s and T h e i r C h i l d r e n on Scale A: Child's Self-Concept Scale . . . 87 . . . 90 D i s c r e p a n c y of P o i n t s B e t w e e n Pa re nt an d C h i l d Pai r s o n A n s w e r s to Q u e s t i o n s on S c a l e A: C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t . . . 90 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.B. 4,9. N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s o n W h i c h P a re nt a n d C h i l d Gave I d e n t i c a l A n s w e r s on S c a l e A: C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t xii . age C o r r e l a t i o n s of Scale B: Child's U r g e n c y of C o ncer n w i t h t h e C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l Support, I n d i v i d u a l S c a l e s E, F, , g 2 and T o t a l S c a l e s . 94 C o r r e l a t i o n s of Scale B: Child's U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n w i t h t h e C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l Support, D i v o r c e d F a m i l i e s a n d W i d o w e d F a m i l i e s ...................... 96 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s o n S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e U p S c a l e B: ...................... U r g e n c y of Conc er n 99 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c or es f o r C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s a n d Thei r C h i l d r e n o n S c a l e B: Child's Urgency o f C o n c e r n Scale 102 N u m b e r o f Q u e s t i o n s on W h i c h P a r e n t C h i l d G a v e Id en t i c a l A n s w e r s on S c a l e B: Urg ency o f C o n c e r n . 105 and D i s c r e p a n c y of P o i n t s B e t w e e n P a r e n t and C h i l d P a i r s on A n s w e r s t o Q u e s t i o n s o n S c a l e B: Urgency of Concern 107 C o r r e l a t i o n s of Scale C: Child's A d j u s t m e n t w i t h the C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l Sup port .......................... 113 C o r r e l a t i o n s of Sca le C: Child's A d j u s t m e n t with E m otional Support, D i v o r c e d Families and W i d o w e d F a m i l i e s ..................................... 116 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Q u e s t i o n s o n S c a l e C: Chil d ' s Adjustment ...................... 119 A n a l y s i s o f D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S c o r e s and A d d i t i o n a l Q u e s t i o n s R e l a t e d to Child's Adjustment ...................... 119 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s Child's Adjustment 121 o n S c a l e C: ...................... D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s on S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e Up S c a l e E: Custodial Parent Relationship . D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s an d T h e i r C h i l d r e n o n S c a l e Custodial Parent Relationship . 124 E: 126 N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s of Sc a l e E: Custodial P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p on W h i c h C u s t o d i a l Parent and Child Gave Identical ..................................... Answers 129 D i s c r e p a n c y of P o i n t s B e t w e e n P a r e n t a n d C h i l d P a i r s on A n s w e r s to Q u e s t i o n s on Scale P ................................. 129 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s on S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e Up S c a l e F: A b s e n t P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p ............... 131 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s and T h e i r C h i l d r e n on S c a l e F: A b s e n t P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p ............... 132 D i s c r e p a n c y of S c o r e s B e t w e e n P a r e n t a n d C h i l d P a i r s on A n s w e r s to Q u e s t i o n s on Scale F ................................. 134 N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s of S c a l e F: Absent P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p on W h i c h C u s t o d i a l P arent / C h i l d Gave Identical Answer 135 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s on S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e Up S c a l e G: Significant Other Relationships 137 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s a n d T h e i r C h i l d r e n on Scale G ^ : Significant Other .............................. Relationships 138 Q u e s t i o n s of S c a l e G 1 : N u m b e r of S i g nificant Other Relationships on W hich P a r e n t s and T h e i r C h i l d r e n Ga v e I d e n t i c a l A n s w e r s .......................... 139 xi v 5 Table Page 4.32. D i s c r e p a n c y of P o i n t s B e t w e e n P a r e n t an d C h i l d Pairs on A n s w e r t o Q u e s t i o n on Sca le G * ...............................139 4.33. D i s t r i b u t i o n of P o i n t s o n S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h Ma k e Up S c a l e G 2 : Q u a n t i t y and Q u a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p s . . 142 4.34. Distribution P a r e n t an d Scale g 2 : of R e l a t i 4.35. N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s on W h i c h P a r e n t a n d Child Gave Identical A n s w e r s on Scale G 2 : Q u a n t i t y an d Q u a l i t y o f Relationships .................................. 146 D i s c r e p a n c y of Poin ts B e t w e e n P a r e n t and C h i l d P a i r s on A n s w e r s to Q u e s t i o n s on G 2 Scal e: Quantity and Quality . . . 147 4.36. of Scores for Custodial Their Children on Q u a n t i t y an d Q u a l i t y o n s h i p .................................. 145 . Al. T a b l e of C o r r e l a t i o n s .............................. 201 A2. T e s t s of A n a l y s e s of V a r i a n c e P e r f o r m e d on all the Items w i t h R e f e r e n c e to Divorced Families and W i d o w e d Families . , 202 T e s t s of A n a l y s e s of V a r i a n c e P e r f o r m e d o n a l l the Items w i t h R e f e r e n c e to G o o d a n d Poor A d j u s t m e n t of the C h i l d . . 203 A3. xv I * LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. Pa ge C o m p a r i s o n of the D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r e n t - C h i l d S c o r e s o n S c a l e A: C h i l d ' s Se l f C o n c e p t .......................... C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r e n t - C h i l d S c o r e s o f S c a l e B: C h i l d ’s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n .................. 8B 103 C o m p a r i s o n of the D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r e n t - C h i l d S c o r e s o n S c a l e E: C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p ................. 127 C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r e n t - C h i l d S c o r e s on S c a l e F: A b s e n t P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p ..................... 133 C o m p a r i s o n of t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of . P a r e n t an d C h i l d S c o r e s of S c a l e G : Significant Others ............................ 140 C o m p a r i s o n of the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Parent-Child Scores on Scale of Q u a n t i t y and Q u a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p s xvi . . 148 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A l though some attention has b e e n g i v e n to p r o g r a m s for a d u l t s in s i n g l e - p a r e n t fam il ie s, d o n e to help t h e c h i l d r e n wh o fi n d situation. An amazingly into this c a t e g o r y an d more needs themselves to be in th i s high p e r c e n t a g e of c h i l d r e n fall th e n u m b e r is i n c r e a s i n g . N E E D F O R T H E S T UDY The literature absolute number indicates " . . . on e of e v e r y in cr easi ng . . . . 11 Ober reports four m i n o r c h i l d r e n that has been t o r n by d i v o r c e or rate. p r o p o r t i o n and of c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e a m o n g o u r p o p u l a t i o n are s t e a d i l y of o n e - p a r e n t that the separation families are multiplying He g o e s o n lives total that in a ho me . . . children at a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d to say tliat: . . . six o u t of s e v e n d i v o r c e d p e r s o n s r e m a r r y . N e a r l y half of a l l r e m a r r i a g e s fail a g a i n . T w o of e v e r y thr ee d i v o r c e s in v o l v e c h i l d r e n , m a k i n g m o r e tha n a lialf a m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n a f f e c t e d a n n u a l l y by the b r e a k u p of t h e i r parents' m a r r i a g e . 1 ^ R a l p h Ober, " P a r e n t s W i t h o u t P a r t n e r s — W i t h C h i l ­ d r e n of D i v o r c e , " E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e to C h i l d r e n , e d . Earl A. G r o l l m a n ( B o s t o n : B e a c o n P r e s s , 1 9 6 9 ) , pp“ T42-56. 1 Landis points out that there is a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between the failure of p arents in m a r r i a g e and the failure ef children in their marriages; have less con fidence r.arr l a g e s . in their that ch ildr en of di v o r c e a bili ty to have successful 2 Sprey asks: Why is it tliat child ren in broken homes do not w e l c o m e a new parent wit h open arms and a g a i n settle gladly wit hin the security and no rmalcy of a new and p r e ­ sumably happy family? The fact that we ca nnot answer this qu estion reflects m o r e than anything else our basic ignorance about the way c h i l d r e n pa r t i c i p a t e in the div orc e process. . . . It seems, therefore, that whether or not c h i l d r e n will adjust to the remar ria ge of the cu sto dial parent will dep e n d on what took place bef ore the d i v o r c e and dur i n g the subsequent period of s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o o d .3 Problems of ad justment period of single-pa rent hoo d for c h i ldren in this have both long- and short- rancw repercus sio ns on the child. T h i s period affect s t:.e manner to his re constructed in w hich he will adjust nome if and when his cu stodial •will also affect his adjust ment Therefore, ment period to study this a d j u s t ­ in an attempt to help each child mak e the in order to lay the f o u ndation Jucson T. Landis, Parents Divorce," Marr iage 19C0), 7-13. 3 rem arries and it to later relationships. it is important nest adjustment possibl e 2 parent "Trauma of Ch ildren When & Fa m i l y Living, XXII (February, Jetse Sprey, "Ch ildren in Divorce: An Ove r view," L>:t» airing Divorce to C h i l d r e n , ed . Farl A. dr oi lma n (boston: beacon P r e s s , 1 9 C 9 ) , pp . 4 2 - C 2 . 3 for p r o d u c t i v e and the re s t of his well satisfying life. relationships In o r d e r for to h i s n e w r o l e s a s a c h i l d he m u s t d e v e l o p flexible now and the c h i l d for to a d j u s t in a s i n g l e - p a r e n t family, s k il ls o f a d a p t a t i o n . PURPOSE T h e p u r p o s e of th i s s t u d y wa s to a s c e r t a i n a n d e x a m i n e t h e m a i n c o n c e r n s of m i d d l e - s c h o o l - a g e c h i l d r e n and the ir also parents sought in s i n g l e - p a r e n t to d e t e r m i n e handicap children areas in o u r studied his u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n , li fe in g e n e r a l . s o ci et y, in o r d e r t h a t for a d j u s t m e n t m i g h t included and the child's his a d j u s t m e n t s t ud y insights be s u g g e s t e d . self-concept, to sc ho o l and C o n s i d e r a t i o n w a s a l s o g i v e n to the r o l e s of v a r i o u s c o m m u n i t y a g e n c i e s programs designed The if an d h o w th e s e c o n c e r n s m i g h t into p o s s i b l e a s s i s t a n c e Specific families. to f o s t e r c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n a n d in t h e p r o v i s i o n of the a d j u s t m e n t a n d c o m m u n i ­ parents to the t r a u m a of d i v o r c e an d d e a t h , HYPOTHESES OF Literature, experience indicate pilot in r e l a t i o n their n e w rol es . were tested interviews, s o m e c o n c e r n s of Michigan middle-school families THE STUDY youngsters an d p e r s o n a l East L a n s i n g , fr om s i n g l e - p a r e n t to t h e i r a d j u s t m e n t in a s s u m i n g T h e f o l l o w i n g M a j o r - an d in th e study: Sub-Hypotheses 4 Hypothesis 1: The c h i l d ' s s e l f - c o n c e p t a s p e r c e i v e d by t h e c h i l d h i m s e l f and the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of t h e e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t th e c h i l d r e c e i v e s . a. T h i s s e l f - c o n c e p t w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t from h i s c u s t o d i a l parent relationship. b. T h i s s e l f - c o n c e p t w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t from r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his a b s e n t pare nt. c. T h i s s e l f - c o n c e p t w i l l be p o s i t i v e w h e n the c h i l d has a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h some s i g n i f i c a n t ot he rs. Hypothesis 2; Th e c h i l d ' s u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n as p e r c e i v e d b y the c h i l d h i m s e l f and th e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t wi l l b e less w h e n he r e c e i v e s s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l sup po rt. a. Th i s u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n w i l l be less when the c h i l d h a s a st ro n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h is c u s t o d i a l p a ren t. b. T h i s u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n w i l l be less w h e n the c h i l d has a s t r on g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his absent parent. c. T h i s u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n w i l l be l e s s w h e n the c h i l d has a st ro ng r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h som e significant others. Hypothesis 3: The c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t , as p e r c e i v e d by the sch ool c o u n s e l o r , wi ll be g o o d w h e n the c h i l d r e c e i v e s s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l s u pp ort. a. Th e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t wil l be go od w h e n the c h i l d lias a str ong r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his c u s ­ todial p a r e n t . b. T h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t wi l l be g o o d w h e n t h e c h i l d has a s t ro ng r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his absent parent. c. T h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t will be g o o d w h e n th e c h i l d has a st ro ng r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h s o m e s i g n i f i c a n t o t he rs. 5 ASSUMPTIONS As a result cations f r o m the of UNDERLYING THE STUDY the q uestions literature, the raised and following impli­ assumptions are made: 1. Middle-school adjustment 2. in an d The child's to s i n g l e - p a r e n t s t at us. s i t u a t i o n whicli c a u s e d a s p e c t of parent the s i n g l e ­ t h e fa mi ly. T y p e s o f p r o b l e m s of a d j u s t m e n t w h i c h c o u l d b e n e ­ fi t f r o m a s s i s t a n c e for m i d d l e - s c h o o l - a g e c h i l ­ d r e n c a n be d e t e r m i n e d 4. in their i m p o r t a n t to th e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t to the crisis 3. be h e l p e d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h th e c u s t o d i a l is e x t r e m e l y parent children can A suggested program single-parent meet and/or predicted. for s u p p o r t families can these anticipated for c h i l d r e n of be p l a n n e d to hel p nee ds . D E F I N I T I O N OF T E R M S For cepts w i l l t h e p u r p o s e of be d e f i n e d Single-parent children are living th is s t u d y the f o l l o w i n g c o n ­ as: f a m i l y .--A f a m i l y w i t h o n e pare nt; be e n s e p a r a t e d by d i v o r c e or d e a t h . in w h i c h the the p a r e n t s having 6 M i d d l e - S c h o o l c h i l d r e n .--6th, 7th, and 8th grade young s t e r s . C u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ,--Th e p a r e n t w i t h w h o m the c h i l d / children live. Absent p a r e n t .--T he p a r e n t w h o d o e s not live with the fam i ly . S i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s .- - C o n c e r n e d who give emotional Child's thinks about concern caused of of c o n c e r n .— T h e of a d j u s t m e n t , initial Child's coping s e l f - c o n c e p t .- - H o w the c h i l d fe e l s and i n t e n s i t y of the c h i l d ' s by the c r i s i s of d e a t h or d i v o r c e , certain aspects c e p t i o n of s u p p o r t to the c h i l d . himsel f. Urgency the p e r i o d f a m i l y or f r i e n d s usually adjustment a d j u s t m e n t .— The the c h i l d ' s about indicated during to th e c r i s i s . sc ho o l school adjustment counselor's per­ and of his in g e n e r a l . Emotional s u p p o r t .- - Q u a 1 ity a n d q u a n t i t y of close relationships which are meaningful to the indi­ vidual . School s u c c e s s .— C h i l d ' s adequate school work and counselors, his peers. and performance in r e l a t i n g w i t h the in d o i n g teachers, 7 Financial caused by th e s i t u a t i o n .— P r e s s u r e s / s t r a i n / c o m f o r t finances of Extended the h o m e s it uati on . f a m i l y .--A large, relatives and/or close c l o s e l y knit u n i t of friends which may include a n u m b e r of g e n e r a t i o n s . Psychological Th e c h i l d ' s crisis s t a t e of self-concept, his (urgency of c o n c e r n ) , Custodial parent for this instrumental in the s u p p o r t If a ch i l d w i s h e d not w a n t to, in i m p l e m e n t i n g his s i t u a t i o n , and h e l p his c h i l d r e n . LIMITATIONS stu dy wa s an d a d j u s t m e n t of c o o p e r a t e o r wh o di d to c o l l e c t d a t a w h i c h single-parent youngsters. f r o m p a r e n t s wh o d i d w i s h to feel s u c h a ne e d for th e i r c h i l d . to p a r t i c i p a t e e v e n t h o u g h this in in h e l p i n g p l a n a p r o g r a m to a i d I n f o r m a t i o n was s o u g h t did the c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t . to d e a l w i t h r e a l i t y , A go a l be an d is c o p i n g w i t h SCOPE AND could ini ti al a d j u s t m e n t to t h e p a r e n t ' s a d j u s t m e n t .— T h e m a n n e r w h i c h the c u s t o d i a l his a b i l i t y th e c h i l d ' s w e l l - b e i n g .-- p a r t i c i p a t i o n wou l d t h e p r o g r a m bu t n o t the p a r e n t be d e a l t w i t h in c o l l e c t i n g the data. The adjustment parent's study was limited to c h i l d r e n d e a l i n g w i t h to d e a t h or d i v o r c e as absence. T h e r e m a y be the c a u s e of their some s i m i l a r i t i e s of 8 pro blems faced for p a r e n t s by c h i l d r e n of t e m p o r a r i l y a b se nt pare nt s a b s e n t recurringly, f o r m o n t h s or y e a r s at pational as w e l l mo re a m b i g u o u s , included separated parents; as m a r i t a l reasons. c h i l d r e n from t h i s in c o l l e c t i n g these c h i l d r e n c o u l d the d a t a . or both for a t i m e fo r o c c u ­ Since th i s is m u c h situation were not Any similar need of b e d e a l t w i t h in the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the p r o g r a m . Children included from r e c o n s t r u c t e d in t h i s study. with single-parents at pro bl ems families w ere not The s e c h i l d r e n w o u l d some t i m e in the past, have but li v e d their n o w w o u l d be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t - - t h o s e d e a l i n g m o r e wi t h a d j u s t m e n t to a n e w f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e , of a new p a r e n t , This of the r o l e and study of possibly more children. is f u r t h e r the school YMCA staff m e m b e r s , the addition l i m i t e d to c o n s i d e r a t i o n counselors and parents of and teachers, th e y o u n g s t e r s the i nv ol ved, for the s u g g e s t e d p r o g r a m . ORGANIZATION OF T HE T h e g e n e r a l n a t u r e of the C h apt er I. First, is d e s c r i b e d and study are d i s c u s s e d . is i n d i c a t e d . stated, th e n t h e h y p o t h e s e s of w i t h the a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g study st u d y i n t r o d u c t i o n an d ne e d a r e the p u r p o s e w a s given, ce p t s are d e f i n e d S T UD Y the th e study. scop e an d The general in next the study Next, con­ limitations of the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the 9 Chapter rela te d II is d e v o t e d to d i v o r c e , adjustment, relat i o n s , bereavement, father-child and child in C h a p t e r broken relations, hom es, child mother-child and d e s i g n o f III, questionnaire development, Sample the study selection are is d e s c r i b e d , inte r v i e w technique, selor p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e d i s c u s s e d . and a n a l y s i s th e l i t e r a t u r e r e ar in g. The m e t h o d o l o g y described to a r e v i e w of Then and cou n ­ scale development of d a t a are d e a l t with. Chapter of the data. IV c o n t a i n s This includes the p r e s e n t a t i o n additional an d a n a l y s i s analysis of unhypothesized results. The c o m p o n e n t p a r t s of C h a p t e r V are: w h ich i n c l u d e s the findings the f a m i l y of n e e d s d e t e r m i n e d by the data, related to the h y p o t h e s e s , a statement of conclusions; prog r a m s ; and the s u m m a r y an d o t h e r findings; a d i s c u s s i o n of p r o p o s e d recommendations for further study. C H A P T E R II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE L i t t l e r e s e a r c h has b e e n d i r e c t e d t o p r o b l e m s he lp ing c h i l d r e n c o p e e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h t h e i r in s i n g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l i e s . however, that hardsh ips ; L i t e r a t u r e do e s of new r o l e s indicate, s u p p o r t c a n h e l p th e c h i l d t h r o u g h h i s t h a t w i t h g u i d a n c e he c a n the n e w s e t t i n g of h i s critical is p a r t i c u l a r l y period the f o u n d a t i o n life.^ The adjustment important for p r o d u c t i v e an d ship s b o t h in the p r e s e n t an d find s e c u r i t y in th e yea rs in t h i s because satisfying in it lays relation­ ahead. P S Y C H O L O G I C A L S T A T E OF T H E C H I L D Th e m a i n c o n c e r n of t h i s study is o n the w e l l being of c h i l d r e n of single-parent a t i o n of important elements involved— the child's s o m e of t h e adjustment to life, his s e l f - c o n c e p t — ar e i mp o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t of City, families. hi s u r g e n c y of Consider­ c o nc er n, s u p p o r t e d by l i t e r a t u r e . thi s study 10 Another is the e m o t i o n a l ^"Louise D e s p e r t , C h i l d r e n of D i v o r c e N.Y.: D o u b l e d a y and C o ., I n c , , 1953) . and (Garden 11 support of t h e chil d . The s p e c i f i c c o m p o s i t i o n of su ppo rt for e a c h c h i l d is d i f f e r e n t but such f a c t o r s as the a d j u s t m e n t relationships with parent, the custodial an d th e school a n d p e e r s al l the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , parent, significant other people siblings, selors, of is m a d e u p of the absent i m p o r t a n t to hi s life, s i t u a t i o n w i t h t e ac he rs , pla yi ng coun­ a role. Child*s A d j u s t m e n t Adjustment problems of s i n g l e - p a r e n t h o o d have both r e p e r c u s s i o n s o n the child. m a nne r for c h i l d r e n in w h i c h he w i l l l o n g - and This adjust period his c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t d o e s also a f f e c t his a d j u s t m e n t than m o s t a m o n g others, period a f f e c t s the home it w i l l in l a t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . in t h e i r a b i l i t y to h a v e this a d j u s t m e n t short-range r e m a r r y and that c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e h a v e For this r e a s o n , this p e r i o d to his r e c o n s t r u c t e d if and w h e n poi nt s o u t in it Landis less c o n f i d e n c e successful marriages. is i m p o r t a n t in an a t t e m p t to s t u d y to h e l p e a c h c h i l d ma k e th e b e s t a d j u s t m e n t p o s s i b l e . Stroup writes factor tha t "t h e single most in th e p e r s o n a l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t of 2 powerful the c h i l d J u d s o n T, L a ndi s, " T r a u m a of C h i l d r e n W h e n Par en ts D i v o r c e , " M a r r i a g e a n d F a m i l y L i v i n g , XXI I (February, I960), 7-13. is 2 12 the h a p p i n e s s a n d s t a b i l i t y of t h e hom e in w h i c h he spends his e a r l y year s. Landis found that children to e i g h t a t th e time of feel m o r e secure, the p a r e n t s ' conflicts, This e v i d e n c e w o u l d seem happier, to to b e les s feel­ at other age groups. to i n d i c a t e t h a t c h i l d r e n w h o the c r i s i s w h e n more s e c u r e and c o n f i d e n t they w e r e small w o u l d (better adj u s t e d ) c h i l d r e n w h o had b e e n m a k i n g feel t h a n the the a d j u s t m e n t m o r e r e c e n t l y at a m o r e d i f f i c u l t a g e Despert makes five tended and to have inferiority than children had f a c e d divorce to r a t e t h e m s e l v e s as less a w a r e of p e r s o n a l ings of from the a g e s of the point for a d j u s t m e n t . 4 that: . . . not all c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e a r e in tr o u b l e . M a n y have fo u n d a n e w b a l a n c e d s t r u c t u r e for t h e i r live s. M a n y ha v e a c c e p t e d t h e d i v i s i o n of thei r ti m e an d love b e t w e e n p a r e n t s w h o l i v e apa rt , or have fixed on a step-parent or other satisfactory s u b s t i t u t e for the m i s s i n g p a r e n t . . . . T h e c h i l ­ d r e n of d i v o r c e w h o a r e u n h a p p y and i l l - a d j u s t e d a r e o n l y a f r a c t i o n o f all u n h a p p y c h i l d r e n . 5 C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n In d i v o r c e , himself an d w h a t the c h i l d o f t e n is h a p p e n i n g a r o u n d is v e r y u n c e r t a i n of him. As Despert 3 A t l e e L. S t rou p, " M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t of the M o t h e r and t h e P e r s o n a l i t y of th e C h i l d , " M a r r i a g e a n d F a m i l y L i v i n g , May, 1956, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 3 . 4 Landis, 5 Despert, op. cit. , p. 12. op. c i t . , p. 23. 13 points out, he m a y have only m a t i o n w h i c h he t r i e s bits and p i e c e s of infor­ to fit t o g e t h e r an d v e r y p o s s i b l y comes u p w i t h v e r y m i s c o n s t r u e d ideas. He is c o m p a r a ­ tively d e f e n s e l e s s . ^ Having o n l y partial understanding, the child has information no c o n t r o l si tu ati on u p o n w h i c h the d i r e c t i o n of He p r o b a b l y is f e a r f u l for the p r o b l e m s fears r e j e c t i o n peo ple and and m a y limited over his the life d e p e n d s . feel s o m e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y b e t w e e n hi s p a re nt s. He m o s t fr o m o n e or b o t h of t h e s e likely important in his life. P o l l a c k t e l l s of a c h i l d w h o s e m o t h e r an d were d i v o r c e d . The child said to a p l a y m a t e , fa th er "Maybe 7 she'll get m a d at m e and d i v o r c e m e t o o . " Children often ju m p to c o n c l u s i o n s to be a w a r e of w h e r e th e c o n f u s i o n e x i s t s . s u gg es ts a n e e d to d e t e r m i n e fa cto rs as c o n f u s i o n , ment, seei ng with parents, self how m uch such loneliness, as b e i n g used , redefining ^Ibid., pp. it is hard All of this specific self-guilt, n e w a d j u s t m e n t w i t h peers, to r e m a r r i a g e are d i s t u r b i n g and resent­ relations and a d j u s t i n g the c h i l d . 165-66. 7J a c k H. Poll ack, " S e v e n M i s t a k e s D i v o r c e d P a r e n t s Make,*' P a r e n t s M a g a z i n e , X L I I (March, 1967 ), 48, 76, 78 , 90. 14 P o l l a c k c a u t i o n s about a b r u p t l y upsetting child's routine, b e c a u s e he f e e l s c o n t i n u i t y the for a c h i l d 0 h e l p s him to m a i n t a i n a f e e l i n g of suggests exploring m o b i l i t y e moti on al security. in r e l a t i o n This to the c h i l d ' s support. Child's Self-Concept The child's self-concept "State of t h e C h il d" in the c h i l d ' s stances adjusting h o w he wi l l perceives react, the cr i s i s . r e l a t e d th a t his The be a s s u m e d and a d a p t i n g in r e l a t i o n to his n e w H o w the c h i l d to w h i c h will is a t h i r d a s p e c t of himself to be c r u c i a l to his c i r c u m ­ life a f t e r the c r i s i s . in l a r g e m e a s u r e attitudes, and t h r e e a r e a s are behavior affects in r e s p o n s e so c l o s e l y inter­ t h e r e is m u c h o v e r l a p p i n g . A d j u s t m e n t of the C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t to t H e " D e a t h or D i v o r c e of M a t e Burchinal, a g r e e that Despert, attitudes usual custodial and parent) Herzog and b e h a v i o r of constitute and c r u c i a l m a t t e r in t h e c h i l d ' s crisis situation. It is the parent to s e ar ch a n d Q Ibid . , p . 76 . Sudia, and C a t h the mother (the th e s i g n i f i c a n t adjustment imp or tan t, to t h e therefore, find a n s w e r s for to a s s i s t herself in 15 order that answers sh e m a y h e l p th e c h i l d r e n for t h e m s e l v e s . search and find Q Despert suggests that: . . . u n d e r s t a n d i n g y o u r s e l f an d y o u r c h i l d w i l l help. If on e is p r e p a r e d for the d i f f i c u l t i e s , f o r e ­ war ne d o f th e traps, an d e x p e c t s o n e s e l f an d o n e ' s c h ild to e x p e r i e n c e s u c h e m o t i o n s as gui lt , r e s e n t ­ m e n t a n d h o s t i l i t y , t h e s i t u a t i o n is r e l i e v e d of a large p a r t of it s s t i n g . 10 Parents h a v e a b e t t e r c h a n c e t o h e l p t h e c h i l d painful emotions rat h e r prevent explosive and than intensify emotions from coming t h e m and release therefore between themselves their c h i l d r e n . D e s p e r t g o e s on to say: We ca n c o u n t on a c h i l d ' s c o m p a r a t i v e f l e x i b i l i t y and r e s i l i e n c e to b r i n g a b o u t - - w i t h o n e p a r e n t ' s h e l p - - m a n y c h a n g e s fo r th e b e t t e r in hi s a d j u s t m e n t to d i v o r c e . Of m o r e c r i t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e a r e the f e e l i n g s an d the a t t i t u d e of t h e p a r e n t s , for on their s t a b i l i t y and t h e i r c o u r a g e in f a c i n g n e w s i t u a t i o n s th e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t d e p e n d s . 11 H e r z o g and of S u d i a a l s o p o i n t to t h e importance the m o t h e r ' s b e h a v i o r and a t t i t u d e s w i t h r e g a r d the fathe r a n d to the c h i l d r e n a n d t h e c u r r e n t c i r c u m - stances. g L e e G. B u r c h i n a l , " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of A d o l e s ­ c e n t s from Brok en, U n b r o k e n , a n d R e c o n s t i t u t e d F a m i l i e s , " M a r r i a g e an d F a m i l y L i v i n g , X X V I (1964), 44-50 . 10D e s p e r t , 1 1 Ibid., 12 p. op. cit., pp. 33-34. 93. E l i z a b e t h H e r z o g and C e c i l i a E. Sudia, Boys in F a t h e r l e s s F a m i l i e s , U. S . , D e p a r t m e n t of H e al th , E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e (Office of C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , C h i l ­ d r e n ' s Bureau, 1970 ). 16 Cath f e el s that: . . . it is n o t ju st the e x t e r n a l e v e n t s tha t d e t e r ­ mi n e t h e o u t c o m e of l o s s in ter m s of e v e n t u a l e g o s t r e n g t h or w e a k n e s s , bu t m o r e of te n , h o w th e s e a c t u a l e v e n t s a r e h a n d l e d by the v i c t i m of the loss, and h o w this l o s s is i n t e r p r e t e d by s i g n i f i c a n t others. It is u s u a l l y not o n e or a s i n g l e even t, no o n e set of a t t i t u d e s , but r a t h e r the d a y - t o - d a y a d j u s t m e n t in f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n and th e c o n t i n u a l c o n s c i o u s and u n c o n s c i o u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f h o w the l o s s has b e e n e x p e r i e n c e d th at f i n a l l y b r i n g s some u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h e l o s s of a p a r e n t m a y b r i n g a t e m p o r a r y r e g r e s s i o n or a m o r e p e r m a n e n t ego i m p a i r m e n t .13 This parent's to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a l adjustment spent w i t h child lea ds th e c h i l d in his Wye and th e a m o u n t a n d q u a l i t y of t i m e 14 are e x t r e m e l y important to the adjustment. and G o o d e 15 good a d j u s t m e n t in b r o k e n both indicate th a t homes ma y stem and c o n f l i c t fro m c o n c e n ­ tration of tensions break that has an i m p a c t o n the c h i l d r e n . period of a d j u s t m e n t , f a i l u r e of at the t i m e of a new equilibrium After the the is e s t a b l i s h e d , S t a n l e y H. Cath, " D i v o r c e a n d the C h i l d : 'The Father Q u e s t i o n H o u r ' , " E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e to C h i l d r e n , e d . Earl A. G r o l l m a n ( B o s t o n : B e a c o n Press, 19f>$) , pp. 8 6-121. 14 Ivan F. Nye, "Child A d j u s t m e n t in B r o k e n a n d U n b r o k e n H o m e s , " S o u r c e b o o k in M a r r i a g e and the F a m i l y , e d . M a r v i n B. S u s s m a n (Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f 1 in C o m p a n y , 1959), pp. 50, 435. ^ W i l l i a m J. Goode, A f t e r D i v o r c e The Fr ee Pre ss , 1956), pp. 17"^ 381. (Glencoe, 111.: 17 ea ch m e mb er p l a y i n g n e w roles (less c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , lar ge ly free of the u n b e a r a b l e c o n f l i c t s of t h e p r e v i o u s un h a p p y m a r r i a g e ) , Despert p o int s o u t that: . . . t h e fa mi l y n o w t e n d s to be s m a l l e r and l e s s s tu r d y t h a n in t h e past. A t the same t i m e it is s u b j e c t t o far g r e a t e r s t r a i n s . Each member asks m o r e of e v e r y o t h e r m e m b e r , e a c h r e l a t i o n s h i p is i n t e n s i f i e d , e a c h s h o r t - c o m i n g is m o r e p a i n f u l . 1-6 (This woul d seem relationships to be e q u a l l y t r u e as w e l l a s During for p a r e n t / c h i l d for m a r i t a l relations.) the a d j u s t m e n t p e r i o d th e p l e a s a n t memories produce f e e l i n g s of l o n g i n g w h i l e feelings p r o d u c e f e e l i n g s of of feelin gs together produce and a g a i n s t e a c h ot he r, abo u t a m o r e sy m p t o m s and that number of tr y places they differently o f t e n bother 18 physical to p r o t e c t they go, see. s e l f - a c c u s a t i o n s b e c a u s e of t h i n g s ^Despert, Cath, op, together 17 there are many persons usually the Both kinds the f e e l i n g s a c t i v e l y br i n g and t h e p e o p l e 17 Working feelings of ambiguity which are that d i v o r c e d they do, s t ate s and g u i l t . grief. rapid adjustment. Bur ns by limiting hurt the hostile them. cit., op. c i t . , p. the so p a i n f u l themselves things F e e l i n g s of gui lt, they m i g h t h a v e d o n e 18 p. 21. 96. J a m e s J. Bur ns , "What Pastoral P s y c h o l o g y , September, It M e a n s T o Be D i v o r c e d , " 1958, pp. 45-48, 50-52. 18 For the a d ult , the g r i e f is just the r e v e r s e of g r i e f Oates* We tend feelings a n d The p a r e n t to do te n d im p r e s s i o n the to th e c h i l d . parent the c h i l d has of th e o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e of different. Furthermore, th e c h i l d the t r u t h of w h a t th e p a r e n t parent, will to who d i d the v i l i f y i n g . ten d reject Cath proposes c h i l d ma y be so a b s o r b e d th e d o u b l e When incapacity parent, and an d parent m a y even be v e r y in the against los s truth," (2) the chi ld . face of the o t h e r th e w i s d o m of the p a r e n t the p a r e n t r e m a i n i n g by his o w n lo s s th at for th e c h i l d . feels f r o m b o t h p a r e n t s and "truth" and betrayed--possibly troubled to feel m u c h of a n y t h i n g 19 th e 20 the p a r e n t s ' he f e e l s w i t h the he has the c h i l d — w h i c h p r o d u c e s the c h i l d "who l e is a 19 that litt l e e n e r g y to l o v e says is l i k e l y every good himself th e o t h e r to the f o r m e r mate. The damage (1) d e s t r o y s a credibility gap between estranged according the p o s i t i v e to v i l i f y a n d d e r o g a t e The c h i l d ' s not the all a divorce in th i s v i l i f i c a t i o n an d d e r o g a t i o n d o u b l e harm: e f f e c t of after after death, to r e p r e s s and d e n y the m o s t d a m a g e creates process by h i s for a n y b o d y . own With W a y n e E. Oates, "A M i n i s t e r ' s V i e w s o n C h i l d r e n of D i v o r c e , " E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e to C h i l d r e n , e d . Ea rl A. Grollman (Boston: B e a c o n Press, 1969), p p . 1 5 7 - 7 8 . 20 Cath, op. cit., p. 96. 19 the p a r e n t s tearing d own each other, that p a r t of his o w n c h a r a c t e r and the c h i l d feels personality are impaired. T h e m a i n o b j e c t i v e of th i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p of th e S t a t e of interrelated variables. One c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t a n d child, support, is to e x a m i n e the Child with o t h e r of t h e m a j o r which th e q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y re l a t io ns hip, stu dy factors includes is the the e m o t i o n a l of c o n t a c t of t h e and th e c l o s e n e s s o f p e r c e p t i o n s of pare nt to the c h i l d ' s the p o i n t of view. EMOTIONAL SUPPORT Relationships involved in i m p o r t a n t t o the c h i l d are the e m o t i o n a l v a r i e t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s mentioned--custodial others s c ho ol and p e e r s - - a l l he e x p e r i e n c e s . aunts, absent uncles, parent; important b i lit y of th e c h i l d to t h e in his n e w l i f e significant cousins, r e l a t i o n s w i t h t ea cher s, are A in a d d i t i o n to t h o s e a l r e a d y parent ; (gr andp ar ents, friends); support family counselors, s e c u r i t y and sta­ style. Parent al R e l a t i o n s h i p s In r e g a r d to h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c h i l d k n o w s that and he m i g h t the parents divorced his pa r e n t s , each other, be c o n c e r n e d a b o u t h i s own fate. parent becomes angry with him? the c h i l d l o v e s and r e s p e c t s What Pollack points out bo t h h i s p a r e n t s . if a that He m a y 20 feel betrayed of p a r e n t s by the p a r e n t a l if indulged this t e aring p u l l s parents. 21 The o n l y w a y the c h il d at least the c h i l d ch i l d Parent to take lo s s o c c u r s is to for 22 R e l a t i o n s .- - S u p e r v i s i o n of th e as H e r z o g an d Su d i a b e c a u s e of the s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t o v e r ­ po s s e s s i v e n e s s , the p h y s i c a l over-permissiveness, and e m o t i o n a l d e m a n d s logical drain. The and c o n t r o l . are a g r e a t Al l psycho­ sin g l e p a r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s m a n y d i f - f e ren t k i nd s of d e m a n d s on his tim e. An i n t e r e s t i n g by G o o d e forced both and d i s l o y a l t y . so a d o u b l e is d i f f i c u l t an d d e m a n d i n g , indicate, is to r e s o l v e his c o n f l i c t psychologically. Custodial b e c a u s e he is of resentment, s e p a r a t e from b o t h par en ts , him, apart tearing down both of th e e x - s p o u s e s - - if the c h i l d feel s guilt, for or t h e in by on e or Furthermore, sides he th e n loss, 23 socialization feature described is that: . . , the p r i m a r y c h a r a c t e r of the s t a t u s of m o t h e r m a y be v i e w e d so t h a t all o t h e r rol e o b l i g a t i o n s are residu al , c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e o t h e r m a j o r st at u s e s , that of m o t h e r is m o r e l i k e l y to be v i e w e d as first c a l l o n her e nergi es . T h e l e g i t i m a c y of n o n - m a t e r n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s is q u e s t i o n e d u n l e s s it c a n be s h o w n that the m a t e r n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 21 Pollack, 2 2 I b i d ., p. 23 op. cit., p. 76. 78. Herzog and Sudia, op. cit., p. 66. 21 t h e m s e l v e s are b e i n g p r o p e r l y met; and th e c l a r i t y and m o r a l force of t h i s p r e s c r i p t i o n a r e g r e a t e r than for her o t h e r s t a t u s e s . 24 " W h e n the f a t h e r and S a w r e y found, "the mot h e r children obedience and and self-realization," boys and g i r l s limited. is aw a y tends politeness 25 Th i s if it w e r e su g g e s t p o i n t s of c o n f l i c t to d e m a n d rather than study deals so its a d a p t a b i l i t y How ever, to our applicable, an d from Lynn her happiness with Norwegian society may be this could in p a r e n t - c h i l d In s i t u a t i o n s of d i v o r c e G o o d e found for long p e r i o d s , " father relations. ab s e n c e , that: . . . t h e g r e a t e r the e m o t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s e x p e r i e n c e d by the d i v o r c e e , the m o r e l i k e l y is she to c l a i m that t h e r e wa s s o m e p e r i o d d u r i n g the d i v o r c e w h e n t h e c h i l d r e n had b e e n h a r d e r to h a n d l e . This r e l a t i o n s h i p d o e s not c h a n g e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g time s i n c e the d i v o r c e . He also found that: . . . w h e n the d i v o r c e e c l a i m s tha t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e ea si e r to handl e a f t e r the e x - h u s b a n d ' s v i sits , she 24 W i l l i a m G o o d e , " P r e s s u r e s to R e m a r r y I n s t i t u ­ t i o n a l i z e d P a t t e r n s A f f e c t i n g the D i v o r c e d , " A M o d e r n I n t r o d u c t i o n to the F a m i l y , e d . Bell and V o g e l (New York: T h e Fr ee P r e s s , 1968}, p . 319, 25 L y n n had w o r k e d w i t h T i l l e r w i t h N o r w e g i a n dat a. T i l l e r w r o t e up part of the a n a l y s i s of t h e d a t a an d p u b ­ l i s h e d it. "The m o t h e r ' s r e a c t i o n to h u s b a n d a b s e n c e is r e f l e c t e d in her t r e a t m e n t of th e c h i l d a n d this t r e a t m e n t in turn a f f e c t s the c h i l d . " P. 0. Til le r, " F a t h e r A b s e n c e and P e r s o n a l i t y D e v e l o p m e n t of C h i l d r e n in S a i l o r F a m i l i e s , " No r d P s y k o l M o n o g r . , No. 9 (1958 ); D a v i d B. Lynn a n d W i l l i a m L. S a w r e y (using the sam e d a t a w h i c h T i l l e r a n a l ­ yzed), "The E f f e c t s of F a t h e r A b s e n c e on N o r w e g i a n Boys and G i r l s , " J o u r n a l of A b n o r m a l a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y (September, 1959), 258- 62 . 22 is m o r e l i k e l y to say th a t he s h o u l d v i s i t m o r e fr eque n t l y ; if t h e y w e r e h a r d e r to h a n d l e she is m o r e l i k e l y to w a n t t h e e x - h u s b a n d ' s v i s i t s t o be less f r e q u e n t . 26 There is a n a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n claim t h a t her c h i l d r e n w e r e ber t h e i r father a n d her c l a i m any p e r i o d w h e r e handle, positively to G o o d e ' s the c u s t o d i a l age at t h e t i m e o f Ny e those fou nd showed chosomatic illnesses, 27 not in on e m o t h e r op. p. broken but levels g e n e r a l l y w e r e 2 7 Ibid., been cit., p. seem be her c h i l d r e n from broken home th an in r e l a t i o n to p s y ­ behavior, poorer and p a r e n t - from families adjustment in o t h e r way s. scored in o t h e r w a y s similar to adjustment would children households child r e l a t i o n s h i p s , G oo d e , families ha v e It w o u l d better adjustment delinquency from families 26 never separation. In g e n e r a l , b r oke n by d i v o r c e d o 28 parent's significantly chil d a d j u s t m e n t . living findings. that adolescents from unhappy broken children t h er e had r e l a t e d w i t h e a s e of h a n d l i n g and t h e i r fam il ie s th a t to k n o w or r e m e m ­ the c h i l d r e n had b e e n m o r e d i f f i c u l t according to f o l l o w that too y o u n g the d i v o r c e e ' s higher their than Children in p a r e n t adjustment to t h o s e of o t h e r yo ut h . 301. 317. Ivan F. Nye, "Ch i ld A d j u s t m e n t in B r o k e n and U n b r o k e n H o m e s , " M a r r i a g e an d F a m i l y L i ving, N o v e m b e r , 1957, pp. 56-61. 28 23 Schaeffer be expected, th a t tive e m o t i o n a l and "subjective financial states wi t h l a t e r r a t i n g s action. Bayley found a problem which could ha d significant negative correlations of p o s i t i v e n e s s of m o t h e r - c h i l d m o t h e r s wh o d o n ' t work, to be w i d o w e d , cate that, All show e d tha t c o m p a r e d w i t h employed mothers divorced, in m a n y c a ses , they n e e d to d o or separated. these likely T h i s cou ld indi­ working mothers work because f a c e t s of between the custodial the n e w r e l a t i o n s h i p b e i n g parent (us ua ll y the m o t h e r ) to be c o n s i d e r e d . The relationship between the absent parent and t h e c h i l d a l s o has t h e r e f o r e this al s o ( u sua ll y th e s u p p o r t o f the c h i l d , is i m p o r t a n t t o Parent type of th e p o t e n t i a l of b e i n g a str on g e l e m e n t in t h e e m o t i o n a l Absent are more so.^ and the c h i l d n e e d father) inter- ,,29 R e s e a r c h by S t o l t z formed s t r e s s and n e g a ­ examine. R e l a t i o n s .- - C a t h w r i t e s : Fo r a c h i l d , o n e of l i f e ' s g r e a t e s t t r a g e d i e s is the r e a l i t y loss of a p a re nt . Su ch l o s s bri ng s p a i n tha t is o f t e n felt t h r o u g h o u t a l i f e t i m e a n d p o s e s on e o f the g r e a t e s t c h a l l e n g e s t o the c h i l d ' s future development.31 29 Earl S. S c h a e f f e r and N a n c y B a y l e y , " C o n s i s t e n c y of M a t e r n a l B e h a v i o r f r o m I n f a n c y to P r e a d o l e s c e n c e , M Jou rnal of A b n o r m a l an d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , LXI (July, 1960), 5-6, 30 L. Stoltz, " E f f e c t s of M a t e r n a l E m p l o y m e n t C h i l d r e n , " C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , X X X I (1960), 749-82. 31 Cath, op. cit., p. 86. on 24 M u c h of the r e s e a r c h in father-absence centers in the a r e a s of s e x - r o l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d problems. T h e f i n d i n g s d o i n d i c a t e th a t the a b s e n c e are su ppo rtive, d u r i n g his rea sons, and the c h i l d abs en ce . a b l e reason, If the c o m m u n i t y his suggest contain fathers whose that presence and they q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r low. is n o t 32 homes are ab l e t o m e e t s e e m s of d u b i o u s t h a n no it d e p e n d s on a g r e a t m a n y father some u n b r o k e n h o m e s an i n a d e q u a t e the c h i l d ' s d e v e l o p m e n t the fo r an u n a c c e p t that s o m e the f a t h e r role, self- response were the c h i l d ’s s e l f - c o n c e p t w a s the r e q u i r e m e n t s of for his f a t h e r w e r e a b s e n t the a b s e n c e w e r e broken precisely b e c a u s e feel If w a s l i k e l y to i d e a l i z e H e r z o g and S u d i a for the reasons i m p o r t a n t to t he c h i l d b e c a u s e h i s concept seems much affected. for a p p r o v e d behavior father f a th er benefit, as b e t t e r at a l l — they factors a n d individual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .33 The male model, nonpresent father, c o u l d be of according to Ca t h , m a y be the w h i c h could be a n e g a t i v e model. a br u t e o r of a d e s e r t e r . The It boy's d e p e n ­ d e n c y o n a f e m a l e s o m e t i m e s r e s u l t s in i n s e c u r i t y o r the need to d e n y his need to reb el. 32 the i m p o r t a n c e of w o m e n and B e c a u s e of t h e s e H e r z o g and 3 3 I b i d ., p. Sudia, 71. op. intensifies phenomena cit., p. a fatherless 29, 25 boy m a y a l s o b e c o m e little c h a n c e t o increasingly motherless. t e mp er relationship that a fantasy with i n v o l v e s g i v e and He ha s the r e a l i t y take. of a 34 Significant O t h e r s 1 R e l a t i o n ­ ships The more likely is family friend s, the less the f a m i l y to e x p e r i e n c e d e s e r t i o n and d i v o r c e , says Z i m m e r m a n . from f a m i l y lent for i n t i m a t e the and 35 It w o u l d friends, s e e m t h a t the m o r e the m o r e potential th e n e c e s s a r y e m o t i o n a l recovering from a c r i s i s o n c e adjustment, support stability for a is fami ly it d o e s o c c u r . SUMMARY The or d i v o r c e child p r o c e s s of adjusting is a c r u c i a l ti m e in a s i n g l e - p a r e n t The a d j u s t m e n t of influe nt ia l to in the d e v e l o p m e n t of family, the c u s t o d i a l but h o w the things Knowing s o m e of t h e p r o b l e m a r e a s 34 Cath, 35 Su cces sf ul i960), pp. for o n e s e l f cause difficulty op. cit., p. a be h e lp ed . is e s p e c i a l l y adjust--the day-to-day is taken, working that c o u l d t hro ug h, loss he c a n parent in h o w the c h i l d w i l l i n t e r p r e t i n g of the c r i s i s o f d e a t h understanding and an d w i t h t h e child. can help avoid clashes between family members. 108. C h a r l e s C. Z r m m e r m a n an d L u c i u s F. C e r v a n t e s , A m e r i c a n F a m i l i e s (New York: P a q e a n t Press, 26 Many p r o b l e m s of d i v o r c e and c o n f l i c t ar e d u e to at the ti m e of the b r e a k r a t h e r a d j u s t m e n t to the b r o k e n realization of the p h y s i c a l home as the c r i s i s , symptoms and when such. deal of d a m a g e image of the to th e i r beginning parent and c h i l d and m a y the child. Having and feel in g insecure may fears, only The c h i l d ' s pretation of the for me rl y a s s u m e d Destroying loneliness seems which to be a c r u c i a l i t self p r ese nt m o d e l S o m e of is a mode l, to be af f e c t e d social influence necessary especially as to an d of his needs. a boy. whether a negative to o f f - s e t t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s for t h e child, and to be for the type seem to be to p r e s e n t adjustment with s t ro ng e m o t i o n a l t h r o u g h c o n t a c t w i t h p a r e n t s and m a n y and r e l a t i v e s , inter­ t h a n no m o d e l . the best p o s s i b l e p a r e n t a l sup por t in th e child. t h e y are p r e s e n t o r not p r e ­ the be s t w a y s of d i v o r c e o r d e a t h misunder­ The m a l e m o d e l was some question is b e t t e r loss for i n f o r ma tion , t h e r e a s o n s and th e father's absence. raise healing the good cau se m u c h c o n f u s i o n , self-concept of m a l e m o d e l s - - w h e t h e r sent, a double p i e c e s of healthy d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e child, Herzog and S u d i a is e x p e r i e n c i n g the a m b i g u o u s thus c a u s e and by the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of ti me of a c r e d i b i l i t y g a p b e tw ee n b i t s and guilt, than the p a r e n t s c a n do a g r e a t children. other creates Th e th e a d ul t p r oce ss is a time w h e n d i v o r c i n g standing, the t e n s i o n s sensitive frie nd s to the c h i l d a n d a w a r e 27 Despert says: D i v o r c e is not a u t o m a t i c a l l y a d e s t r u c t i v e e x p e r i e n c e . It m a y also be a c l e a n s i n g and a h e a l i n g one, for the c h i l d as well as for the parent: He c a n be r e l i e v e d of g u i l t and fear; he c a n be as s u r e d t h a t his p a r e n t s ' love for him is no less t h a n it was b e f o r e . With g u i d a n c e he c a n f i n d se cu r i t y . . . . D i v o r c e is o n l y w h a t t h e huma n b e i n g s i n v o l v e d m a y m a k e of it. All c h a n g e is d i f f i c u l t and d i v o r c e , w h a t e v e r else it m a y be, is c h a n g e . 37 37 Despert, op. cit., p. 18. CHAPTER III M E T H O D O L O G I C A L D E S I G N OF T H E S TU D Y The r e a l i z a t i o n of the ne e d this g r e w o u t of c o n v e r s a t i o n s with two East L a n s i n g M i d d l e S c h o o l s , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of th e the m i d d l e the p r i n c i p a l s of Public The writer Sc h o o l s , c h u r c h p a st or s, Michigan State University the need for regarding the the and also discussed needs of t h e s e c h i l d r e n w i t h Y M C A p e r s o n n e l , health specialists, s u c h as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of East L a n s i n g s c hoo l c o u n s e l o r s . for a s t u d y mental a n d m e m b e r s of the f a c u l t y — all of w h o m a g r e e d s u c h a s t u d y and m a d e helpful on suggestions procedures. SAMPLE D e f i n i t i o n of The Population p o p u l a t i o n of the East L a n s i n g m i d d l e - s c h o o l study was composed youngsters fr o m fa m i l i e s w h o s e p a r e n t s g a v e p e r m i s s i o n for to be i n t e r v i e w e d and participate. Thus single-parent their child wh o t h e m s e l v e s w e r e w i l l i n g it is an "intact" 28 of all population. to All 29 the p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h a d j u s t m e n t or d i v o r c e as the c a u s e of their p a r t n e r ' s o r to d e a t h parent's absence. These youngsters were selected for to be s o m e w h a t ties, yet f r o m the m i d d l e - s c h o o l the p r o j e c t b e c a u s e independent th e y w e r e y o u n g to factors, the m i d d l e lation. On observation schools it a p p e a r e d posi t i o n s business concerns, fr o m M i c h i g a n included housekeeping su c h p r o b l e m s ha ve a h e t e r o g e n e o u s p o p u ­ high-level executives lation a l s o before socio-economic and educational predominantly professors and a c t i v i ­ set. With reference and enough to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y helped by a s s i s t a n c e w i t h a d j u s t m e n t became to o hard they we r e old in t h e i r m o b i l i t y enough population help. t he p a r e n t s w e r e from govern m e n t a l local b u s i n e s s men, State University. nonaffluent Only that and b u s i n e s s g r o u p s v o l u n t e e r e d Yet t h e p o p u ­ factory workers families from the and and professional to p a r t i c i p a t e in the single-parent families study, Se l e c t i o n of Sample The potential in East L a n s i n g was e s t i m a t e d c o n s i s t e d of who r e s p o n d e d with n u m b e r of 6th-, at a b o u t 7th-, 100. The or 8 t h - g r a d e c h i l d r e n sample for the study the p a r e n t s a n d t h e i r m i d d l e - s c h o o l to a l e t t e r explaining the p r o j e c t . children 30 A letter c h i l d r e n from adjusting death. wa s p r e p a r e d , single-parent their c h i l d r e n s e l e c t ou t for ms i n c l u d e d to t h e sc h o o l s o r c e d u r e was d e s i g n e d by the s c h o o l s 1,100, so t h a t in or th e total th e inter­ themselves and for f u r t h e r c o n t a c t . General returned for a s s i s t a n c e to the p a r e n t s of about sin gl e p a r e n t s w o u l d th e n e e d s of a f t e r m a t h of d i v o r c e sent middle-school population, ested families to t h e c r i s i s a n d T h i s l e t t e r was explaining w i t h the l e t t e r w e r e to th e c o u n s e l o r s . to i n d i c a t e s a n c t i o n of to the r e s p o n d i n g impar t a f e e l i n g par ent, of p u r p o s e f u l n e s s of the t o be This pro­ th e p r o j e c t as well as to stu dy . FIELD W O R K UNDERTAKEN The in the interviews with professional spring, 1972. By th e en d of Ma y t h e a p p r o v e d by th e m i d d l e - s c h o o l administration personnel letter was counselors and representative. The S c h o o l s in c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e Y M C A the school East L a n s i n g Public h e lped in g e t t i n g the 1 , 100 l e t t e r s m a i l e d to all m i d d l e - s c h o o l East L a n s i n g . came during the la s t Responses tw o w e e k s of summer. th e p a r e n t a n d parents in in to the t h r e e c o u n s e l o r s sch ool. Appointments were made interview both be g a n by the i n v e s t i g a t o r th e c h i l d l a t e r to in th e 31 The October. interviews were Time spent w i t h the to two an d a half hou rs , sharing involved. took a half hour, information. administered The parent was usually an d epending on interview with again depending between July and hour th e a m o u n t of the c h i l d u s u a l l y on t h e e x c h a n g e of An a t t e m p t w a s m a d e not to cut a n y o n e off prematurely. Data were analyzed It w a s d e e m e d mation from this, between April desirable the c o u n s e l o r ' s p e r m i s s i o n of p a r e n t s r e l e a s e of This was Early questions needed in A p r i l , for th e year, 197 3, the v a r i o u s Dr. the F a m i l y Margaret and C h i l d fam ily relat i o n s ; Bubolz, of the left th e area. for the selected rated stu dy , and for c o n s u l t a t i o n s c a l e s and These well-qualified to a s s i s t w i t h for t h e PARTICIPATION the q u e s t i o n n a i r e experts agreed although three two to d o by the s c h o o l s . the B o a r d of J u d g e s A B o a r d of E x p e r t s w a s ing r e s u l t a n t data. be o b t a i n e d scales built PROFESSIONAL in p r e p a r i n g to infor­ In o r d e r information by m i d - A p r i l fa mi lie s h a d m o v e d d u r i n g additional perceptions. such confidential accomplished to g e t and May. and in e x a m i n ­ knowledgable the p r o j e c t : Professor an d C h a i r m a n of Science Department, specialist in 32 Dr. Donald M e l c e r , Associate and C h i l d S c i e n c e Studies; an d Professor of F a m i l y I n s t i t u t e of F a m i l y a n d C h i l d P r o g r a m C o o r d i n a t o r of M a r r i e d Student Unit and D a y C a r e C e nt er ; Dr. Ja n e Oyer, Child S ci en ce, Assistant specialist Professor in f a m i l y of F a m i l y and life and a u d i o l o g y emphasis; Dr. David I m i g , A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r of F a m i l y and Child S c i e n c e and family life specialist, Cooperative Extens ion; The Rev. Paige Birdwell, pastoral counselor, d i rec to r of y o u t h e d u c a t i o n an d a c t i v i t i e s , and r e s o u r c e p e r s o n for s i n g l e ad ult s, group le ad e r Edgewood United P eopl e' s Ch ur ch. T h i s g r o u p of p r o f e s s i o n a l su lt ant s as the questionnaire and u n i q u e s e rv ed as c o n ­ i n v e s t i g a t o r u n d e r t o o k p r e p a r a t i o n of the and Their c o n s u l t a t i o n hel pfu l and leaders planning of the p r o j e c t at the f o r m a t i v e supportive. suggestions in g e n e r a l . s t a g e s was v e r y Their different perspectives provided that w o u l d o t h e r w i s e ha v e b e e n b r e a d t h of d e v e l o p m e n t impossible. Judges Dr. served the Oyer, Dr. Melcer, investigator in a s s i s t i n g with the as an d the judges on Rev. Birdwell t h e B o a r d of scale development. The i r E x pe rt s 33 c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and r e - c a t e g o r i z a t i o n d ev el op ed m o r e clear-cut as c l a r i f i c a t i o n sca le s w a s v e r y helpful. Counselors Ms. Sandy Vaughn--McDonald Middle School has been c o n f i d a n t of m a n y m i d d l e - s c h o o l counselor children for a number of y e a r s . Ms. Lois Frea r s — second-year counselor Mid dle S c h o o l w h o is b u i l d i n g c o n f i d e n c e ships w i t h m a n y Mr. of th e m i d d l e - s c h o o l in her r e l a t i o n ­ youngsters. Wally Juell--the male member of t h e c o u n s e l i n g team of the m i d d l e s c h o o l s w h o d i v i d e s hi s tlie two s c ho ol s. He h a s built m a n y at H a n n a h time between relationships with boys and g i r l s who e s p e c i a l l y c a n b e n e f i t from a dynamic ma le m o d e l . The m i d d l e s c h o o l questionnaires m a t i o n for Some of the for t h e i r counselors cli en ts. t h o s e s t u d e n t s of w h o m students w e r e k n o w n to th r o u g h a r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m so q u e s t i o n n a i r e was not o b t a i n e d agreed to fill o u t They filled th e y in i n f o r ­ had k n o w l e d g e . the c o u n s e l o r o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n o n the for them. QUESTIONNAIRE Pr e p a r a t i o n The q u e s t i o n n a i r e child's p resent support c usto di al p a r e n t , his was d e s i g n e d s y s te m as absent to g e t at the it e x i s t s w i t h his paren t, his family, and 34 significant othe rs . It w a s d e s i g n e d cerning th e q u a l i t y an d extent of the support of the t e a c h e r , and ran k in i m p o r t a n c e of the c h i l d . and chi ld' s n e e d s w a s the School as w e l l as the c hild's c on cerns included. An those The extent in r e l a t i o n important fo r p l a n n i n g a p r o g r a m a r o u n d found itself as th e p e e r g r ou p. separation were information or the f a m i l y for as w e l l investigated, counselor, to the c r i s i s of source of satisfaction, system relationships were also to o b t a i n d a t a c o n ­ in i d e a s a b o u t w h a t h ad d o n e the the c h i l d in an a t t e m p t to d e a l with these c o n c e r n s . One it e m on th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e rating of e a c h c h il d' s g e n e r a l s t u d e n t as to his adjustment A "1" was c o n s i d e r e d g o o d is t h e c o u n s e l o r ' s school adjustment. to l i f e wa s also given adjustment and a "5" w a s The a r a ting. poor adjustment. Counselors gave the custodial to a d j u s t m e n t . de a l i n g w i t h Th i s r a t i n g s c ho ol c o n c e r n s how he f u n c t i o n e d . On e o f not put a r a n k a b o v e or didn't wa s know relatively a ra n k of t h r e e to the c o u n s e l o r s , for his or her child the c o u n s e l o r s well. a rating b a s e d on b e i n g a l o n e below three to any o f parent The as in and fe lt he c o u l d for a n y p a r e n t he investigator assigned the parents who were u nk n o w n assuming that u n l e s s particular difficulty or outstanding there had b e e n behavior with 35 either p a r e n t or c h ild , likely to m e e t the the parent counselor and would ha v e bee n ha v e a m o r e d e f i n i t e impression. The investigator parent. This viewer's impression and a b i l i t y The ma nn er he s c o r e wa s to d e a l feels intended the p a r e n t ' s g e n e r a l M a n y of parent the and u s e d in r e l a t i o n items w e r e by G o o d e professional about bo t h p a r e n t s , gen era l phys i c a l , the c u s t o d i a l death, current child r e l a t i o n s e s t i m a t e of a brief to the child-care 1956 These of r e s e a r c h on item s w e r e the p a r e n t ' s marriage and from a questionnaire included situation. information his tor y; and e m o t i o n a l some r e a c t i o n s of stresses of the d i v o r c e or arrangements, absent-parent- in th e c a s e of d i v o r c e , the effect situation to his child. an d e d u c a t i o n a l financial, parent taken in his to o b t a i n b a c k g r o u n d d a t a o n included the in the u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e m pa th y, d i v o r c e d m o t h e r s of D e t r o i t . ^ They inter­ adjustment sa m e c o n c e r n s the chil d w o u l d p e r c e i v e the the constructively. r a n k i n g of the to d e t e r m i n e p e r s p e c t i v e of to e a c h to r e p r e s e n t with the child parent's is an a t t e m p t developed of also gave a rating an d the parent's t h e d i v o r c e or d e a t h on the child, ^"William J. Goode, The Fr ee Press, 1956), pp. After Divorce 35 7-6 6. (Glencoe, 111.: 36 Background W i t h w h o m the chi ld pa re nt' s a b s e n c e , and p o s s i b l e livi ng , gives Th e i n di cate d e v e l o p m e n t a l So m e o f or th e child's b y Payne, suggested tions w h e r e t h e questions. (but as brothers and these children built-in support time since w h o lists fo r a s ki ng information s u c h ideas types as using applies to b e m a d e to seve ral for clear u n d e r ­ He a l s o p o i n t s ou t to a l l o w fo r w e l l - b a l a n c e d adequate status phases which and clarifying, sta nding and c l e a r d e f i n i t i o n s . Different the h o m e f e w as n e c e s s a r y ) , g r o u p i n g q u e s ­ Provision needs and to p r o v i d e kind of same i n t r o d u c t i o n that it is i m p o r t a n t of adjustment. the of s i m p l i f y i n g for the single-parent the b a s i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s desired are implications. l e n g t h of sequential to g e t familiar w o r d s setting n u m b e r of the questions effectively the i m p o r t a n c e the r e a s o n the child's that c a u s e d in th e and the ages of a g e of t h e child, may be p e r t i n e n t extensive The in the h o m e an d the famil y c r i s i s ha s th e g e n e r a l information concerning system. may is relationships. sisters l i v i n g gives information alternatives. 2 of q u e s t i o n s w e r e u s e d d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of i n f o r m a t i o n , choices to o b t a i n e.g.: Who do y o u t h i n k c a r e s m o s t a b o u t yo u a n d w h a t h a p p e n s to you? A n y o n e else? 2 S t a n l e y L. P a y n e , T h e A r t of A s k i n g Q u e s t i o n s (Princeton, N.J.: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1951) . 37 This q u e s t i o n solicits not a s e l e c t i o n from his answe r g i v e s an ings and a n the r e s p o n d e n t ' s several c h o i c e s . impression of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of h i s relating about dent a c a r d on which sid e s " . . . " while o t h e r s issues to crisis of 91-9 5, e.g. "yes, wi l l o n l y used. terms This so t h e y "no" m a y mean the n e g a t i v e a n s w e r . if , . . ," in s c o r i n g will assume t h e m the r e s p o n ­ list ed. However, as we ll as b e i n g Some respondents same q u a l i f i e r e v e n to h a n d simple and tabulate. causes difficulty ing r e s p o n s e s . to th e y e s- no q u e s t i o n s w e r e Also q u a l i f i e d a n s w e r s , unless items the a l t e r n a t i v e s w e r e two-way, to r e c o r d "not taking e.g.: it was h e l p f u l type of q u e s t i o n r e d u c e d were easy to o b t a i n When multiple-choice questions got choices, Many feel­ situation. were used to th e c y c l e of a d j u s t m e n t beyond t h r e e T h e c o m p o s i t i o n of ho m e specific choices, death or d i v o r c e . impression, the r e s p o n d e n t ' s Multiple-choice questions inf ormation first ad d "no, and t a b u l a t ­ qualifiers and n o t v o i c e t h e t h o u g h they m a y be c o n s i d e r i n g it. Interview T e c h n i q u e Th e p a r e n t as we ll as t h e questionnaire, the p a r e n t a n s w e r i n g order to c o m p a r e of the c h i l d ' s child answered the child's and n e e ds . child's s i t u a t i o n a n d for t h e chil d , the parent's This i n f o r m a t i o n parent's u n d e r s t a n d i n g , or ne e d the perception indicates fo r u n d e r s t a n d i n g , could be h e l p f u l in the of his in u n d e r s t a n d i n g 38 the p a r e n t ' s im por tant r e l a t i o n w i t h the child; factor in p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m s it c o u l d be an for t h e c h i l d and/or the p a r e n t . Generally first so tha t the p a r e n t wa s he/she would given kn o w th e c o n t e n t s of and thu s be r e l i e v e d of a n x i e t y a b o u t int erviewed. In this w a y the i n t e r e s t of t h e the child, through the c h i l d ' s in b o t h the from p a r e n t a l through the c h i l d ' s c u r i o s i t y a n d d e s i r e included in w h a t times, usually how e v e r , in terv ie we r it e m s be i n g p a r e n t and a nxiety and to k n o w an d be wa s g o i n g on. Interviews were vately, th e rapport was built up through interviewer freedom the q u e s t i o n n a i r e conducted in the h o m e s of s e p a r a t e l y an d p r i ­ the interviewee. interviewees preferred for p r i v a c y o r In d i s c u s s i n g to c o m e Several to th e quiet. th e r e s p o n s e s to hi s study, Goode said, . . . v e r y f e w res po nde ni . d e l i b e r a t e l y and c o n s i s ­ te nt ly lie a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s . O n c e an a t m o s p h e r e of e m o t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g has b e e n c r e a t e d and the r e s p o n d e n t h a s d e v e l o p e d a "set" toward d e a l i n g w i t h these rather d e l i c a t e matters, we c a n in g e n e r a l c o u n t o n c o n t i n u e d c o o p e r a t i o n . . . . In g e n e r a l , it see ms r e a s o n a b l e to s u p p o s e ^ that the r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e t r y i n g to te l l the truth. Goode also pointed out obvious to o b t a i n i n g satisfactory answers w h i c h al s o a p p l i e s 3 Goode, to t h i s study: op. c i t , , p. 24. factors of bia s f r o m hi s r e s e a r c h , (1) Respondents tried 39 to tell the truth, they c o u l d unable divorce not d o but so an d to p e r c e i v e (death, Consequen tl y, also of his r e s p o n d e n t s , is p o s s i b l e (2) easily he w a s effects d i d not it The mothers might in t h i s study) cautious such c l a i m s did t e l l them about As Payne is a s o c i a l liminal process was c a r r i e d the a n s w e r s On that the o t h e r their o w n focus, Th i s a l s o c o u l d the hand, the be study. p o i n t s out, clues and 4 th e if t h e y c l a i m e d to be s eri ou s. been for th e c h i l d r e n . in a c c e p t i n g a d j u s t m e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s . a pp li cable to this made area have th e d i f f i c u l t i e s th a t particularly seem that in t h i s and administering a questionnaire it w a s n e c e s s a r y to o b s e r v e s u b ­ to e s t a b l i s h r a ppo rt . forward and t h r o u g h use of t h r o u g h a n a tu ra l transition The interview f l o w of c o n v e r s a t i o n phr ase s. Occasional p r ob ing was us ef u l on m o r e d i f f i c u l t issues. m i na ti ng was th e i n t e r v i e w e r w a s c a r e f u l important also; T h e p r o c e s s of t e r ­ to e x p r e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n for e f f o r t s of not cut off too br i s k l y . Th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s of d r a w i n g the r e s p o n d e n t and the r e s p o n d e n t his i n t e r e s t by a s k i n g and b u i l d i n g to m o r e constructed with into issues. made to m i n i m i z e d e f e n s i v e n e s s , and " t a l k i n g d o w n . " 4 Ibid., p. 316. the i n t e r v i e w a n d simple questions complex the arousing about himself An attempt to a v o i d idea was tricky questions, 40 Free response questions ties, w e r e used Follow-up questions were used elaboration to b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d to get p r i o r i ­ to o b t a i n f u rt her free r e s p o n s e s . SCALES D E V E L O P M E N T In o r d e r re la ti o n s h i p s , naire items it w a s into The to o b t a i n a s c o r e necessary to o r g a n i z e th e q u e s t i o n ­ separate scales. investigator grouped ferent c a t e g o r i e s Board of Judg es , for a d j u s t m e n t and l o g i c a l l y to formed and hum an v a lu es , was form selected to T h r e e of t h e s e and als o g r o u p e d the questions in d i f ­ the s c a l e s . from e x p e r t s this p r o c e d u r e . the c a t e g o r y they the questions in f a m i l y The relations act as a d v i s o r s experts a c t e d for as j u d g e s f r o m the q u e s t i o n n a i r e fe l t was a p p r o p r i a t e to (List of Scales, Appendix C ) . The following of q u e s t i o n n a i r e Of a. i t e m s as part o f Three must All a g r e e that four m u s t a g r e e a g i v e n scale, the it e m a s the and to tha t that judges, item b e l o n g s s c a l e alone, the even t h o u g h belonging for i n c l u s i o n a scale: four p r o f e s s i o n a l l y q u a l i f i e d given scale b. are the c r i t e r i a u s e d to a or item b e l o n g s two of to o t h e r the scales, to judges see as we l l . 41 Examples of fu lf illed criteria: #1 #2 #3 Item 19 F F F F Item 3 2 G G G EFG Item 59 A AC A AE Judges Some (total in t e r m s o f signif ic an t o t h e r , to include th e c u s t o d i a l agreement) (q ua li f i e s u n d e r p r o v i s i o n b) items did not meet criteria so the q u e s t i o n s w e r e e d i t e d "scored #4 parent for inclusion the c o n d i t i o n : (absent parent, etc.)." A footnote was added to some i t e m s w i t h E and F ca te go ry c o n f u s i o n . I n a s m u c h as m o s t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s a r e m o t h e r s a n d m o s t a b s e n t p a r e n t s a r e fat h er s, j u d g e s f a il ed to m a k e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n the d e s i g n a t o r " c u s t o d i a l " v e r s u s the d e s i g n a t o r " m o t h e r . " T h e r e f o r e , in tr e a t ing items s u c h as 63 . a . D o yo u feel s u p p o r t i v e of yo u r m o t h e r ' s / f a t h e r ' s r o l e ? Yes, No; the r e s p o n s e E and F wa s g i v e n by all four r a t e r s — m e a n i n g t h a t they fail ed to m a k e th e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t this i t e m r e l a t e d o n l y to th e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t in the i t e m itself. T h u s a c o n f u s i o n e n t e r s b e c a u s e th e E r e s p o n s e is n o t p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e t h e F scal e is the absent parent's relationship. D a t a fr o m i t e m 6 3 . a. ar e a n a l y z e d in t e r m s of e i t h e r the a b s e n t or th e c u s t o d i a l pa r e n t , t h e r e f o r e all E a n d F a m b i g u i t i e s ar e a r b i t r a r i l y r e d u c e d to a c c o u n t for th is c o n ­ fusion, b e f o r e s c r e e n i n g o n the c r i t e r i a for i n c l u ­ sion . The j u d g e s w e r e a g a i n g i v e n the items w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e n o t a t i o n s r eg r o u p e d the formed. items. and th e F r o m th i s p r o c e s s l i s t of p r o b l e m judges then t he s c a l e s w e r e 42 The scales State of Scale Scale Scale i n c lu de : Child's Well-Being A - - C h i l d *s S e l f - C o n c e p t B — C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n C — Child's Adjustment Emotional Support Scale E--Custodial Parent Relationship Scale F--Absent Parent Relationship Scale (was D ) — N u m b e r o f S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r Relationships Scale — Q u a n t i t y a n d Q u a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p s School Relationships Scale H--Teacher Relationship Scale I--Counselor Relationship S c a l e J — Pe e r R e l a t i o n s h i p Scale K--Custodial E a c h of the Sca le s A component questions, scoring for e a c h o f the j u d g e s Parent's Adjustment is a l s o m a y be - K, w i t h found custodial was c o n s t r u c t e d for e a c h not u s e d in c o r r e l a t i o n s . insights into patterns there Being a n d their of These an d from counselor scores were s t u d y wa s respective One table S y s t e m an d component scores scores used were fo r implications. to d e t e r m i n e is a n y r e l a t i o n s h i p Support the Because counselor an d u n d e r s t a n d i n g this each of tabulated. for e a c h c h i l d , An obj e c t i v e Emotional its rat i n g s DATA were scale. available Child's OF responses responses were not w h e t h e r or not with The included. the child's parent's respective in A p p e n d i x C. the q u e s t i o n s ANALYSIS E a c h of their his between the state of Well- parts. Parent's 43 and c h il d' s scores co mp ut er c a r d s . for e a c h T h e d a t a w e r e p r o c e s s e d by mea ns o f Control D a t a C o r p o r a t i o n 6500 c o m p u t e r s U n i v e r s i t y C o m p u t e r C e nt er . were figured o n sc al e w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d to All o f for eac h of was tested at M i c h i g a n S t a t e the c o r r e l a t i o n s these computers. HYPOTHESES The th e TESTING s i g n i f i c a n c e of ea c h c o r r e l a t i o n was the three hypotheses. tested E a c h of the h y p o t h e s e s from d if fe re nt pe rs pe cti ve s of parent and child p e r c e p t i o n s . Hypothesis 1: An a l y s i s w a s to be c o r r e l a t i o n o f S c a l e A (SelfConcept) w i t h S c a l e G 2 ( E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t — Q u a n t i t y and Q u a l i t y o f R e l a t i o n s h i p s ) a. b. c. d. Scale Scale Scale Scale A A A A v Cp J^ /S cale (cp) /Scale (pp) /Scale (pp) /Scale G2 G2 G G2 (cp)2 (pp) (cp) (pp) la. C o r r e l a t i o n of S c a l e A w i t h Parent Relationship) a. b. c. d. Scale Scale Scale Scale A A A A (cp)/Scale ( c p) /S ca le ( pp )/ Scale ( p p) /S ca le E E E E Scale Scale Scale Scale * (cp) 2 (pp) A A A A (cp)/Scale ( cp )/ Scale (pp)/Scale ( pp j/ Scale F F F F (Cu sto dial (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) lb. C o r r e l a t i o n of S c a l e A w i t h Parent Relationship) a. b. c. d. Scale E Scale (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) = child's perspective = parent's perspective F (Absent 44 lc. C o r r e l a t i o n Su p p o r t ) a. b. c. d. Scale Scale Sc al e Scale Hypothesis of S c a l e A w i t h S c a l e A/(cp)/Scale A/(cp)/Scale A/(pp)/Scale A/(pp)/Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Sc a l e Sc a l e Sc a l e Scale of S c a l e Scale Sc a l e Scale Scale a. b. c. d. Sc a l e Scale Scale Scale Hypothesis (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) E E E E (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) F F F F F. (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) of S c a l e B w i t h S c a l e G^ . B/(cp)/Scale B/(cp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale G^ G. G. G (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) 3: C o r r e l a t i o n of S c a l e C Scale . a. b. c. d. 2 B with Scale B/(cp)/Scale B/(cp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale 2c. C o r r e l a t i o n G_ G_ G_ G with B w i t h S c a l e E, B/(cp)/Scale B/(cp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale 2b. C o r r e l a t i o n o f S c a l e a. b. c. d. (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) (Ur gency o f C on cern ) B/(cp)/Scale B/(cp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale B/(pp)/Scale 2a. C o r r e l a t i o n a. b. c. d. (Em ot ion al 2: C o r r e l a t i o n of S c a l e B Scale G ^ . a. b. c. d. G* G. G. G G^ Scale Sc a l e Sc a l e Sc a l e (Child A d j u s t m e n t ) C/(cp)/Scale C/(cp)/Scale C/(pp)/Scale C/(pp)/Scale G G* G„ G 2 (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) with 45 3a. C o r r e l a t i o n of a. b. c. d. 3b. E. C / ( c p ) / S c a l e E (cp) C / ( c p ) / S c a l e E (pp) C / ( p p ) / S c a l e E (cp) C / ( p p ) / S c a l e E (pp) C o r r e l a t i o n of S c a l e C w i t h S c a l e F. a. b. c. d. 3c. Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale C with Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale C/(cp)/Scale C/(cp)/Scale C/(pp)/Scale C/(pp)/Scale Correlation of a. b. c. d. Scale Scale Scale Scale (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) C with Scale G ^ . C/(cp)/Scale C/(cp)/Scale G ^ C / ( p p ) / S c a l e G. C/(pp)/Scale G Comparisons the p a r e n t an d o f Scale F F F F (cp) (pp) (cp) (pp) also were made between the c h i l d o n the sam e the s c o r e s of it e m s of e a c h scale. Each s c a l e w a s and q u e s t i o n s answered analyzed s i g n i f i c a n t l y by e a c h s u b - g r o u p . Distinctions were made and w i d o w e d as to s c o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s families where between divorced it s e e m e d families pertinent. SUMMARY The s a m p l e w a s an i n t a c t p o p u l a t i o n of v o l u n t e e r parents and t w e n t y m i d d l e - s c h o o l children parent Michigan. families in Ea s t L a n s i n g , A questionnaire was prepared ing d a t a c o n c e r n i n g e m o t i o n a l of these m i d d l e - s c h o o l support children. fr o m s i n g l e ­ for use in c o l l e c t ­ and relationships Th e p a r e n t s answered 46 the same q u e s t i o n s as t h e i r c h i l d d i d thought t h e i r c h i l d w o u l d was a l s o a s k e d o f cerning answer. in a w a y t h e y Background the p a r e n t s to p r o v i d e the g e n e r a l information information con­ s e t t i n g of t h e h o m e and p o s s i b l e relationships. The interview was conducted in a m a n n e r d e s i g n e d to b u i l d r a p p o r t a n d d r a w the r e s p o n d e n t view an d a r o u s e hi s counselors information w h e r e v e r possible naire a n d by p r o v i d i n g assisted for in s c h o o l and o f th e c u s t o d i a l S c a l e d e v e l o p m e n t wa s by p r o v i d i n g i t e m s o n th e q u e s t i o n ­ scores of their a d j u s t m e n t for t h e c h i l d gator an d a p a n e l inter­ interes t. Middle-school sit uations, into t h e an d i m p r e s s i o n of in g e n e r a l parent whenever achieved possi bl e. investi­ item s fr o m t h e questionnaire in t o a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r i e s . Through clarification t h e s e it e m s b e c a m e t h e Data were of j u d g e s g r o u p i n g by the life sca l e s A - K. t a b u l a t e d and c o r r e l a t i o n s test e a c h of t h e h y p o t h e s e s . structed to a n a l y z e Scatter graphs were con­ the p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e m e n t of e a c h r e s p o n d e n t in r e l a t i o n to the o t h e r s . Comparisons the score o f e a c h p a r e n t an d c h i l d o n e a c h observable. f i g u r e d to of item w e r e CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION A ND ANALYSIS OF DATA INTRODUCTION Since mine the m a i n p u r p o s e o f this the n e e d s of m i d d l e families in E a s t L a n s i n g , steps was support being, school Michigan, and the these c h ildren receive; their their self-concept, their Sixteen teers w h o w e r e One a m o u n t of e m o t i o n a l of concern families w i t h l et t e r twenty middle asking i n t e r e s t e d in t h e p r o b l e m s of This family was they adjustment. r e s p o n d e d to th e families. important RESPONSE single-parent school c h i l d r e n the psychological wel l ­ the urgency over-all to d e t e r ­ from s i n g l e - p a r e n t on e of the k i n d SAMPLE study. children to d e t e r m i n e experienced and pare nt study was group composed i n t e r v i e w e d and for v o l u n ­ single­ the sample shortly for the thereafter moved to a n e i g h b o r i n g c o m m u n i t y . In a d d i t i o n sponded to the be arranged. to the s a m p l e , l e t t e r but m o v e d another before family the interview could On e p a r e n t a g r e e d to the i n t e r v i e w 47 re­ if the 48 child w a n t e d so the to p a r t i c i p a t e , family was c hi ld re n w e r e but no t i n c l u d e d the c h i l d w a s in the hesitant because study. they w e r e c l a s s i f i e d as c h i l d r e n of s i n g l e - p a r e n t appointment was arranged with c o mpl et ed t h e c h i l d w a s a s k e d agreed. This was hesitant T w o o th e r resistant fa mi l i e s . The the p a r e n t an d w h e n for an accomplished to b e i n g tha t w a s interview and readily seemingly happily and w i l l i n g l y w i t h no problem. One widowed mother was c hi l d r e n b e i n g set a p a r t or very s t r o n g l y a g a i n s t her s i n g l e d o u t a n d w a n t e d no p a r t of the pro ject . There wa s one mother wh o had remarried r e spo nd ed for an i n t e r v i e w anyw ay . tacted her to t h a n k the p r o j e c t m o r e It was g e n e r o u s specifically. sha re end of C h a p t e r sa i d she w a n t e d she and h e r that would th e m a n d v e r y h e l p f u l tion from t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e . and to e x p l a i n The m o t h e r she thought th e y c o u l d of investigator con­ her for he r i n t e r e s t to be i n t e r v i e w e d b e c a u s e some i n f o r m a t i o n The b u t who be son had hel pful. to se e the s i t u a ­ (See A d d i t i o n a l Information, IV.) SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS Th e s a m p l e was c o m p o s e d of t w e n t y m i d d l e youngsters whose parents volunteered. chi ld re n b o t h a g r e e d to be ch il dre n w e r e m a l e interviewed. an d ten w e r e female. sch oo l The parents Ten of All the and the children 49 but on e boy son w a s living with Of lived with the w o m e n widowed and Of their children e.g., years. nin e w e r e b e t w e e n 13 and Ten of five years. fou r w e r e of age. as The children 14; and three were 50 p e r c e n t , th e time 75 p e r c e n t o r of the c h i l d r e n w e r e ages of single-parent already 2 and status for tio n o c c u r r e d d u r i n g fifteen live s. Ti me S i n c e Separation to 12 in age a n d 13; between 5. were 14 of having a d i f f i c u l t their time. interview. som e, th e age from one parent of th e caused sample 20 p e r c e n t , in a c r u c i a l Fo r of Twenty percent t h e c r i s i s of d i v o r c e w i t h i n t h e m e n t at the t i m e 9 years popula­ and eleventh years c h i l d r e n of th e s a m p l e , They were in The crisis which 30 p e r c e n t m o n t h s or l e ss . living children by separated th e t e n t h children's Four and ranged they were living w i t h only one parent. b e t w e e n the sisters Eight were between the children, f a m i l i e s by As m a n y and fou r p a i r s age. single-parent adjusting for there we r e brothers of sisters. 14-1/2 and 15 y e a r s interviewed three were the r e wa s o n e p a i r 7 were children, father whose eleven were divorced. of s i b l i n g s , of The h i m had b e e n w i d o w e d living with the from 12 to their mothers. m u c h of have been last period of S o m e of of t h e six adjust­ them were the adjustment 50 had b e e n w o r k e d o u t b e f o r e t h e s e p a r a t i o n wa s actually affected. M o s t of t h e crisis children, situation one The c r i s i s living as and on e- h a l f occurred these c h i l d r e n . 60 p e r c e n t , t h r e e to had f a c e d the to f i v e y e a r s fi v e y e a r s ag o for t e n of T w e n t y p e r c e n t of t h e c h i l d r e n children in single-parent ago. families have been for m o r e than e i g h t years. Si b l i n g s T w e n t y p e r c e n t of t h e c h i l d r e n of t h i s in f a m i l i e s w i t h f i v e or six b r o t h e r s two c h i l d r e n of t h e family, twenty seven children, two o f the children are p a ren t (one of t h e s e siblings). have one, two or t h r e e living alone w i t h their siblings is a d d i t i o n a l who d o n o t h a p p e n to these c a s e s together there c o n c e r n o n the p a r t o f to b e in th i s s t u d y are Se ve nty p e r c e n t o f single a g r a n d f a t h e r and p e r c e n t of the children f i v e of have b r o t h e r s an d sisters in the home. In e a c h of a warm relationship siblings and for t h e y o u n g e r . the s i n g l e - par en t families w i t h these Only for the o l d e r Forty-five percent of in t h e hom e . support be l i v i n g seems Only l i v i n g w i t h them. sibling they have li ve ha v e a lar g e living Seventy-five these y o u n g s t e r s b e c a u s e and sisters. th e s a m p l e children does two g r o w n There in study families four o r m o r e c h i l d r e n . single-parent families have 51 three or m o r e children. In m o s t of tions, m a n y c h i l d r e n a r e potential Of the three y e a r s twenty children th e m o t h e r ' s be fo re the m ov e . A study, fifth they al s o h a d m o v e d five y e a r s the remaining school year. moved b e c a u s e of his East L a n s i n g fam ily , to r eloca te . f a mi ly m o v e d One f a mi ly w i t h ago, b e fo re . ca m e Two here one two and o n e - h a l f y e a r s family had liv ed h e r e which two yea rs ; had taken t h i r t e e n c h i l d r e n of The custodial except parents study, of t h e s e for th e w i d o w e d f a ther w h o recent marriage. h a v e be e n e s t a b l i s h e d five y e a r s or more; One divorced mother has is no t p l a n n i n g to be m o r e c l o s e l y the p l a n n e d to m o v e by t h e end of fou r w i d o w e d m o t h e r s for one m o v e d w i t h i n ago. familie s ar e d i v o r c e d , and al so on e s i n c e th e d i v o r c e , six a l r e a d y h a v e or h a v e The the co m f o r t . Another six m o n t h s the divorce having been Of ha v e in t h e s t u d y m o v e d two y e a r s more c h i l d r e n o f t h e the 1973 studied, di v o r c e . with the d i v o r c e h a v i n g b e e n plac e support and a g o at the t i m e of d i v o r c e . the c h i l d r e n year ago; the y d o situa­ Residence six m o n t h s of two o f involved but of o f f e r i n g e a c h o t h e r Stability of these crisis to move. they are associated with divorced wi d o w e d s i n g l e p a r e n t s . no t p l a n n i n g be e n h e r e Moving the in five y e a r s family than with seems 52 Of t h e e l e v e n p a r e n t s w h o did m o v e or have p l a n n e d to m o v e w i t h i n turned to c o l l e g e . and th r e e a r e Four mothers part time. parents who did attend widowed. Ph.D. However, after All are bu t full-time two of yea rs has started b a c k to school. academic ta k e n to be single parents full-time d i v o r c e d ha d considerations p re s s u r e s Fo ur of been established and they n e e d e d to sell following had been d i v o r c e d ; and the o t h e r , divorced six months students encouraged their long­ eight lives. als o i n f l u e n c e d m o v i n g here Two of the o t h e r a n d two and o n e - h a l f of financial these mo t h e r s and one-half ago; been four or mo r e y e a r s , their homes because eleven years two attracted the m o t h e r s w h o had the d i v o r c e . one, a to take a d v a n t a g e of in r e o r g a n i z i n g the c o m m u n i t y . than completed Ea s t L a n s i n g here and t h e c o n v e n i e n c e of t h e c a m p u s within ra th e r and a n o t h e r w i d o w of of the s i n g l e - p a r e n t s w h o ch o s e Financial students s e v e r a l c o u r s e s to g e t setting a c ade mi c o p p o r t u n i t i e s re­ th e s e c u s t o d i a l o n e w i d o w of ni n e y e a r s he r h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h time-resident seven have school w e r e d i v o r c e d and o n e - h a l f The the year, since d i v o r c e ye a r s ago, tw o w e r e years ago, respectively. Financial stress a c ad em ic a c h i e v e m e n t , and p e r h a p s needs to p r o v e o n e s e l f , a ss oc i a t e d w i t h d i v o r c e m o r e t h a n for h i g h e r s e e m to be it do e s w i t h w i d o w h o o d . 53 In th i s study, mobility financial s t r e s s appear and al s o seems to be related academic opportunity. t o be m o r e m o b i l e to Divorcees than widows. Cu st o d i a l P a r e n t ' s W o r k Background At the t i m e o f the interview, custodial parents w e r e working for t h e i r families. were n o t w orking . were d iv or ced, full e l e v e n of ti m e One was w orking part the as w e l l as time a n d caring four T w o of the m o t h e r s w h o w e r e n o t w o r k i n g a n d t h r e e of the four w e r e attending college classes. At the ti me o f parents we r e w o r k i n g separation only full time; s e v e n of t h e s e two w e r e w o r k i n g p a r t and in a d d i t i o n to t h e four w h o w e r e n o t w o r k i n g time o f there w e r e the i n t e r v i e w , not w o r k i n g then. However, Thr e e of the only at custodial the b e g i n n i n g custodial parents , of all the time of t h e i r two w o r k e d seldom, took a j o b w i t h i n mothers th e marriages, time. and end of their m a r r i a g e s , worked father, seemingly full time, worked during three w o r k i n g several a m o nt h. Four o t h e r Three worked once two w o r k e d the thr ee o t h e r s w h o w e r e their marriages. including and on e wor king p a r t one at time full time in a w h i l e , ye ar s at in p r e p a r a t i o n the fo r the approa ch in g div orce. On e of the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s ha s while b e i n g on he r o w n after her earned a Ph.D. h u s b a n d ' s death. F i v e of 54 the w o m e n e a r n e d M. A . B.S., two degrees, have a t t e n d e d had c o m p l e t e d h i g h nurse, (five), two were two w e r e Only parents worked seven of and o n e w a s the c u s t o d i a l were not w o r k i n g ful l the ti m e o f time. the interview, Parents had financial n e e d s o r for s o c i a l Only 18 p e r c e n t o f th e d i v o r c e e s of not w o r k i n g a n d t h e y w e r e was attending however in p r e p a r a t i o n back to w o r k if t h e y w e r e n ' t w o r k i n g , however, a librarian. f r o m their p a r t n e r s , the w i d o w s w e r e and parents were working two p r o b a b l y w e r e w o r k i n g At social worker an d tw o w e r e o f f i c e w o r k e r s , assistants, the s e p a r a t i o n . percent of and t h r e e in su c h p o s i t i o n s governor's planner, at the t i m e of s e p a r a t i o n mentioned, or a a y e a r or two of c o l l e g e , in b u s i n e s s graduate a B.A. school. These custodial as t e a c h e r s five h a v e and p e r s o n a l could only the sch ool, classes at to go for as we l l . lux ur y while not presently working. several five solely needs afford attending for felt n e e d s whether as 40 One, the u n i v e r s i t y . Absent P a r e n t ' s B a c k g r o u n d s Of the a b s e n t p a r e n t s , M.A,'s, si x had e i t h e r a B.A. pleted h i g h s c hool . a lawyer, S i x of d e cea se d m o t h e r ) , f o u r w e r e these p a r e n t s w e r e or a B.S. Ph.D.s, five had an d o n e h a d c o m ­ them were professors, two w e r e e n g i n e e r s , m a c h i n i s t and o n e w a s four ha d one was a librarian in b u s i n e s s , o n e w a s in the m i l i t a r y deceased. one was service. (the a F i v e of 55 Fourteen mate s w e r e ex-spouses reported steady workers. when th e y w o r k e d that their former The o t h e r two were steady (one w o r k e d no s u m m e r s a n d th e o t h e r was on li ne lay-offs) . Ma ri ta l B a c k g r o u n d The a g e s ranged at m a r r i a g e fr o m 17 t o 29, w i t h between 20 and a hal f. from 18 to 35 y e a r s of age w i t h half. the Their ages 21. ranged 22 an d a spouses were parents of this 22 or 23 s t u d y ha d k n o w n t h e i r spouse fro m four a n d o n e - h a l f m o n t h s The m e a n percent of the spouses' 19 a n d t i m e of t h e i r m a r r i a g e . Custodial marriage. age s o f the m e a n b e i n g T h i r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t of the years o l d at th e parents 50 p e r c e n t of th e c u s t o d i a l parents h a v i n g b e e n m a r r i e d The m e a n age w a s of the c u s t o d i a l to six years l e n g t h of t i m e w a s two y e a r s . couples had known each other before F i ft y for two o r three years b e f o r e m a r r i a g e . The c o u p l e s ' three y e ars engagements in l e ng th . six mont hs. fo u r death. lasted period was th e c o u p l e s w e r e e n ­ fr o m s e v e n to t w e n t y - s i x a n d the m e d i a n b e i n g F o r t y - f o u r p e r c e n t of years or more. to to e i g h t m o n t h s . The m a r r i a g e s one- ha lf year s w i t h fr o m o n e w e e k The median engagement F o r t y - f o u r p e r c e n t of gaged b e t w e e n years. ranged F o u r of those fifteen the m a r r i a g e s seven were and one-half lasted nineteen t e r m i n a t e d by 56 The divorc ed separation period ranged half ye ar s . f r o m no p r i o r s e p a r a t i o n to two a n d one- Th e m e d i a n o ne -h alf m o n t h s . sepa r a t e d separation p e r i o d was Seventy-two percent of a year or even The crisis one c h i l d and w a s The m e d i a n as te n for the d i v o r c e . years r e c e n t as three m o n t h s the the s t u d y e x p e r i e n c i n g th e ago for for a n o t h e r . s i n c e the c r i s i s w a s 44 p e r c e n t of and th e c o u p l e s were h a d t a k e n place e l e v e n one -h alf y e a r s a g o w i t h three an d less waiting l e n g t h of ti m e families of for the c o u p l e s b e i n g three and single-parent trauma between five y e a r s ago. C H I L D CARE S i n c e m o s t of th e c h i l d r e n a r e m i d d l e there may be y o u n g e r e s p e c ia ll y, when there ents of th i s s t u d y and the c h i l d r e n are tended older siblings, t o depend o n themselves The parents the c u s t o d i a l b r o t h e r s and s i s t e r s , needed age, but, custodial the public par­ sch ool for their c a r e . fe lt t h a t care parent school for their child, to be away, when was good or excellent. Of full-time the a c t i v i t i e s m o s t h a n d i c a p p e d by h a v i n g responsibility of custodial p a r e n t s possibilities--one relocate. seemed mother to rai sing the feel m o s t w i t h s a i d she w a s Others m e ntioned family, next, the regard to job less anxious trips, dates and to 57 education as b e i n g h a m p e r e d . As Dr. Donald D e p a r t m e n t of F a m i l y and C h i l d S c i e n c e s , Un iver si ty ) expressed single p a r e n t s , it, "In the y e a r s Melcer Michigan State I have w o r k e d w i t h m o s t of t h e p a r e n t s w h o h a v e feel the p r e s s u r e s and fi n d it d i f f i c u l t don't k n o w of o n e o f t h e m w h o w o u l d their e x - s p o u s e an d gi v e (of the th e c h i l d r e n at time s, but I change places with up custody." CHILD CONTACT Custodial Parent While the home, some parents work and oth e r s so me families interact with each other deal an d o t h e r s g o a b o u t vidually. time s p e n t of some activities it w a s d i f f i c u l t , t o g e t h e r by and c h i l d w a s o b t a i n e d . they w e r e their own Fo r s u c h r e a s o n s est i m a t e of remain more a great indi­ but the c u s t o d i a l It w a s d e f i n e d in a rough parent as a ti m e in w h i c h in c l o s e p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y w i t h the p r o b a b i l i t y interaction. Custodial parent contact The c o n t a c t e a c h d a y d u r i n g sented by the fir s t n u m b e r day on the w e e k - e n d days the varied school of T a b l e to a great week extent. is r e p r e ­ 4-1 an d th e h o u r s is r e p r e s e n t e d by the s e c o n d a number of e a c h pair. Many children who enjoy quiet in the h o m e mo r e p h y s i c a l l y , things o t h e r activities may b u t m a y be as involved th a n p a r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p as a c h i l d w h o spends m o r e time o u t s i d e th e home. be in 58 Table Hours 4*1 Pe r Da y S p e n t T o g e t h e r b y C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t and C h i l d 2--- 3 2 " 4--- 5 4------------------ 8 4---------------------------- 10 5— 5 — 8 10 5--------------------------------- 12 5------------------------------------------- 14 E a c h b r o k e n line r e p r e s e n t s "all the t i m e . " The n u m b e r of li n e s c o n n e c t i n g t h e two n u m b e r s i n d i c a t e the n u m b e r of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h those s a m e hour s e s t i m a t e d as bei ng t o g e t h e r . 59 The a m o u n t of ti me a b s e n t p a r e n t s in c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n w a s a c t u a l l y spent of c o u r s e m o r e and t h e r e f o r e e a s i e r t o i d e n t i f y th an pare nts w e r e w i t h the c h i l d r e n . Among other fact that s o m e a b s e n t p a r e n t s w e r e city and t h a t o t h e r s w e r e caused a g r e a t v a r i a t i o n and c h i l d (see T a b l e the t i m e c u s t o d i a l living in o t h e r p a r t s in the spe c i f i c reasons, in th e th e same of th e c o u n t r y visitation t i m e of p a r e n t 4-2). Table 4.2 A b s e n t P a r e n t R e s i d e n c e in Relationship to Child Away Loc al Close Distant 6 3 5 Five absent parents had v i s i t s b i w e e k l y , saw their child w eekly, a n d tw o ha d t i m e t o g e t h e r mo n t h l y . One c h i l d s p e n t e i g h t w e e k s of t h e su m m e r , we e k s an d th e four s p e n t abse nt p a r e n t . four w e e k s of As one had n o n e w i t h t h e fo r h o l i d a y s , father. and t h r e e s p e n t h a l f of (see T a b l e 4-3). s p e n t six summer w i t h had o n l y a fe w d a y s o f v a c a t i o n w i t h t h e i r parent one Two other children had one week sum mer va ca t i o n . one their a n d three f a t h e r during o n e c h i l d h a d m a n y and Six spent the h o l i d a y s w i t h a few h o l i d a y s their absent 60 Table Absent 4*3 Parent Visitation High F r e q u e n c y Anytime Weekly Bi-weekly Monthly 0 5 1 2 Low F r e q u e n c y 8 Wka 6 Wks 1 1 4 Wks 4 1 Wk Few Days 2 3 Holidays Many Few 3 6 Five area w h i l e Flint, of the nine Detroit, relatively points o f 1 fat he rs lived in l i v e d at a d i s t a n c e . Kalamazoo, convenient. and One Six ar e the local nearby Of t w o o t h e r s , in the S o u t h w e s t , in I n d i a n a so v i s i t a t i o n w a s fath er stationed at distant t h e c o u n t r y a n d w o r l d v i s i t e d his d a u g h t e r days a y e a r . the oth er fourteen None one l i v e d 6-10 in C a l i f o r n i a a n d so e s s e n t i a l l y s u m m e r and every o t h e r C h r i s t m a s w e r e the e x t e n t of visits their time with t h e i r c h i l d r e n . T w o of the fathers of the i n t e r v i e w w i l l end of t h e 1973 school fathers a r e d e c e a s e d , located have moved year. in the a r e a at the t i m e to d i s t a n t p o i n t s Since this will have by t h e f i v e of t h e abs en t only three of the 61 absent parents living in the same locality with their children. ABS E N T PAR E N T VISITATION EFFECTS Since visitation of the a b s e n t p a r e n t the d i v o r c e e s t h e r e w e r e eleven mothers these q u e s t i o n s . Six o f the e l e v e n , thei r e x - h u s b a n d s to se e the c h i l d more; commented that Three wanted only o n e w a n t e d Five of the m o t h e r s about about the s a m e at first. handle now, s i n c e he d o e s n ' t know. One , w h o S i x sa i d the said they w e r e the y h a d bee n h a r d e r to h a n d l e N o n e of the m o t h e r s the c h i l d r e n a f t e r while said c h i l d r e n w e r e h a r d e r to same. felt wanted one mother the absent parent. the to same v i s i t a t i o n , less a n d o n e d i d n ' t handle afte r v i s i t i n g children were the responding 55 pe r c e n t , her e x - s p o u s e d o e s m o r e live w i t h them. involves only felt it w a s easier to their having visited their fathers. Two of th e m o t h e r s w h o th ei r c h i l d r e n a f t e r visits felt it wa s h a r d e r to h a n d l e to th e f a ther s their e x - h u s b a n d s to see the c h i l d r e n more. m o t h e r wh o felt the c h i l d r e n w e r e h a r d e r visiting their father. T h e o t h e r tw o m o t h e r s , children after cult, father d i d w a n t the i r s e e i n g wanted the sti ll w a n t e d Only one to h a n d l e less visitation who their same v i s i t a t i o n after for the felt h a n d l i n g the f a th er s w a s m o r e d i f f i ­ times to c o n t i n u e . 62 Fo ur of about the six m o t h e r s w h o the same to h a n d l e same in ea s e o f w a n t e d the feeling handling the c h i l d r e n w e r e after visits with wanted more child visitation with th e o t h e r two m o t h e r s , felt their fath er fat h e r s . On e of t h a t the c h i l d r e n w e r e t h e after visiting same v i s i t a t i o n their their father, a n d th e s i x t h m o t h e r d i d n ' t know. Seven of the custodial p a r e n t s of th e tota l sample, including th e p a r e n t s w h o s e ceased, felt t h a t th e c h i l d r e n w e r e n e v e r d i f f i c u l t handle. T h r e e of away rath er t h a n these s e v e n h a d left because ad just me nt , had p a s s e d Four mothers period^ h o w e v e r o n e of t h e m o t h e r s These are give-and-take to for t h e m in h a n d l i n g in the r e b u i l d i n g b e e n the ha r d o n e t o handle; her. fath ers w h o of d i vor ce . felt the m o s t d i f f i c u l t p e r i o d their c h i l d r e n w a s spouses were d e ­ of their sai d t h a t she h a d the children had handled situations; the child o f t e n h e l p s in the a d j u s t m e n t . ^W e find t h a t at ti me s of c r i s e s m o s t p e o p l e tend to have t r o u b l e w i t h t h e i r g e n e r a l heal th , s le e p i n g , lo nel in es s, etc. T h e r e s e e m s to be a c y c l e of a d j u s t m e n t to the c r i s i s of s i n g l e p a r e n t h o o d ; a - r e a l i z a t i o n of s e p a r a t i o n b - r e s o l u t i o n (death or d i vo rce) c - grief d - initial a d justment e - public phase f - rebuilding adjustment W a y n e E. Oat es , "A M i n i s t e r ' s V i e w s on C h i l d r e n of D iv or ce ," Ch. 7 E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e to C h i l d r e n , ed. Grollman (BostonV B e a c o n Pre ss , 1 D ), p p , 177 -78 . by 63 Of initial th e o t h e r m o t h e r s , adjustment 2 a n d on e were t h e m o r e d i f f i c u l t The t i m e o f cult t i m e one felt the period felt the p e r i o d of of resolution t i m e s to de a l w i t h t h e i r 3 children. r e a l i z a t i o n of t h e c r i s i s 4 w a s th e m o s t d i f f i ­ for t h r e e o f th e d i v o r c e d m o t h e r s to h a n d l e their c h i l d r e n . Eight custodial parents, thought that their children their a b s e n t p a r e n t s . 50 p e r c e n t of felt about F o u r of t h e s e and t h r e e o f t h e w i d o w e d p a r e n t s didn't think about th e a b s e n t the d i v o r c e d m o t h e r s fathers less thought not k n o w w h e t h e r relationship loved the sa m p l e , ab o u t parents were widowed, the c h i l d r e n parent v e r y often. their c h i l d r e n their Four of loved the m a r r i a g e , their while one f a t h e r m o r e an d a n o t h e r d i d father was seemed b etter th e s a m e thought than t h e y h a d d u r i n g felt th e c h i l d r e n the than love d mor e; but th e it h a d b e e n d u r i n g the latter p a r t o f t h e m a r r i a g e . EFFECTS In c o n s i d e r i n g a parent on the ch il d , divo rc ed p a r e n t s , environment the e f f e c t s of d i v o r c e o r d e a t h of five of the c u s t o d i a l f e l t th e c h a n g e for the 2Ibid. O F C R I S I S ON T H E C H I L D family. Four parents, ha d p r o v i d e d felt ^Ibid . all a healthier it had b e e n h a r d e r 4 lbid. 64 but b e t t e r . Seven parents were concerned absence of t h e m a l e m o d e l One mother living expressed in the psychological ro l e differences the h o u s e h o l d and about not having a second a d u l t available--another person Actu al ly feels things concerned to g i v e in reassurance. ar e w o r k i n g ou t b e t t e r t h a n she they would. A m o t h e r of a q u i e t boy is s i m i l a r l y c o n c e r n e d She fee l s he w o n ' t otherwise w o u l d and she Things introverted very for her have the where he ca n e x p l o r e interest. in the m a l e She also was had t h o u g h t her d a u g h t e r between the fe male. she the family. concern about getting a r e a l i s t i c v i e w of m a n ' s terms o f about intelligent so n w h o s e f a t h e r d i ed . number of opportunities is t r y i n g to h e l p h i m and develop his special are w o r k i n g out b e t t e r he find places areas of than expected at first- - b o t h a r e c o p i n g w e ll. Another mother children, th a t feel s two genders t h a t no are nece s s a r y or an i mb alance . However, better b a l a n c e since her divorce; cause m o r e b a l a n c e out m u c h b e t t e r she is c a p a b l e single person sh e d o e s fe el that is b e i n g d o n e no w. than she e x p e c t e d . one mother it tha t they couldn't there is a ar e w o r k i n g is finding her own decisions. fe l t h u m i l i a t e d li ve w i t h o u t is is b e t t e r b e ­ Things that the c h i l d r e n w o u l d be w a r p e d w i t h o u t she fel t rear that there The mother a n d she e n j o y s m a k i n g O n the c o n t r a r y , th a t can their him. and fathe r; She was 65 concerne d about male image an d so much. her s o n ’s b e c o m i n g h o m o s e x u a l w i t h o u t a b o u t h e r d au gh te r, After the d i v o r c e , things than e x p e c t e d w i t h the c h i l d r e n a n d die. She feels both children selves, m o r e Scout than with le a d e r s because loved him have worked out better sh e h e r s e l f d i d are c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h some c h i l d r e n w i t h and teachers she fathers not them­ at home. have h e l p e d . A w i d o w o f on e a n d o n e - h a l f y e a r s w a s m o s t l y cer ned a b o u t h o l d i n g t h e family together and about children's education. She was with ne i t h e r , in M i c h i g a n b e c a u s e o f aid. but held An o l d e r in b e t w e e n b o t h if he w o u l d and he r e a l i z e d that t h e r e wa s no s e n s e Ther e wa s no w a y a challenge to o v e r c o m e th e p r o b l e m s . He he was; to th e o t h e r around." terminal, in l o o k i n g back. it w o u l d be any d i f f e r e n t . see h o w g o o d He fel t if he c o u l d felt i n a d e q u a t e about doing things which haven't been d o n e - - c l e a n i n g a n d s o c i a l g r a c e s - - h e he ex pec ted. He to. Things has s o m e to g e t t h e m to d o t h ings, give in and w h e n it as see things that t h e m o t h e r w o u l d ha ve d o n e ; do all he w a n t s the financial "co m e f a t h e r k n e w h i s w i f e ’s i l l n e s s w a s con­ families, son was c a u s i n g d i f f i c u l t y w i t h ch i l d r e n an d it w o u l d h e l p her The his are w o r k i n g out can't somewhat as p r o b l e m s w i t h the g i r l s a n d h o w some p e r s o n a l problems, w h e n to to say no. One m o t h e r was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t and her s p o u s e n e v e r a r g u e d the fact t h a t she so the c h i l d r e n never knew 66 a n y t h i n g wa s w r o n g . sick. can Sh e is w o r r i e d " t r u s t Mom" father. three y e a r s ago) understand. that the k i d s m a y w o n d e r are l i v i n g w i t h she a sudden recently f e e l s th e y are w o r k i n g sin ce their Financial of to e x p l a i n but Things (She h a s This m o t h e r t h o u g h t t h a t t h e i r m o t h e r wa s because all She t r i e d would. They left (the d i v o r c e w a s security was as she e x p e c t e d t h e y a n d her t w o c h i l d r e n a concern fo u r w h o work s i n c e he r h u s b a n d ' s d e a t h four y e a r s ago. ,p e r h a p s ti m e w i t h pus hed t o o high? it m i g h t h a v e b e e n father's his d a d in o n e cas e . h a s not g o n e b a c k son h a d a lot o f standards. The father expected so m u c h m o r e to c o m p e n s a t e was c o n c e r n e d t h a t the s o n e x p e c t a t i o n s of the futu re An o l d e r for h i m to He w a s n ' t p r e s s u r e d in h i s own so m u c h a n d w o u l d h a v e fo r the p r e s s u r e . father. are working out given The mother in this s t u d y h a d n ' t that p o i n t of r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h his to he h a d be e n difficult any s p e c i a l d i r e c t i o n and h e c o u l d d e v e l o p way. fu l l y fat her.) is o n e of the live up to his is no sti ll m a y n o t out scho ol there if the y reached However, as sh e ha d anticipated. One divorced mother h o ld in g t h in gs together was mostly fo r h e r c h i l d r e n a n d p r o t e c t i n g them f r o m f e e l i n g gu ilt y. Her main toward situation their accep t i n g the through. As t h i n g s concerned with are w o r k i n g o u t interest was an d t h i n k i n g the o l d e s t to w o r k things child 67 still has t h e h a r d e s t never time accepting the d i v o r c e - - i t sto ps b e i n g a p r o b l e m . Providing a healthier environment was one d i v o r c e d m o t h e r w h o and th a t felt t h a t her the g o a l of spouse was difficult the c h i l d r e n w o u l d do b e t t e r l i v i n g w i t h her. She fee ls g u i l t y a b o u t h a v i n g h a d m o r e c h i l d r e n af t e r she r e a l i z e d partner. s h e ha d m a d e She w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t c h i l d r e n not h a v i n g a m a n was h a r d , but This m o t h e r al l in a l l l i vi ng with she couldn't have e x p e c t e d it to ta k e and she she feels anticipate. so m u c h her She better things form of hostility fe l t it this wa y . have been d i f f i ­ She w o u l d ti m e to a d j u s t h a s n ' t d o n e as w e l l a m o u n t and them. it w o r k e d o u t is c o n c e r n e d b e c a u s e cult in w a y s with the a p o o r c h o i c e of a m a r r i a g e no t to m o v i n g as sh e w o u l d w i s h the c h i l d r e n a r e expressing. A recently divorced mother is c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e lo ng - r a n g e e f f e c t s to h e r c h i l d r e n , a d j u s t m e n t lat er. for th e feels that l i f e — a b ou t kids. things their marital She a l s o is c o n c e r n e d a b o u t culty o f d a y - t o - d a y choice, about As t h ings a r e w o r k i n g are b e t t e r , that he r e x - h u s b a n d the rightness t h a t th e y ar e is p l e a s a n t and easier the d i f f i ­ of the ou t she all happier, t o ge t a l o n g with. Another mother d a ugh te r a n d sh e is c o n c e r n e d feels t h i s c h i l d about is an o l d e r in for a lot of 68 tr ou bl e. just She won't ignoring the In o n e weeks all family, talked about the c h i l d r e n This m o t h e r he r d a d o r a c o u n s e l o r ; situation, the after Kennedy's had raise see facing assassination. death, and t h e w a y he a shoc k. the told then She went to n o t the kids will talked about their but on, fa t h e r ' s react father as r e a l i t y to felt sh e w a s or b r e a k up a n d that they plans w e r e (aft er true--things The most h o pes th a t and her e x - h u s b a n d patience. At have the time of th e refused life, that as expected; her eve n usual." She They not say a that the she didn't cry little or n o t h i n g f e e l s t h a t her and were mother of to love th e pretty see h e r spouse's survey and respect bo t h . understanding interview to first. she expected. can continue and needs death she did. a relationship with is s i c k school-aged d a u g h t e r did n o t h a p p e n years) . as her to children She d i d have recently divorced the c h i l d r e n both p a r e n t s like awful, out they so o t h e r s w o u l d n ' t ; a psychologist are w orking time "business as a p a r t of still nine laid out by to: two and h e r p e d i a t r i c i a n live with. family to d o w i t h h e r that father wanted he r fa l l a p a r t he sai d t h a t crutch, At for her h u s b a n d ' s Her b a b y h a d d i e d t h e y e a r b e f o r e c o a c h e d he r reality. father unexpectedly died felt prepared t h o u g h it w a s not s h e is She feels and th e m i d d l e fat he r. behavior Things has 69 been e r r a t i c . S h e wa s s u r p r i s e d at his lack of responsibility. On e of the divorced mothers sure t h a t c h i l d r e n have m o r e unhappy home than to it that he r Things lo n g s t a n d i n g (dif ficult) in a s i n g l e - p a r e n t feels adjustments h o me . so n s have h a d o t h e r m a l e Sh e has exposure, in an seen ho w e v e r . are w o r k i n g out as s h e had e x p e c t e d . Divorce was an o v e r a l l s i t u a t i o n was b a d b e c a u s e o f the d i v o r c e . children Two (five) sons relief feel l o y a l t y to t h e i r S i x of this m o t h e r the custodial it. children and themselves. w o r k i n g ou t as difficult in s o m e ways. and f r i c t i o n parents, ar e t h o u g h t th a t things than th ey e x p e c t e d as effects of the crisis o n their Seven parents with felt t h i n g s we re th r e e a n t i c i p a t i n g four expecting T h r e e of t h e that t h i n g s a r e m o r e d i f f i c u l t These t h r e e m o t h e r s f a the r. T h i n g s ha v e w o r k e d out parents t h e y had e x p e c t e d , to g o s m o o t h l y and the other would have expected. w o r k e d out b e t t e r or m u c h b e t t e r they w e r e a n t i c i p a t i n g th e family whose The c h i l d r e n w a n t e d l o v e d b o t h p a r e n t s bu t d i d not mu c h b e t t e r t h a n for one alcohol. They all k n e w t h e y w o u l d m a k e things of t o be seven p a r e n t s felt than t h e y had a n t i c i p a t e d . are d i v o r c e d elements o f things each s i n g l e b e c a u s e of d e a t h , and unresolved hostility situation. felt as w e l l as or b e t t e r than e x p e c t e d . The thin g s a r e E i g h t of the five going divorced 70 pa r e n t s a r e d o i n g tho ug h two a r e as w e l l o r b e t t e r t h a n e x p e c t e d , finding it d i f f i c u l t , even as e x p e c t e d . S E LF-ACT UALIZ A T I O N The this study f a c t th a t m o s t of the c u s t o d i a l f e l t tha t things p a r e n t s of h a v e w o r k e d o u t as we l l or be tt er t h a n t h e y e x p e c t e d m i g h t be r e l a t e d to that as p e o p l e h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y situat io ns a n d find t h a t self-actualization. fact to cope w i t h difficult t h e y are a b l e , In c o n n e c t i o n w i t h was ask ed t h e p a r e n t s th e about being able they e x p e r i e n c e this, a question to do s o m e t h i n g they m i g h t h a v e w a n t e d to d o b u t n o t b e e n a b l e to a c h i e v e until now. O n e of th e m o s t important areas these p a r e n t s w a s th e p r o f e s s i o n a l nition. important This was group in t h e study. to ma k e t h e i r o w n d e c i s i o n s selves w a s a n o t h e r pl e a s u r e in b e i n g important free her family in a s o l v e n t One parent able the the confidence freedom in t h e m ­ to o k an d i n b e i n g a b l e financial condition. to d o b e f o r e these w a s w i d o w e d . an d b u i l d area. an d r e c o g ­ t h a n h a l f ot individual with socially felt that t h e y h a d n o t b e e n they had w a n t e d achievement for m o r e B e i n g an for a c h i e v e m e n t of to d o Only something bu t n e v e r done. to p u t that E a c h of Maybe the need to prove oneself mo r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i v o r c e than w i t h three is the d e a t h of a 71 pa rtner. M o s t of that they c o u l d the p a r e n t s achieve on took pleasure in d i s c o v e r i n g their own. REMARRIAGE T h e q u e s t i o n of r e m a r r i a g e points out, society pressures c o m e s up. As G o o d e unmarried mothers toward 4 ma rr iag e. E i g h t of t h e c u s t o d i a l are b e t w e e n t h e ag e s of and three are b e t w e e n Of al l 3 0 -39, parents five a r e b e t w e e n relationship, the parents interviewed, sa i d she h a d yes; de c i d e d a n d s t i l l no. t h i s way: her h u s b a n d c h a n g e d h e r m i n d Another love, m o t h e r of seven, said of 50. but not marriage. a a valuable said and twice sh e had no t m a r r i a g e ; divorced to probably If it w e r e like a meaningful sa i d t h e r e three yes; from "never" w a n t i n g to r e m a r r y by the a g e she would only almost decided: marriage, felt living w i t h a m a n , 40-49 O n e of t h e s e , and the o t h e r w h o h a d t w i c e m a r r i e d her d a u g h t e r , study 50- 60 . they had d e c i d e d n e v e r t o r e m a r r y . mo th e r o f six, in t h e not for relationship, One other, is a p o s s i b i l i t y o f a lo v e but m a r r i a g e is a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n . T h i r t e e n of the p a r e n t s m a r r i a g e an d w o u l d take w h a t c o m e s , 4 Press, still believed in l o v e a n d like to r e m a r r y b u t w e r e w i l l i n g as it c o m e s . On e w o m a n c o m m e n t e d Wm. J. Goo de, A f t e r D i v o r c e 1956), pp. 2-6-15,'"'2B9. (Glencoe, 111.: to that Free 72 so c i e t y is to o h a r d o n m e n realistic e x p e c t a t i o n the on l y o n e w h o w o m e n all t h o u g h t so t h a t for her. stated remarriage The is no t a custodial father was t h a t he e x p e c t e d to r e m a r r y . the r i g h t situation would be nice, The but had no real p r o s p e c t s . IDEAL SITUATION In f a n t a s i z i n g a b o u t cu s t o d i a l p a r e n t s to c o n t i n u e like w hat in the sa m e e n erg y and h i g h e r pay. the w o r k situation, th e y a r e d o in g a n d w o u l d li ke line, p e r h a p s wi th m o r e Several will Several would more a c a d e m i c w or k . One wants interesting duties aspect special concern One w a n t s lik e to t e a c h to be tio ne d as a c o n c e r n by t e n of th e work were of a secretary. sixteen; the p r o g r e s s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n for t h e i r c h i l d r e n ; The th e h o u r s of financial to be b e t t e r m o t h e r s , have m o r e ti m e w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n a n d be a b l e t o Three a n d do to three. Six of the mothers wanted male i m a g e s to be and people w e r e m e n ­ to t h r e e and the is a m a i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n more s t a b i l i t y a t home. mor e so s h e c a n use h e r o w n p r o ­ fes si ona l j u d g m e n t . type of job w i t h time, plan to w o r k as the i r c h i l d r e n g et i n t o h i g h s c h o o l . tr e a t e d m o r e p r o f e s s i o n a l l y five provide stated s a t i s f a c t i o n wi th as two is; felt a ne e d for two wanted i m p r o v e d be­ h a vio r of t h e i r sons; o n e w a n t e d c h i l d r e n to f i n i s h their education; the children one wanted t o beco me independent 73 and s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g ; well-adjusted and one specified qualities individual which sh e w a n t e d of a for her children. As wished parents money; far as for $ 2 , 0 0 0 - $ 6 , 0 0 0 m o r e a y e a r . sa i d t h e y w e r e d o i n g all two n e e d e d more making e n d s meet; to w o r k f i n a n c e s were c o n c e r n e d , one w a n t e d e n o u g h in an u n p l e a s a n t recently d i v o r c e d h o p e d until she c o u l d Eight custodial right but i n order n o t to w o r r y to r e t i r e The most for t h r e e support about and n o t have anymore. t o be s u p p o r t e d feet a n d c o u l d u s e mor e to h a v e job s i t u a t i o n ge t o n h e r tw o m o t h e r s years herself and the c h i l d r e n . Some other things parents had thoughts about were: 1. 2. In r e l a t i o n to t h e c h i l d r e n , several w anted help w i t h t h e i r c h i l d r e n and w i t h their development. Fo r t h e m s e l v e s , they w ished d e n t a n d to h a v e m o r e p e a c e to feel m o r e c o n f i ­ of mi nd . said t h a t no w t h e y we r e o k a y . years 3. one m o t h e r w a n t e d m o r e wanted more social life--she others wanted people and m o r e 4. For the last two t h e y ha d b e e n h a p p y . Socially, wo me n , One mother fr iends, another sa i d s h e wa s s i c k of to be m o r e a d j u s t a b l e tolerant. S u c h t h i n g s as meetings were travel and also attending scientific felt to be d e s i r a b l e . 74 M E T H O D OF A N A L YS IS For a n a l y s i s o f hypothes es , the d a t a simple correlations were tion c o e f f i c i e n t s b e l o w factor of th e would factors at a the .05, fi gured. Correla­ .05 w o u l d p r o b a b l y be a c h a n c e sample employed. indicate a meaningful The to s u p p o r t or r e j e c t the A c o r r e l a t i o n of .444 relationship between two .05 le v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e .02, pr o b a b i l i t y o f .01, a n d .001. The use d for this s t u d y w e r e .05 lev el m e a n s a r e s u l t in this d i r e c t i o n dental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f this s a m p l e th a t the being an acci­ is o n e in t w e n t y o r 5 percent and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h i s b e i n g a s a m p l i n g err or is les s th a n 95 p e r c e n t . The resul t in t h i s d i r e c t i o n b e i n g d u e probability of to c h a n c e a l o n e the is 5 percent. EVIDENCE APPLIED TO HYPOTHESIS Hypothesis Hypothesis 1 1 s t at es: 1: Th e C h i l d ’s S e l f - C o n c e p t as p e r c e i v e d by the c h i l d hi m s e l f a n d the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t wi ll b e p o s i t i v e l y rel at ed t o E m o t i o n a l S u pp or t, Q u a n t i t y a n d Q u a l i t y of Relationships. a. b. T h i s S e l f - C o n c e p t w i l l be to Emotional Support from Relationship, T h i s S e l f - C o n c e p t w i l l be to Emotional Support from Relationship. positively related his C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t positively related his A b s e n t P a r e n t 75 c. This S e l f - C o n c e p t will be p o s i t i v e l y related to E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t f r o m t h e N u m b e r of Significant Other Relationships. Hypothesis correlated with support ed. that strong emotional th e c h i l d ' s self-concept, From the child's significance The since it w a s related Parent significant that related related Self-Concept Support supported. from the It w a s that the Child's Self-Concept not Other Support from his supported. that the Child's Self-Concept Supp or t f r o m the R elationships was supported .05 le ve l . The child's model of acceptance self-concept, of the n u m b e r o f When related w i t h his c u stodial significant people who were the c h i l d there w a s a p o s i t i v e The Total tional S u p p o r t b a s e d on his the c h i l d w a s child s a w h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p him. been it a p p r o a c h e d the Child's to E m o t i o n a l Num ber of S i g n i f i c a n t at the has no t level of confidence. to t h e E m o t i o n a l sub-hypothesis was p o s i t i v e l y support .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e . Absent P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p wa s The .10 to t h e E m o t i o n a l sub-hypothesis was p o s i t i v e l y the Relationship was at t h e The perspective, at sub-hypothesis waB p o s i t i v e l y Custodial 1, saw these parent's to h o w parent important relationships the and to as valuable, correlation. S cores of includes the Sum of th e C u s t o d i a l the Child's Parent Emo­ Relationship, 76 the A b s e n t Parent Relationship, Other R e l a t i o n s h i p s and the N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t the Q u a n t i t y a n d Q u a l i t y of R e l a ­ tionships. These S c a l e s w e r e v i e w e d as a T o t a l the C h i l d ' s Emotional Support an d a l s o as Su m of individual relationships. The child's perspective tion of t h e child were e x ami ne d a s a total parents. They were or of w i d o w e d an d the p a r e n t ' s considered. These perceptions were for t h e c h i l d r e n th e n d i v i d e d families for percep­ and a l s o for the i n t o g r o u p s of d i v o r c e d further study. C o r r e l a t i o n s of C h i l d ' s Self-Concept Table 4.4 p r e s e n t s Self-Concept with both t o t a l s the Child's an d i n d i v i d u a l the p a r e n t a n d t h e chi ld. perception of th e c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Emotional scales Support the S u m of the E m o t i o n a l ever, perception of the p a r e n t ' s Scales t he C h i l d ' s .05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . and the S u m o f E m o t i o n a l Support tion was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . A l l of the Child's significantly with the Total the Child's and the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n s . Self-Concept Self-Concept correlated non- Sum of Emotional Support How­ f r o m the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p ­ scores f r o m the c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e and the S u m of E m o t i o n a l a n d th e c h i l d ' s Support correlated with the parent's per c e p t i o n of at the scores, from the perceptions of Both the Total Self-Concept Scale the C h i l d ' s Support from both the child's Table 4.4 Correlations of Scale A: Child's Sel f- Co ncep t with the Child's Emotional Support, Individual Scales E, F, G^, G 2 and Totaled Scales from Child's and Parent's Per ceptions Total Sample (N = 20) Emotional Support Parent's Perception Emotional Support Child's Perception Su m of Emotional Support Group E G1 G2 E F .340 .061 .226 .077 -.116 -.146 .534a .115 .320 .314 .269 .250 F CP .287 .096 PP .661a -.052 aSig nificance at .01 = .561 ^Sign ifi cance at .05 = .444 CP = Child's Pe rception PP = Parent's Perception G1 G2 CP PP Total .311 .230 .058 .497b .214 .479b 78 W i t h r e f e r e n c e to th e Scales individual fr o m the c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , tions w e r e h i g h e r Emotional more of Support the c o r r e l a ­ f r o m th e p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of th e Child's S e l f - C o n c e p t , Parent R e l a t i o n s h i p e.g., and th e .02 .01 l e v e l for the C u s t o d i a l for the N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t Other R e l a t i o n s h i p s , than t h e C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t child's p e r c e p t i o n . None of child's p o i n t of v i e w w e r e the c o r r e l a t i o n s significant. ception of the C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t ficantly w i t h b o t h from the The parent's correlated the c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on Parent R e l a t i o n s h i p f r o m the per­ nonsignithe A b s e n t a n d the Q u a n t i t y and Q u a l i t y of Relationships. Table 4.4 s h o w s th at n o n e of the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p ­ tion or the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t correl ate d significantly with of the C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l an y of t h e Support individual scales from t h e p a r e n t ' s perspective. The hypothesis be p o s i t i v e l y that th e C h i l d ' s Self-Concept would r e l a t e d to the E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t child r e c e i v e d w a s n o t s u p p o r t e d th a t th e by the d a t a of the t o t a l sample. Table 4.5 Child's E m o t i o n a l summarizes th e c o r r e l a t i o n s of the S u p p o r t w i t h hi s S e l f - C o n c e p t sub-groups of b o t h d i v o r c e d a n d w i d o w e d the data in to t h e s e for the families. two groups brings out Dividing so m e d i f f e r e n c e s . Table 4.5 Correlations of Scale A: Child's Sel f-Concept with the Child's Emotional Support, Individual Scales E, F, , G 2 and Totaled Scales from Child's and Parent's Perceptions, Widowed Families and Divorced Families Sum of Emotional Support Emotional Support Parent's Perception Emotional Support Child's Perception N ijroup E F G1 G2 E F DCP .280 -.165 ,528b .268 -.260 -.442 WCP .437 — -.327 .400 DPP •730a .698a .141 .308 WPP .246 .093 .028 .234 .072 __ .056 --.357 G2 CP -.064 .114 .414 -.205 .086 14 .040 -.739 .034 -.614 -.094 6 .276 .302 .232 .567 14 -.701 -.436 -.549 .006 6 G1 .707a .125 S i g n i f i c a n t at Divorced, .01 = .661; Widowed .01 = .917. ^Significant at Divorced, .05 = .532; Widowed .05 = .811. PP Total DCP - Divorced Children's Perception, WCP = Wid owe d Children's Perception, DPP = Divorced Parent's Perception, WPP = Widowed Parent's Perception. 80 As for the d i v o r c e d p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f Child's Self-Concept, the T o t a l S u m of tional correlated Support scores child's p e r c e p t i o n o f significantly at the wi d o w e d p a r e n t ' s .01 level the C h i l d ' s at th e his Emotional the .05 lev el Emo­ a n d th e Support correlated for d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s . correlation was no t s i g n i f i c a n t between the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of th e C h i l d ' s Self-Concept either of the T o t a l S u m of th e C h i l d ' s Emotional or the S u m o f E m o t i o n a l In t h e in T a b l e 4,5, scores f r o m th e c h i l d ' s th e s u m o f th e C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l the widowed parent's neither This higher parents the divorced Support nor were the T h e s e r e s u l t s c o u l d be du e to of the B m a l l number c h i l d r e n an d f o u r t e e n c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e . in the s a m p l e - - o n l y the s c o r e s this the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t one in t w e n t y , Self- for t h e d i v o r c e d a q u i r k in th e m a k e - u p o f t h e s e p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p s also w a s signi­ and n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s of t h e w i d o w e d and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . consistency of sh o w n Support th e C h i l d ' s and t h e i r c h i l d r e n w a s n o t e xp ected , nonsignificant p er ce pt io n. c o r r e l a t i o n of t h e C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o nce pt an d t h e C h i l d ' s E m o t i o n a l par ent s Support correlation was fro m t h e p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f Concept. and c o r r e l a t i o n of t h i s c a t e g o r y as fr o m th e p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , p ar e n t ' s n o r ficant third Support The e.g., might a c c i d e n t a l l y a t the because six w i d o w e d Because seemed probable. o f the There this c o r r e l a t i o n m i g h t be t h e .05 lev el seem significant. of c o n f i d e n c e , which 81 Because children the s i z e of t h e (min u s two for t h a n the t w e n t y o f t h e in T a b l e 4.5 are a significant at the six .01, .05 .882 two at With For the w i d o w e d of an d .611 at perceptions of In t h e the C h i l d ' s or confidence w h i l e l a t i o n of were child's perce p t i o n of tional S u p p o r t none level o f c o n f i d e n c e , The divorced tion b e t w e e n his Relationship at Scales, or widowed children's th e p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e of Others, significant t h e r e w a s no the widowed .532 a s a m p l e of significant Support both Custodial a n d the N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t again, .02 l e v e l , is Self-Concept. c o r r e l a t i o n of Support, correlations, is .661 f r o m th e p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , Self-Concept with Emotional fourteen, indicate .05. the d i v o r c e d the C h i l d ' s rather to group with the S u m m e d E m o t i o n a l from the c h ild's va l u e .612 at t h e .917 fourteen the correlations a sample of level is correction) sample, .01 correlated w ith either his total for c o r r e c t i o n ) .02, None Tot al, th e level. (minus statistical f i g u r e d at a d i f f e r e n t level. significant at divorced group parents. Parent Relationships t h e d i v o r c e d parent's at the significance Of the l e v e l of for t h e corre­ c o r r e l a t i o n s of th e his own Self-Concept approached .01 and his a significance at Emo­ the .05 however. child had a nonsignificant Self-Concept in c o n t r a s t a n d his Custodial to t h e c o r r e l a t i o n at correla­ Parent's the .01 82 level of c o n f i d e n c e of the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t and t h e c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f Custodial Parent his Relationship. In d i v o r c e d families the c o r r e l a t i o n o f the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of th e C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t w a s rel ated s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the Number of cor­ Significant Other Relationships. None of the correlations were C h i l d ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t and i n d i v i d u a l sup po rt e i t h e r significant scales between of e m o t i o n a l f r o m th e p a r e n t ' s or t h e c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n . An u n e x p e c t e d finding shown o n T a b l e 4.5 w a s lack o f p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of the A b s e n t t io ns hi p w i t h t h e C h i l d ' s correlations w e r e Self-Concept. not significant, but Parent the Rela­ In g e n e r a l , th e the i n c l i n a t i o n was negative. Also, the child's perception of hi s S e l f - C o n c e p t with bo t h the C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p and A b s e n t Par ent R e l a t i o n s h i p w a s n o n s i g n i f i c a n t . A n a l y s i s of D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Scores on Sc a l e A Score s w e r e o b t a i n e d nu mb er a s s i g n e d for each of questions which w a s included for e a c h s c a l e by a d d i n g the the a n s w e r s the on the s c a l e . It w a s h o p e d th a t a n a l y s i s of the of s c ores on t h e q u e s t i o n s w h i c h m a d e u p i llum in at e some o f to each of the reasons distribution Scale A m i g h t for u n e x p e c t e d r e s u l t s . 83 Studying the p a r e n t - c h i l d and t h e w i d o w e d families m ight clarify fusing p h e n o m e n a . ship; i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e Scales E, C u s t o d i a l F, A b s e n t P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p ; ficant O t h e r Relationships; of R e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e an d G 2 also studied divorced some of these c o n ­ Parent Relation­ G 1 , N u m b e r of S i g n i - , Quantity and Quality for c l u e s to u n d e r s t a n d the d a t a b e tt er . As T a b l e 4.6 i n d i c a t e s , b e t w e e n the c h i l d r e n there was close agreement and parent's feeling that things were not m u c h w o r s e of f b e c a u s e of the c r i s i s divorce that had affected and t w e l v e p a r e n t s children and t h e i r liv es. responded six parents did of d e a t h o r Fourteen children "no" to q u e s t i o n feel they were single-parent b e c a u s e of o p p o r t u n i t i e s th at w o u l d h a v e b e e n time. Children expressed re as o n for n e g a t i v e harrassment fusion; to the f r o m the feel s o r r y counselor. for the angry pa r e n t s family has available as t h e i r suffered fe l t m u c h c o n ­ an d c o n f u s e d , Another c h i l d *b according reaction was to fat her . The wid ow ed children's even d i s t r i b u t i o n . One mainly f a m i l y at the p r e s e n t f a t h e r a n d t h e y had th ey w e r e b i t t e r , sc ho o l status, loneliness generally reaction. Four at a d i s ­ a d v a n t a g e b e c a u s e of t h e had th e o t h e r p a r e n t b e e n w i t h th e 46. scores By contrast, m o s t of felt t h a t t h e i r c h i l d d i d n o t be c a u s e of t h e o t h e r p a r e n t ' s ranged d e at h, in a f a i r l y th e w i d o w e d feel m u c h w o r s e o f f whereas a larger 84 Table 4.6 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P o i n t s on S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e U p Sc al e A: Child's Self-Concept Points -N Child's Perception P a r e n t 's P e r c e p t i o n Do y o u fe el th a t y o u are muchi w o r s e o f f si n c e the divorce/death? no (5) (1) y e s no (5) (3) (1) ye s (3) 2 5 1 8 1 DF 11 1 4 2 1 WF 3 1 2 4 2 6 Total 14 12 14 6 20 Do y o u f e e l at p e a c e (c omfo rt ab le , easy) w i t h o t h e r p e opl e? yes (2) (0) no (0) no yes (2) (1) (1) 2 0 9 0 5 DF 12 1 0 WF 4 1 5 1 1 14 3 0 6 Total 16 14 6 20 46. 53. 59. Do y o u t h i n k th at y o u can do w h a t y o u w a n t t o do? (You are a b l e to d o w h a t y o u w o u l d r e a l l y like t o do• If y o u m a k e up y o u r m i n d y o u w a n t to d o s o m e t h i n g , ca n you?) . yes DF WF Total 60. (2) 11 6 17 (1) 1 0 1 (0) 2 0 2 no yes (2) 12 5 17 (1) 0 0 0 (0) n o 2 1 3 Do y o u t h i n k that y o u can do w h a t y o u hav e to do? (You are a b l e to do w h a t y o u h a v e to d o .) (2) 12 6 18 (1) 0 0 0 (0) no 2 0 2 Do yo u fee l a n y s p e c i a l c o n c e r n a b o u t (confident t o h a n d l e things) no (5) (3) (1) yes no (5) DF 6 4 4 11 WF 3 0 3 3 Total 9 4 14 7 your future? yes DF WF Total 61. 14 6 20 (2) 12 5 17 (1) 0 1 1 (0) 2 0 2 no yes (3) 2 3 5 (1) y e s 1 0 1 Do yo u feel c o n t r o l o f y o u r s e l f as a p e r s o n ? (E m o t io na lly , not as an o b j e c t to o t h e r s . ) (1) (3) (1) no yes (5) (3) yes (5) DF 14 2 3 0 9 0 WF 5 0 1 6 0 0 Total 19 1 15 2 0 3 14 6 20 14 6 20 62. no 14 6 20 85 p r o p o r t i o n of th e d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s the c h i l d ' s b e i n g w o r s e o f f There was for the e x p e r i e n c e . a similar distribution between parents and c h i l d r e n o n q u e s t i o n f o u r t e e n of th e p a r e n t s 53. Sixteen of f e l t that the feel c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h o t h e r s . their c h i l d r e n d i d no t only t h r e e o f for ta bl e w i t h o t h e r s . the children and child did generally Six p a r e n t s felt that feel c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h o t h e r s w h i l e th e c h i l d r e n by t h e i r ow n a n d s e e m e d c o n c e r n e d abo u t said they d i d no t M o s t of the w i d o w e d feel c o m ­ children, their parent's perception, both felt c o m ­ fo rt abl e w i t h o t h e r s . Questions and c h i l d r e n to do w h a t thin, 59 a n d in t h e i r he w a n t s 60 b r o u g h t r a t i n g s of t h e c h i l d ' s a n d ha s th e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e and t w o p a r e n t s parents responding in r e s p o n s e a g r e e m e n t of parents to do. That he in a g r e e m e n t . to q u e s t i o n to q u e s t i o n 60, being able is a b l e to do Th e two children 59 an d t h r e e felt the c h i l d wa s not ab l e to d o w h a t he n e e d e d to d o b e c a u s e h e c o u l d n o t get p e r m i s s i o n o r th e m o n e y parent commented ti e d d o w n . another felt t h a t the c h i l d was A h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of the w i d o w e d from the c h i l d ' s the c h i l d w a s One t h a t t h e c h i l d ha d d i f f i c u l t y b e c a u s e of b e i n g b e l l i g e r e n t , secure. and w o u l d b e families, an d t h e p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n , able to d o w h a t he w a n t e d T h e r e w a s m o r e d i s c r e p a n c y in parents and the c h i l d r e n in q u e s t i o n 61, t o do. scores where both a g r e e d th a t and had the in­ of the the 86 child's concern about children, bu t the future was explored. fourteen parents, n o t feel c o n c e r n a b o u t the fel t future. There were six feel t h a t th e concerned. S e v e r a l of t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e c o n c e r n e d thei r a b i l i t y and a b o u t g r o w i n g up. concern about "getting going" cerned about being able c e rne d a b o u t such li f e c h o i c e s to On e c h i l d e x p r e s s e d ag ai n . "make Another was c o n ­ it. " as a about Others were con­ fut ur e o c c u p a t i o n . Some of t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e m o r e preoccupied wi t h more specific things first t i ti on ," ni n e that th e c h i l d d i d children and only one p arent who did child was Only s u c h as "getting into "bei ng in a s k a t i n g c o m p e ­ the A i r F o r c e , " and "getting my t ee t h s t r a i g h t e n e d , " The widowed children's acr oss the range. Parents to th i n k t h e i r c h i l d r e n scores were spread evenly of t h e s e had children also seemed little co n c e r n a b o u t the future. Nineteen children the c h i l d d i d Widowed feel c o n t r o l families ing c o n f i d e n c e and also that fifteen mothers of h i m s e l f as a p e r s o n . f i t th i s p a t t e r n w i t h threatening question which the c h i l d h a d to a n s w e r a f f i r m a t i v e l y or self. it w a s All al l e x p r e s s ­ th e c h i l d f e l t c o n t r o l o f h i m s e l f . This m i g h t h a v e b e e n a m o r e Perhaps fel t that something he couldn't even the c h i l d r e n said that "lose f a ce ." admit to h i m ­ they did have control 87 over t h e m s e l v e s w i t h o n l y o n e g i v i n g a q u a l i f i e d Mo re of t h e p a r e n t s e x p r e s s e d u n c e r t a i n t y of t h i s with three qualified answers, etc. Tw o p a r e n t s e.g., ~ ‘ It w a s of the p a r e n t s ' summarized factor y e s an d no, t o cope, to to. 'or interesting to l o o k at the d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d th e c h i l d r e n ' s in T a b l e 4.7. These very s i m i l a r l y n u m e r i c a l l y 11-21. sometimes, felt the c h i l d w a s n o t ab le con tro l h i m s e l f w h e n he n e e d e d ...... an swer. Twenty-one, scores of t h e sca le, for S c a l e A as scores were distributed a l o n g t h e r a n g e of s c o r e s o r 52 .5 p e r c e n t , child s c o r e s w e r e g r o u p e d and in th e c h ild . scores of from the p a r e n t and in the r a n g e of the t o p t hr e e indicating strong self-confidence of T h i r t e e n o f t h e s e w e r e at th e h i g h e s t Table 4.7 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s T h e i r C h i l d r e n on S c a l e A: Child's Self-Concept Scale and Scores Groups DCP WCP Total DPP WPP Total 11 12 13 14 15 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 3 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 6 1 3 1 7 4 0 0 0 3 16 0 17 2 18 0 19 20 21 N 14 6 20 14 6 20 88 score of t h e 20 per cen t, scale. E i g h t of were grouped five of t h o s e on th e five we r e parent a chil d' s o w n in th e l o w e s t lowest scores score. the p a r e n t a n d c h i l d s c o r e s , score. three F o u r of sc ores, w i t h the l o we st for t h e i r c h i l d a n d o n l y one w a s Eleven, 27,5 p e r c e n t , scored in t h e mid-range. Five widowed parents mean or a b ov e, bu t fou r o f at the m e a n o r b e lo w. wi d o w e d f a m i l y had s c o r e s of overcompensate an d s c o r e d rated their t h e i r c h i l d at the children's scores were On e b r o t h e r a n d s i s t e r 21. fr om a Their mother tends 17 an d 19 to for t h e i r s e l f - concept . F i g u r e 4.1 child p a i r s h ow s a n d the r e l a t i o n o f t h e i r s c o r e s Child's S e l f - C o n c e p t . in g e n e r a l w a s Even for S c a l e A: t h o u g h d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s fairly even between parents this g r a p h d e m o n s t r a t e s pairs d i d the relationship of each parent- that many an d c h i l d r e n , specific parent-child not agree on that particular child's Self- Co nc ep t s c o r e . Scores Groups 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CP PP Divorced parent-child pairs Widowed parent child pairs Figure ■— - ■— . ■ ---------- 4.1 C o m p a r i s o n o f th e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f P a r e n t - C h i l d S c o r e s on S c a l e A, C h i l d ' s S e l f C o n c e p t 21 89 Putting 4.1, shows the same data the d i s c r e p a n c i e s the p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r s relationships Figure of the much more r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of T a b l e interrelation. in g r a p h form, as in F i g u r e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of clearly than the numerical 4.7, w h i c h t e n d e d to m a s k the 4.1 d e m o n s t r a t e s a n d al s o e m p h a s i z e s t h e n u m b e r of c l o s e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s of scores of som e o f t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d pairs. Five parents expressed le s s c o n f i d e n c e child t h a n t h e i r c h i l d e x p r e s s e d trary t h e r e w e r e confidence child d i d fo ur p a r e n t s w h o in t h e c h i l d ' s h a v i n g for h i m s e l f . were self-confidence the c o n ­ than the an d t h e i r c h i l d r e n two points E i g h t of t h o s e p a i r s self-concept wit h i n To expressed much more Eleven parents were c l o s e o n t h e i r s c o r e s ; on t h e i r scor es . for hims elf. in t h e i r or less apart rated the child's the t o p t h r e e scor es. Three of the parents predicted exactly how their children would 4.8). score their answers on Scale A F i v e of t h e p a r e n t s scored t h e i r a n s w e r s the scale. the s t u d y Thus appear parents a n s w e r e d for answered five o f the (see T a b l e as t h e i r c h i l d r e n six q u e s t i o n s on 40 p e r c e n t o f th e p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r s of to be in c l o s e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . four o f the questions Three as t h e i r c h i l d d i d and five p a r e n t - c h i l d com bin at io ns' a n s w e r s m a t c h e d on three q u e s t i o n s . who a n s w e r e d th e There w e r e two parents and t heir c hi l d r e n sa m e o n o n l y t w o o f the q u e s t i o n s two p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r s w h o a n s w e r e d and s i m i l a r l y on o n l y o n e 90 question. N o p a r e n t a n d c h i l d c o m b i n a t i o n s m i s s e d o n al l of the q u e s t i o n s . Widowed family sco r e s w e r e e v e n l y d i s ­ tributed. Table 4.8 N u m b e r o f Q u e s t i o n s on W h i c h P a r e n t a n d C h i l d G a v e I d e n t i c a l A n s w e r s o n S c a l e A: Child's Self-Concept N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s Parent-Child Agreement DF WF Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 3 5 3 0 3 3 2 5 3 0 3 14 6 20 The n u m b e r of p o i n t s o f v a r i a n c e b e t w e e n the parent-child pairs is s h o w n on T a b l e 4.9. The difference rang ed fr om n o d i s c r e p a n c y w i t h t h r e e p a i r s w h o m a d e p e r feet scor es in m a t c h i n g a n s w e r s , to twelve points w h i c h th re e o t h e r p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r s fairly e v e n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s c o r e s Table sc ore d. apa rt , There was along the a twelve-point 4.9 D i s c r e p a n c y of P o i n t s B e t w e e n P a r e n t a n d C h i l d P a i r s o n A n s w e r s to Q u e s t i o n s on S c a l e A: Child's Self-Concept Scores Gro ups DF WF Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 14 6 20 91 range. T w e l v e of t h e p a r e n t s , their c h i l d ' s a n s w e r range. c h ild 's for th e c h i l d , Eight parents, twelve p o in ts , the answ er s. 60 p e r c e n t , 40 p e r c e n t , lower range , Widowed agreed with at a five ranged to z e r o p o i n t from eight to fr o m a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e i r families a l s o ha d e v e n l y d i s ­ t r i b u t e d scores. Examining Correlations with Scal e Ai C h i l d *s S e l f - C o n c e p t f?or R e l a t i o n s h i p P a t t e r n s The four E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t S c a l e s h a v e be en s t u d i e d in d e t a i l w i t h r e l a t i o n to t h e C h i l d ' s Self-Concept Scale. Now o t h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s at t h e level w i l l be of s i g n i f i c a n c e investigated A correlation of f o r th i s .001 a n d .02 or m o r e scale. .01 wa s o f t e n o b t a i n e d when s c a l e s w e r e c o m p o s e d w i t h c o m p o s i t e s c a l e s of w h i c h they a l s o w e r e a p a rt. was i g n o r e d in thi s All o f this study because independent scales was type of c o r r e l a t i o n interrelationships of soug ht. In a d d i t i o n to t h e S e l f - C o n c e p t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r s tive a n d the C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t Relationship perspective which correlated at re sp ec ti vely , these c o r r e l a t i o n s were b o t h at the .01 level. f r o m the c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c ­ the .02 a n d f r o m the c h i l d ' s .01 for d i v o r c e d families The Counselor Relationship Scale f r o m t h e p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e c o r r e l a t e d , n egat iv e d i r e c t i o n . levels but in a 92 S o m e of th e c h i l d r e n w i t h a h i g h s e l f - c o n c e p t but w h o p r o b a b l y ar e i n w a r d l y u n s u r e belligerent or cockey, as a cov er), score (perhaps e v e n a c t i n g have little regard for t h e s t r u c t u r e of s c h o o l w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s e s t a b l i s h m e n t . There a r e o t h e r s w h o are e a g e r their o w n lo w s e l f - c o n c e p t . gain r e c o g n i t i o n dren w h o m a k e " c o o l ” to have out of t r o u b l e b u t b e c a u s e of tr y h a r d to p l e a s e , The larger up t h e m i d d l e g r o u p t e n d to t e ach er s a n d c o u n s e l o r s . to group o f c h i l ­ feel m o r e too much of an secure "in" T h e y d o s a t i s f a c t o r y work, with st a y aren't concerned with earning approval personnel. Many of tend n o t They and attention. but to fi nd it n o t from s c h o o l for a p p r o v a l th e c h i l d r e n w h o h a v e high self-concepts to e x h i b i t m u c h u r g e n c y o f c o n c e r n a f t e r such as a d i v o r c e o r the d e a t h of a p a re nt . EVIDENCE A PPLIED TO HYPOTHESIS Hypothesis Hypothesis a crisis 2 2 sta te s: 2; T h e C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y o f C o n c e r n as p e r c e i v e d by t h e c h i l d h i m s e l f a n d t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t w i l l be le ss when he receives strong emotional support. a. T h i s U r g e n c y o f C o n c e r n w i l l be le s s w h e n the c h i l d has a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s custodial parent. b. T h i s U r g e n c y o f C o n c e r n w i l l be le ss w h e n th e c h i l d has a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s abse nt parent. c. T h i s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n w i l l b e le ss w h e n the child has a strong relati o n s h i p with some significant others. 93 Th e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y o f C o n c e r n as p e r c e i v e d by the c h i l d an d t h e less w h e n he r e c e i v e d at a m i m i m u m lev el. Emotional custodial parent will strong emotional be s u p p o r t is s u p p o r t e d T a b l e 4.10 s h o w s t h e T o t a l e d S u m of Support Scales correlated w ith the child's and the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y o f C o n c e r n Scale w a s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 le v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . Sum of E m o t i o n a l Support did c o r r e l a t e with the C h i l d ' s Urgency of Concern, at the The .01 l e v e l f r o m th e p a r e n t ' s perspective. The sub-hypotheses were not supported. vidual E m o t i o n a l correlated Support so m e p a r t s of t h e par e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f indi­ S c a l e s w e r e no t s i g n i f i c a n t w h e n s e p a r a t e l y w i t h the C h i l d ' s Scales a l t h o u g h The U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n sco re s, the Child's those of the U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n , were» C o r r e l a t i o n s of C h i l d ' s Ur ge nc y of C o n c e r n In s u r v e y i n g Support S c a l e s , Table th e t o t a l e d a n d 4.10 shows of the U r g e n c y o f C o n c e r n individual Emotional t h a t n o n e of the scores fro m t h e c h i l d ' s p e r s p e c t i v e is c o r r e l a t e d at a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l w i t h a n y of t h e T o t a l Sums of E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t or w i t h an y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l Emot i o n a l S u p p o r t R e l a t i o n s h i p S c al es . The parent's Co n c e r n S c a l e per ce pt io n of the Child's c o r r e l a t e d w i t h b o t h th e T o t a l U r g e n c y of S c a l e of Table 4,10 Correlations of Scale B: C h i l d ’s Urgency of Concern w it h the Child's Emotional Support, Individual Scales E, F, G^, G2 and Total Scales (N = 20) Emotional Support Child's Perception Sum of Emotional Support Emotional Support Parent's Perception Group E F G1 G2 E F -.060 -.105 CP .355 .007 .388 .184 PP .343 -.278 .081 .072 Significant at .01 = .561 Significant at .05 = .444 .464b .076 CP PP Total .431 .369 .247 .414 .486b .027 ,678a .469b G1 G2 .253 .645b 95 Emotional Support at the .05 of E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t S c a l e s at the .01 l e v e l parent's (almost level a n d also w i t h the Sum f r o m the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n .001 level). p e r c e p t i o n of t h e U r g e n c y of As m e n t i o n e d , Concern was corre­ lated w i t h the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n of the tional Support Scales: Parent's at the .05 le ve l, the Custodial Individual Emo­ Relationship w i t h th e N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r Relationships at the of r e l a t i o n s h i p s at .01 l e v e l the .05 significantly with the S u m o f the E m o t i o n a l and t h e Quantity an d Q u a l i t y level. The p a r e n t s ' scores related the of the U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n c o r ­ the parent's Support p e r c e p t i o n s of Relationships at the .01 level. There w e r e between sc al e s situation than children's significant relationships f r o m the p a r e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of f r o m sco re s scores When Table and w i d o w e d many m o r e family of t e nd ed t o 4.11 is the c h i l d the child's himself. The be nonsignificant. studied responses, in r e l a t i o n to divorced the d i v o r c e d c h i l d ' s p e r ­ ce p t i o n o f the U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n a n d t h e Q u a n t i t y the Q u a l i t y of R e l a t i o n s h i p s at the .05 level. on the Urgency of Emotional Support None o f t h e w i d o w e d significant children's Concern correlated wi t h re l a t e d pattern of to Emotional scores an y of t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p s at a s i g n i f i c a n t The di v o r c e d parents' Ur g e n c y o f C o n c e r n correlation was and level. r e s p o n s e of the Support was Table 4.11 Correlations of Scale B: Child's Urgency of Concern with the C h i l d ’s Emotional Support, Divorced Families and Widowed Families Emotio nal Support Child's Perception Sum of Emotional Support Emotional Support Parent's Perception Group - E F DCP .416 -.052 WCP .162 DPP .427 -.052 WPP .144 — E F .181 -.071 -.074 .309 .089 .196 .202 — .364 .293 .115 .442 -.482 .764 .241 G1 G2 .521 .505 — G1 .667 .352 G2 .569b .576b -.489 S i g n i f i c a n t at Divorced .01 = .661; wi dowed .01 = .917 Significant at Divorced .05 = .532; wi do we d .05 - .811 M CP PP Total .470 .279 .466 14 .161 .181 .193 6 .352 .774a .756a -.537 -.721 .667 14 6 97 somewhat tions similar to t h e t o t a l ( e le ve n o f comprise the fourteen parents the d i v orced Th e p a r e n t s * at Emotional level. the the parents' in t h e t o t a l sample p e r c e p t i o n s of t h e c h i l d ’s U r g e n c y the Total S u m of E m o t i o n a l .01 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e , Support correla­ group). of C o n c e r n c o r r e l a t e d w i t h Support group of from the parents' (The w i d o w e d p a r e n t s ' with the perception scores S u m of at the .01 c o r r e l a t e d o n l y at .10 leve l.) Looking vidually, the at t h e E m o t i o n a l parents' perceptions on Concern correlated with Relationships a t the Although widowed parents correlations Two of divorced Of the and Quality of l e ve l. n o t at a s i g n i f i c a n t negative all w i t h indi­ t h e U r g e n c y of correlations scales relationships for relationships level, scores of These of e m o t i o n a l negative support t o th e c h i l d . the three negat i v e c o r r e lations family Absent Parent .05 Scales than of d i v o r c e d parents. are fr om m e a n i n g f u l the Quantity they were there were m a n y more Support in the are connected with the Relationship. Urgency of Concern correlations, fr om the c h i l d r e n o f d i v o r c e , was significant. o n l y one, 98 Analysis of Distribution Sca le B S c o r e s As s h o w n on T a b l e w i l l be a n a l y z e d standing of 4.12, Scale B questions in an a t t e m p t to d e t e c t c l u e s o f u n d e r ­ f r o m the d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f is d i s c u s s e d o n page the scor es to r a n k their c o n c e r n the i m p o r t a n c e of e a c h i t e m o n a s c a l e children to their responses from divorced indicating (s c o r i n g 82). Children were asked According also fr o m 0 to to q u e s t i o n and widowed as to 4. 64, b o t h families had the scores a n e v e n r a n g e o f c o n f u s i o n as a r e s u l t of d e a t h of a p a r e n t o r of d i v o r c e . Although the s c o r e s of the p a r e n t ' s w e r e al s o e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d , more divorced m o t h e r s ' responses that their chi ld felt c o n f u s i o n a b o u t pa re nts Actually, concern the d i v o r c e . t e n d e d to be le s s c o n c e r n e d had e x p e r i e n c e d c o n f u s i o n death. showed of the The widowed tha t t h e i r c h i l d r e n in r e l a t i o n to t h e i r p a r e n t ' s the c h i l d r e n h a d e x p r e s s e d by t h e i r r es p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n 64 a n e v e n r a n g e of c o n c e r n about being c o n f u s e d in r e l a t i o n to th e cris is. R e s p o n s e s to q u e s t i o n divorced families result of t h e tended divorce and to feel m o r e by c ont ra st , men t and t h e p a r e n t s Because of The t e n d e d to seemed the c h i l d r e n resentment their parents th em to feel m o r e r e s e n t m e n t . families, 65 i n d i c a t e in as a tended to expect c h i l d r e n of w i d o w e d fe el to e x p e c t little or no this resent­ reaction. t h e c o u n t e r b a l a n c e b e t w e e n the d i v o r c e d and 99 Table 4.12 Distribution of Scores on specific Questions Which Make Up Scale Bt Urgency of Concern Child 's Perception P a r e n t 's Perception N Group Important (4) (3) 64. DF WF Total 65. DF WF Total 66. DF WF Total 67. DF WF Total 68. DF WF Total 70. DF WF Total 71. DF WF Total (2) Little Concern (1) (0) Important (4) (3) (2) Little Concern (1) <0) Confusion 1because i of divorce/death 3 3 6 2 0 2 4 0 4 3 2 5 2 1 3 2 1 3 4 0 4 4 1 5 3 3 6 1 1 2 14 6 20 2 1 3 5 0 5 4 0 4 1 2 3 2 3 5 14 6 20 2 1 3 3 3 6 3 1 4 2 1 3 4 0 4 14 6 20 Resentment because of divorce/death 2 1 3 4 0 4 4 1 5 3 0 3 1 4 5 Loneliness because of divorce/death 0 2 2 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 10 2 12 Redefining relations with parents (working out new ways to relate ' to them) a 2 1 3 0 2 2 3 0 3 4 0 4 5 3 8 0 1 1 4 1 5 6 1 7 2 2 4 2 1 3 14 6 20 1 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 3 1 0 1 7 6 13 14 6 20 3 0 3 1 0 1 2 2 4 8 4 12 14 6 20 4 0 4 3 2 5 2 0 2 2 4 6 14 6 20 Self-guilt because of divorce/death 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 9 5 14 Seeing self as pawn because of divorce/death 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 10 6 16 0 0 0 Adjusting to remarriage after divorce/death 3 2 5 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 0 2 6 2 8 3 0 3 100 wid o w e d , the tot al range of p o i n t s scores scores were evenly distributed for q u e s t i o n for p a r e n t s an d Table 65. T h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of children mat c h e d well. 4.12 s h o w s t h a t th e d i s t r i b u t i o n of from w i d o w e d c h i l d r e n w a s e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d of s c o r e s r e p r e s e n t i n g loneliness, but this hi gh e r p r o p o r t i o n of w i d o w e d c h i l d r e n tended to b e lonely while most of claimed that t h e y w e r e not. Responses with parents, dren wi t h to q u e s t i o n 67, indicated little c h i l d r e n to f e e l they did. There was Widowed parents* tribut ed a l o n g indicating the c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e redefining The quantity a w a r e of scores concerning Fo r q u e s t i o n self as a p a w n , the for d i v o r c e d thought and q u a l i t y , the c h i l d ' s The to th e c h i l d ' s whereas the being more as hi s o n l y c h o i c e . self-guilt were well th e p a r e n t s l i t t l e o r no c o n c e r n . for s u c h c o n c e r n w a s rather than w i d o w e d along their children's. along the r a n g e of s c o r e s w i t h m o s t of children both expr e s s i n g the c h i l ­ scores were very evenly d i s ­ de p e n d e n t o n t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t tendency relationships than their parents c o n c e r n of t h e d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s m i g h t b e d u e w i d o w e d p a r e n t w o u l d be t h a t they c o n c e r n to m o s t o f the r a n g e as w e r e c h o i c e of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , rang e le f t a s l i g h t l y a slight tendency less c o n c e r n scores a l o n g the their scores pretty evenly distributed range of p o i n t s . a l o n g the spread and Any slight in the d i r e c t i o n o f d i v o r c e d families. 70, most of concerning th e th e c h i l d scores were seeing clustered, him­ 101 indicating parents. l i t t l e or no c o n c e r n The o n l y were a f e w s c o r e s scores which deviated for d i v o r c e d R e s p o n s e s to q u e s t i o n marriage yielded 71 a wide M at ch ing S c o r e s Child frairs for P a r e n t - distribution r a n g e of f e e l i n g s on scores for b o t h g r o u p s spread f r o m 28-5. In a d d i t i o n low er heavier d i s t r i b u t i o n of his c h i l d ' s to this m o r e the o t h e r for children him. the r a n g e general t h e d i v o r c e d parents reactions to th e c r i s i s the sentation is u s e f u l . and Figure 2 shows who had l o w e r troubled about of d i v o r c e . parent's mo r e g r a p h i c a good d e a l crepancy b e t w e e n th e s c o r e s of m a n y par ent a n d pairs. in a n s w e r i n g Only three pairs were close more was a r e l a t i o n s h i p of e a c h scores with each other, score indicated There i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p a r e n t was To s h o w b e t t e r and c h i l d ' s a n d of evenly a l o n g than the others w h i c h than most of This pairs relationships of c h i l d r e n fairly than h i s p a r e n t s e e m e d a w a r e of scores. sub ject. t h e r e w a s o n e c h i l d o f di v o r c e w h o s e was s e v e r a l p o i n t s more c o n c e r n alike, (see T a b l e 4 . 1 3 ) . widowed p a r e n t s w e r e d i s t ri bu ti on, this the s c o r e s o f the p a r e n t and c h i l d could b e o b s e r v e d of s c o r e s for p a r e n t s and w i d o w e d were g r a p h i c a l l y d e m o n s t r a t e d n u m e r i c a l l y so The this pattern a b o u t a d j u s t i n g to r e ­ fo r d i v o r c e d which i n d i c a t e s from fa mi l i e s . an e v e n l y s p r e a d and c h i l d r e n as w e l l as Again f o r either c h i l d r e n or repre­ of d i s ­ child the Table 4.13 Distr ibu tion of Scores for Custodial Parents and Their Children on Scale B: Child's Urgency of Concern Scale Scores Groups ^ _ 26 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 N DF 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 14 WF 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 20 DF 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 14 WF 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 20 Total ► Total Scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PP Divorced-- ■ W i d o w e d ---------------- N = 6 N = 14 Figure 4.2 Comparison of the Distr ib uti on of Parent-Child Scores of Scale B: Child's Urgency of Concern COT Groups CP 104 questions ranged similarly. fr o m t h r e e One p a i r s c o r e d Twelve points S e v e n of four of that t h e i r c h i l d w a s less c o n c e r n e d pressed. seven w e r e the their f e e l i n g o f one pair scored s e p a r a t e d by t h e i r s c or es . the parents, Six o f 60 p e r c e n t , two pairs w e r e in t h e i r a n swe rs , a p a r t and o n e p a i r w e r e nineteen points o n or to s e v e n p o i n t s d i s c r e p a n c y . nine points differently, eleven points different fourteen points of th e pai rs, less concern them w i d o w e d , than the child e x ­ seven points than were fel t or higher their children. On the o t h e r h a n d , e i g h t of t h e p a r e n t s w e r e m o r e c o n ­ c e r n e d ab o u t t h e i r c h i l d ' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n child expressed. occurred in o n e f a m i l y of t h i s His m o t h e r ' s than the son 's di d . s co r e It w o u l d rebelling mothers might be due 4.14). concern s e e m to lik e interrelationship was There wa s abou t and negative a n y of t h e s e they g a v e a range concern f o l l o w t h a t the to i g n o r e m u c h of t h e C o n c e r n of t h e o t h e r to a c o n s e r v a t i v e a t t e m p t to be needs . interesting way q u e s t i o n s on w h i c h belligerent against. s e n s i t i v e to t h e i r c h i l d r e n ' s chi l d their just e x p e r ­ indicated much more child h a d r e p r e s s e d a n d w o u l d s i t u a t i o n he w a s group who had The child was to hi s m o t h e r a n d d e n i e d m u c h Another th a n T h e d i s c r e p a n c y of n i n e t e e n p o i n t s ien ce d a di v o r c e . issues. in to compare t o lo o k th e th e p a r e n t a n d at the n u m b e r o f same answer (see T a b l e from one parent-child pair 105 h a v i n g no i d e n t i c a l answers m a t c h i n g of r e s p o n s e s . to one pair having perfect Nine of the p a r e n t - c h i l d m a t c h e d on t w o of t h e q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r s i m i l a r l y on tributed so th a t to a n s w e r four. The an d r a n g e of t w e l v e p a i r s , or identically only fou r w e r e t w o or more q u e s t i o n s alike. able to scores was 60 p e r c e n t , less of and e i g h t p a r e n t - c h i l d c o m b i n a t i o n s pairs dis­ were abl e the q u e s t i o n s could a n s w e r t h r e e or Si x of t h e e i g h t m a t c h e d o n three or f o u r q u e s t i o n s . Table 4.14 Number of Questions on Which Parent and Child G a v e I d e n t i c a l A n s w e r s o n S c a l e B: Urgency of Concern N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s Parent-Child Agreement DF WF Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N 1 0 1 1 1 2 8 1 9 1 1 2 2 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 6 20 Of t h e o n l y p a i r w h o m a t c h e d registered no concerns in w h i c h this perfectly, for t h e c h il d. This case w a s the p a r e n t s h a d m a r r i e d a n d d i v o r c e d s i t u a t i o n of m a r i t a l c o n f u s i o n of listed may all have been w o r k e d On the o ther hand, in b o t h t h e m o t h e r a n d c h i l d were d i f f i c u l t to face. so a way and co nc er ns be o p e r a t i n g twice one had been for a n u m b e r of y e a r s through. both repression if the life could situation 106 A t th e o t h e r e x t r e m e , m a t c h e d on n o a n s w e r s w a s w h e r e the the p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r w h o the recently divorced f a t h e r ' s h a r r a s s m e n t m u s t h a v e h a d an e f f e c t p e r s p e c t i v e of b o t h m o t h e r had b e e n l i t t l e a n d chil d. ti m e o r o p p o r t u n i t y or e v e n to k n o w w h a t needed and were not In a d d i t i o n , to w o r k to be w o r k e d likely bo t h w e r e p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h problems fa mi ly di d 45 p e r c e n t of t h e samp le . mother matched had more Very feelings in c l o s e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . mother did m a t c h w i t h another child on there things through, through. their own on The and sa m e the q u e s t i o n s as Th e c h i l d w i t h w h o m t h e in c o m m o n w i t h the m o t h e r . C h i l d r e n of w i d o w e d p a r e n t s w e r e e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d across the r a n g e of s c o r e s to m a t c h i n g o n Table five o f 4.15, c h i l d r e n in t h e men t w i t h o n e child. from agreeing on one question the q u e s t i o n s . t h e r e c e n t l y d i v o r c e d m o t h e r of t w o sample was nineteen points child but only Forty-five percent of seven points away fr o m a g r e e ­ f r o m the o t h e r th e p a r e n t - c h i l d pairs of the sa mp le c l u s t e r e d a r o u n d a s i x to s e v e n - p o i n t d i f f e r e n t i a l . The range of scores spread f r o m no d i f f e r e n c e s to n i n e t e e n poi nts apart. Four of the six widow - c h i l d pairs were at the to s e v e n - p o i n t d i f f e r e n t i a l w i t h t h e o t h e r t w o b e i n g teen p o i n t s apart on t h e i r s c or es . six four­ Table 4.15 Discrepancy of Points Between Parent and Child Pairs on Answers to Questions on Scale B: Urgency of Concern Scores Groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 N DF 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 WF 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 20 Total 107 0 108 Examining C o r r e l a t i o n s with Scale B ; Child's Urgency C o n c e r n for Relationship P at ter ns Child's A d justment correlated with the C o n c e r n at the he h a d .01 lev el . less u r g e n c y u r g e n c y of c o n c e r n sc or es tended from d i v o r c e d Child's Urgency of to r a n g e families) Concern. T h r e e of the h i g h end of in the l o w e r h a l f of correlated There a high seemed th e c h i l d r e n ' s the Urgency .02 lev el , of C o n c e r n parent's the c hild's perspective. process. was so study. interconnected w i t h and e f f e c t s , it w a s Since so m a n y at va r i o u s stages of had b e g u n a d j u s t i n g adjustment. to the c r i s i s shake it, be a recency v a r i e d other not analyzed more fro m a n d was seem t o factors, clo sel y. of l o n g e r and s h o r t e r p e r i o d s of r e c o v e r y were a mid Trauma ma y no t in this at F o r m a t i o n of the durable. factor parent's the U r g e n c y of pressure primary less r a n g e of s c o r e s . but a s t r o n g s e l f - c o n c e p t w i t h s t o o d R e c e n c y o f th e c r i s i s d i d the Se l f C o n c e p t Concern is a l i f e - t i m e to be range a t correlated with self-concept .02 w i t h scor es c l u s t e r e d the p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e from t h e c h i l d ' s (according to s c o r e of c u s t o d i a l point or better of the custo d i a l At the the c h i l d w i t h mo re Parent's Adjustment urgency associated with ad ju st ment. adjusted adjustment. The C u s t o d i a l scores If the c h i l d was w e l l of c o n c e r n a n d of the c h i l d ' s Urgency of and causes Children from the crisis Many of long before the children t he actual 109 da te of the cris is . adjusted to Th e c h i l d r e n o f the c r i s i s n i n e to ha v e s t r o n g h e a l t h y they h a v e h a d strong the s t u d y w h o to e l e v e n y e a r s ag o a l l self-concepts which would emotional support had to h e l p seem indicate t h e m in their a d j u s t m e n t . Correlations of Urgency of Concern with tional S u p p o r t 2, There Relationships were discussed s e e m e d to b e p a r e n t ’s p e r s p e c t i v e Significant Others f o r t h e child. over the The middle fie ld o f U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n s u ppo rt c h i l d r e n Tw o o f fr o m the the h i g h e r N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r e m o t i o n a l N u m b e r of g r o u p of support s co r e s Emo­ in H y p o t h e s i s less U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n correlated with the scores ranged so e v e n w i t h s e e m e d to h a v e v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of co n c e r n . the c h i l d r e n had U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n scores and these were indicating most in the l o w e r r a n g e of the N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r s Sc al e. There was less U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n perspective correlated with good support. More urgent wit h the k i n d of concern varies s u p p o r t an d indivi du al c h i l d r e n . Quantity f r o m the pare nt 's an d Q u a l i t y of from m u c h the k i n d of n e e d s There was a variety of to l i t t l e of t h e support for the m i d d l e g r o u p of c h i l d r e n o n t h e S c a l e o f U r g e n c y of Concern so th e c h i l d r e n s e e m e d to be their f e e l i n g s of U r g e n c y e v e n t h o u g h tional support of s o m e kind. at v a r i o u s stages they all h a d e m o ­ in 110 The r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h at the .01 a n d direction. .02 Three level o f chi ld re n, c o n f i d e n c e bu t all la t e d to the c o u n s e l o r b u t n o t s c o r e s we r e l o c a t e d at the Co n c e r n . Other the c o u n s e l o r w a s were the n e g a t i v e in n e e d o f a t t e n t i o n , to th e t e a c h e r s . top of the sco re s r a n g e d a r o u n d sca le o f Their U r g e n c y of R e l a t i o n s h i p S c al es , they v a r i e d e v e n l y on t h e Urgency of Concern. three b o y s who would not relate to the t e a c h e r s . Boys w e r e scores clustered ra ng e of s c o r e s o n on the e x t r e m e s o f Counselors differ talk and pa y a t t e n t i o n to c h i l d r e n r e l a ti on sh ip. be n u r t u r i n g c ou n s e l o r ' s . is v o l u n t a r y and aspects to ha v e more c o n t a c t w i t h Counselors to the t h a n do e s the (if t h e r e is one) so they v a r y in would probably tend those children who to t a l k and s e e k a tten ti on . structured the t e a c h e r dea l s v o l u n t e e r o r not, conc er n. in t h a t t h e y c a n r e l a t i o n s h i p can o f t e n M u c h of th e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h e i r a m ou nt o f g r o u p of the in a less it h a s m o r e m a n a g e r i a l with more children, th a n girls. nurturing elements W h i l e the t e a c h e r ' s w i t h the c o u n s e l o r having good R e l a t i o n Scale. from teachers atmosphere and also provide more in the m i d d l e the T e a c h e r There to the c o u n s e l o r o r or p o o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h e te ac h e r s , The girls' re­ the m i d - p o i n t of t h e T e a c h e r R e l a t i o n s h i p and t h e C o u n s e l o r but in significant fe lt n e e d s Ill E V I D E N C E A P P L I E D TO H Y P O T H E S I S Hypothesis Hypothesis 3 3 s t at es: 3: The c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t , as p e r c e i v e d by t h e s c h o o l c o u n s e l o r w i l l be g o o d or p o s i t i v e w h e n th e c h i l d r ecei ve s s t r o n g e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t . a. T h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t w i l l be p o s i t i v e w h e n t h e c h i l d h a s a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s custodial parent. b. T h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t w i l l be p o s i t i v e w h e n t h e c h i l d h a s a s t r on g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s a b s e n t parent. c. T h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t w i l l be p o s i t i v e w h e n t h e c h i l d h a s a str on g r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h so m e s i g n i f i c a n t others. Hypothesis 3, t h a t the c h il d' s relationships ad jus tment, is .05 level for and th e c h i l d ' s negatively at the t h e w i d o w e d group. no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n the d i v o r c e d g r o u p or t h e w h i l e the w i d o w e d divorce, and q u a n t i t y of are c o r r e l a t e d w i t h supported minimally There wa s m i g h t not be the q u a l i t y total g r o u p . families support tend to fe e l m o r e for g o o d a d j u s t m e n t . is d i f f i c u l t for m a n y p e o p l e the child m a y be encouraged front," etc., but th r o u g h so t h e r e This to for e i t h e r suggests support Death, to d e a l w i t h "be b r a v e , " a lot o f it as and "put up a g o o d the r e s u l t being n o t w o r k i n g c o u l d be that grief interference with good adj u s t m e n t . The c h i l d ' s from the p a r e n t ' s adjustment with p e r s p e c t i v e was the custodial supported at t h e parent .01 112 level. From the c h i l d ' s Relationship, parent may p e r s p e c t i v e of there was no be a s s u m i n g experiences. significant a better Th e p a r e n t m a y be so c a u g h t emotional support an d p e r h a p s is a p o t e n t i a l so m u c h c o n f l i c t a n d u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t The factor child's significant other supp o r t e d at the relationship. .05 to be b e t t e r w h e n he and w h o m h e has 4.16 shows of cases This it is upon. correlated with th e sub-hypothesis was adjustment some people who tends care about him the child's the Emotional Adjustment Scores .05 l e v e l w i t h the Support of sample as a w h o l e . The Child's Adjustment wi th the S u m of the Emotional Support perspective was nonsignificant. Adjustment correlations w i t h the forgotten. supported. to d e p e n d The child's significantly above Total S u m of the C h i l d ' s Su pp or t to can d e p e n d u p o n . Table correlated level. the child the re m u s t be in m a n y fo r the c h i l d adjustment was no t source f o r c h i l d r e n of d i v o r c e , no l o ng er a m a j o r The up in t r y i n g relationship was absent parent Parent of th e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p are m i s s e d o r p o s t p o n e d Although the correlation. r e l a t i o n s h i p than keep a h o u s e h o l d g o i n g t h a t c l u e s The absent parent the Custodial th e correlations f r o m the c h i l d ' s In c o n t r a s t , the S u m of the Child's the Emotional f r o m the p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e w a s .02 leve l. Scores significant at Table 4.16 Correlations of Scale C: Child's Adjustment with the Child's Emotional Support (N = 20) Emotional Support from Parent's Perception Emotional Support from Child's Perception Sum of Emotional Support Group E .422 .181 S i g n i f i c a n t at G .253 G2 -.115 .01 = .561 Si gnificant at .02 = .516 S i g n i f i c a n t at .05 = .444 E .658a 1 F G -.066 .498C G .248 2 CP PP Total ,149 .544b .462° 113 Child's Adjustment F 114 In l o o k i n g at the E m o t i o n a l vi dua lly, f r o m th e c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n , for the t o t a l g r o u p o f children wer e c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n of h i s parent correlated w it h the Support scales none of indi­ the scores significant. relationship with his h i s a d j u s t m e n t wa s The custodial significant at .10 level. Ag ai n, the A b s e n t P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p r e lat e s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Em o t i o n a l Also , unexpectedly, Support Scales Number of 1 (G ) and Q u a n t i t y a n d Q u a l i t y of d i d not c o r ­ both the Si g n i f i c a n t Others 2 (G ) f r o m Relationships the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n p r o d u c e d n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a ­ tions w i t h th e C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t A l t h o u g h the c h i l d r e n ' s s c o r e s we r e when correlated with the Child's parents' Adjustment scores and the Child's Ad ju s t m e n t The C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t .01 level was scores. Relationship was and the Numb e r s i g n i f i c a n t at the The Ch i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t , significant Score, Score significant of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r the relate. at t h e Relationships .05 level. s c o r e s of t h e A b s e n t P a r e n t the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n not Relations s h o w e d no c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h fro m the so t h e A b s e n t P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p from the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e d i d n o t c o r r e l a t e with the C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t e i th er . F i n d i n g no m o r e wi t h e m o t i o n a l significant correlations support was unexpected. associated In an a t t e m p t to 115 get a c l e a r e r picture, groups; divorced The the d a t a w e r e families sco re s an d w i d o w e d (see T a b l e 4.17) families c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the T o t a l Em o t i o n a l S u p p o r t at the w i d o w e d ficant l e v e l tions w i t h th e Sum o f significant. S u m of th e Su m s of t h e C h i l d ' s Child's the Emotional th e s c o r e s of at a s igni­ Adjustment correla­ Support f r o m the and widowed, were non­ The C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e Emotional Support significant. significant fr o m t h e d i v o r c e d .01 w h i l e b o t h divorced into sub­ families. t h o u g h no t c o r r e l a t e d were n e g a t i v e . chil d' s p e r c e p t i o n , was a level of families, divided at the The fr o m t h e p a r e n t ' s perspective d i v o r c e d p a r e n t ' s c o r r e lation was .01 le v e l an d t h e w i d o w e d p a r e n t ' s correlation was negative but significant only a t the .10 level, None of the i n d i v i d u a l fr o m the p e r s p e c t i v e children w e r e of correlated either Emotional S u p p o r t Scales the d i v o r c e d o r w i d o w e d significantly with the Child's Adjustment. From the c u s t o d i a l a significant Custodial parent's perspective, r e l a t i o n s h i p at the .01 level between P a r e n t R e l a t i o n s h i p a n d th e C h i l d ' s The w i d o w e d parent's Custodial Parent di d not c o r r e l a t e course, Relationship is the Adjustment. Relationship scores significantly. T h e r e was, o f Absent P arent there no c o r r e l a t i o n for the w i d o w e d fo r th e families. Table 4.17 Correlations of Scale C: Child's Ad jus tment with Emotional Support, Divorced Families and Widowed Families (N = 20) Emotional Support Child's Perception Sum of Emotional Support Emotional Support Parent's Perception Group F DF .375 .080 WF .529 — G1 G2 E .395 .027 .720 .045 .317 .414 F .237 — G 1 .551b -.159 G 2 CP .447 .347 -.847b .062 S i g n i f i c a n t at .01 = .661, divorced; widowed .01 - .917 Significant at .05 = .532, divorced; widowed .05 = .811 PP .712a -.772 Total .708a -.101 116 E 117 The N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r the C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t d o e s correlate Relationships significantly .05 w i t h the s c o r e s of th e d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s , and at bu t the c o r ­ relation with the w i d o w e d parents was n o nsignificant and negative. The c o r r e l a t i o n of the w i d o w e d p a r e n t s ' p e r c e p ­ t i o n s of the Q u a l i t y lated and Q u a n t i t y o f Relationships c o r r e ­ n e g a t i v e l y w i t h t h e C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t Sc o r e at l e vel . The d i v o r c e d p a r e n t ' s c o r r e l a t i o n w a s .05 not significant. Custodial parent relationship from the parent's perspective correlated with Child Adjustment level. T h e r e is a c e i l i n g on the q u e s t i o n s . Scores Parent relationship correlated with fi c a n t . rang e o f spread are m o s t l y c l u s t e r e d indicating good custodial todial th e parent at relations. .01 from the t o p (The C u s ­ from the child's p e r s p ective the Child's A d j ust me nt was There was at the a c e i l i n g on th i s not signi­ range too.) is a d i s c r e p a n c y b e c a u s e of t h r e e c h i l d r e n w h o There seem t o be r e s i s t a n t to t h e i r c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t . They use withdrawal behavior mechanisms. 12, while on t h e Children the ir c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s Custodial Parent resistant children 17-19 p o i n t s scored 22 13, scored themselves Sc al e , respectively 24, and 14 for e a c h of t h e m R e l a t i o n s h i p Scal e. Custodial Parent Relationship scored scored Two other top of the but their parents fo r them. (There s h o u l d 118 be m o r e items for b e t t e r factors o p e r a t i n g on spread of scores--discriminating " t rut h" of situation.) A n a l y s i s of D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for S c a l e C: Child's Adjustment Correlations were only. Th e r a t i n g s w e r e other questions were were n o t c o m p a r a b l e the s c a l e s f a c t o r s so t h e y w e r e 82), understanding of related to the c h i l d ' s "no," 4.18 and 4.19 to t h e c h i l d ' s 48 w a s to m a n y by tw o d a u g h t e r s a bully Se ve ral c h i l d r e n a very problems in questions were (s co ring d i s ­ used for b e t t e r for a t a l l y o f a n s w e r s adjustment composed of to in a d d i t i o n the c o u n s e l o r ' s at s c h o o l , sisters," the children you h a v e one o r m o r e c l o s e ranged an d several "Self" was m e ntioned One neighbor boy was m e n ­ a classmate "many," fif tee n boys p i c k e d o n h e r When and/or Is t h e r e The a n s w e r s also mentioned. an d m o t h e r s . said s u b j e c t i v e one. for y o u ? "brothers relatives were tioned, i n f o r m a t i o n was included but for e a c h child. any one w h o m a k e s othe r th e a d j u s t m e n t scale Question from in the c o r r e l a t i o n s adjustment, not Although these The three the sam ple. See T a b l e s ratings to th e c h i l d ' s for c o r r e l a t i o n . cuss ed on p a g e ratings th e c o n t e n t of S c a l e C. related not u s e d n u m e r i c a l l y questions f i g u r e d on c o u n s e l o r ' s in g y m and shop. an d one c h i l d said t h a t la s t year. responded friends?" to th e q u e s t i o n , (#56), only one "Do child 119 T able 4.18 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Q u e s t i o n s o n S c a l e C: Child's Adjustment 72* Child's School Adjustment C o u n s e l o r 's E v a l u a t i o n : Poor D W Tot al 7f Good 1 2 3 4 5 2 0 2 3 1 4 5 2 7 3 1 4 1 2 3 C o u n s e l o r 1s E v a l u a t i o n : Child's Adjustment * D W 1 2 3 3 0 3 Tot al Table 6 1 7 General 2 2 4 2 1 3 4.19 A n a l y s i s of D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s an d A d d i t i o n a l Questions Related to Child's Adjustment Respondents 56. Do y o u h a v e o n e o r m o r e Points Tot al 58. Sample 2 19 1 1 close Parent's Perception friends? 0 0 Can y o u se e s o m e g o a l s y o u c a n w o r k near future? Points To t a l 48. Child's Perception is Points To ta l Sample 2 19 1 0 0 1 t he r e a n y o n e w h o m a k e s p r o b l e m s Sam p l e * * 2 1 1 2 0 10 2 16 1 0 toward 0 4 in the 2 16 1 0 0 3 fo r yo u ? 2 2 1 0 0 0 **Free-flowing response, many names given rather than s p e c i f i c c a t e g o r i e s o r a n s w e r to q u e s t i o n . Tabu­ lation is no t c o m p l e t e for N = 20 for t o t a l sample. dk 1 120 said he di d not. He g a v e the a n s w e r J e s u s C h ri st . Four p a r e n t s t h o u g h t that t h e i r c h i l d d i d not h a v e a close f r i e n d - - t h e c h i l d w h o d i d no t a n d were agreement about his n o t having a close Th e c h i l d r e n w e r e g oa l s to w o r k toward in a n s w e r e d th a t they did. asked the ne a r future. One's goal was Three parents special g o a l s didn't think “o r a n g e “be b e t t e r in s c h o o l , " "improv e s e l f , " so joc key," "be a v e t e r i n a r i a n , " Scotland," and I can work o n to m a k e a n i m a l s t h e i r c h i l d ha d a n y O n e of t h e s e bo y s d i d immediate So me of and personal, "be b e t t e r w i t h Mo m , " some w e r e m o r e calculus A l l bu t o n e super beetle." the goa l s of t h e s e c h i l d r e n w e r e such as see s o m e to c a t s t h a n to h u m a n an d one d i d n ' t know. have a g o a l - - t o own an future oriented road c o n s t r u c t i o n , " "be a l a w y e r , " in friend. if t h e y c o u l d h a p p y — she s e e m e d to f e e l c l o s e r friends. hi s p a r e n t , "go to m e d i c a l "go o u t for t r a c k like "master "be a s c hool and in football," "work o n b u i l d i n g a t r a i n . " As s h o w n on T a b l e on S c a l e C r a n g e s a d j u s t m e n t to ten points b e l o w on the s c a l e . or 55 p e r c e n t , Only of the rang e a n d seven, indicates poor which symbolizes five a n d s i x p o i n t s , top of the s ca l e . t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s from t w o p o i n t s w h i c h The scor es of ele ve n, four, 4.20, or good adjustment. of t h e c h i l d r e n a r e at th e m i d d l e a n d a l i t t l e two c h i l d r e n r a t e d 35 p e r c e n t , at the b o t t o m grouped at the 121 Children fr o m w i d o w e d g r o u p to t h o s e at children the to p of t h e from divorced the scale. The homes ranged scale. homes grouped from th e m i d d l e M o s t of t h e at t h e m i d - s e c t i o n of tw o at t h e b o t t o m of the s c a l e o f ment were children from divorced Table adjust­ hom es. 4.20 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s o n S c a l e C: Child's Adjustment C o u n s e l o r 's E v a l u a t i o n D W Total 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 1 5 3 1 4 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 14 2 6 3 20 Good Adj u s t m e n t Poor Adjustment N Matching Since Adjustment, matching the were scores scores used for S c a l e C: the c o u n s e l o r ' s us e d in th e Child's ratings there were no scale. Examining Correlations with Scale C : C h i l d ' s A d j u s t m e n t for R e l a t i o n ship Patterns' R e c e n c y — c h i l d r e n w h o are having tend to be c h i l d r e n w h o h a v e h a d c r i s i s and o n e - h a l f y e a r s . the c h i l d r e n Of th e m o s t trouble in the p a s t recent divorce, is h a v i n g m u c h d i f f i c u l t y adjusting and one o n e of a sister has 122 been w o r k i n g through a lon g time. th e b r e a k w i t h the a b s e n t p a r e n t T h e d i v o r c e was a r e li ef a high score of adjustment. af t e r a l o n g along illness for h e r and A child whose a d j u s t e d we l l . ag o bu t t h e m o t h e r h a d n ’t k n o w n w h a t w a s mu c h c o n f u s i o n , g o i n g on anger, Otherwise, pected w ith more said for t h e t h e d i v o r c e was she t h o u g h t at the t i m e the t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of ch i l d an d t h e r e wa s and h o s t i l i t y at t h i s poi n t recent crisis For o n e of t h e children having problems with adjustment, three y e a r s sh e has fat her d i e d a l s o wa s w e l l p r e p a r e d t h e w a y an d ha s for in time. s c o r e s was a s e x ­ children having m ore difficulty with adj u s t m e n t and the children who e x p e r ienced the trauma be t w e e n of s c o r e s who 3-6 y e a r s on a d j u s t m e n t f a c e d th e trauma for the 8-11 years now in the c o u n s e l o r ' s The ago r a n g i n g in t h e m i d - s e c t i o n sample. Those children ago were w ell o pinio n. c h i l d ’s a d j u s t m e n t c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the E m o ­ tion al S u p p o r t R e l a t i o n s h i p S c a l e s at the levels as m e n t i o n e d . The only other score significance was with th e pe e r c h i l d r e n at the .05 leve l. child o f a w i d o w e d peers and b e c o m e involved There also is .01 and relationships to m a k e .05 approaching for w i d o w e d It w o u l d s e e m t h a t family began child's a d j u s t m e n t w o u l d ment adjusted as t h e f r i e n d s w i t h his in a c t i v i t i e s w i t h them, the improve. a c o r r e l a t i o n of t h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t ­ for th e c h i l d o f d i v o r c e w i t h the C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t ' s 123 Adjustment which is a p p r o a c h i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e at Th i s w o u l d r e a l l y be e x p e c t e d t o be h i g h e r lev el of c o n f i d e n c e .10. at a since th e w a y th e c h i l d d a y by d a y is to a g r e a t d e a l a b i l i t y of h i s significant the lives d e p e n d e n t o n th e c o p i n g custodial parent. A more accurate sca l e c o u l d y i e l d m o r e m e a n i n g f u l data. A N A L Y S I S O F S C A L E E: CUSTODIAL PARENT RELATIONSHIP In l o o k i n g at q u e s t i o n •'Does the c h i l d receive parent relationship?", 19a (see T a b l e satisfaction we of the c h i l d r e n e x p r e s s e d 4.2 1), f r o m the c u s t o d i a l see in T a b l e 4.21 t h a t e i g h t e e n s a t i s f a c t i o n in t h e i r relation with their custodial p a r e n t and s eventeen of the parents e x p e c t e d t h e m to. same d i r e c t i o n families answered as d i d t h e w i d o w e d Question about you ?" The d i v o r c e d 33 ask s, f am il ie s. "Who d o y o u t h i n k c a r e s m o s t E i g h t e e n of t h e c h i l d r e n parents agreed of the answ er. t h o u g h t t h e i r c h i l d w o u l d say that p a r e n t c a r e d m o s t a b o u t him, di d not m e n t i o n an d t w e n t y th a t the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t wa s t h e W h i l e ea c h of th e p a r e n t s in the o n e of the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t the c h i l d r e n an d the o t h e r not a g r e e i n g w i t h the m a j o r i t y of t h e g r o u p , said child, other p e o p l e care d mos t . "Wh ere w o u l d y o u w a n t to l i v e dad r e m a r r i e d ? " asks q u e s t i o n 34. if y o u r m o t h e r o r There was fairly close 124 T able 4.21 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s on S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h Ma k e U p S c a l e E: Custodial Parent Relationship Child's Perception Group 19a. Does t h e child r e c e i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n custodial parent relationship? Much (5) DF WF Total 33 . Parent's None (1) Little (3) 0 0 0 1 1 2 13 5 ie Much (5) W h o d o y o u th in k c a r e s m o s t from Little (3) 11 6 17 N Perception None (1) 2 0 2 14 6 20 1 0 1 about you? Custodial parent mentioned: 1st 2 n d (5) (3) DF WF Total 34 . 13 5 18 3rd (1) no mention (0) 1st (5) 2nd (3) 3rd (1) 0 1 1 1 0 1 14 6 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wh er e d o y o u w a n t dad r e m a r r i e d ? to no mention (0) 0 0 0 14 6 20 if y o u r m o t h e r or live Custodial parent m e n t i o n e d : DF WF Total 36. 1st (2) 2nd (1) no n e (0) ? 1st (2) 2nd (1) none (0) 8 6 14 1 0 1 3 0 3 2 0 2 11 5 16 2 0 2 1 1 2 Is it e a s i e r to t a l k no DF WF Total 54 . 9 3 12 Do y o u yes DF WF Total (5) (5) 12 6 18 14 6 20 to a n o t h e r a d u l t o t h e r (3) (1) (0) 0 2 2 0 1 1 5 0 5 ye s no (5) (3) (1) (0) 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 0 4 9 5 14 feel comfortable with parent you (3) 0 0 0 {1) 1 0 1 (0) 1 0 1 no yes (5) 12 6 18 than Mom? (3) 0 0 0 (1) 1 0 1 yes 14 6 20 live w i t h ? (0) n o 1 0 1 14 6 20 125 agreement with fourteen children a nd s i x t e e n p a r e n t s answering that it w o u l d be w i t h t h e m o t h e r . T h e r e w a s m o r e of a r a n g e of 36, answers for qu es t i o n "Is it e a s i e r t o t a l k to a n o t h e r a d u l t t h a n you r m o t h e r ? " , parents t w e l v e of t h e answered that five of t h e p a r e n t s children it w a s not, fe l t t h a t and it is f o u r t e e n of the s i x o f th e c h i l d r e n there were problems and in t h i s area of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . W h e n asked, parent y o u the "Do y o u live with?", feel there was per f e c t parent and children with ch i l d d i d comfortable with eighteen agreeing last q u e s t i o n , in r e g a r d role . and c h i l d t h a t that the pa r e n t . to t h e p a r e n t ' s c u s ­ todial r e l a t i o n s h i p d e a l s w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s parent's agreement between fee l c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h the c u s t o d i a l The the s u p p o r t of t h e There was complete a g reement of parent the child was supportive of his custodial parent. The Scale did not spread had a ceiling which indicated the s c o r e s at t h e top. The widowed families were distributed on their scores in p r o p o r t i o n to t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e to t a l sample. D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s There Table 4 .2 2 ) . t e n d e d t o be a c e i l i n g o n this S e v e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of t h e p a ren ts a n d c h i l d r e n , r a n g e d scale s a mp le , (see both a t th e t o p t h r e e s c o r e s 126 (scoring d i s c u s s e d o n p a g e 82). The children whose s c o r e s d i d n o t h i t the t o p of the scores were distributed f a irl y e v e n l y a t the parent's scores which were of the n o t at the b o t t o m w h i l e the t o p t e n d e d t o be m o r e in the m i d d l e range* Table 4.22 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s for C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s T h e i r C h i l d r e n o n S c a l e E: Custodial Parent Relationship Groups and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 N DCP WCP Total 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 0 1 7 3 10 14 6 20 DPP WPP Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 1 5 5 10 14 6 20 It s e e m s relationship wit h the r e l a t i o n s h i p that if t h e c h i l d w e r e n ' t h a p p y the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t , as less value th a n in t h e the c h i l d r a t e d the p a r e n t thought for the child. The c h i l d r e n in w i d o w e d f a m i l i e s all at th e t o p o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n , O n th e s i x q u e s t i o n s as d i d of the four of the si x q u e s t i o n s . child s c o r e s r a n g e d matching exactly be their parents. S c a l e E, child p a i r s m a t c h e d on fi v e q u e s t i o n s t e n d e d to an d nine parent- five m a t c h e d o n The discrepancy between parent- from no difference to o n e p a i r d i f f e r i n g for th e n i n e p a i r s ten p o i n t s . 127 Seventy-five percent of the pairs varied five points or less in their scores. Matching Scores for P a r e n t Child Pairs In loo kin g a t t h e m a t c h i n g of the p a r e n t - c h i l d s co r e s o n t h e E Scale, Figure 4.3, there w a s a striking a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p a i r s in f o u r t e e n c a s e s , percent of t h e pairs. was no t c l o s e , ther e was In the s i x the d i s c r e p a n c y w a s a discrepancy with the d e g r e e of g o o d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h e xp re ssed. ca se s w h e r e In one o f great. thinking w a s o p e r a t i n g i n the p a r e n t , adjust. is a s o c i a l t h a t an e l e m e n t of w i s h f u l the existing T h e ot h e r t w o a higher t h a n the child the c h i l d it s e e m e d p o s s i b l e loss In t hr e e c a s e s , the child handicap a n d was ve ry h u r t by his agreement parent expre s s i n g t h e s e cases, left u n s a t i s f i e d w i t h or 70 and h e while the child was arrangement. was confused children were also i n The child as to h o w a confused Scores 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 m CP 8 PP D i v o r c e d -- Widowed Figure ----— --- 4.3 C o m p a r i s o n of t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r e n t - C h i l d Scores o n S c a l e E: Custodial P a r e n t Relationship 24 to 128 state c o n c e r n i n g their relationships w i t h both parents have b e e n w i t h d r a w n from both these relationships. and In one c a s e th e c h i l d h a s t e n d e d to i d e a l i z e h e r a b s e n t parent. B o t h c h i l d r e n h a v e t e n d e d to be p u n i s h i n g w i t h the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t . There also were three cases where expressed a good relationship with the th e c h i l d r e n custodial parent and in e a c h o f t h e s e c a s e s the p a r e n t v e r y c a u t i o u s l y estimated of the t h a t the c h i l d w o u l d score toward s c a l e w i t h r e g a r d to th i s perh ap s i n an e f f o r t score. In each of much e f f o r t sensitive n o t to the th e m i d d l e relationship. fa ll short of This was th e c h i l d ' s latter c a s e s , the parent had made to b e o p e n a n d h o n e s t w i t h t o th e c h i l d ' s feelings, t h e c h ild , to be a n d t o he l p h i m m e e t his ne ed s . As Table pairs w e r e able 4. 2 3 sho ws , a l l of t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d to a n s w e r fo ur , tions a l i k e o n t h e C u s t o d i a l five o r si x of t h e q u e s ­ Parent Scale. This was scale w h i c h h a d th e c e i l i n g w i t h o u t e n o u g h s p r e a d to make m u c h d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . cluded o n the scal e, however, catio n in t h e d i r e c t i o n o f The of p o i n t s The questions which w ere did these indicate close the in­ communi­ items. sa m e t r e n d w a s d e m o n s t r a t e d o n th e d i s c r e p a n c y as s h o w n discrepancy and in T a b l e 4.24. fo u r m o r e o f t h e Nine f a m i l i e s h a d no families varied only one or tw o p o i n t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t a n d t h e c h i l d in 129 answering range d these questions. from remaining seven families four to t e n po in t s b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t ch il d a n s w e r s . a widowed Th e O n l y o n e of t h e s e family, seven w a s m o s t o f the w i d o w e d and a child from families were very clos e on t h e i r an s w e r s . Table 4.2 3 N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s of S c a l e E: Custodial Parent Relationship on Which Custodial P a r e n t and C h i l d Gave Identical Answers Gr ou p DF WF Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 4 3 7 6 3 9 14 6 20 T ab l e 4 . 2 4 D i s c r e p a n c y of P o i n t s B e t w e e n P a r e n t a n d C h i l d P a i r s on A n s w e r s to Q u e s t i o n s on S c a l e F Group DF WF Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 3 9 1 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 N 14 6 20 130 ANALYSIS OF SCALE F: ABSENT PARENT RELATIONSHIP Diatribution of Scores for Each Question on the F Scale Of c o u r s e , to r e l a t e divorced there were no absent parents with w h o m to in t h e w i d o w e d fa mi l i e s , so o n l y scores families were considered. There s e e m e d to be a tendency custodial parents to under-guess questions concerning Questions 33, 34, the c h i l d ' s . (see T a b l e the c h i l d ' s 55, and 63 s e e m e d to satisfaction received f r o m hi s with n i n e c l a i m i n g m u c h sco r e s b e i n g 19, absent parent satisfaction, said no satisfaction. answer on lower than a b o u t the relationship, four o t h e r s Only and f o u r t h o u g h t no n e reported four mothers th ou gh t t h e c h i l d w o u l d r e c e i v e m u c h s a t i s f a c t i o n , littl e, for fit t h i s c a t e g o r y Children answered question little a n d o n e 4.2 5) the absent parent relationship. of c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t h e p a r e n t ' s t h oug ht for six from the absent parent r e l a t i o n s h i p . In c o n s i d e r i n g q u e s t i o n to s o m e o n e else than children said dad, it w a s 36, "Is it e a s i e r to t a l k it is to y o u r a b s e n t p a r e n t , " as ea s y o r e a s i e r to t a l k three gave qualified answers five to t h e i r such as s o m e t i m e s , felt it w a s e a s i e r to t a l k to o t h e r a d u l t s than six it w a s to their a b s e n t p a r e n t . Only two mothers easier to t a l k t o hi s felt their child w o u l d find it f a t h e r t h a n to o t h e r a d u l t s an d 131 Table 4.25 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s o n S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h M a k e Up S c a l e F: Absent Parent Relationship (D ■= 14) Group 19b. Child's Does the child receive relationship? Much D 33. Little 9 1 D 4 1 ab ou t None 5 4 you and w hat happens Not 1st (5) 2nd (3) Others (1) at all (0) 2 7 0 5 0 8 1 5 W h e r e w o u l d y o u w a n t to l i v e if y o u r m o t h e r o r y o u r father remarried someone else? 1st (2) 2n d (1) N o t at a l l (0) lBt (2) 2nd (1) 3 4 7 3 1 Is it e a s i e r father? (5) 5 Do y o u D Do y o u 3 (1)ye s no (5) 6 than (3) 2 (5) (4) 9 1 (3) 2 0 (1) n o it (1) is y o u r yes 9 (2) (1) (0) 1 2 11 yes 4 1 (5) (3) 8 feel s u pportive of yes D 10 to t a l k to s o m e o n e e l s e (3) N o t a t all (0) feel c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h y o u r a b s e n t p a r e n t ? yes D 1 3 Little N o t at All (0) D 102. Much Among Others (1) no 63. None from the 2nd (3) D 55. satisfaction Perception 1st (5) Father Mentioned 36. Parent's Who do you think cares m o s t t° y o u ? Father Mentioned 34, Perception your no yes More (5) (4) Same (3) (2) Less (1) 2 3 4 2 3 no 6 f a t h e r ' s n e w rol e? (2) 10 How d o y ou think your child parent? 0 (1) fee ls (1) (0) 1 3 no toward his absent Don't think (0) about 132 thr e e g a v e q u a l i f i e d a n s w e r s , be e a s i e r for hi s absent parent. with nine feeling it w o u l d c h i l d to t a l k t o o t h e r a d u l t s than the It w o u l d be v e r y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e emotional input or only partial child about the a b s e n t p a r e n t this s i t u a t i o n a n d g e t Only information th a t f r o m the relationship would color it o u t o f p e r s p e c t i v e . the custodial parents so t h i s d a t a w a s e x c l u d e d answered question 102 f r o m t h e c o m p a r i s o n of s c o r e s with the children. D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s of C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s a n d frheir C h i l d r e n on Sca le fr: A b s e n t P a r e n t Relationship Scale F distribution was range of t h e scal e. Th e p a r e n t - c h i l d s c o r e s m a t c h (scoring w a s d e s c r i b e d o n p a g e Ta bl e f a i r l y e v e n a l o n g the 82) closely (see 4 .26) . Table 4.26 Distribution of Scores for Custodial Parents and Their Children on Scale F: Absent Parent Relationship Group DCP DPP Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 133 Matching Scores Chilci Pai rs for P a r e n t - Scale F , Absent Parent Relations Custodial Parent 4.4. There was and C h i l d A n s w e r s only one Comparisons to Questions is of i n Figu re custo d i a l p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r who scores 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ft CP O PP Divorced parent-child scores Figure 4.4 Comparison of the Distribution of Parent-Child Scores on Scale Fi Absent Parent Relationship were in e x a c t agreement on her a b s e n t p a r e n t . see th e father the c h i l d ' s In t h i s c a s e t h e c h i l d ha s r e f u s e d to a n d the m o t h e r had a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p . answers concerning and daughter seemed In all o t h e r c a s e s , combinations w here communication T e n of t h e c u s t o d i a l his a ns w e r s . to the c h i l d The child's th an t h e scores felt t h e a n d t h e c h i l d was child tended i n d i c a t e d by to b e four t o thirteen points higher than those of the custodial on t h e F Scale. Eight pairs of t h e the fr o m e a c h oth e r parents r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the a b s e n t p a r e n t less r e w a r d i n g even those seemed good between p a r e n t an d child, a n s w e r s w e r e q u i t e d i s t a n t on this scale. t o hav e fourteen parent families of 134 divorce t e n d e d to c l u s t e r p o i n t s of discrepancy (see T a b l e a r o u n d t he n u m b e r s in t h e sc or e s of s i x to e i g h t their answers 4.27). Table 4,27 Discrepancy of Scores Between Parent and Child Pairs on Answers to Questions on Scale F Points Group DF 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 Several The c h i l d , w i t h his factors could have affected these e v e n t h o u g h he m i g h t custodial concerned usually communicate well p arent m i g h t have held back things in the a b s e n t p a r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to p r o t e c t the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t from feeling hurt if the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t h a d child's results. to g i v e or n e g a t i v e b e c a u s e a b s e n t p a r e n t it m i g h t an u n b i a s e d of p a s t Even an a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h th e be e n d i f f i c u l t an d left out. answer, have either positive and present emotional investment. Of the si x q u e s t i o n s o n parent and child only answers . s c a l e a s k e d of b o t h on e p a i r m a t c h e d Five pairs did answer same an d t h r e e p a i r s this answered o n ea c h of the four o f t h e q u e s t i o n s thr e e alike. T here were the 135 four p a i r s w h o a n s w e r e d t h e san e on o n l y t w o q u e s t i o n s an d o n e p a i r m a t c h e d on o n l y o n e q u e s t i o n {see T a b l e 4.28) . Table 4.28 N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s o f S c a l e F: Absent Parent R e l a t i o n s h i p on W h i c h C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t / C h i l d Gave Identical Answer N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s Group (1> (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 2 3 3 5 0 1 DF T h ere was m u c h less ma t c h in g child on the F Scale the c u s t o d i a l than o n p a r e n t doe s g o i n g o n w i t h the c h i l d lationship. Many emotional i n d i c a t i n g th a t in t h e a b s e n t parent-child f a c t o r s c o u l d be o p e r a t i n g tivity t o t h e p a r e n t s ' "pump" the £ S c a l e not know accurately what certainly communication w i t h to between p a r e n t and the child, th e child , feelings, past i n p u t c o u l d be i m p o r t a n t re­ in this; the c h i l d ' s the p a r e n t s ' th e p a r e n t s ' is sensi­ c a u t i o n not and perhaps present factors. ANALYSIS OF SCALE G 1 : SIGNIFICANT OTHERS RELATIONSHIP D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S c o r e s for Q u e s t i o n s o n ihe G^ Sc a l e The custodial parent's ea c h a n s w e r t e n d e d and the c h i l d ' s t o be s i m i l a r s c o r e s on in d i s t r i b u t i o n for 136 questions 32, 33 a n d 57 (su mm ar ized in Tab le the mo r e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s of h a v i n g (32 and 57) more parents s o meo ne she c o u l d c o n f i d e in a n d children that he w a n t e d to, On t o t a l k to ten ded t o t h i n k the c h i l d s o m e o n e he o r felt 4 . 29 ). had fewer o f t h e if t h e r e wa s someone available. On questions ti o n s of s u p p o r t , more persons 16 an d 19, the c h i l d r e n th e y c o u l d This distinction between "confide" to feel an d than their a " c o u n t on" w h i c h said t h e y r a t h e r th a n an adult, someone they there were discrepancy may merely be Several youngsters t a l k e d to t h e i r peers t h ere was seemed c o u n t on if n e c e s s a r y parents estimated. be qui te d i f f e r e n t . about more specific qu e s ­ c o u l d ta l k t o can usually even though if they w i s h e d . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Scores o f C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s a n d T h e i r C h i l d r e n on Sca le G^: N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t Other Relationships Scores (scoring is d e s c r i b e d o n page 82) f a i r l y e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d on the r a n g e of s c o r e s divorced an d widowed the p a r e n t s (see Tab le clustered m o r e an d twe lv e, six teen. families, than a n y a mid-point 4.30 ). both i n the r a n g e in fo r the c h i l d r e n w i d o w e d pa r e n t s ' other g roup are at and scores scores o f e l e v e n from three to 137 T a b l e 4.29 D i s t r i b u t i o n of S c o r e s on S p e c i f i c Q u e s t i o n s W h i c h Ma k e Up S c a l e G: Significant Other Relationships Group 32. Child' s P e r c e p t i o n Is there yes (2) DF WF Total 33. anyone you c a n 11 4 15 DF WF Total 0 0 0 3 2 5 on e 11 6 17 an (2) DF WF Total 9 6 15 19. 1 0 1 (0) 0 0 0 1 1 2 (0) 0 0 0 5 0 5 no no one 11 6 17 3 0 3 0 0 0 yes (2) (1) (0) 0 0 0 0 1 1 13 5 18 receive no emotional None (1) (0) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 2 1 3 4 3 0 3 3 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 2 4 1 3 4 5 1 6 5 0 5 3 2 5 (2) (1) None (0) 5 2 7 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 14 6 20 support? None (3) (?) 1 0 1 (2) 7 14 6 20 if y o u (3) 5 14 14 6 20 one in w h o m y o u c a n c o n f i d e (1) no 2 o r more Does the c h i l d r e c e i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n sh i p w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s ? 4 0 4 (1) (4) Much (5) (4) DF WF Total (2) (nu mbe r of p e r s o n s ) 1 0 1 (Number l i s t e d ) DF WF Total you? From whom does your child (5) yes 13 5 18 no one adult N ta l k to ? no 2 0 2 Is there w a n t to? yes 18. (0) Who cares m o s t about 2 or m o r e 57. (1) P a r e n t 's P e r c e p t i o n Much (5) (4) 1 0 1 2 2 4 from the (0) 14 6 20 relation- (3) (2) (1) None (0) 3 4 7 3 0 3 3 0 3 2 0 2 14 6 20 138 Table 4.30 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f S c o r e s for C u s t o d i a l P a r e n t s T h e i r C h i l d r e n o n S c a l e G^: Significant Other Relationships and 16 N Groups 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 DCP WCP T o tal 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 14 6 0 1 20 DPP WPP Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 2 1 3 1 5 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 14 6 0 1 20 M a t c h i n g S c o r e s for P a r e n t / C h i l d Pai rs Only one m o t h e r was ab l e to m a t c h he r c h i l d e x a c t l y o n e a c h a n s w e r to e a c h q u e s t i o n (see T a b l e Four d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s three or each matched the q u e s t i o n s o n S c a l e G * . two, The wi d o w e d parents 4.31). fo ur of scored four m a t c h e s on f o u r q u e s t i o n s w i t h o n e m a t c h i n g t h r e e and o n e m a t c h i n g t w o of th e q u e s t i o n s o n S c a l e was o n l y o n e p a r e n t as the c h i l d did. (divorced) This was the d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s ; who answered p o r t i o n of t h e i r n u m b e r s c o r i n g b e t w e e n the p a r e n t ' s 4.32 , an d c h i l d ' s between none and eleven. a c c u r a t e to t w o p o i n t s There the quest i o n balanced distribution the w i d o w e d h a d a m u c h As s h o w n in T a b l e » for larger p r o ­ four q u e s t i o n s the d i s c r e p a n c y similarly. of p o i n t s s c o r e s o f S c a l e G^ varied E i g h t of th e p a r e n t s w e r e from their child's answer, three 139 Table 4.31 Q u e s t i o n s of S c a l e : N u m b e r of S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r R e l a t i o n s h i p s on W h i c h P a r e n t s and T heir C h i l d r e n Gave Identical Answers N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s Groups (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 0 1 4 1 5 4 1 5 4 4 8 1 0 1 DF WF Total Table N 14 6 20 4.32 D i s c r e p a n c y ot P o i n t s B e t w e e n P a r e n t a n d Ch i l d P a i r s o n A n s w e r to Q u e s t i o n o n S c a l e G 1 Scores Groups DF WF Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 N 1 0 1 1 2 3 5 3 8 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 14 6 20 140 parents to o n e p o i n t o f d i f f e r e n c e answers e x a c t l y . ference r a n g e d pe rc ent of The remaining parents' fairly evenly f r o m t h re e the parents were quite widowed p a r e n t s were of the t o t a l child fel t among sa mp l e w e r e in relation Figure the p a r e n t and child felt from f a mi ly and thought t h e others but less c o r r e c t Sixty five of th e 4 0 percent in k n o w i n g in a g r a p h i c w a y scores w e r e close how the close. child felt that m o s t of A l l of th e in a g r e e m e n t e x c e p t o n e w h e r e supp or t. little those children the m o t h e r of d i f ­ to e l e v e n . Th e o t h e r little emotional friends even though One r e c e n t l y d i v o r c e d points accurate, these . that t h e r e was was a fair d e g r e e o f parent matched to s i g n i f i c a n t o t h e r s . 4.5 s h o w s widowed f a m i l i e s were the child and o n e the p a r e n t T w o of support support felt the divorced felt much parents from significant i n d i c a t e d a f e e l i n g of child there less su p p o r t . support than thought. Scores 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 D i v o r c e d -----------------N = 14 Figure 12 13 14 15 16 W i d o w e d --- ----------N - 6 4.5 C o m p a r i s o n o f the D i s t r i b u t i o n of P a r e n t a n d C h i l d S c o r e s of S c a l e : Significant Others 141 ANALYSIS OF SCALE G 2 : QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF RELATIONSHIPS Distribution of Scores for E a c h Q u e s t i o n Question receives 18 emotional is c o n c e r n e d w i t h support. of p a r e n t - c h i l d p a i r s Table 4.33, The fa mi ly w a s m u c h parents are The d i s t r i b u t i o n of a n s w e r s fairly as s a t i s f a c t i o n to m o r e feel. satisfaction Much emotional relationships with The ch ildren more sa ti sf ac ti on fri ends, tended fr o m t h e w h i l e of to e x p r e s s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s of from the absent parent's only than children received from by on q u e s t i o n and 19, significant interested F i f t y p e r c e n t of expected their child the c h i l d r e n , the as e x p r e s s e d than their parents expected. satisfaction than and children. f a m i l i e s of b o t h p a r e n t s the d i v o r c e d p a r e n t s parent's f r o m the a b s e n t support was significant others 60 p e r c e n t of b o t h th e p a r e n t s the shown on children f a m i l y w a s e x p e c t e d by m o r e p a r e n t s s e eme d to othe rs, similar, relationships w i t h the custodial expected, b u t m u c h parent's f r o m w h o m th e ch i l d to r e c e i v e no f a m i l y of o r i g i n , 7 p e r c e n t di d e x p r e s s n o satisfaction. More parents and feel t h a t children the a m o u n t o f t i m e (question spent with a bo u t t h e sa m e as b e f o r e t h e c r i s i s . children di d feel there w a s parent's family of orig i n the 20) t e n d e d to families was Some parents and le ss c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a b s e n t th a n b e f o r e the c r i s i s . Ti me 142 Table 4.33 Distribution of Points on Specific Questions Which Make Up Scale G 2 : Quantity and Quality of Relationships Parent *s Perception Child* s Perception Grcjup Much (3) 18. Little (2) None (1) Not Men­ tioned (0) Much (3) Little (2) None (1) Not M e n­ tioned (0) N From whom does the child receive emotional support? C‘ DF WF Total 7 5 12 3 0 3 3 1 4 1 0 1 5 4 9 4 1 5 2 1 3 3 0 3 14 6 20 D“ DF WF Total 4 3 7 7 0 7 2 3 5 1 0 1 5 4 9 2 0 2 7 1 8 0 1 1 14 6 20 E“ * DF WF Total 6 4 12 3 0 3 1 0 1 2 2 4 7 5 12 2 0 2 1 0 1 4 1 5 14 6 20 10. Does the child receive satisfaction from the relationship? C* DF WF Total 11 5 16 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 5 9 5 0 5 2 1 3 3 0 3 14 6 20 D“ DF WF Total 10 3 13 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 5 4 9 2 0 2 7 0 7 0 2 2 14 6 20 E“ * DF WF Total 11 3 14 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 0 2 7 5 12 3 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 5 14 6 20 ‘Families of Custodial Parents. “ Families of Absent Parents. “ ‘Significant Others. 143 Table 4.33 (continued) Child's Perception Group More (3) 20. Same (2) Less (1) Parent's Perception Not Men­ tioned (0) More (3) Less (1) Same (2) Not Men­ tioned (0) N Is there more, less or about the same contact with the child since the separation? C* DF WF Total 2 2 4 10 4 14 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 9 3 12 1 1 2 3 0 3 14 6 20 DF WF Total 3 1 4 6 4 10 5 1 6 0 0 0 1 2 3 7 2 9 5 2 7 1 D* * 1 14 6 20 DF WF Total 6 1 7 5 2 7 1 0 1 2 3 5 7 4 11 3 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 5 14 6 20 E*“ Yes (5) 57. DF WF Total (3) (1) No Yes (5) Is there an zuluIt in whom you can confide? intimately with him? 8 5 13 0 0 0 6 1 7 ‘Families of Custodial Parents. “ Families of Absent Parents. “ •Significant Others. 12 5 17 (3) (1) No 0 N 1 0 1 14 6 20 Do you talk 0 0 0 1 1 2 144 spent with other significant for m o s t of the p a r e n t s f r i e n d s wa s m o r e o r the an d c h i l d r e n . According to responses of t h e c h i l d r e n fe lt th e y had c o n f i d e an d th e y did. they had to q u e s t i o n someone feel cent of the parents thought t h e i r c h i l d r e n di d h a v e The 4.34. toward (see p a g e Those support as a w h o l e more However, 82 15 p e r ­ and 8 5 p e r c e n t for scor ing) th e r a n g e of of the p a r e n t s scores on of th e w i d o w e d p a r e n t s w e r e scale, which for t h e i r c h i l d r e n felt. t e n d e d to to c l u s t e r indicated th a t toward that from significant In c o n t r a s t feel of t h e c h i l d r e n , whereas the t o w a r d the Only s o m e o n e to ta l k to. the their r e l a t i o n ­ and m e a n i n g f u l ; the top of t h e th e w i d o w e d scor es w e r e m o r e w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d scale, in. true significant others were many their s c o r e s t e n d e d scale. scores than divorced parents ships w i t h in w h o m t h e y c o u l d to c o n f i d e across th e h i g h e r e n d o f the children 65 p e r c e n t Scores scores they f e l t m o r e others anyone t h o u g h t th i s w a s are w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d Table 57, T h i r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of t h e c h i l d r e n did n o t D i s t r i b u t i o n of for 5 c a l e <52 same children's a l o n g t h e r a n g e of the s c o r e s of t h e d i v o r c e d c h i l d r e n w e r e to p o f th e scale. Table 4.34 Distribution of Scores for Custodial Parent and Their Children on Scale G^: Quantity and Quality of Relationship Groups 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DCP 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 14 WCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 20 DPP 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 14 WCP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 20 Total Total N 6 6 146 Matching Scores Child Pairs The for P a r e n t - ten q u e s t i o n s w h i c h m a k e u p scale G te n p o s s i b l e m a t c h e s . As shown on T a ble 4.35, were distributed evenly from none to e i g h t from parent a n d chi ld . Scores the w i d o w e d ranged from two a n s w e r s a l i k e to e i g h t of 2 provide the scores simi lar answers families answers w hich matched. Table 4.35 N u m b e r of Q u e s t i o n s o n W h i c h P a r e n t and C h i l d G ave Identical Answers on Scale G 2 : Q u a n t i t y a n d Q u a l i t y of Relationships N u m b e r O f ress, 1968 . Biller, H e n r y B. "A N o t e on F a t h e r A b s e n c e and M a s c u l i n e D e v e l o p m e n t in L o w e r C l a s s N e g r o a n d W h i t e B o y s , ” C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , X X X I X (I960), 1003 -6 . Blaine, G r a h a m B., Jr., M.D. "The C h i l d r e n of D i v o r c e , ” A t l a n t i c M o n t h l y , C C X I (March, 1963), 98-101. B u r c h i n a l , L e e G. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f A d o l e s c e n t s fr om Broken, Unbroken and Reconstituted Families," M a r r i a g e a n d F a m i l y L i v i n g , XXVI (1964), 44-50, B u rge ss , E r n e s t W . , a n d H a r v e y J. Lock e . 2d ed. N e w York: A m e r i c a n B o o k Co., Th e F a m i l y . 19^3. Burns, J a m e s J. "What it M e a n s to be D i v o r c e d , " P a s t o r a l P s y c h o l o g y (S eptember , 1958), 45-48. Cath, S t a n l e y H. " D i v o r c e an d the C h i l d : The F a t h e r Question Hour," Explaining Divorce to C h i l d r e n , ed. E a r l A. G r o l i m a n . B o s t o n : B e a c o n Press, 1969. Despert, J. Lou i se , M.D. C h i l d r e n of D i v o r c e . G a r d e n Ci t y , N.Y.: D o u b l e d a y an d Co., Inc., 195 3, Eggan, Fred. "The H o p i and the L i n e a g e P r i n c i p l e , " S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , ed. M e y e r F o r t e s . Oxf or d: C l a r e n d o n P r es s, 1949. 173 174 Fo ot e, N e l s o n N. " M a t c h i n g of H u s b a n d and W i f e in P h a s e s of D e v e l o p m e n t , " C h a n g e s in the F a m i l y , IV. T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e T h i r d W o r l d C o n g r e s s of Sociology. London: International sociological A s s o c i a t i o n , 1956. Goldfarb, William. "Emotional and Intellectual C o n s e ­ q u e n c e s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l D e p r i v a t i o n in I n f a n c y an d R e e v a l u a t i o n , " P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y of C h i l d h o o d , ed. P a u l H. Ho c k a n d J o s e p h Z u bin , lT)5-l9. N e w Y o r k a n d Lon do n: G r u n e and S t r a t t o n , 1955. G oo d e , W i l l i a m J, After F r e e P r e s s , 195?TT ♦ The F a m i l y . Ha ll , 1964. __________. W o m e n Pr es s , 19^6. Divorce. Glencoe, Englewood Cliffs, in D i v o r c e . Glencoe, 111 .: N.J.: 111.: The The Prentice- Free G r i g g s , S h i r l e y A, "A S t u d y o f the L i f e P l a n s o f Culturally Disadvantaged Negro Adolescent Girls with F a t h e r - A b a e n c e in t h e H o m e , " D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , X X VII I (1968), 49-50. G r o l l m a n , E a r l A. C h i l d r e n , ed. Pr es s, 1969. " P r o l o g u e , " E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e to Earl A. G r o l l m a n . B o st on : feeacon H e r z o g , E l i z a b e t h and C e c e l i a E. S u d i a . Bo y s in F a t h e r l e s s F a m i l i e s . U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t of H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n a n d W e l f a r e , O f f i c e of C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , C h i l d r e n ' s B u r e a u , 1970. L a n d i s , J u d s o n T. "A C o m p a r i s o n o f C h i l d r e n f r o m D i v o r c e d a n d N o n d i v o r c e d U n h a p p y M a r r i a g e s , " The F a m i l y L i f e C o o r d i n a t o r , XI (1962), 61-65. . " T r a u m a of C h i l d r e n W h e n P a r e n t s D i v o r c e , " riarriage a n d F a m i l y L i v i n g , X X I I (Februa ry, 196 0) , L e i c h t y , M a r y M. "The E f f e c t s of F a t h e r A b s e n c e D u r i n g E a r l y C h i l d h o o d U p o n t h e O e d i p a l S i t u a t i o n as R e ­ f l e c t e d in Y o u n g A d u l t s , " M e r r i l P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y of B e h a v i o r a n d D e v e l o p m e n t , VT (19<>0J , iiz-17. Lym an, H o w a r d B. Single A g a i n . C o m p a n y , I n c . , 1971. N e w York : David McKay 175 Lynn, D a v i d B. "The H u s b a n d - F a t h e r Role in the F a m i l y , " M a r r i a g e a nd F a m i l y L i v i n g , X X I I I (August, 1961 ), 295-96 . , a n d W i l l i a m L. Sa w r e y . "T he E f f e c t s of F a t h e r A b s e n c e o n N o r w e g i a n B o y s and G i r l s , " J o u r n a l of A b n ormal and Social Psychology, LIX ( S e p t e m b e r , 1959 ), 256- 62. Mace, D a vid. Marriage " S o m e R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e A m e r i c a n F a m i l y , ” an d F a m i l y L i v i n g , X X I V (May, 1962), 109-12. M c C o r d , Joan, W i l l i a m M c C o r d , and E m i l y T h u r b e r . "Some Effects of Paternal Absence on Male Children," J o u r n a l of A b n o r m a l a n d S o cial P s y c h o l o g y , L X I V (May, — 1 SUL N y e , F. Ivan. " C h i l d A d j u s t m e n t in B r o k e n a n d U n b r o k e n H o m e s , " S o u r c e b o o k in M a r r i a g e a n d the F a m i l y , ed. M a r v i n Bl S u s s m a n . b o s t o n : H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n C o ., 1959. Oates, W a y n e E. "A M i n i s t e r ' s V i e w s o n C h i l d r e n o f Divorce," Explaining Divorce to C h i l d r e n , e d . Earl Grollman. Bostons B e a c o n t r e s s , 1969. A. Ober, Ra lp h . "Parents Without Partners--With Children of D i v o r c e , " E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e t o C h i l d r e n , ed. E a r l A. G r o l l m a n . Boston: B e a c o n Pr es s , 1969. P o ll ack, J a c k H. "Seven Mistakes Divorced Parents P a r e n t s M a g a z i n e , X L I I (March, 1967), 48, 76. Make," Pond, D. A., A. Ryle, an d M a d g e H a m i l t o n . "Marriage N e u r o s i s in a W o r k i n g c l a s s P o p u l a t i o n , " B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y , C I X (Septe mber , 1965)", 592-98. an d Ro sen be rg, M o r r i s , "The B r o k e n F a m i l y and t h e A d o l e s c e n t S e l f - I m a g e , " F a m i l y R o l e s and I n t e r a c t i o n ; An A n t h o l o g y , ed. J e r o l d Hei ss. C h i c a g o s Ranci-McN al ly , 1961. Sc h a e f f e r , E a r l S., a n d N a n c y B a y l e y . "Consistency of M a t e r n a l B e h a v i o r f r o m I n f a n c y t o P r e a d o l e s c e n c e ," J o u r n a l of A b n o r m a l a n d So ci a l P s y c h o l o g y , LXI (July, I960 J*," 4-6 I— ------------- ------- 176 Sprey, Jetse. " C h i l d r e n in Div or ce : An O v e r v i e w , " E x p l a i n i n g D i v o r c e t o C h i l d r e n , ed. Ea rl A. G r o l l m a n . b o s t o n : B e a c o n P r es s, i9(>9 . Stoltz, L. " E f f e c t s of M a t e r n a l E m p l o y m e n t on C h i l d r e n , " C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , X X X I (1960), 749-82. Stroup, A t l e e L. " M a r i t a l A d j u s t m e n t of the M o t h e r and th e P e r s o n a l i t y of th e C h i l d , " M a r r i a g e an d F a m i l y L i v i n g (May, 1956), 1 0 9-13. Stu ke rt, R o b e r t P. Relationships," 301-7. "Occupational Mobility and Family S o c i a l Forces, X L I V (March, 1963), Tiller, P. 0. " F a t h e r A b s e n c e an d P e r s o n a l i t y D e v e l o p m e n t of C h i l d r e n in S a i l o r F a m i l i e s , " N o r d P s y k o l Mon ogr. Ser. No. 9. 1950. Toby, J a c k s o n . "The D i f f e r e n t i a l I m p a c t of F a m i l y D i s ­ o r g a n i z a t i o n , " A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , XXII, 5 (1957), 505-12.' " Udry, J. R i ch ar d. Th e S o c i a l C o n t e x t of M a r r i a g e . N e w York: L i p p i n c o k t , 1966. Walter, W i l l a r d . The O l d Lo v e an d the New: D i v o r c e an d R e a d j u s t m e n t . C a r b o n d a l e and E d w a r ^ s v i l l e : S o u t h e r n I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967. Zimmerm an, C h a r l e s C . , a n d L u ci us F. C e r v a n t e s . Successful American Families. N e w York: P a g e a n t P r e s s i960. Research Guides Goode, W i l l i a m J. , and P a u l K. Katt. Methods in Social R e s e a r c h . N e w York: M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o ., I n c ., T952. Mann, P e t e r H. M e t h o d s of S o c i o l o g i c a l S c h o c k e n B o o k s , I n c . , 196B. Enquiry. Payne, S t a n l e y L. The A r t of A s k i n g Q u e s t i o n s . N.J.: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1951. N e w Yor k: Princeton, Shaffer, L a u r a n c e F. P r e p a r i n g D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n s on P s y c h o l o g y . N e w Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e b r e s s , 1967. Stacey, M a r g a r e t . Methods of Social P e r g a m o n P r e s s , l9fc&. Research. Oxford: APPENDICES APPENDIX A L E TTER AND RESPONSE FORM APPENDIX A LETTER AND RESPONSE FORM C. E. MacDonald Middle School............... John A. Hannah Middle School East Lansing, Michigan May 26, 1972 Dear Parentsi Although some attention parent families, little find themselves in this centage of children who increasing. has been given to programs for adults in single or nothing has been done for the children who situation. There is an amazingly high per­ fall into this category and the number is Problems of adjustment for children in this period of single parenthood have many long and short range repercussions for the child. Some re­ search indicates that this period affects the manner in which the child will adjust to his home if and when his parent remarriesj it may also affect his adjustment to his own marriage relationship, as well as other personal problems throughout life. One of the most unsettling conditions for the child to cope with in a traumatic shift of the parental marriage relationship is the probable— at least temporarily— loss of stability in the family structure. Even familiar people will be likely to treat the child differently and he is likely to have many new situations in which to interact, as he takes on his new roles in family, school and community. In order for the child to adjust well as a child in a single parent family, he must develop flexible skills of adaptation. As the divorced mother of six children, I am interested in working with the yMCA and Middle School staff to set up some kind of a program for our Middle School aged children which will be planned to meet their specific needs. We hope to start such a program in the fall of 1972. In order to determine the real needs of these children, I would like to obtain your permission and cooperation to interview you and your child in relation to gathering this pertinent information. All information will be regarded as confidential and will be used as the basis for planning the type of program that seems to be needed. 177 178 May 26, 1972 Page 2 1 would appreciate knowing about any child whom you think might benefit from such a program as this. Would you please return the form to the school or call the counselors, Mrs. Lois P r e a r s , Miss Sandi Vaughn or Mr. Wally Juall, so that we can contact you to make further arrangements. Sincerely yours, Carolyn L . Farquhar Sandra Vaughn L o i s Frears Wally Juall CLF:as Enclosure MIDDLE SCHOOL CHILDi Name Sex Name of School Address Phone N o . Living with Mother Age Father other Age at time of parent separation Parents separated by Death Child's brothers and sisters _ _ _ _ _ with their ages Name Divorce Other Age APPENDIX B Q U E S T I O N N A I R E G I V E N TO T H E C H I L D AND THE PARENT APPENDIX B 0WESTICWNA1RE G IV E N TO THE C H IL D AND THE PARENT K id d l a School 1. c h i 1d r a n In S ln g la - P a r a n t F M d lia a y o a itlo n n a i ra a io t h a r e h i l d 1m ~ n. f aLha r li v i n g w ith o th a r J. 4. 6. c h ild * a d a ta o f b irth r.ama a g a — tim a aga v h a ra 7, How lo n g h a v a y o u llv a d in th a f i. How lo n g h a v a y o u llv a d at th la 9. a y m p a th a tlc a tta n tlo n 10. To h ava w a rn a n d p a ta o n a l 11. A tta tip t to h a lp I t la d i f f i c u l t changa, b u t t r y A rr a n g a m a n t fo r to to c o m p a n s a ta fo r naada liv in g (y a a ra ) hava ( y a a r a /'a i o n t h a ) aa a r a a u lt o f c h ild b a ln g fro m a * ln g la ~ U ttla nona — — b a ln g a c h ild a a tlm a ta th a a a o u n t o f t a l l ma w h a t y o u t h i n k c o n ta c t w lth t v h a ra much to c o n c a rn aga a ra a 7 ________ ta a c h a r d a a th o t h a r _______ fo r p a r a n t* * abaanca H a t b ro th a r* a ■la t a r a /a g a / v h a ra li v i n g nama a d d ra a a ? to w a rd th a c h i l d do aa h la Doaa any t a a c h a r i & aa i* t o p a y liv in g E a a t L a n a in g N hat a t t lt u d a a p a r a n t fa m ily ? o f a a p a r a tio n d lv o rc * B aa a o n d a l ly o f a a in g la - p a r a n t fa m ily — t i m a a p a n t w i t h a a c h p a r a n t b a c a u a a a o m any w o u ld b a u a u a l d u r i n g t h l a a c h o o l y a a r i w a a k ly w aakanda m o n t h ly • u m ta r a h o i 1d a y * th in g * no v la ita o th a r 12. p ra a a n t p a ra n t 11. abaant p a ra n t 1 4 . f a m ily o f p r a a a n t p a r a n t lTT, f a m i l y o f a b a a n t p a r a n t lb . a ig n lflc a n t o th a r* w h o 7 | I m p o r t a n t p a o p la t o c h V l d , c lo a a f r i a n d a l * 17. In If g a n a r a l, a ra no, chacki th a a * a r r a n t o w l l a _____ IB. f r o m whom d o a a t h a c h i l d now r a o a l v a a m o t lo n a l a u p p o r 17 n ta a g r a a a b la t o to huaband a ll p a r tla a ? yaa t o c h ild r a n much T ittl. no n a mucb llttla no n a norm aam a la a a p ra a a n t p a ra n t ab aan t p a ra n t fa m ily - p ra a a n t p a ra n t fa m ily - a b a a n t p a ra n t ■la n l f ic a n t o th a ra 19. 20. D oaa t h a c h i l d now r a o a l v a a a t l a f a c t lo n f r c a th a r a la t lo n a h ip ? p ra a a n t p a ra n t ab aan t p a ra n t fa m ily - p ra a a n t p a ra n t fa a d ly - a b a a n t p a ra n t ■ lg n lr lc a n t o th a ra la th a r a m o ra, la a a , o r a b o u t th a a ana c o n t a c t w i t h t h a c h i l d a ln o a th a a a p a r a tio n ? • A l l n o ta a i n b r a c k a t a waa i n t a r v i a w a d . in d lc a ta a d d itio n a l p ra a a n t p a ra n t a baan t p a ra n t f a in T ly - p r a a a n t p a r a n t f a m ily - a b a a n t p a ra n t a i g n l f l c a n t o L h a ra a a p la n a to r y 179 in fo r m a tio n g iv a n to a a c h p a r a o n who 180 21. Do you play on a playground a lot? a. 22. no Where? Do you play with other children in the neighborhood? a. 23. yes Who? yes no [first names] Do you belong to any kind of program that has camping trips? yes no a. Go often? yes no 24. Do you belong to any church program? 25. Do you belong to any organized social group? a. yes no yes no What? (Scouts, YMCA, 4-H) 26. Do you belong to any service group? yes no a . What? (volunteers, etc.) 27. Is there any group of kids you rap with? a. yes no Who? 28. Do you enjoy talking [rapping] to kids in this way? 29. Do you rap with other kids often? 30. a. How often? b. When? c. Where? yes no no Do you ever talk to your school counselor? a. yes yes no How often? 31. Can you tell your counselor anything you want to? 32. is there anyone (else) you can talk to when you feel y o u want to? yes no a. Who? yes no 181 33. Who do you think cares most about you and what happens to you? a. Anyone else7 34. Where would you want to live if your mother and/or you dad remarried someone else? 35. Is there any place you go where you can talk with your parent and with other kids and their parents? [together] ________________ 36. Is it easier to talk to other parents father? yes no a. 37. 36. (or adults) than your Is it easier to talk to other parents mother? yes no (or adults) than your Do you have to be careful what you say to your own parent? yes no a. to not hurt parent? [in order to protect your parent] yes yes no no (mother) (father) b. to not hurt self? yes yes no no (mother) (father) Is there any place where you can do things with other kids after school? yes no a. _______________________________ sports/games - where? b. ________________________________________________________________ activities/arts-craftB - where? interest groupB/hobbies - where? 39. Do you prefer organized activities that you can participate in? yes no a. 40. What? Do you prefer to do things with other kids spontaneously, on the spur of the moment, without planning ahead? yes no a. What? 182 41. Have you ever gone camping with your father? a. 42. yea no no To an organized camp with father? a. 43. With your mother? yea To organized camp with mother? yes yes no no What kind of things do (did— in case of deceased parent] you like best to do with your father? a. With your mother? (one-to-one) 44. What do you like best to do with your brothers and sisters and with your mother? (as a group) 45. What do you like best to do with your brothers and sisters and with your father? (as a group) 46. Do you feel that you are much worse off since the divorce/death? yes no a. How? 47. Is your school work up-to-par, usually? 4Q. is there anyone who makes problems for you especially? a. 49. Many people? yes yes no yes Did divoroe/death make a difference in relation to your school mates? yes no 50. Do you feel that there are people who are important child) who care about you? yes no 51. Do you have plenty to do that interests you, that you want to do? yes no a. 52. 53. to you (the What? Can you talk with your teachers about anything you want to? yes no a. no no Do you feel that you are accepted by your school mates? a. yes Do you? yes no Do you feel at peace (comfortable, easy) with other people? yes no no 183 54. Do you feel comfortable when you are with the parent with whom you live? yes no 55. Do you feel comfortable with your other parent? 56. Do you have one or more close friend(s)? a. 57. Who? yes no no b. Age__________ Is there an adult in whom you can confide? a. yes yes no Do you talk intimately with him (tell something important to him that you may not want others to knowj very closely about personal things) yes no 56. Can you see some goals you want to work toward in the near future? yes no 59. Do you think that you can [are able] to do what you want to do? yes no 60. Do you think that you can [are able] to do what you have to do? yes no 61. Do you feel any special concern [conpetent to handle] about your future? yes no a. About what? 62. Do you feel control of youraelf as a person? yes (emotionally, that you are not an object to others) 63. Do you feel Bupportive of your father's new role? education, remarry, etc.) yes no a. Of your mother's new role? yeB no (get no Please rank the following concerns as to their importance to you (child) [how much you feel concerned about them as you remember your feelings at the time of death/divorce or shortly after]x 1 “ extremely importantj 2 “ important) 3 “ some concern) 4 » not much; 5 - very little concern. 1 64 65 66 67 Confusion because of divorce/death Resentment because of divorce/death Loneliness because of divorce/death Redefining relations with parents (working out new ways to relate to them) 68 Self-guilt because of divorce/death 69 New adjustment with peers (same age group friends) 70 Seeing self as pawn because of divorce/death 71 Adjusting to remarriage after divorce/death 72' Rating of child's school adjustment by counselor 73' Rating of child's general adjustment by counselor 74' Rating of custodial parent's general adjustment by counselor 2 3 4 1 184 Questionnaire Given Only to the Parent Regarding the parent: 72. ^ ^ .. Do you have a job at the present? 73. What kind of work are you doing (or what do you usually do)? 74. During your marriage did you have a job? a. Amount of time: b. Proportion of time: full time p art time yea all the time yes no no once in a while full time seldom part time 75. At the time of final separation/death did you have a job? full time yes . .. no 1 part time 76. What was the last grade you conpleted in school?_____________ 77. What was the last grade your spouse completed in school? 70. What is/was his usual o 79, Was he/she a steady worker? _________________ always works (ed) steady/hard c c u frequent layoffs 00. p a t i o n ? _ ___________ steady except un­ avoidable layoffs never worked long periodB What was your age when you were married?_______________________ a. Spouse's age? (when married) 81. How long did you know your former spouse before marriage? 82. How long was the engagement?________________________________ 83. How many years were you married? 84. How long between separation and divorce? 65. Date of divorce/death______________________________________________ 86. How long since divorce/death 87. Has child support been adequate? 88. Regular? yes no Yes years/monthB no 185 89. Was the settlement fair? a. 90. yes no Agreement/disagreement in making the settlement. Compare financial situation at different periods* in appropriate square: During marriage mother father Time of final separation mothe r father Use a check Present time mother father 1. highest income 2. most savings 3. best financial situation (1 & 2) 4 . most in debt 5. worst financially We find that at times of crises most people tend to have trouble with their general health, sleeping, loneliness, otc.There seems to be a cycle of adjustment to the crisis of single parenthood! a - realization of separation; b - resolution (death or divorce) c - grief (card with definitions to d - initial adjustment respondent) e - public phase f - rebuilding adjustment 91. Was your health poorer during any one of these periods? ab c de f 92. Was there any time when you had difficulty sleeping? ab c de f 93. Was there an increase in your drinking? If so, when? ab c de f Did you have a feeling of loneliness or of being without friends? When was it the greatest? ab c de f Did you ever have difficulty in doing your work efficiently? When was it most difficult? ab c de f 94. 95. 96. If you have to work away from home, how is/are the child/ren cared for? relatives (which) spouse's relatives public school neighbors other friends nursery school 186 97. How would you rate the care? excellent good average poor relatives spouse's relatives neighbors friends nursery school public school other 98. When you have dates, who cares for the children? neighbors friends other 99. When we are taking full responsibility for raising a family we know, realistically, that no matter how much we love the children and want to do well for them, there are times that are very difficult. What activities do you feel are handicapped by having the children with you? trips job possibilities dates club meetings giving parties education remarriage relatives other 100. Would you like to have your former spouse see the child/ren more less same 101. Is/are the child/ren harder to handle after these visits? harder easier same 102. Do you think the child/ren feel/s the same toward the absent parent now as when you were still married? yes no loves absent parent more loves absent parent less never thinks about absent parent feels the same 103. Would you say, in general, that the child/ren was/were harder to handle at the time of a. realization b. resolution c. grief d. initial adjustment e. public phase f. rebuilding never difficult 104. Do you think your former spouse considers the payments to be: too much a little too much too little about right 105. Do you feel that he resents these payments? yes no 106. Now that the divorce/bereavement is all over, would you try to tell me in your own words how you felt about the divorce/ bereavement and the children? What went through your mind when you thought of the possible effects of the divorce/death on hinv'her/them? 187 107. Did these things happen as you believed they would? If no, how different? 10B. Did you ever make a decision never to remarry? 109. Do you still feel this way? 110. Now that the divorce/bereavement is all over, is there anything you have been able to accomplish by yourself that you have always wanted to do, but never managed to before? yes 111. 112. no yes yes yes no no no What? One final question. Try to tell me in your own words just hew you would like things to be if you could have your own way about the following t a. How about workt How should that be? b. How about the children? c. And finances? d. How about love and marriage? e. How about other things? Interviewer's rating of custodial parent's coping ability to deal with his child constructively and help him in his general living situation. APPENDIX C CODING AND SCALES APPENDIX C CODING AND SCALES An explanation of the category follows the title. Code Categories A Child's Self-Concept! himself. B Child's Crisis Adjustment (Urgency of Concern); The intensity of the child's concern about certain areas of adjustment in reaction to death/divorce. C Child's Later Adjustment (more stable): how he is coping in general living. D-G1 Emotional Support! How much the child can count on people close to him if and when he needs to. A general category, feeling of support from any number of specific persons--varies for individuals— usually specific for each interview. E Custodial Parent Relationships: Pertains to the quality and quantity of parent/child relationship with the parent whom child lives. F Other Parent Relationships! Pertinent to the quality and quantity of the absent parent's relationship with the child. G 2 How the child feels and thinks about How the child acts, Significant Other Persons (other adults, usually): Concerned friends who give emotional support to the child (other than the immediate family). This is a general category indicating any number of specific persons, different for each child, giving that child support. H Teacher Relationships! Stated more specifically than G (category) to determine the school support, influence and impact. I Counselor Relationships! J Peer Relationships! other youngsters. K Custodial Parent's Adjustment! How the custodial parent is coping with her/his situation. L* Mother's Working: Time spent at work, away from child and home (Meaning repercussions— to parent and child). Close and meaningful friendships with ‘Though these were originally coded, they turned out to not be meaningful for various reasons and so were not used. 188 189 H* Financial Situation: Pressures/strain/comfort resulting from financial situation. N* School Success: in school. 0* Activities P* Activities (organized): participates i n . Child's adjustment (academic and comfort) (free time): How child spends unscheduled time. Organized activities the child •Though these were originally coded, they turned out to not be meaningful for various reasons and so were not used. 190 Scale A C h i l d ' s S t a t e of W e l l B ei n g A: S e l f - C o n c e p t S c a l e (Child's) Item: 46. 53. 59. 60. 61. 62. D o y o u feel t h a t y o u a r e m u c h w o r s e o f f s i n c e the divorce/death? Scoring: Fo r A n s w e r s Judges: Ratings no #1 #2 yes A #3 #4 A D A D o yo u feel a t p e a c e (com­ fortable, easy w i t h o ther people? A D o yo u t h i n k t h a t yo u c a n d o w h a t y o u w a n t to d o ? (You a r e a b l e to d o w h a t y o u w o u l d r e a l l y l i k e to do. If y o u m a k e u p y o u r mind you can do what you h a v e to do?) A AC A Do yo u t h i n k t h a t yo u c a n d o w h a t yo u h a v e to d o ? (You a r e a b l e to d o w h a t y o u h a v e to do.) A AC A Do y o u feel a n y s p e c i a l concern about your future? ( C o n f i d e n t to h a n d l e t h i n g s .) A AC A Do you feel c o n t r o l of y o u r s e l f as a p e r s o n ? ( E m o tiona ll y, n o t as a n o b j e c t to o t he rs) A A A A At 191 Scale B C h i l d ' s S t a t e of We l l B e i n g B: C h i l d ' s U r g e n c y of C o n c e r n Scale Item: (initial a d j u s t m e n t Scor ing: to cri sis ) Judges: Please r a n k t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n ­ cerns as to t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e to y o u (child) l « e x t r e m e l y important, 2eti m p o r t a n t , 3 = s o m e concern, 4 = n o t muc h , 5 = v e r y little c o n c e r n . 64. C o n f u s i o n b e c a u s e of divorce/death. Important 4 3 2 1 65. 66. 67. 68. 70. 71. Little Concern 0 #1 #2 #3 B B B #4 R e s e n t m e n t b e c a u s e of divorce/death. 4 3 2 1 0 B B B B L o n e l i n e s s b e c a u s e of divorce/death. 4 3 2 1 0 B B B B Redefining relations w i t h p a r e n t s (working ou t n e w w a y s to r e l a t e to them.) 4 3 2 1 0 B B B B S e l f - g u i l t b e c a u s e of divorce/death 4 3 2 1 0 B B B B S e e i n g se l f as p a w n b e c a u s e of d i v o r c e / death 4 3 2 1 0 B B B B A d j u s t i n g to r e m a r r i a g e after d i v o r c e / d e a t h 4 3 2 1 0 B B B B 192 Scale C Child's State of Well Being C: Child's Adjustment Scale Item: Scoring: Judges: 48. Is t h e r e a n y o n e w h o m a k e s N o t o n s c a l e . . . to b e p r o b l e m s f o r y o u e s p e c i a l l y ? l o o k e d at s e p a r a t e l y . Many people? 56. Do y o u h a v e o n e o r m o r e close friends? 58. C a n you see some g o a l s w a n t to w o r k t o w a r d in the n e a r f u t u r e ? 7 2^. 73^. yes 2 no 1 0 #1 #2 #3 #4 C C C AJ you R a t i n g of s t u d e n t ' s a d j u s t m e n t in s c h o o l by c o u n s e l o r impression. R a t i n g of s t u d e n t ' s g e n e r a l adju s t m e n t by c o unselor impression. 2 1 0 C C C A good 5 4 po or 3 2 1 C D C C 5 4 3 2 1 C C C C 193 Scale E Emotional Support Ei Cus t o d i a l Parent Relationship Scale Item 19a. 33. 34. Scoring Does the child receive Much satisfaction from the 5 relationship? {a. cus­ todial parent) . Little 3 None 1 Who do you think cares If custodial parent most about you and what mentioned: happens to you? Anyone else? (scored in terms 1st 2nd 3rd not custodial parent.) 5 3 2 0 Where would you want to Custodial live if your mother and/ Parent or your dad remarried 2 someone else? (Scored in terms of custodial parent.) 36. Is it easier to talk to other parents (or adults) than your father/mother? (Scored in terms of cus­ todial parent.) 54. Do you feel comfortable when you are with the parent with whom you live? (Scored in terms of custodial parent.) 63a. Judges 3 * E E E DAE Other * 0 Custodial Parent: No Yes 5 3 1 Yes 5 #1 #2 #3 114 E E E No 1 Do you feel supportive Custodial Parent: of your custodial parent's Yes No role? (Scored in terms of 2 1 0 custodial parent.) E * E * E * E * * * # E E E EHI E E * E E * E E * E E In as much as most custodial parents are mothers and most absent parents are fathers, judges failed to make dis­ tinctions between the designator "custodial" versus the desig­ nator "mother." Therefore, in treating items such as: 63a. Do you feel supportive of your mother's/father's role? yes no the response E and F was given by all four judges--meaning that they failed to make the observation that this item related only to the custodial parent in the item itself. Thus a confusion enters because the E response is not possible because the F scale is the absent parent's relationship. Data from item G3a. are analyzed in terms of either the absent parent or the custodial parent, therefore all E and F ambiguities are arbitrarily reduced to account for this confusion, before screening on the criterion for inclusion. 194 Scale F Qnotional S u p p o r t F: Absent Parent's Relationship Item 19. 33. 34 . 36, 55. 63. 102 Scale Scoring: J u dg es : D o e s the c h i l d receive satisfac­ ti o n f r o m the relationship? (b. a b s e n t parent?) Who do you think cares most about y o u an d w h a t h a p p e n s to yo u? Anyo n e else? S c o r i n g in t e r m s of a b s e n t pare nt .) W h e r e w o u l d you to l i v e if y o u r and/or your dad married someone «1 «2 #3 F F F #4 F If a b s e n t p a r e n t mentioned: 1st 5 2nd 3 want Absent mother Parent re2 else? 3rd 1 not 0 F F F DAF Other Parent 0 F F F F Parent yes 0 F F F FHI Is it e a s i e r to talk to o t h e r p a r e n t s (or adults) than y o u r father/mother? (Scored in t e r m s of a b s e n t p a r e n t .) Absent No 5 Do you feel c o m ­ f o r t a b l e w i t h your other parent? (absent p a r e n t ) . yes 5 no 1 F F F F Do you feel s u p p o r ­ tive of y o u r f a t h e r ' s (absent par e nt ) n e w role? (Scored in terms of a b s e n t par.) yes 2 no 0 F F F F F F F F Do yo u t h i n k the c h i l d r e n feel the same t o w a r d the abse n t p a r e n t n o w as w h e n yo u w e r e still m a r r i e d ? More Same Less D o n 't Think 0 19 5 Scale G ^~ : Emotional Support S c a l e — Number of Significant Others Item IB. 19. 32. 33. 57. S coring Judges: F r o m w h o m d o e s the child receive e m o ­ tional support? (Scored in t e r m s of number of caring p e opl e) (Total c o l u m n s c h e c k e d "m uc h " a - e 5 4 3 2 1 0 Does the child r e ­ ceive satisfaction from the r e l a t i o n ­ ship? (Scored in t e r m s o f n u m b e r of caring people) (Total c o l u m n s c h e c k e d "much" a - e 5 4 3 2 1 0 Is t h e r e a n y o n e y o u c a n t a l k to w h e n you f e e l y o u w a n t to? Who d o y o u t h i n k cares m o s t about you a n d w h a t h a p ­ p e n s to y o u ? Any­ o n e e l s e ? (Scored in t e r m s of n u m b e r of c a r i n g p e r s o n s ) Is t h e r e a n a d u l t in w h o m y o u c a n confide? 2 (n um be r 2 #3 #4 GEF* GEF* GEF* EFD* EFG* GEF* GEF* DEF* EFG l i s te d) one none 1 yes #2 no 0 yes 2 or more #1 0 EFG GEF EFG no 0 DHIFG I n a s m u c h as m o s t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s a r e m o t h e r s a n d most a b s e n t p a r e n t s a r e f a t h e r s , j u d g e s f a i l e d to m a k e d i s ­ tinctions b e t w e e n the d e s i g n a t o r " c u s t o d i a l " v e r s u s th e d e s i g ­ nator " m o t h e r . " T h e r e f o r e , i n t r e a t i n g i t e m s s u c h as: 63a. Do you feel s u p p o r t i v e of y o u r m o t h e r ' s / f a t h e r ' s r o l e ? y e s no; the r e s p o n s e E & F w a s g i v e n by a l l f o u r j u d g e s — m e a n i n g t h a t they f a i l e d to m a k e th e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h i s i t e m r e l a t e d only to t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t in the i t e m i t s e l f . Thus a con­ fusion e n t e r s b e c a u s e t h e E r e s p o n s e is no t p o s s i b l e b e c a u s e the F s c a l e is t h e a b s e n t p a r e n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Data from item 63a. a r e a n a l y z e d in t e r m s o f e i t h e r t h e a b s e n t o r t h e custodial p a r e n t , t h e r e f o r e al l E a n d F a m b i g u i t i e s a r e a r b i ­ trarily r e d u c e d to a c c o u n t f o r t h i s c o n f u s i o n , b e f o r e s c r e e n ­ ing on the c r i t e r i o n for i n c l u s i o n . 196 Scale Emotional Support Scale— Quantity and Quality of Relationships (was G) Item 18. 19. 20 . 57a. Scoringi From whom does the child receive emo­ tional support? c. family— custodial parent d . family— absent parent e. significant others Does the child re­ ceive satisfaction from the relation­ ship? c. family— custodial parent d. family— absent parent e. significant others Is there m o r e , less or about the same contact now (as before the crisis?) c. family— custodial parent d. family— absent parent e. significant others Do you talk inti­ mately with him? (an adult in whom you can confide— tell some­ thing inportant to him that you may not want others to know) None Much Little 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 3 Judges 1 2 3 0 G G G 1 1 0 0 G G G G G G 2 1 0 G G G 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 G G G G G G 3 2 1 0 G G G 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 G G G G G G yes 5 no 1 G G G HIF 3 Not mentioned 4 197 Scale H Schoo l R e l a t i o n s h i p s H: Teacher Relationship Scale Item Scoring: 9. T e a c h e r s e e m s to pa y a t t e n t i o n to n e eds. 10. T e a c h e r h a s w a r m and personal concern. 11. 52. 52a. 57. 57a. T e a c h e r a t t e m p t s to he l p c o m p e n s a t e for c h i l d b e i n g of a s i n g l e - p a r e n t family. Much 2 Judges: Little 1 No n e 0 2 #1 #2 #3 #4 1! H U H H II H H II H H H Ca n you t a l k w i t h y o u r teachers about a n y ­ thing y o u w a n t to? yes 5 no 1 II II II II Do y o u ? ye s 2 no 0 II II II II Is t h e r e an a d u l t in w h o m you c a n c o n f i d e ? (Scored o n l y in te r m s of t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n ­ ship) yes 5 no 1 GK Do you t a l k i n t i m a t e l y w i t h him ? T e l l hi m something important th at you m a y n o t w a n t o t h e r s t o know; v e r y closely about personal things. (Scored o n l y in t e r m s o f teac he r) yes 2 no 0 EF G G GDHIF HIF 198 Scale I School Relationships I: Counselor Relation Scale Item 30. 30a. 31. 57. 57a. Scoring: Do you ever talk to your school counselor? Judges: #1 #2 #3 #4 I I I I yes 5 3 no 1 How often? 2 1 0 I I I I Ca n you tell your c o u n ­ selor a n y t h i n g you w a n t to? 5 3 1 I 1 I I G G G DHIF EF G G HI F Is t h e r e a n a d u l t in w h o m you c a n c o n f i d e ? (Scored o n l y in t e r m s o f c o u n ­ sel or) ( s c o r e d if a c o u n s e l o r is specif i e d ) Do you talk intimately w i t h him? Tell him s o m e ­ thing i m p ortant that you m a y n o t w a n t o t h e r s to know; v e r y c l o s e l y a b o u t p e r s o n a l things. (Scored o n l y in t e r m s of c o u n ­ selo r) ( s c o r e d if a c o u n s e l o r is specified) 2 1 0 199 Scale J School R e l a t i o n s h i p J: Pe e r R e l a t i o n s h i p Sc a l e Item Judges Scoring: Do y o u p l a y w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n in t h e n e i g h borhood? 27. Is t h e r e a n y g r o u p of kids you rap with7 J JO J J D o y o u e n j o y t a l k i n g to k i d s in this w a y ? (rap) J JO J JO J J J O G GJ G EFG J NJ J AJ J J AJ 28. 29. 32. 39. 49a. yes 2 no 0 Do you rap w i t h other kids often? Much 5 Is t h e r e a n y o n e (else) y o u c a n t a l k to w h e n y o u feel y o u w a n t to? Who? (Scored i n t e r m s of p e e r r e l a t i o n s h i p ) no yes 2 0 (scored if a peer s pe cifie d) D o yo u feel t h a t y o u a r e a c c e p t e d by y o u r schoolmates? yes 5 no 0 Did d i v o r c e / d e a t h make a difference in relation to y o u r s c h o o l m a t e s ? yes no yes 2 0 So m e #1 #2 #3 J J J #4 22. None E 200 Scale K K: Custodial Parent's Adjustment Scale Item: Scoring: Judges: II #2 #3 14 K K K 74 . R a t i n g of c u s t o d i a l parent's general adjust­ m e n t by c o u n s e l o r impression. good low 5 4 3 2 1 110. N o w that the d i v o r c e / b e r e a v e m e n t is all o v e r , is t h e r e a n y t h i n g t h a t y o u ha v e b e e n abl e t o accomplish by yourself t h a t yo u h a v e a l w a y s w a n t e d to d o , but n e v e r m a n a g e d to b e f o r e ? What? (Scored in t e r m s of c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s achievement, coping ability) good poor K 5 4 3 2 1 (s cor ed in t e r m s of c u s t o d i a l parent's achieve­ m e n t an d c o p i n g abi li ty) I n t e r v i e w e r ' s r a t i n g of custodial parent's coping a b i l i t y to d e a l w i t h h i s c hil d co nstructively and h e l p h i m in h i s g e n e r a l living situation. poor good 5 4 3 2 1 112. K K K K K New K Scale 74* was d e l e t e d b e c a u s e t h e m a j o r i t y of the c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s had a 3 r a t i n g for th is scor e. S o m e of the p a r e n t s w e r e not known to t h e c o u n s e l o r an d w e r e a s s i g n e d a s c o r e of 3. An assumption wa s m a d e that t h e c o u n s e l o r w o u l d t e n d to k n o w t h e m and rate t h e m a c c o r d i n g l y if e i t h e r t h e y or t h e i r c h i l d w e r e outstandingly w e l l o r p o o r l y a d ju st ed . New K S c a l e c o n s i s t s of s c o r e s to q u e s t i o n s 110 a nd were a p a r t of the o r i g i n a l K Sc al e as s e e n above. 112, w h i c h APPENDIX D TABLES OF CORRELATIONS ANALYSES OF VARIANCE AND pi ID n p ® h pi r-1 O m ri O r« in rt H € * --4 ® PI ♦ n ^ o o to 4*J O *3 •' -f C se I M lO O ri in « n n n f' OH rt in n r* h * K * i41 ♦ £ 2 3 ^ 85S o r- ♦ « in n h ® n O »4 H id I"* f' id pi id ^ eo ^ « r ^-4 p. «-o ♦ t-~ *n n t tt 9 no of ic m n fc in f O h l) h p ♦ O M 288 n « A * » n o F' * h r-> ® a « o '■ "' in n m n m * o n H r- j-> id ® a o RSJ ® o ^ «# t4 4-| id t"- id t1 o tfl t-' f4 in in id O no m f- ei e~ ® m d ir vi r- ® A A 4 2SS ffi n » h ;g r irtift OH H f*i rl « -4 » r4 * of Cornlitieci a « r4 p ip in in id O 4 -1 4-4 41 ♦ ri 3 ^ m n if M f* ^ lO f’ u m 4i ♦ Qp 41 M >1 I u% 58 *M *5 id n oj n h ♦ i-* m H P M p H « F» « f' o m n I H O 40 n o ® ibl* n O sO O ♦ in %o o el *-* «t if H ♦ o n p4 41 D ® rt h n o n o o o o f* m i f ip f ' p ip D O O 41 41 n n U -h ip n h a n < 1 MOP' P - O M M O 4-1 3 c9 ♦ n r+ O o 41 n o r* n O P i-t g o M ♦ 1-4 H h t n fv ^ o o o mg h m ip h *-4 D —4 82 in o o H O 40 3 E S 3*S 838 t* C O -H 3u ?I < p i r- i© *-i id m in n a ffi n rt M f' * 5 1 41 r« O m n O 41 o n f4 t* n 8 H Q H io r* 4i p4 40 If d iA 40 p-4 id n ip 4*i in ^ ft n 8 88 o o o CVi » ♦ in in o in 10 >0 ° e aai 41 a I wi in i 3 s I f" ®9 Oit1 S ♦ h r** h t- a p So ♦p* H ♦ <* in (j 4o I 10 Id 888 o o o 10 41 i in id ® <*♦ pi H f* *d M if in >i in Pi 4-1 ni H O *1 s s s o o o f* 40 H ♦«♦ n u n in n n r* ♦ id 40 i d 40 ® r* ip m r- ♦ n f- f' n g p n o m4i n ” P------a « » « <*« a B -3 5 5 1 3 5 Mfl5 a i 15 2 a*S'S3 » M i l V» *4 9 Q, %4 W | |L a :it G *3 ■ ° E , “ I frB 8 2 “ * 23 8 2 “ 8 8 2 « • &B 8 2 s ■ l T h I H .■ 8 2 “ * -* n a 8 * A >° I D -« -< ► w *J H Q «1 y sii i s i i i 3 M5 5S -21 *1 <1 H 0 a k *• « a s 5 332h O a*H 6 a i h & H5 ’♦IS +O4 w <4 H & 5:^ r-1 -1 201 202 T A B L E A2 T a a ta of A n a ly a a a Ita m s s o u rc a o f V a rla n c a w ith D a g ra a a of of F ra a d o a Taachar B a tw a a n g ro u p * Mi t h in g ro u p a T o ta l V a ria n c e P e rfo rm e d B e fe r e n c e t o D iv o r c e d a n d W id o w e d r e a d I l e a 1 IB on a ll N aan F E q u a te S ta tis tic B a la tlo n a h ip th e ra m i 1 le a A p p ro *. S ig n ific a n c e P r o b a b ility o f r S ta tia tic (c p ) 8 3 .2 6 .0 0 2 1 2 .5 2 6 .6 5 19 D iv o r c e d g r o u p M a n - 4 .2 1 M id o w a d g r o \g > M a n • B . 6 6 Taachar B a tw a a n g r o u p a Ml t h in g ro u p a T o ta l 1 16 19 B a la tlo n a h ip (p p ) B 1 .4 9 6 .6 6 .0 1 9 6 . B0 .0 1 8 1 2 .2 4 D iv o r c e d g r o u p M a n ■ 4 .9 3 M id o w a d g r o u p M a n - 9 . 33 Taar B a tw w a n g r o u p a M ith ln g ro u p a T o ta l 1 IB B a la tlo n a h ip (c p ) 3 9 .2 1 S . 73 19 D iv o r c a d g r o u p M a n “ 1 0 .2 1 M ld c M a d g r o u p M a n • 1 3 , 1 7 C u a to d la l B a tw a a n g r o u p a H lth in g ro u p a T o ta l 1 IB 19 P a ra n t A d ju a L M n t 2 2 . B7 naw (K ) 8 .7 0 .0 0 9 2 .6 3 D iv o r c a d g r o u p M a n « 7 . 0 0 W id o w a d g r o u p M a n - 4 . 6 7 C u a to d la l B a tw a a n g r o u p a W ith in g ro u p a T o ta l 1 IB P a ra n t A d ju s tm e n t K 1 6 . B0 (o r ig in a l! 4 .2 0 .0 6 5 4 .0 0 19 D iv o r c a d g r o u p M a n - 7 . 0 0 M id o w a d g r o u p M a n - 4 . 6 7 C u a to d la l P a ra n t B a tw a a n g r o u p a W ith in g ro u p a T o ta l 1 IB 19 D i v o i c a d g r o u p n a a n ■ 21.00 W id o w a d g r o u p M a n * 2 3 . 0 0 B a la tlo n a h ip 2 9 .8 7 8 .6 2 (p p ) 3 .6 1 .0 7 7 203 T a b le T e a ts o f A n a ly a a a o f V a r i a n c e P e r f o r m e d on a l l Ite m a w i t h R e f e r e n c e t o Good a n d P o o r A d ju s t m e n t o f t b s C h i l d * D e g re s s o f fre e d o m S o u rc e o f V a ria n c e M ean S q u are U rg e n c y o f B e tw e e n g r o u p s W i t h in g ro u p s T o ta l Too r s r - a d ju s te d B a t t e r - a d ju s te d 1 IB 19 c h ild 's c h ild 's C o n c e rn g r o u p m ean * g ro u p s a i n - P o o r e r -a d ju s te d B e t t e r - a d ju s te d P o o r e r -a d ju s te d B a tte r -a d ju s te d g r o u p m ea n g r o u p m ean - P o o rs r-a d J u s te d B e t t a r - a d J u s te d g r o u p sm an • g r o u p m ea n - g r o u p m ea n * g r o u p s tea n * School o f W e ll-B e in g (p p ) .0 1 1 B .1 4 6 ,0 9 B .B 2 S u p p o rt (p p ) (T o ta l I .0 3 B 5.0 3 1 4 ,53 1 6 .7 a R a la tlo n s h lp s (c p ) 2 6 .04 3.5 0 1 IB [T o ta l] .0 1 4 7.4 3 19 c h ild ' • c h i l d ' 'a g ro u p m ean g ro u p n a a n • C u s to d ia l B e tw e e n g r o ig ia W i t h in g ro u p s T o ta l •S c o re s .0 4 5 19 c h i l d ' a g r o u p m ean c h i l d ' 'a g ro u p m ean - B e tw e e n g ro u p s W it h in g ro u p s T o ta l P o o r e r -a d ju s te d B e tte r -a d ju s te d S ta te 2 5 .1 9 5,01 IB Sum o f P o o r e r -a d ju s ta d B e tte r -a d ju a ie d 4 ,6 6 2 0 .5 5 7 4 .6 0 E m o t io n a l 1 B e tw e e n g r o u p s W it h in g ro u p s T o ta l .0 5 4 R e la tio n s h ip s I B . 51 2 .2 B Sum o f C h i l d ' s p o o r e r -a d ju s te d B a t t e r - a d Jus t e d School C h i l d 1's 1 IB 19 c h ild 's c h ild 's (p p ) 4 .2 6 0 1 .1 9 9 1 7 .4 1 3 Sum o f B e tw e e n g r o u p s W it h in g ro u p s T o ta l R e la tio n s h ip s 9 .2 2 1 1 .4 5 1 IB 19 c h ild 's c h ild 's .0 2 4 6 .0 4 2 4 .6 7 5 .7 9 Sum o f B e tw e e n g r o u p s W it h in g ro u p s T o ta l (P P ) 1 3 , SO 1 9 .7 3 1 IB 19 c h ild 's c h ild 's th e A p p ro *. S ig n ific a n c e P r o b a b ility o f F S ta tis tic r S ta tis tic 1 8 1 . B2 3 0 .1 2 S i g n if i c a n t O th e r B e tw e e n g r o u p s w i t h i n g r o ig is T o ta l A3 1 2 .42 14.72 P a re n t R e la tio n s h ip 3 0 .07 B . 51 1 IB (p p ) .076 3.5 3 19 c h i l d ' '■ g r o u p M a n c h i l d ' s g ro u p M a n of 6 -1 0 a re • • 2 0 .44 22.91 b e t t e r - a d ju s te d c h lld r a n j 2 -5 a re p o o r e r -a d ju s te d c h ild r e n .