current Trends and Issues in Divorce

Current Trendsand Issuesin Divorce
An Agenda for Family Scientists
in the 1990s
SI{ARON J. PRICE AND PATRICK C. MCKENRY{'
This review of recent divorce literature sugests that divorce will remain a societal
problem into the n& decade. Although divorce has been related to a vaiety of
social,economic, and emotional problems, it would appear that society still has
not accepted the reality of divorce. Cunent trends and methodological issuesare
reviewed, and researchen in the next decade are encouraged to abandon many
of the enoneous assumptions about family ltfu if we are to have a more compleie
underctanding of both the etiologt and adjusttnent processes of divorce.
years ago we completed our text, Divorce, which was part of the Sage
_ - Thr9"
Publications Series on families. While in the process of writing, we became increasingly
aware of the strengths and weaknessesin the divorce literature, recent challengeslo
long-held assumptions about divorce, and the increasing interest in divorce by*social
scientists. For example, a computer search n r97g (Priie-Bonham & Balswicli, 1980)
yielded approximately 200 references for literature ever written in the area of divorce;
however, recently a similar search yielded approximately 800 references to literature
published only in the last L8 months. For these reasons, it seems appropriate this body
of literature be periodically reviewed in order to guide family scientists.
During the 1970sthere was a focus on the positive aspectsof divorce to the degree
.
it was ahnost romanticized. Messagesduring this period included divorced persons *e.e
to "expect less stress and conflict, the joys of greater freedom, and the delights of selfdiscovery ' (Hetherington, cox, & cox, 1977:46)i.e., divorce was viewed is 'creative''
(Krantzler, 1975). During the 1980s,however, the emphasishas shifted to'living through
divorce," i.e., the processesinvolved in people working out their lives during uod afte.
divorce-(Ahrons& Rodgers, 1987). This has resulted in an increasedemphasison the
depression, anger, and conllict that often accompaniesdivorce.
The general conclusion today is divorce is almost alwa-vs more painful than
anticipated. A major contributing factor to this pain is people are not iocialized to
div-orce.-For example, it is still the rare couple who deals with the possibility of divorce
before they are married. Recent data, however, would make us wonder ii we should
start viewing divorce as a normal family transition (Price & Balswick, 1980) and
accordingly refocus our writing and teaching. Recent projections regarding divorce rates
* SharonJ. Priceis Professorand
Acting Head of Child and FamilyDorelopmentand Sociologr,
The university_of Georgia,Athens, GA 30602;Patrick c. McKenry is a professorof Fanfry
Relationsand Human Dwelopment and Adjunct Professorof Bbck Studies,The Ohio Statb
University, Columbus,OH 43210.
[FarnilyScienceRaniew,Vol. 2, No. 3, Augusr,1989pp. 219-236]
2r9
appear to support such a shift, and Spanier and Furstenberg(1987) note-as more
bei6-e voluntaryand tentative,so alsowill divorcebecomebehaviorthat is
Ji;ug".
taken for grantedwhen it occurs.
meobr
then 56
Tl
TRENDS IN DIVORCE RATES
Although the divorcerate more than doubledbetween1965and 1979-(Glick,L984;
National CEnterfor Health Statistics,1980),it hasleveledoff and, actuallydeclinedin
the 1980s(Norton & Moorman, Lg87). However,Martin and Bunpass (1989)caulion
that this dicline in the crude divorceiate must be interpreted(a) in the contextof the
iong-termtrend and (b) in terms of what we know about compositioneffectson crude
Becausethe divorcerate hasincreasedia a steadilyacceleratingcurvesince
-"L*"g
1880,they suggestthe roots of current patternsof marital instabiliryare deep,and not
or
sex-roleattitudes,femaleemployment,.
just a responlJto recentchangesin feriiliry,
-the
'diuor"" laws. Instead recenttcreases in
divorcerate are attributed to declining
family functionsasa resultof economicchanges(industrializationand urbanization)-and
io.r"*i"g cultural emphasison individualismwhic,hgenerallyare expectedi9 .oljTl"
to erodeThecentralityof family roles as comparedto other adult opportunities(Glick,
1988). Compositionionsideraiionsnoted by Martin and Bumpassinclude:
(1) The accelerationafter the mid-1960scannot occur indefinitely becausean
absoluteupper limit must soonbe reached.
(2) The recentreductionin marriageratesis positivelyrelatedto marital stability,
all other thingsheld equal.
(3) The movementof the large baby boom cohort through the populatio.nfirst
' '
increasedand then decreasedthi proportion of marriagesendingin divorce
becausemarriagesare more vulnerableto disruptionin the early years.
(4) Period measureswill be inllated to the extent that divorce is occurring
progressivelyearlier in marriages. A downturn in period measurescan be
expectedwhen timing ceasesto change'
For these reasons,coupled with a still very high level of divorce and the
acknowledgedunderreporting,of separationand divorces,Martin and Bumpass(1989)
estimateai expectedmarital disrupiion rate of about two-thirds(64Vo)after f Vears.
in family liie createdby patternsof-divorceand remarriageare
They conclude^diversify
likeiy to be an intrinsicfeatureoi modernfamily life rather than a temporaryaberration.
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIATIONS
Despite the extent of future changesin family lifestyle-s,there will alwaysbe
(Glick' 1988)demographicvariationsin the rates of family formation.and.dissolution
neceritly, however, researchershave gone beyond descriptive classificationsand
univariaie correlationsto theoreticalintigration and multivariatetreatment of these
demographicfactors. For example, several researchershave theoretically_linked
descriptiveof social integration. Shelton (1987)found-strorg correlations
-"ugit". residen^tial
mobility and marital dissolutionfrom which the effectsof family,
between
baikgroun4 and yearsof exposureto divorcewere removed'
religion, socioeconomic
Simllariy,in a studyof ratesof divorcein over3,000U.-S.counties,Breaultand Kposowa
(1987)found strong effectsof socialintegrationon divorce. In thesecounties,church
220
Family Science Rerrierv
August, 1989
aEoq
}{rrtil
b refr/
th.SC v
faan
pcriod
T
edu--i
slSgE{
Bm o
Clrri?r
of dia
cofl.tR
stre$a
H6d
rG
f wp
S
sub-:
ot al
crrqri
coq
ro9al
r
rcfcrG
rIlE
tf.i
L
n
srrif
cilL
\lrti
and
llryr
bcGG
Egrri
o{ re
oyrird
re pi
TI
hisrri.
(\lcl(c
bccl r
A.o€ri
Augulr-
membership, population changes,and urbanity were much stronger predictors of divorce
than socioeconomic status.
The inverse relationship between age at marriage and marital dissolution remains
amotrg the strongest and most consistently documented in the literature (Haskey, L987;
Martin & Bnmpass, 1989; Norton & Moorman, 1987). Although young age at marriage
is related to lower social class and premarital pregnancy, the association remains when
these variables are controlled (Bumpass & Sweet, L972;Teachman, 1985). Explanatory
factors include degreesof maturity and competence for marital roles, length of courtship
period, and emotion4 educational and economic resources (Martin & Bunpass, 1989).
Traditionally, indicators of socioeconomic status indicators i.e., occupation,
education, and income, have been related to divorce. Norton and Glick (1979), however,
suggest a convergence of these status differences because they found between 1960and
1970 the divorced rate increased faster among high-status than low-status men. In
contfast, Martin 31d Bumpass (1989) found education has become a stronger predictor
of divorce in the most recent married cohorts studied; for example, women who attended
college have a 5lVo lower rate of separation than high school dropouts. It should be
stressed, however, this appears to be a curvilinear relationship. For example,
Houseknecht and Spanier (1980) noted that contrary to the general inverse relationship
women with graduate education have higher divorce rates than women who complete
four years of college.
Studies have traditionally found income was a more important influence on marital
stability than either occupation or education. Little is known, however, about the effects
on marital stability of the many economic fluctuations and changes of the 1980s. One
exception to this is the recent research which has focused on the topic of women as
conveyors of socioeconomic status. Yeh and Lester (1987) found the higher the
proportion of married women working full-time and the lower the proportion of married
women working part-time, the higher the divorce rate. Mott and Moore (1979) have
referred to married women's employment as having an 'independence effect" because
women in the labor force develop resources and economic security apart from those of
their husbands, affording them the freedom to leave a marriage.
The high correlation between race and socioeconomic status precludes a
straightforward analysisof the net effect of race on marital instabiliry. Most studies have
continued to conclude Blacks have higher rates of divorce than Whites or Hispanics.
Martin and Bumpass (1989) found dilferences in marital instability by race increased
over the most recent cohorts for both Blacks and Hispanics. However, Norton and
Moorman (1987) have noted some convergence in racial differences of divorce rates
between young Black and White women while Hispanic women have shown a slight
upward trend. The relationship between race and divorce is clouded by (a) the failure
of researchersto consistentlydefine race, e.g.,nonwhite is frequently used to include a
myriad of racial and ethnic groups; and (b) the assumption that Blacks and Hispanics
are primarily identified as lower class (Price-Bonham & Balswick, 1980).
THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVES
These trends and variations in divorce challenge family scholars who have
historically given only minimal attention to the variation in American family forms
(McKenry & Price, 1988). As a result, conceptual perspectiveson families often have
been viewed as unscholarly if they challenged the normative view of family life in
America. This traditional view of what familv life has been and/or ousht to be has led
August,1989
Family Science Review
22L
to theoreticaland methodologicalweaknessin divorce-relatedliterature. For example,
most researchrelatedto fanilies assumespermanencyof maritd relationshipsand one
type of family. Furthermoreour textsrefei to "fami$-as oqq"S to.'families,"thereby
suggesti"gthere is one "right' family" This biasis reinforcedin the divorceliteratureby
re6rring-to 'broken family and "one-parentfamily" insteadof tle more appropriate
term, "binuclearfamily'' (Ahrons' 1979).
Becauseof this biasthereseemsto be a reluctanceto applytheoreticalframeworks
to the study of divorcedfamilies,similar to thoseusedwith non-divorcedfamilies" In
fact, the applicationof theoryto the studyof divorcehasbeen inconsistent,resultingin
specificthibries appliedto variousaspectsof the divorceplocgss:.lrvinger, (1%5) and
Iiecker, (1974)usedexchangetheoryto explainhow peopledecidedto seeka divorce.
of the etiologyof divorce,this
While makinga major contr-ibutionio our understanding
Developmentaltheoryhas
relationships.
of
domain
modellacksslnsitivityto the affective
been used to descri6edivorce as a process,i.e., the stagesof divorce (e'g., Crosby,
Lybarger,& Mason,1987;Kessler,ti75; Raschke,1937). -I-naddition,crisistheory has
been ised to describethe decisionto divorce,reactionto divorce,and adjustmentafter
d.ivorce(Stolberg,Kiluk, & Garrison,1986;Wiseman,1975);attnshmenttheoryhasb99n
used to bescribJthe relationshipbetweenformer spouses(Kitson, 1982;Weiss,1975),
and role theoryhasbeenusedto explainthe relationbetweendivorcea1d 6s11alillne55
(Price & McKenry, 1,988).
Scanzoniand his colleagues(1989)haveproposeda newtheoreticalparadigmth-at
more realisticallyexaminesielationshipsover the lifespan. Their notion of the sexually
continualchangein relationships,structurallyand/.or
basedprimaryrelationshipassumes
internally. Witni" this framework,marriageand divorceare viewedas normativelife
p.ocesseias a result of changesin individuals,relationships,and society.
Another major theoreticaladvancewas madeby A-hronsand Rodgers(t9-87-)aLd
Boss (1988) when they applied systemstheory, specificallythe concept of family
boundaries,'to divorced families. The establishmentof boundariesis a particular
problemin d.ivorcedfamiliesbecauseof the necessityof .differentiatingthe parentaland
of when
Redefiningthe boundariesandcomingto an understanding
ipousalsubsystems.
(Ahrons
families
divorced
faced
by
tasks
rblesbeginand end is one of the most difficult
& Rodgers,1987).
Family boundariesbecomeambiguouswhen there is dispariry befweenphysical
has !e,e1widely
This c9n-9ept
and psychologicalabsence/presence.
absence/piesence
discussedin referenceto iemarried families(Pasley& Ihinger-Tallman,1989),but it is
who is
also applicableto divorcedfamiliesbecause(a) of the lack of clarity regar-ding
member
loss
of
a
a
represents
divorce
in and who it out of the family system,(b)
(psychological,physical,or both), and (c) it is unclear what roles the absentparent
performs(Boss,1,987).
B
suPps
tlcir I
codir
rtn tttj
tz*t
i
fccl re
F
ratbct
dhucr
l -n$i
b6tl
dhuq
bgrl b
rirl fi
asrpl
spcc
as oc
l9?6).
R
adiusrr
hcrtl
Sp.!b
\{clGr
isrEsit
ipoGc
Gatb
B
can bc
ES@CI
hart r
f qc
bcco n
& BLl
clpcclr
diffsl
Complicatingthe situationis a lackof normativedefinitionsin the divorceliterature
aswell asin widei societywhich might clarifvthis ambiguity.For example,muchof the
;freezingout," "closingranks,"or "closingout" family members
literature has described
as indicativeof positiveadjustmint in divorcedfamilies. At the sametime, continued
relationshipsbe^tweenformer spousesis increasinglybeing vieye{ as appropriate
behavior(i'rice & McKenry, 1988),and someauthorscontend'closing out" the noncustodialiather from the family systemincreasesdysfunctionalstress (Ahrons &
Rodgers,1987).
A
opPatr
s.rrtu
August, 1989
.Aunrst
222
Family Science Review
lm).
an irop
TI
dirorcc
for mo
Boundaryambiguity,for example,might help explainwhy fathersdo not pay child
s{Dport. As previouslymentioned,divorcedspousesoften havedifficultydefiningwhere
their. spousal relationship ends and their parental relationship and rerpooJibilities
continue(Ahrons& Rodgers,1987)"This ambiguityresultsin the-familymembersbeing
uncertainas to who is in or out of the family and who is to perform what roles and/oi
Consequently,
asa resultof this lack of clarity,fathersdo not
!asl$ in the fanily sys,tem_.
feel responsiblefor the financialsupportof their children.
ADJUSTMENT TO DIVORCE
_ F1-ity scientistsworking in this area generallyview divorce as a life transition
rather than a discretelife event. Likewise,there hasbeen a move awayfrom viewing
divorce-adjustment as a state to a multifaceted continoous pr*esr (Buehler d
Langenbrunner,1987;
!fc9 & McKgnry, 1988;weiss, 1975). there is a shortage,
however,of studieswhich haveinvestigatedthe variousareasinvolvedin adjusting-to
po1 sxample,adjlsting to divorceincludeschangesin habits
and life patteins,
$uolg".
leg1lissues,concernover.jobs,changes economiccircumstances,
changed
relationshipi
ll
with family andfriends,dealingwith children'semotions,lossof a loveo6ject,separation
as a public declaration,.status
ambiguity,and developinga relationshipr"iin i for.e.
spouse.Divorceresultsin somepainand stressfor mostpeople,and hasbeendescribed
-experience
as one of the most stressftrllife changesa personcan
(Holmes & Rahe,
1976).
Researchershave used severalmethodologiesto investigateselectedaspectsof
adjustmentsuch as self-esteem,life satisfaction,-locus
of contiol, physicaland mental
health (Bloom, white & Asher, 1978;Brown, Felton, whiteman, & Manela" L9g0:
Spanier& Hanson,1981).aswell as severalvariablesrelatedto adjustment(frice &
McKeary, 1988)- The major variablesrelatedto divorceadjustmeniwhich hive been
investigatedinclude gender, social networks,age, and attichment between former
spouses.
Gender
Becauseof differentialsex-rolesocialization,family roles,and personalagendas,it
can be assumedmen and,wgmenexperience
a "his"and "her"divorce. For-exampie,
womenwho.haveguhq9 their primary identityfrom the role of wife canbe expectedto
havemore difficultiesif divorced. Thesewomen may havebeen dependenton others
for assistance
in social,economicand emotionalareai of life. Recentlyquestionshave
beenraisedregardingifthesewomeneverrecoverfrom the divorcep.o"e.r (Wallerstein
& Blakeslee,1989). In contrast,womenwith more equalitariansexrole aititudesand
exp_ectations,
and therebylessdependenton others,would be expectedto havea less
difficult time if divorced(Brown & Manela,1977).
Almost absentfrom the literature,however,is recognitiondivorceactuallyaffords
opportunities_
fo1ergwth for somewomen. Although wbmen report feelingsof being
overburdenedwith childrearingand employmentreiponsibilities(Walerstet e fely]
1980),they also report new levelsof autonomy,personalcompetenceand esteem,and
an improvedquality of life (Wallerstein,L986).
There is still a shortageof studieswhich have focusedon men's responseto
divorce. There is evidence,however,that divorceconstitutesa severeemotionalirnpact
for most men (Albrecht,Bahr, & Goodman,1983). This could be for several."u*nr.
August, 1989
Family Science Review
who
including diminishedor no contactwith children' 'nd it,is more often the man
because
Furthermore'
home.
family
of
the
routine
and
familiarity
ft"the
;;;;"y
needsand feelingsaboutt!: lossesinvolvedin
of men'sinclinationto denydependency
Cuot"", it may take them'longer to recoverfrom divorce (Price-Bonham,Wright &
Pittman,7982).
and
There are other studieswhich havefound few or no differencesbetweenmen
must
fact
both
the
to
is
attributed
similarity
This
womenin their r"rpo*"i to divorce.
interpersonal-andsocialproblems,.and family related
pragmatic
JJ;th
"oo""-",
Inbortllt for faryily scientistsin the future, however,
198i).
Turk,
&
,tr*.". -;r-ption
@erri'an
that as s#role'socialization become less rigid, the differences
t"';h"
b:ydivorcedmen and womenwill be ounveighedby the similarities.
"*p"r1"o".4
Social Networlcs
the lossof a spouse,but alsoexperienre
During divorcepeoplenot only experie-nce
'netrvorksoutsidethe marriage. majgr explanationfor.the
rapid reoig"anization^of
_A
,i.'e| of aiuorceis the lossof supportivesocialneMo*s. Increasingly'personsY.otki"g
ptot"cting people-dqgg and after divorce'
in this area view social suppoit.
"t
pe.sonul relationshipswith close friends,
sugg€sts
area
in
this
research
fn"[ior",
u"a U" are importani-factoriin adjustmentto divorce (Hetherington'
;"q";;t"d,
Cox & Cox 1976;Milardo, L987).
Support from kin often comesin the form of praltical..aid.,whereasemotional
often comes from friends (Gerstel, iS88; tr'titaraO 1987;Spanier-&
.oppo.t"*rt
1982;Thomp.* E Sp-i"r, 1983).Apparen-tlythe availabiliryoffriends during
Hil;;,
brrffet the degreeof distressexperiencedin a way that
in" tr-.itioo'to .i"gi"tood
of friendshipsis a centralto the
IL fact,the deve-lopment
i"iuiio"rUip. with til ao rot.-'ay
processof adjustment(Rands,1988).
The role of social networks has repeatedlybeen found to dilfer for men and
after divorce'women
women. In general,wheremen initiatenlw datingrelationships
divorce and their
before
networks
social
with
their
interaction
Fr"qu"rrt
h;;-;;
thesenetworks
However,
divorce.
after
men's
less
than
decreases
interaciion
o"t*o.t
the stress
in
explaining
conditions
havebeen found to be lessimportant than material
& Grady,
Leslie
1985;
Rosenfeld,
&
Riessman,
(Gerstel,
uy diuorc"d*o."o
"rp".i"*"a
Rands,L988).
1"985;
Age at divorce
Approximate\n% of all divorcesin the U.S.occurin middleand later lif9.(HaYes'
focuseson marriageswhich have
Sti"o"i,'A DeFruie, i9il0), Ivfostresearch,_however,
there is a major-gap in our
fner-efore,
(t-toryd
fSSO;.
Zick,
&
existedlessthan teo y"ut.
.
and the'dynamicsof divorce. In view of the aging
m"*f"ag" aUout otie, il66
familyscientists'
p.pJ"tifir in this country,thiswouldseemto be particularlyrelevantto
Ingeneral,divorcedoldermenandwomenaremorelikelytobeisolatedfrom
appearsto be
face-to-facecontactwith friends. This is evenmore true for men and
havea more
Older-women
1986).
(Keith,
by poor healthandlow incomes
accompanied
likely
because
women,
youog"t
than
1h9V
difficult rime with di";;;dj"rtment
suffer
-9less
alon%
living
i"'"-""iry,l-""s,tg.ss,r" $srtts,hlrR.ss.\rc,esr*" Lo." asxiousabout
illnesses(Price & McKenry
rllo." u.ui" loneliness,and exhibit more psychosomatic
may
be more isolatedfrom friends
women
1988;Wallerstein,1986). However,younger
224
Family Science Review
August, 1989
becau
gearc
Anrrl
I
spoGl
rnrA
d6ire
KiEfl
I
fccfq
of dcf
r hk 6
E d!
--l
FcIc
fdcd
frdft
sPu
tf,crd
tbr
corll
fcril c
ced r
t
crycr
(G'5d
r: ri
sO
I
8r
TBr
!-ru
scI-cr
ltsiafcrc
(sd
tbc
srrccr-
fri
rirC
irnh{
crqt
€rri
lgI
..rl|F
6
becauseof work and childrearingresponsibilities,
while older womenmay actuallyhave
greatercontactwith their friends (Keith, 198d).
AttachmentBet$,eenFormer Spouses
Even though most of the literature focuseson the relationshipbetweenformer
spousesrvho
are parents,someauthorshaverecognizedthat former spousesmayremain
attachedto eachother for a varietyof reasons,includinganger,,-5-qyalence,affection,
dlsire to makecontact,andfeelingBof missingpart of oniseu lanrons & Rodgers,19g7j
Kitson, 1982;Spanier& Casto,L979;Weiss,1975).
It is sometimesdifflrcultto understandthis relationship,which can range from
fe-elrlesof hatg or hostilityto love and 'pini''g' for the formeispouse,becauseif a hck
of definedsocietalrolesfor former spouses.Severalauthors,however,haveinvestigated
this relationshipas a factor in one'sadjustmentto divorceand haveconcludedit i-sthe
most salientfeatureaffectingpost-divorceadjustment(Wallerstein& Kelly, 1980). For
example,attachmenthasbeenfound to contributeto difficultiesin adjustment(Brown,
lgltog, whiteman, & Manela,L980;Kitson,rggz). orher investigatois,howevir, have
f-"it99to support-thisrelationship(Spanier& Caslo,1970),or evenarguedthat discord
facilitatespost-divorceadjustmenti.e., the worsethe qualityof contaclbetweenformer
sPous-es
the greaterthe post-divorcestress(Nelson,1981). Future researchin this area,
therefore,needsto investigatethe role of angryfeelingsand adjustmentto divorceas
this may be _ameansof copingwith post-divorcedistress(Berman,1988). To further
complicatethesefindings,Wright & Price (1"986)
reportedpositiveattachmentbetween
former.spousesactuallyserveda beneficialrole e.g.,fatheis were more apt to comply
with child supportpaynentsif former spousesexpiessedfeelingsof attachmenttowiri
eachother.
CHILDREN AND DIVORCE
Between 40Vo-50Vo
of children born in the late 1970sand early 1980swill
parental
divorce
and spendan averageof five yearsin a single-parenthome
91g91ienc9
(Glick &. Lin, 1986). Thesedata do not include the ?3Vo35Voof divorie petitionsthat
are withdrawnin instancesof periodicseparationand discord(Kitson & Langlie,1984)
nor the instancesof undocumentedseparationand discord.
In the 1980sthe literature focusedon the impact of divorceon children,parentchild relationships,post-divorceparentalroles,and relatedeconomicand legal^issues.
This researchtypically comparedintact with single-parentfamilies with a-focus on
narrowdimensions
of children'swell-being,
usuallysomeaspectof personaladjustment,
self-esteem,or cognitivefunctioning(Demo & Acock, 1988). This upproa.h typically
assumed-a. d-eficitperspectiveby viewing the single-parentfamily itructure io b6
inherently inferior, if not_inadeq"als, merely becauseof the absenceof one parent
(usuallythe father) from the household.Therefore,therehasbeena failure to eximine
the indirect negativeeffects of father absence,e.g., economicstrain, various other
stressors,and role overload any benignor uniquelypositiveaspectsof single-parent
9r
family structures. Likewise,it appearsresearcheisnavi falea to fully recofrize firsttime or nondivorcedunitsdiffer from divorced,remarriedunitsin whichstepflmiliesare
involved. Researchhas also neglectedto acknowledgemany families,regardlessof
structure'may exhibitvaryinglevelsof conflict or instability,and thus havenot always
examinedthe events,disruptions,and transitionsunique tb divorce (Demo & Acoci,
1e88).
August, 1989
Family Science Review
225
clinical studiesof the
This deficit perspectivehas been reinforced UVlh." many
problem fotuse4 samplethe most
impact of divorce oo .lif-at"o.nhese studiesare
very subjective
;hilil""" i"& rr-a-dized instrumentation,and are
Jfffi
ff;r"ry
severe
suffering
as
children
depicted
in interpretation, anJ?ii"q""tit'^l*emay want to
family.scientists
In
cbntrast,
i9a4.
of divorce 1n^.ilt",
consequences
aw-aylTom deficit models and examine
Ji tno'r" who have
ilIil;ffi;;pi!
from
-on"J
to divorce. For exampli divorce-can.r:Tovechildren
o"rriur"l".Ll*'r"u"tio*
(Hetherington'
children
for
t".out"".
aaaition"l
|,;;:;f;ll iu-iyr"tutio;htp;--6;;ovide
children of divorce
A a"a"L'or, rqg't at.o, tn"re are dara to indicate
3i'#;:Ha#,
greater maturity'
are more aodrogyoouJliitia"t .[ Siesky,1980)and Puy qT.d?ot:
Weiss,
Perry,.1985;
&.
(Guidubql{
locus oi'conr6l
feelinesof efficacy,;d;;";;d
be
and
experiences
^rg?6ir;i;
children's
at
direitly
more
look
to
J#,i.rr ."i-*-t
or
positive
the
on
rather than focus only
more open to what#r fr"i
"*p"ti"nce
negative.
has focusedon long-term
Recently,the study of children,sresponsesto divorce
resiliency,others suffer
remarkable
developmentatoutconJr.*S";;htil""'"trtiuit
well in the early stages
adapt
others
while
J.tgptioo,
5uslaineddevelopmenili';"6;;
1989;Wallerstein,
et.al.,
(Hethellgton
later
of reorganizationbut ;ild"l"rJ-"ff::*
t"iq91t:1
l0-year
WalGrstein's
Corbin, & Lewis,l98S):-;r ; iiiuft of frndingsirom
negatrve
long-term
the
on
focused
has
study (Wallersteinet ;i.,"it3Si ;tch attentiJn
nature
exploratory
the
about
questions
are
there
e(tr,ougl
;;atd;;;"i;dtldt;;
about
questions
important
it hasr{sed
of this studyand itr
adulthood'
-.in"a"f.gicut"ti.it"tioos,
of divorcJon childrenthrough
effects
;il d"Ft;not a single stressor,but
Researchersincreasinglyare concludingdivorce is
o, lif.g."u"ot.'f- .hi1dren,e.g., deoiessedeconomic
represenrsoo-"ro,rr-in-iJ,
in
styles,^change
resources,absenceor tu" io".ustodial put".rt, .tt-g.s.in'parinting al', 1989;Stolberg
et
(i{etherington
support
andloss
residence,
"f'ti"Ati"r"irour""r'of
a x"tlv, 19s0):'. ramitv sciel111s,however' are onlv
& Bush, 1985; wdi;;;i;
may
divorceasonestagein a longprocessof transitionsthal
beginningto conceptualize
and
structure,
family
singl;-parent
,"p-utloo,
include periods ot iu-ity discord,
remarriageand stepfamilyformation'
Familyscientistsmaywanttoshifttheirfocustoasystems.perspectiv-e.in-:t^*:j:
that surrounddivorce.For example,on-goingtenslonano
tt'" familydynamics
"*urni*
of iu-iiy structure,h.asbeenfoundro producenegativ"_9urcP..:t^:::
;;;ni;t;;g-ar".i
& Calhoun,198s)' Block' Block' and Gjerde (1988)
children (e.g.,Long, fi*;'Sl;i;t
of divorceactually
found in a prospecdv;;;ay'Iniil ""gative_co.niequences
".i".f911::
stressecl
reportedthe most
(1985b)
wallersiein
addiiion,
airroruiioo.
i"ih"
it is
Thus'
battles'
of continuingaciimonioujlegal
--ii"r
to be those;l;;;bt"cts
children
legal
upon
not
terminate
do.es
reiatiinship
imoortant ."."*.n"rr^r"""iir" til" p-ental
a ,m relationshiphas a-significanreffecton children.
4i"irr.,
coping style' and
This approach also would account for parent{. peSgnality'
becauseparents
important
h.
adjusrment.
child,s
resilierrcyur'ti"y interaci*itn the
Iljr
stability and
the
provide
which iesultsin failing-to
often experierr."
to parenr"
capacity
'a
"-otioiuii..-oif
diminished
ihis period, i.e.,
strucrure children ;;;;;;td
(Wallerstein,1985a).
children'swell-being
Another limitation in the researchlinking familystructure'ld
studieshavelooked
Most
factors'
of socioeEonomie
ih"
is the failure to
and thosewith
parents
"ff".tt
Low-income.
"ru.ii"
samples.
as short-termreacti;;; of--iddte-class
As previously
1988).
(Hernande4
unstableincomes,rro"r""u"i, more likely to divorce
-"
August, 1989
Family Science Review
2',26
cited. <
Acod
Parcil
childrc
A
ordtr
rehir
cGGq
lcrrr U
idcdli
GLdsl
plr.Yit
I
f..EiL
orsrod
t-bcir c
lirlc e
Fursra
diruq
of tlc
clre3i
i!.tal
lcld
J
crycrl
fabcrt
(Srcrr
,o
bc
bow
sdf
rclcrr
iam
i|ssut
bctE
I
G
bcnct
Dh
ePro
tcrr'
lcri
bo-tt
Etrr
1
srio
ryF
AEE
cited, divorceis often associated
with a drasticdeclinein economicstatus. Demo and
Acock (l9n contendthe failure to examinesocioeconomicstatusvariablesin sinlteparentfamiliesobscuresthe specificprocesses
throughwhich marital d.isruptionafEcts
children.
. A systemsperspectivewould extendthe family scientists'perceptionbeyond the
oldg* {".-ity..For example,Cherlin and Furstenberg(1989)noie thai a childisspecial
relationship with another adult may help insuhle' him/her from the negative
consequences
of divorce.B.ecause
as many as one-thirdof divorcingfamiliesresi"deat
least.temporaril-y
wit! relatives(Hernandez,1988),it is important tfrat family scientists
t!:"!tfy the role this social ngtwork prwides.-- For example,recent studies (i.e.,
Gladstone,1988;Johnson-&Barb91,198?)haveshedlight on ihe'role grandparentsare
playrngin their grandchildren'sadjustment.
Most of the literatureon childrenand divorcefocuseson the X)Voof single-parent
familieswherethe mother hasprimarycustody.Far lessis knownaboutthe ,Jle of noocustodialfathersin divorce,but it would seemthey minimallyparticipatein the livesof
their children after divorce. They are more likely to maintain contactwith sons,but
little elseis known h t9qt.o{ predictorsof fatheis involvement (furstenberg,r98Sj.
Furstenbergand Nord (1985),in a nationalsurveyof children,found severalyeirs afte.
divorcethat fathers'visitationaveragedonly two-visitsper month, and almssl one-half
of the children had not seentheir father in the past year. Fathers'relinquishingof
Sar.ep.Ingresponsibilityafter divorcemayberelatedto conflictwith their former rpo"ur",
inabilityor unwillingn_ess
to maintain-.e_quited
financialsupport,barriersimposed'bythe
legal
that
fails
to
support
fathers'
rights,
the superficialityof the visitation
-system
e4perience,or merelya lack of interestin parJnting. Fathir custodyis rare, but these
fathers appear to have a more meaningfulpaterial role than non-custodialfathers
(Stewart,Schwebel,& Fine, 1986).
asa custodyoption duringthe 1980s.Little is known,
, Joint custody.rapidly-incre-as,ed
however,aboutthe viabiliry.of
op-tion.Eirly studies yiEtaeavery positivefindind;
Jry:
however,thesestudiesinvolvedfriendly divor"er io which parents*"te wiling to maie
sacrificesto maintain parentalresponsibitities.Thus, theie findings are pro-bablynot
relevantto the currentsituationin whichjoint custodyis now the p.:"f"r."d legJ oi,tion
in more than 30 states(Hetheringtonet ;1., 1999). There is probablyan unr6asonable
assumptio.n
beingmadeby legalprofessionals
thatjoint cust;dypromotescooperation
betweendivorcedparents.
ECONOMICSAND DIVORCE
An area which recently has received significant attention is the economic
consequences
of divorce,particularlyfor women. It may be unintended,but men fare
bettereconomical! after divorcethanwomen,andwomenfare particularlypoorlyunJei
no-fault divorce,(wer-tzman,1985;welch & price-Bonham,lsg:;. tn addition, onty
approximatel;y
15% of women receivealimony,and when awardedis usuallya strort'term "transitional"award(weitzman, 19g5). This hasbeen a major contribuior to the
'feminization of povert/ or the new-poor. Indicative of this trend are displaced
homemakers,increasedlevelsof employmentof women,and increaseddemandson
welfare (Price & McKenry, 1988).
Today's.middle-qgjd
andelderlycohortof womentraditionallyprovidednonsalaried
.
servicesto their families and have been dependenton their husbandsfor financial
suPport. Thesewomen haveadheredto soci-etalnorms and the belief their husbands
August, 1989
Family Science Reniew
227
For severalreasons'however,
andtheythe homemakers.
wouldbe the breadwinner
is
io"'e"tio*ryai1'"ttqs and.theresult manyo{ thesewomenliveon
il;;";;G
-e of tn"ir-pr"uiousfimily income,haveno healthinsurance,and no
;;"ilt il;;;""g"
Fewof thesewomenhaveever
io.lo-" *1"" in"y reachretirementage._
;J*iaJr;i
oot workedsincEthe earlyyearsof their marriage,
- joU.,
;;id i,ill-ii-"
--oo!"quloth
skillsor theirjob skillsare
th"i t."a oot to-hlv"emarketable
-di-iil"*
tf ; n
jobs
than6inimun wages'.In
more
for
find
to
tnly-u,J*uUf"
ilin
""ta"t"O "la
Ja"r *o*"" for doinewhatsocietytold themwasappropriate
;*ftry;;ffin;d
joke about
i.e.,si"i"ty .n"-!.Jtn" rulesin rhe;iddle of thegl-e. We may
;;#;;
of today's
result
a
as
'bag
ladies"
of
if we"willhavea generation
;;;#
t; il;*
Dh
facilir
cDursd
rolcs fo
*ir-b dr
marriq
thc u
of divorce.
economicconsequenses
Dilwct
the degree.it
Young women have also been adverselyimpacted.UV,diu1ll"' to
carry the
often
Sinlle.mothers
imat"o.
having
are b"ioi'po"iti"a-io.
suffer
ed.f'll-time. Thesewomen
"pp""r.EEy
fri.'nifa t"-iig pf"t U"Lg employ.
*worried
and
"rushed,"
it
"iJi"i*.p.itsibility
"frightlnedl'life
from'role overload"
!-*'
ilaO;. As a result,the childrennot only-h-ave
-i;;;;til";fiig
abouta nervousUr""f.ao*r5
CWuU"rsieio,
& Kelly' 1980)'
less of their fathers,-Uuiuiro less of their'mothers-(Wallerstein
parent and
absent
in"r"torq fu-ily scientistsshouldconsiderreducingthe focuson,f.ne
divorce'
from
resulting
parents
increasethe focusoo iil" pot""tial absenceof botli
Dir
aod fr
uadib
dc.t ri
A-ko.vr
crohrl
185). i
hasbeenwell
The "nationaldisaster'createdby the nonpaymentof child support
The lack of
Caff6inia'
documentedby weitzmai tiq-85i in Ler f-Jtituil study.rn
of
"feminization
the
to
includhg.contri-buthg
compliancehur r"u"rJlool"qu*""'
-**].I
makes"the differenie between poverty and
*en
il;ifl;;"-;htft
the number of
nonpovertyfor many familiis. For example,approximatelythree^times
the poverty
below
fall
support
child
divorcedand separatedr"o-"o who do not rec-eive
1985)'
(Weitzman'
support
receive
who
comparedto women
il;h;"
Authors haveproposedvariousexplanationsf9r 1fe high rates "f "9T:f*117
inilude lilack of effective enforcement (Weitzman'
l hese rncluoe
supportpalments. these
with
with child
child support
of
i6iiil,-".a*i'"'" ti'"''"i' unigh-
Prolapilitvid i:l^3:llll-"-"1.f*:?:':::'ff:
ii['J"iJireni'id;#;,1il?ei.-d["""i"*,rit]:I'*T"l{j1'"1::::,'111
tlTj"l['-t: h::'1","t?*?.'"?*
concluded
ffil.
s"7"'"r'"tin-.,l-J'""""i'n*"
il5il;";;;;fi;-q;it;-;ll
afte, .ukiog child supporrpayments(Haskins,
Dobelstein.Akin, & Schwartz,L985;Weitzman'1985)'
Pr
of s.r
an"inm
Era.EY t
$gn;6.
TL
inrcrr'tr
dc-l;rg
oft.ca I
aoccdd
crddi
ueatd
sti$ i
Sf,t
Theseexplanations,however,fai.|toconsiderunderlyingoremotionalfactorsthat
-Most
pastresearchhastaken
tnlit .Ua."o financially.
,".,rtiio--"o iailing to il;;.t
of
suih
oofint"iuitionJ porp".tive and investiga-ted variablesaslength
;;;;Ailht",
payments
how
parents,.race,
of
remarriage
ii-" aiiori"d, parents'incomediffer^ential,
and unemployment(Associationof Family and
are made, custody
.1., t9S6;'e"i"t.on & Nord, 1987)'-In the future
fSiq"i".ki"t
ConciliationCourts,-r*g"Lrts,
"i
may*-i i"lppfy familyrelatedtheoryor look at relationalvariables
familvscientists
in orier to help explainwhy this problemexists'
Theprojecteddivorceratecoupledwith.thepublicityregardingtheproblems
in decisionsin marria-ge'
centeredaroundrnon"vliAuo."" .uy be producing-changes
marriages
in
their
inuest-ihemselves
to
llldi;ir"t"
For example,women
i:m iT,r^T.^tT:
antrcrpatron
monetaryassets
ofjob skilis('Cohen,1,98i),whilemenmayfail to disclose
of a potentialdivorce.
rolc I
a dirur
pcrsfi'
rith ct
Ptrysl
Sc
clildrq
a99rc
cooacll
Golbr
.-*r
r db.|,
drgq
Coac-r
eec-i
Farnily Science Rerie\Y
August, 1989
.{llg|dr
INTERVENTION
AND DIVORCE
Divorce literature reflects an increasing involvement of various professionals in
facilitating divorce. There has been a recent plethora of published articles on divorce
geun5sling/ therapy, programs for children, mediation and arbitration, and changing
roles for clergy and attorneys in divorce. However, it seemsmany professionalsinvolved
with divorce are modifying traditional philosophical approaches,designed to strengthen
marriage and thus prevent divorce, to include recognition of the reality of divorce and
the needs of individuals during the process.
Divorc e Counseling/The rapy
Divorce counseling/therapy has emerged as a legitimate specialty within marriage
and family therapy in the 1980s. While much divorce therapy is loosely based on a
traditional grief/loss model it has been clearly distinguished from approaches used to
deal with losses related to other life events (Kessler, 1975; Schwartz & Kaslow, 1985).
Also, various theoretical models have been advancedin recent years to conceptualize this
evolving specializalisa, e.g., rational-emotive (Mandell, 1988), family systems (Beal,
1985), and structural family therapy (Grief, 1986).
Program5 for children increasingly have a parent component, using some variation
of a systems approach. For example, McKinnon and Wallerstein (1983) have designed
an innsv3liys program for parents and young children in joint custody arrangements, and
many school-based programs, described as ecological, involve parents as well as other
signfficant individuals in the lives of children.
The majority of articles written on divorce counseling/ therapy describe group
intervention programs. Such groups tend to be informational as well as therapeutic,
dealing with loss, self-esteem, identity, and new relationship issues. These groups are
often atheoretical in design, and evaluations have tended to be unsystematic and/or
anecdotal and usually short-term. However, there are some notable exceptions,
excluding Graff, Whitehead, and l,ecompte's (1986) study which compared rwo group
treatments with nvo control groups, and a study by Bloom, Hodges, & Kern (1985)
which included a four-year evaluation of a group experience.
Severalarticles have recentlybeen written for the purpose of helping clergy in their
role as divorce counselorsor therapists. For example,Blomquist (1985) has proposed
a divorce adjustmentdevelopmentalmodel that providesfor strengtheningthe divorcing
person's faith. In addition, guidelines have been developed to assist clergy in working
with children experiencing the impact of divorce (e.g., Johnson, 1985).
Programs for Children
Schools are beginning to react as they recognize the prevalence of divorce places
children at risk for developmental problems. Many schools, using an ecological
approach, have developed short-term intervention programs for students in the broader
context of teachers, administrators, counselors, parents, and community (Carlson, 1987;
Goldman & King, 1985; Strauss & McGann, 1987).
Numerous articles have specified the role individual teachers may play in facilitating
a child's adjustment to divorce, including the use of bibliotherapy (Sullivan,1987),
classroom instruction (Strauss& McGann, 1987), enrichment opporFrniliss (Gray &
Coleman, L985), working with parents (Strauss & McGann, 1987), and providing
education for parents (Elkiq 1985a). The specific role of the school psychologist and
August,1989
Family Science Revien'
229
interventionmodalities,and
cognselorhavealsobeen addressedincludingassessment,
evaluation(e.g.,Goldman& King 1985).
in the
Group interventionsfor children have receivedb.y far the most attention
on
focus
and
schools
with.
literature. fhese groups-often operate in conjunction
indicated
have
Systematic
oroviding both educatio'nand p""i s,uppott.
-elaluations
aoxietv,cma be[avior problems,and negativefeelings
li i;il;;"p."..io*
fi;;
Wexler,L985;
aboutdivorce(Bornsteii, Bornstein,& ivalters,1983;Epitein, Bordwin,&
Gwynn & BrantleY,1987).
and/or ecologicalapproach-in programsfor
Given the popularity of a systems_
of siblingsas sourcesof
children,iher" nl^b"* 6oo"iog iecogoitionof thc impo-rtance
and
for
.opport" Eno (1t83tha."pr9seite{ strategies .{acilitatingsiblingsupport,
.*iuf
-C-"U"ff"tl,
their
part
of
as
support
sibling
have
ried
Ciuise,
-a-Si"U"t'(1986)
interventionstrategy.
DivorceMediation and Role of Attomey
Evaluationsof mediationappearto be generallypositive,with a majority of clients
witt Uo'ti the settlJmelt agreel91t and.the prgcels (P^41
,"p;id;;iisfactio"
Emery& wye.{,1.987b)'in addition,:tyll andFplan (1987)
Cfupp"fT,& Marcos,1,987;
found children whose faierrts uied mediation as opposedto litigation demonstrated
of
behavio'rs.Although researchdoesl-endsupportto the effectiveness
;;;pt*;.ial
t'.h"il
legal,,and
practical,
there is u n""a for mor"eresearch.A numberof
alternatlvelt
-"aiuiioo,
ouestionsremainunanswered.For example,is mediationan approprlateAlso'
in
California?
cases
visitation
and
custody
O"i" ior contested
ilil;","d,;;i.
than
mediation
with
satisfied
more
and
are
more
benelit
geoerally
men
thereis evidence
gain
to
found
been
have
f"i"*u-pt",-*on,"o *ho usethe adversarialapplog:l
*.**.
198%)'
Wyer'
&
(Emery
depression
n"-.ially and Lxperienceless
-oi"
recentno-faultera of divorce,attorneysare increasinglyinvolvedwith mental
In this
-p.of"ssionals
;e ;; required'to- assumeless adversarialroles in reaching
n"utin
attorneys
settlementagreementsfor their ciients' This has led to the assumptionthat
by
not
substantiated
was
This
assumption
role.
conciliatory
n"*,
u
are exercisin"g
identified
previously
a
validate
to
-or"
Kessel and Hochberg
irla1, who in an attempt
Family Science Review
(cil
toh
.na!
&rri
.rrr
dh
iifr
rett
!
b
Ctr.f
dod
dl
ofrcr I
of bd
FdtE
EI'
Lawyers are often poorly prepared to handle some of th" !:ryPl".gl":l-,t1
to varrous
ioterperionalissuessurroundingdivbrce..Therefore,thesehavebeenmoved
arbitration,
and
mediation
divorce
called
variously
func"tions,
interveniion
courtl-attached
(Raschke,
uau"i.-iuf intervention,and sometimescourt-appointedrequiredcounseling
types of
other
and
disputes
igaXl-- AO"pied from ihe model of labor-management
most
the
has
been
third-party
neutrala
by
conflict resolution,mediationand arbitration
resolution
conflict
basic
the
bgy9ld
Expanding
tecttoiques..
tttete
;;ntdtt gro*ing of
.ia"i, 6f eartimeai^iioo progrros (e.g, Coogler,Weber,& McKenry,.1979),.various
including.Eriksonian
tfr".i"ii."f approachesnuui UJ"o espoulsed
lo-Ctd9 the.proc^e^ss, sociallearning
(\Mallerste,Tl
pqchgdlTryic
lg-T:-1387),
ii"tg""t &' tutoss,1985-1987),
1985-1987),
"qogp^Fediation
rilri.t & Jacobson,tswligbi), fe,njt*m iteit.h,
and Bowenfamilytherapy.(Maid1-1986).Other
(Campbell& Johnsron;1-9W-,p117),
ani arbitration proclss include clarification of the
);frr;';;r-Jln"
the mediatorand counselorrole (Leithch,1986-1987;
-Laiation
Uotn
of
u-iuUitity
;iq";;;;.
strategy
mediationas.analternative
-e For exa*ple,Grebe(1986)proposes
Weaver,1985).
that of
from
role
mediator
the
diffe.entiated
huue
or techniqueior .ourn"iJ.r' Ottr".r
of
development
the
for
direction
p.rovided
have
and
1985b)
;;t;;;;t leg., Elkin,mediatiorcirriculum in highereducation(Koopman,L985)'
2n
drd
August,1989
trofu
fri
-!fil
I
ioddl
rrl b
o(ndi.
crrris I
5di
rrG
tccor
!cl-I
drua
rchio
lacd
&Dro
,l
crc{
dp
AEi
f€rtnfS
cEtr I
rFtr
Fdcr
rbcta
drb
.tlc
"qE
classification of attorneys as psychologically-minded and cooperatively-oriented
(counselors) or more technic^lly-oriented and competitively-motivated (advocates),failed
to find support for this distinction. Instead they found much ambivalence :rmong
attorneys about their role in divorce; i.e., many complained about the tension and
dissatisfaction with the role, the lack of prediction in judicial decisions, and judicial
insensitivity. The majority, however, were not supportive of mediation - both because
of loss of income and reservations about implementation.
Other studies have yielded
similar contradictions. Ash and Guyer (1986) found psychological recommendations
were significantly related to decisions in contested custody and visitation cases, and
Felner
(1985), iq a survey of both attorneys and judges regarding child custody,
-et_al.,
concluded they were willing to go beyond traditional judicial processesin determining
custody. However, Erlanger, Chambliss, and Melli (1987) found attorneys still carried
out a Yery adversarial role even in informally settled cases; they found the process to
often be contentious and beyond the control of both parties withihe mutual sitisfaction
of both clients low. Felner, Rowlison, and Farber (1987) interviewed attorneys and
judges to determine the extent of use of social science information and their views of
mental. health professionals in the divorce process. The majority of these legal
professionals did not consider either social science data or mental health professionils'
involvement or recommendations in child custody casesas critical to their practice of
family law.
CONCLUSION
This review of recent divorce literature suggestsdivorce will perhaps be no less a
societal protlem in the 190s than currently. It appears an increasing number of people
may be affected by their own or their parent's divorce. As divorce becomeJ more
common, it will also become more acceptable. Some authors have suggested that
intimate relationships will reflect a new conservatism as a result of the present AIDS
crisis and discontent with the competition between family and work systems. However,
as noted by Martin and Bumpass (1989), any stabilization in the present divorce rate
occured before there was widespread information and concern about AIDS. As society
becomes more technological, the insulation of primary relationships once provided by
non-urban environments will erode; already we are noting the lack of dilferences in
divorce rates betweem various geographic regions is the u.S.
In addition, the
relationship between increasing recreational drug use and marital instabiliry, while
scarcely addressedby researchers,will surely emerge as a factor both in the etiology of
divorce and subsequent adjustment.
Although high divorce rates and their accompanyrngpsychological and economic
consequenceshave been acknowledged and great strides have been made ia developing
and providing intervention, divorce remains an often times catastrophic problem foi the
American population. As previously cited, divorce in recent years has been linked to the
feminization of poverty and emergence of a new group of poor, long-term conflict and
hostility in the binuclear family, a legacy of dysfunction among children that may
continue.throughadulthood, numerous physicaland mental health problems, and at thi
very minimum a period of personal disorganization. It would appear society still has not
accepted the reality of divorce and related family transitions and lifestyles. Many
professionals and laypersons still view divorce and participants in divorce is deviant,
threatening the sacred institution of the family, instead of innocent survivors of
dysfunctional relationships who have terminated for human reasons and may even grow
in the process.
August, 1989
Family Science Review
23t
in the next decademust abandonmanyof the erroneousassumptions
Researchers
abouf fanily life if we are to havea more completeunderstandingo.fboth the etiology
of divorce. Assumptionsthat must be challenged-include(a)
and adjustmentprocesses
that deniesine nuidty of marital roles, (b) divorce
ideology
a traditional seirole
of
(c) there ar9-o{Y negativecon:seqlences
rJiationships,
previous
family
G.-i""t".
is
a
divorce
way,
same
ailt*,
iaf all American'subgrouosriact'to divorcein the
-(e). andjoint
(f)
mediation
short-term,
only
are
sinsle ffd eventand the ill affe-ctsof diuot""
(g) and crisistheoriesbest describedivorce.
cusTodyare only legal processes,
Campb
rt
Carlsoo
Cebalk
d
Chamb
U
Chcrtin
t+
Cohen
n
REFERENCES
Ahrons, c. R. (1979). The binuclear family Two householdgone family. Altemative Lifesryles,
2,449-515.
Ahrons, c. R., & Rodgers,R. H" (1934. Divorcedfanrilies: A multidisciplinarydevelopmental
vrew. Neu'York: Norton.
Albrecht, S. L., Bahr, H. M., & Goodman,K. L. (1983). Divorceand rcmariage:Prcblems,
adaptations,and adiusntents. Westport,CT: Greenwood'
Ash, P., it Cuy"i, M. (1i86). The function of psychiatricevaluationsin contestedchild orstody
and visitation or"r. ior ot of theAmeican Academyof Child fsycli9tUy 25, -554-56L.
.. .
Associationof Family and Conciliati,onCourts(1985). Final ipo! PryParedlo,tne9fice 9f-l!11!
SupportEnforcLment,Departmentof H?4th and Human Services.Grant No. LBP'06262COi. Wasifugton,DC: Departmentof Health and Human Senrices'
Bahr, S"J., Chappeli,C. 8., & Marcos,A. C. (1987).An evaluationof a trial mediationprogram.
Mediation Quartedy, 18,37'52.
Beal, E. W. (19*). Sysiems'viewof divorceinterventionstrategies.Family TherapyCollection,
12, 1G33.
Becker,G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage. In T. W. Schultz(Ed.), Economicsof thefamily.
Chicago,IL: Universityof ChicagoPress.
Berman, Wl if. (fS8S). Tire role oiattachment in the past divorce experience. Ioumal of
54' 49G503'
Penonalityand SocialPsychologr,
Berman,W. H; & Turk, D. i. (fSAI). Adaptationto divorce:Problemsand copingstrategies.
lownal of Maniage and the Fantily, 43' 179-L89.
Block,J., Bloci, J. H.,k Gjerde,P. F.i1983). Parentalfunctioningand the homeenvironment
in families of divorce: Prospectiveand concurrent analyses. lountal of the Ameican
27,207'213'
Academyof Chitd and AdolescentPsychiatry,
Blomquist,l.'ftl.iUaOl. Exploringspirituil dimensions:Toward a hermeneuticdivorce.Pastoral
Psychologt,34, I6l't72.
for the
Bloom,'8. L.,fiodges, W. F., & Kern, M. B. (1985). Prorentiveinterventionp_'oq1ry
9-?5..
55,
of
Orthoprychiafiy,
louma!
Ameican
newtyseparat-ed:Final waluations.
Bloom,B.L. Asher,S.J., & White,S. W. (1978).Marital disruptionas a stressor:A reviewand
analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 85' 857-894.
Bornstein,tU. f., nornitein, P. H., & Walters, H. A. (1983). Chil-dren-ofdivorce: Empir'rcal
waluation of a grouptieatmentprogram.Ioumat of CtinicalChild Psychologt,__17,248-?54.Boss, p- (1984. Fairily'Stress. In M.-g. Sussman& S. K. Steinmetz{Eds.), Handbook of
maniageand thefantily. New York: Plenum.
Breault, X" b., * Kpoio*a, A. J. (1980. Explainingdiv-orcein llre-U^nljgdStates: A stuqvof
3,i11 countrie.^,tlSO. lownal of M*ia4e and the Family,49' 549'558'
Bro*n, p., Felton,O. 1.,Wtrltem"n,U., & ManelaR. (1980).Attachmentsand distressfollowing
marital separation.loumal of Divorce,3' 303-317'
Brown,P., & Manela,R" (1977).Clanging familyroles:women and divorce.Ioumal of Divorce,
11,315-328.
M. (19S7).Divorce-relatedstressors:Occurrence,disruptiveness'
Buehler,C. andLangenbrunner,
and area of life change.lownal of Divorce, 11' 5l-'70'
Bumpass,L. L., & SweetiJ. L" (lg72i. Differentials in marital instability: 1970. Ameican
sociologicalReview,37, 75+76f.
)a)
Familv Science Rwiew
August, 1989
CoogJe
fa
Crosby,
P|
Demo.
th
ElkrL !
a
Elkirr. f
Emen.
el-
1l
Eno.V
Ft
Epsrcrn
.A
Erlange
vt
Felnct.
of
Felner.
sc
ll
Fursrcd
&
H
Fursrcn
n't
Ger:reL
Fa
Gcrslct
an
Fa
Gladso
eq
Glidr- P
Fa
Cbdr P
!'1
Goidrne
R.
Graff. R
u9
Gof'. !v
F
Augut.
campbell, L. E., & Johnsoq J. R. (19861987).
_Multifamily mediarion: The use of groupsto
resolve child custodydisputes. Mediation euanedy,
l4l\, 137-162.
Carlsorr,_C.
I' (1987).Helpingltudentsdealwith &vorcejiehted issues.spec;olServices
in school,
3,1 2 1 -1 3 8 .
ceballero,A. M., cruise, K., & stollak, G. (19g6).The long-termaffectsof divorce: Mothersand
children in concurrentsupportgroups. fownal of D1vorce,10,2Lg_ZZg.
charnbers, T. K.
Motd"s yatnei
pay: The eilorcemeit
ii;ti ,"pp"n chicago, IL:
'
University of-(1979).
"i
Chicago press.
cherlin, A., & Furstenb"tBr_F:_F.,
Jr. (1989,March 2g). Divorce doesn,talrrayshun the kids.
WashingtonPost,pp. 37-38.
cohen,.L'
Mariii.gg, gorr:
rents;or, 'I gavehim the bestyearsof my life."
-(ti8z). of Legal Sntdies, T-g -qlrr
Theloumal
16,267-303.
coogler,._o.J., Weber, R.. E., & McKenry, p. c. (1g7g). Divorce mediation: A means
of
_fa1ilit3tr1gdivorce adjustmenr.Famiiy Coodiiator'2g,2SS_?S1.
^
crosby, J. F,_Lybarger,S. K., & Mason"R: L. (19g7). 'ihe grief resolutionprocessin divorce:
PhaseII. toumal of Divorce, 10,17-33.
Demo,D. H, & A,cock,A-.c. (198s). The impactof divorceon children.Ioumal of Mariage and
the Fanily, 50,61945"
Elkin'^M. (1985a). Pluggingthe holes in people'ssouls: When divorce comes. Conciliation
CounsReview.23.5-n.
Elkin,.M. (1985b)-Deffing professionalboundariesbetweenthe law and the behavioralsciences
m the_practiceof divorcemediation. conciliation couns Review,23, 5{..
Emery, E., & Wyer,M. M. (1987b).Child custodymediationanOlitigation: An o(perimental
l.
evaluationof the orperienceof parents.loumal of cowtselingan7 ainbal psyih"ig,, ss,
179-186.
Eno, M. M.-.(1_985):Slblingrelationshipsin familiesof divorce.Ioumal of psychothempy
arttl tlte
Family,,l, 139-156.
Epstein,Y' M., Bordrin,9.Y.,.* w.or"I,A. s. (19g5).The childrenhelpingchildrenprogram:
A caseillustration.SpecialSenicesin the Schoo[s,2,73_93.
Erlanger,H. S., chambliss,E.,.& Me[i, M. s. (19g2). participationand flociblity in informal
processes:
caution from the divorcecontest. Law and siiety Review,21,5g5-604.
Felner,-R.D., Rowlison,
& Frb"-.,_!, s (1985) child custo{r practicesano perspectives
l. 1,
of_legalprofessionals._.Iownats
of Ctinical Child psychologt,jq, Zl-lq.
Felner,R. D., Rowlison,R. T., & Farber,S.s. (19go. chia cusi6oy."roruiion,A studyof social
scienceinvolvement and impact. Profesiiona'lPsychologt:Fisearch and pmcdcJ, 1g, 46g474.
Furstenberg, A., Jr. (1988). Child careafter divorceand remarriage.In E. M. Heatherington
.F.
on cttittirctr.
9..1.- ArTIgh (Eds.), Impact of divorce,single-parcntingan7 stepparcnting
Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Furstenberg,
parenting
F. A., Jr., &-Nord,,c.-w. (19s5).
apart:parternsof child rearingafrer
T"-lt"J_ gi{rption. lownat of maniage and the eanity) 47, 993_904.
Gerstel,N. (1988)' Divorceand kin ties:The importanceoi gender.Joumal of Maniageatttl tlte
Family,50,2W-2L9.
Gerstel,N., Reissman,
c. K., q Rosenfeld,
s. (1985).Explainingthe symptomatologr
of separated
anddivorcedwomenand men: The role of materiil cond-itions'ani
socialnetworks. Socia!
Forces,64, 84-101.
Gladstone,J.,W.(1988).Perceivedchange.
in grallmgther-grandchildrelationsfollowinga child's
separationor divorce. TheGercntologist,
2g, &72.
Glick' P. q: (1984)
Prospectivechanges.rountal of
]vlgrriage,divorceano living arrangements:
FamilyIssues,5,7-2b.
Glick, P.
9" & Lin, s. (19{6). Recentchangesin divorceand remarriage. rownal of Madage artd
the Family, 48,737-747.
Goldman,R.
5r'^{-{gg, M. J. (1985). Counselingchildren of divorce. Schootof psyclrotogt
Review,14,2W290.
Graff, R. w., whitehead,G. Er & Lecompte,M. (19g6). Group treatmentwith divorcedwomen
usin-g_cogritive-behavioral
& supportive-insight
psycholog,
methods.'lownalof Counseling
33,27G28t.
Gray' M. M., & coleman,
(19.85). Separationthrough divorce: Supponiveprofessionai
-]tr.
practices. Child Carc euanedy,
14, Z4g_,26J'
August, 1989
Family Science Renierv
Grebe, S. C. (1936). Mediation in separation and divorce. toumal of Counselingand
Development, 64, 379'382.
c- i. 1u6r;.' clinical work with the iingls'1a1herfamily A structural approach'
crier,'Intematioial
loumal of FamilyPsychiatry,7,261-275'
biuorce and mental health sequelaefor children:A twoJ., & Perry,r. b. ltlt$. 'sample.
Guidubaldi,
-- loumal of theAmeican Academyof Child Psychiatry,
y""i fbU6*-"p of a nationwide
24,53r-537.
G*ynn, c" A., & Brantley,H. T. (1984. Effegt of a divorcegroup interventionfor elementary
school children. Psvcholowin the Schools,24, l61-l6y'.'
Wales: Resalefrom
-nastey,J. C. (1987). Diiorce ii the earlyyear o_fmarriage_inEngland.and
i ptotportive'studyusinglinked ry"9rq -lgunal ofniosgcjyt-Scln9e, 19,255'271
Haskins,R., DoUetstein,A. W:, Akin, J. S., & Schwartz,J. B. (19S6).Eytiygtesof national child
suppottcollectionspotentiat and the incomesecwityof female-headedfamilies. Washington,
D'i: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services(Office of Child Support
Enforcement).
Hav"it"t. P., Stinnett,N., & DeFrain, J. (1980)" Learningabout marriagefrom the divorced'
toumal of Divorce, 4, Z3-29"
of children' In E' M'
Hernandez,Dl f. (lS8Si. Demographictrends and living arrange-ments
Heatherington, & i. D. eraitsfi (Eds.), Impact of diiorce, single-parcntingand stepparcnting
on children. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Hetherington,E. M., Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1976). The aftermathof divorce. In J. H' Stevens&
tvt."trtaitrews (Eds.), Mother-chitd,father-child rclations. Washington,DC: National
Associationfor the Educationof Young Children'
Hettrerington,E. M., Cox,M., & Cox,R. (1976). Divorcedfathers. Fanily Cootdinator,25,4174?8.
Hetherington,E. M., Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1977). Divorcedfathels Prychologtr9(W' l!' +.l.lf
E. R. (1989).Marital transitions:A child's
M., & Andgr-son,
ff"ifr".i"Eton, g. U., Staniey-Hagan,
perJpectives.Ameican Psychologist,44, 303-312.
Hobnfs, i. & Ruh", R. (1976).'The iocial readjustmentrating scale. Iownal of Psychological
Research,11,213-218.
K., & Spanier,G. B. (1980). Marital disryPtionand highereducationamong
Houseknecht,-S.
womenin the U. S. Sociological
Quanedy,21,375-389'
Johason,C.L., & Barber,B. M. (1987). Marital instabilityand the changingkinshipnetworksof
27' 33U335.
grandparents.The Gercntologist,
A pastoralcareapproach.PastomlPsychologt'33,200Johnsiln,F.'(1985). Children of div"orce:
204.
Keirh, P. M. (1986). Isolation of the unmarriedin later life. FamilyRelations,35' 389-395.
for change. Chicago,IL: Nelson
i"*ri., S. (1b7t.' TheAmeican Wayof divorce:Perceprions
Hall.
Kitson, G. C. (1982). Attachrnentsto rhe spousein divorce:A scaleand its application.Iotunal
of Maniageand the Fanily, 44,379-393.
Kitson,G. C.,"& Langlie,J. K: (19&1).coupleswho file for divorcebut changetheir minds'
54,469489'
Ameican loumal of Otthopsychiatry,
jn
Koopman,K. J. (1935).The presentand futurerole of higheranaluation divorcemediation:
problemsand premisein teaching,researchand service.Ioumal of Divorce,8, 15'32.
Krantzler, M. (1975i. Crcaive divorci A new oppottunityfor penonal gowth. New York: lv{'
Evans.
Kressel,K., & Hochberg,A. M. (1987). Divorce attorneys: Assessmentof a typologr and
attitudestowardslegal reform. toumal of Divorce,10, L'L4'
Kurdek, L. A., & Siesky,-A. E. (1980). Childrins' perceptionof their parents'divorce. Jotuttal
of Divorce,J, 339-378.
Leitch, M. L. (i9ti61987). The politics of compromise:A feminist perspectiveon mediation.
MediationQuaftedy,I+15, 163-175.
Leslie,L., A GriCy, f (iSAt. bhungesin motherssocialnetworksand socialsupportfollowing
divorce. Ioumal of Maniageand the Family,47, 66'3474.
and'dissolution:An integlative revierv" Iountal of
Laninger,G. (1965). \,iarital c6hesiveness
t9-23.
27,
FamilY,
and
the
Maniage
Lloyd, S. a,.i * Zicy, c. D. (i986). Divorceat mid- and later- life: Does the empiricalevidence
supPortthe theory? loumal of Divorce,9,89-102.
2y
Familv Science Rwiew
August, 1989
Lory |
o
Vald..
a
Van&
E
Vanra
t
VcKrfi
I
l'
VcKca
Fr
\{ibrd(
q
\{on I
l
\arroat
.Y
E
\elsm.
to
Nonm.
G
5onq.
u
Pasf6'.
(l
Pacrro
r*
EJ
Pncr-B
rc
Pnce-B
h
Pncq S
Randr
Y
Ras<t*
a|.
SerB6.
.u
Scarza
.(4
Sdrrrt
'+'
Shcno.
Ill
Siarcr.I
II
Spans.
c!
Sqa.g.
S.
PT
Sp.rE.
rcl
Sra11
:x
Attglrrr.
Long, B. I{. (1986). Parentaldiscordvs. family stnrcture: Effeas of divorceon the self-esreem
_ . of-dalghters. Iournal ofYouth andAdoiescence,15,L9-21.
-Maida,
P. R.-(12q6): Componentsof Bowen'sfamily'theoryand divorcemediation. Mediation
Quaxedy,12,5L43.
Mandell, B. (1988). Mothers post-divorce:The challengesof adjustment.Iournal of RationalEmotiveand CognitiveThempy,6, 81-101.
Martin, T' c., & BumpasgL. L. (19s9). Recenttrendsin marital disruption. Demogmphy,
26,
3749"
McKinnon, R., & wallerstein,J. S. (19gg). prwentive intenlen- tion progam for parentsand
young children in joint custodyarrangements.Ameican loumal il oinopsycniitty, 5s,
16g178.
McKenry, P. C., & Price,S. J. (1989). Researchbias in family science:Sentimentover reason.
Family ScienceReview,l, L3-28.
Milardo,-R. (1937).CILng-".in socialnetworksof womenand men followingdivorce.loumal
Y.
of FamilyIssues,8,7A96.
Mott, F L., & Moore, s. F. (1979). The causesof marital disruptionamongyoungAmerican
women:An inrerdiscipF"ry p"rtpgg,re.
lou\al of Morioi" and the r-aitty, il, zss-les.
National Center for Health Statistics(uao;. Births,
deathsfor 1979.
Repon,Vol.28.,No. 12. Hyattwill"e,
-ioi"g"r,?ioices,-uno
t"tp, U.S.b"parrment of Heaith,
{gnthtyWtal Statistic_s
Education,and Welfare.
Nelson,G' (1981). Moderatorsof women'sand children'sa justmentfollowingparentaldivorce.
toumal of Divorce,4,7t-83.
Norton, 4. Jr' & Glick, P. c' (1979). Martial instabilityin America:Past,presentand future. In
G. Lryrngel & o. Moles (Eds.),Divorceand seiamtion N.v yoitl BasicBooks.
Norton' A. J.' & Moorman, q. (1987).Currenttrenrlsin marriageand divorceamongAmerican
-J.
wgm_e_n.
Iowtral of Maniage
and the Fatnily,49,3-14.
_
Pasley,.B.K., & Ihinger-Tallman,.M.(1_989).Boundaryambiguityin remarriage:Does ambiguiry
differentiat-ed_egree_of_ryryg!
a-ojugtment
and int"taction.' FamilyRetitions, 3g, 4G5v. '
Peterson,
of chitd t"ppi e murti-stepprocess.
Ir L., & Nord, c. w. (19s7). Thercsurarrc_ceipr
wa-shington,DC: Depanment of Healtfi ana Humai s"*i."j-ioince of chli Suppo.t
Enforcement.)
Price-Bonham,S. J., & Balswick,J. O. (1980). The noninstitu-tions: Divorce, disertion,
and
remarriage.Joumal of Mariage and theFamily,42,225_23g.
Price-B-onham,,S:,.,Wighr,
D.,-& Fittman, J. (f9gi). For t souserclarionships:
A t1,potog,,.
Presented
at theAnnualM9-e1r1g
o_fthe WorldCongress
of Sociolory.MexicbCiry,itexi;o.
S,
lrice,
{.,.* l{:Kegy, P. C. (1983). Divorce. Navbuft park, CA: Sa!e.
Rands,Jv{.-(1988).Changesin socialnetworksfollowingmarital separaiionand divorce. In
R.
CA: Sage.
.14. Yita,fqg_(Ed.),Famitiesand socialnetwori<s.t{amury park,'uiauit
Raschke, (198?. Divorce. In M. Sussman& s. steinmrtr
of maniageand
6or.;,
-H.
thefanily.
New York: plenum.
SargengG., & Moss,A. (\9tr]987). Eriksonianapproachesin familv therapyand mediation.
Mediation Quattedy,14, B7-LW.
scanzoni,.J.,
Polonko,K.,,Teachman,J:, ftolplon, r . (19g9). Thesextarbond:Rethirtking
*
familiesand closerclarionships.Newburypark, iA: Sage.'
Schwartz,L. L., & Kaslorv,F. W. (19g5). widows and divorcees: The same or different?
Ameican Journalof Fataily Thempy,13,72-j.
Shelton,
B. A. (198D. Variationsin'blvorce rate by communitysize:A test of the social
integration_orplorati_o_n.
Ioumal of Maniageand ihe Family,iC, AZlAnZ.
Slater,E. J., & Calhoun,K. S. (1988). Familialconllictand mirital'dissolution:Effects
on the
socialfunctionineofcollege-students.
IournalofsociatandClinicalpsychologt,6,llg-126.
Spanier,G. B., & Cast-o,R. F. (i979). a-o;ustments
to separatlonand divorce:An analvsisof 50
casestudies.Iournal of Divorce,2,24I_253.
Spanier,G. B., & Furstenberg,F. F. (1987). Remarriageand reconstirutedfamilies. In M.
B.
Sussman& s. K. steinmetz (Eds.), Handbookoi mariage and thre
New york:
famity
Plenum.
Spanier,G. B., & Hanson,-S_.
(1931). The role of extendedkin in the adjustmentto mariral
s?aration. Joumal of Divorce,J, 334g.
stewart,J. R., Schwebel,A. I.,.&.Fine, y.-A. (19g6_).The impact of custodialarrangemenrs
on
the adjustmentof recentlydivorcedfathers. Jownar of bivorce, g, 55{5.
August, 1989
Family Science Revierv
235
Stolberg A. L., & Bush, J. P. (1935). A pSth analysisof factors predictingchildren'sdivorce
adjustment. Iowdal of Ctinical Child Psychologt,14' 49-54'
temporal19OeJqf divorceadjustments
StofUer(
- - -;?h e- 1., Kiluck D. J.;& Garrison,K. M. (1986).A
& A. J. Stolberg(Eds.)' Cntts
M.
Averbach
in
S.
prevention.
primary
for
impiications
interuenion with chiktrcn and fanilies. Washington,DC: Hemisphere'
Strauss,J. 8., & McGann,J. (1987). Building a networkfor childrenof divorce" SocialWo* in
Education,9, 9G105.
Stuart,R. B., & Jacobson,B. O. (19861987).Principalsof divorcemediation:A sociallearning
Mediation Quaxedy, I4JLAi"
approach.
-61
.
StuU, 8., & Kaplan,N. t"t. 1U41. The positiveimpact of divorce mediationon children's
behavior. Mediation Quanerly,18' 53-59.
Suttivan,j. (1937). Read aioud s"r.iont, Teaching sensitiveissuesthrough literature. Reacling
Teacher,40,874378.
TeachmaqJ.'(1986). First and secondmarital dissolution:A decompositiono<ercisefor blacks
and whites. SociologicalQuatterly,27, 57t-5m.
Thornpion, L. & Spaniei, C. e. 1tl-4f1. The end of marriage and acceptanceof marital
iermination. loumal of Maniageand the Fanily,45' 103'113'
of divorce'
Wallerstein,J. S. (1985a). ihe o"erburdenedchild: Somelong-termconsequences
Social Wor*, 30, llGlZ3.
wallerstein, J. s.'(19b5b). Children of divorce:Emergingtrends. Psyciiartc clinics of Nonh
Ameica,8, 837-855.
Wallersrein,i. S. 1tlAeUA4. Pqychodynamic
Perspectiveson family mediation. Mediariort
' Quaaedy,1415,7-21.
Walleistein,j. S. (fS86). Women afrer divorce:Preliminaryrepon from a ten-yearfollow-up.
Ameican Joumat of Otthopsychiary,56, 65-77.
Men,womenand childrcna decadeafter
Wallerstein,J. S.,& Bhklslee, S. lilAl;.'Secon d chances:
&
Fields.
Tichnor
York:
divorce. Nerv
Walleistein,J., Corbin, S. B., & Lewis,J. M. (19SS).Children of divorce:A ten-yearstudy. In
E. M. Fieatheringtonb J. Arasteh (Eds.), Impact of divorce,single-panntingand stepparentingon childrcn.Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.
Waldrstein,l] S.,A Kelly,J. B. (1980). Sttwilzngthebrcakup:How childrcnandpatentscopev'itlr
divorce. NervYork: BasicBooks.
Weaver,J. (1936). Therapeuticimplicationsof divorcemediation. MediationQuaneiy, 12,7590.
Weiss,R. S. (1975). Maritat sePamtion.New York: BasicBooks'
Weiss,R. S. (UZli. Growingup a little faster:The experienceof growingup in a single-parent
household.Ioumal of Social Issues,35,97'lll'
Weitzman,L. (1985). The'divorcercvolution:Theunqected socialand economicconsequettces
Press'
forwomen and childrcnin Ameica. New York: Free
Welcir, C. E., & price-Bonham,S. (1983). A decadeof no-fault divorce revisited:California,
Georgia,and Washington.Joumal of Maniageanl tle Family,45,.411418'
andihe processof divorce. SocialCasewot*,56,205-212.
Wiseman,fi.. 3. lfezsy. Crl'sistheory
'Court-ord-ered
supportPayments:The effect of the formerWrigtrt,fi. W., ei prici, S. J. (19S5).
"rpou* relationshipon io.pli"nc". loumal of Maniage
fanr!\ 48,869-8'14'
, "
1nd.t(
yeh, Ii. y., & Lester, D. (1987).-Statewidedivorcerates and wive'sparticipationin the labor
market. toumal of Divorce,11' 107-114.
0u
su,
an
4S
rc
cm
Rc
the su
prcpard
or relat
persPc{r
bv thc d
Bale r,
\l'eatlu
therapvI
the fani
matters
struclun
may-hav
froo dil
Rc.
help pro
a breal i
and to
per€par
i- pt t 'e
thera;frr
' L1lc J
Carbondl
7X
Family Science Review
August, 1989