Topic: divorce and its impact on children

Effects of Divorce on Children: Differential Impact of Custody and Visitation Patterns Author(s): Carol R. Lowery and Shirley A. Settle Source: Family Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 455-463 Published by: National Council on Family Relations Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/584005 Accessed: 25-04-2019 06:18 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/584005?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Family Relations

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Effects of Divorce on Children:

Differential Impact of Custody and

Visitation Patterns

CAROL R. LOWERY AND SHIRLEY A. SETTLE*

The present paper reviews the research literature on children's experience of the restructuring of the family following divorce. Methodological issues in this area are addressed. Recurrent findings are identified and then discussed within a theoretical framework using cumulative stress and family systems concepts. The effects of divorce are organized according to differences observed as a function of the follow- ing variables: the child's age and gender, parental conflict, post-divorce family stability, and parent-child relationships. Custody arrangements and visitation pat- terns potentially minimizing the deleterious effects related to these variables are iden tified.

How children are affected by divorce has become an important topic of research over the last 20 years, in keeping with the rising divorce rates. As divorce statistics have risen, so has the number of children involved in this type of family disruption, more than 1 million children per year (Bane, 1979; Crosby, 1980; Glick, 1979). Researchers have long recognized the poten- tially powerful and pervasive impact of divorce on the lives of family members. However, it has taken a long time to untangle the web of a com- plex event in order to identify aspects of the divorce process that are relevant to family members' subsequent adjustment. Our think- ing has been hampered by empirical findings that were largely artifacts of methodological limitations of the research and theories that failed to recognize the interpersonal and con- textual variables operating in divorce as a proc- ess rather than as an instant event. The present review attempts to sort the wheat from the chaff: reliable, replicated findings are identi- fied and interpreted using stress and family systems concepts for the theoretical frame-

*Carol R. Lowery is an Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044. Shirley A. Settle is a doctoral student in that same department.

Key Words: cumulative stress, custody, divorce, post- divorce stability, visitation.

(Family Relations, 1985, 34, 455-463.)

work. Major variables that have been sorely neglected in the research are identified in order to provide direction to future efforts in this important area.

In the past decade, researchers began trying to discover what the range of effects of family disruption on children might be and what aspects of divorce seem to cause that most problems. The earlier research on the long- term effects of divorce on children focused primarily on the loss of one parent, usually the father. Problems manifested in children of divorce were assumed to be caused by paternal absence (Longfellow, 1979; Nye, 1957; Stiegman, 1966). As the frequency of divorce increased, a popular mythology grew about father-absent families: the sons who became either effeminate or juvenile delinquents and the daughters who became promiscuous. In their comprehensive review of the father absence literature, Herzog and Sudia (1973) found little support for these interpretations of earlier data. Bernard and Nesbitt (1981) described divorce as an unreliable predictor of mental illness, low achievement, and delin- quency. In fact, a direct causal link between divorce and a variety of children's problems has not been supported by more recent, better controlled studies. Whereas earlier research dealt largely with clinical samples, the more re- cent research has focused more on "normal" children. Researchers have now begun to realize that there is more involved in the prob- lems of disrupted families than father absence.

October 1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 455

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

A recent shift in the divorce literature has been toward the concept of cumulative stress in children of divorce. The cumulative stress model assumes that there is a threshold of stress that can be exceeded either by a single event that is extremely stressful or by the oc- currence of several events of a less stressful nature within a short period of time, not allow- ing for enough time between events to recover. The disruption of a family by divorce is seen as not one event, but a collection of less stressful events which, together, exceed some chil- dren's tolerance of stress (Hetherington, 1979; Hodges, Wechsler, & Ballantine, 1979; Kurdek, 1981; Longfellow, 1979). According to the cumulative stress approach, then, it is the ac- cumulation of stress which causes the prob- lems frequently seen in children of divorce. Ad- ditional factors which may increase the stress- ful impact of the events involved in the divorce are the degree of ambiguity and absence of preparation for the events; the availability of support in the child's social network; and the duration of tension or unresolved conflict before the child's life settles into a relatively stable pattern (Lazarus, 1966).

Another model evident in the current divorce literature is the family systems or family proc- esses approach. This approach indicates that the relationships among family members do not end when divorce occurs; the relationships are merely altered (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hunt- ington, 1982; Musetto, 1978). Even the relation- ship between husband and wife is continued through the children. Within this framework, the problems associated with divorce cannot be understood unless they are examined in light of the continuing relationships among the family members.

It is important to determine which aspects of divorce are most stressful to children and to discover how different patterns in the continu- ing relationships within the family either ex- acerbate or mitigate the stress precipitated by the initial changes associated with divorce.

Reliable Findings

Though the amount of research on divorce and children has increased tremendously, the quality of much of the research to date leaves something to be desired (Bleckman, 1982). There have been so many different approaches to the problem and so little replication that it is difficult to draw valid conclusions about the major sources of stress for children from the existing body of literature.

Sampling problems. Typical problems that plague the literature include small samples (McDermott, 1968); samples from more highly educated and more affluent families than average (Hodges et al., 1979; Rothberg, 1983); samples from lower SES groups where con- founding effects of poverty and low educa-

tional levels prohibit a clear interpretation of the data (Thomes, 1968); samples based on referrals to mental health clinics or school guidance programs (Felner, Stolberg, & Cowen, 1975; Porter & O'Leary, 1980; Tuckman & Regan, 1966); and samples limited only to mother-custody families (Hess & Camara, 1979; Kopf, 1970; Santrock, 1975). Selection of ap- propriate statistics that will not be biased by a few extreme scores can be a major problem. Many of the studies do not include suitable control groups that would facilitate interpreta- tion of the data. It becomes impossible to sort out whether findings are due to the divorce process itself or to other characteristics of the particular sample studied.

For example, compared to the custodial mother, little is known about the experience of the custodial father (Jacobs, 1982). Even less is known about the noncustodial father who disengages from the family since he is not like- ly to participate in empirical studies (Gold- smith, 1980; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979; Koch, 1982). Very little is known about non- custodial mothers.

Procedural problems. Typical procedural problems include retrospective data collected several years after the separation, when in- tervening variables are a likely confound (Luep- nitz, 1979; Stiegman, 1966); parental reports or teacher reports as the only measures (Felner, Farber, Ginter, Boike, & Cowen, 1980); and observation or direct contact with the children limited to only a few minutes per child (Felner et al., 1975; Kelly & Wallerstein, 1976; Kopf, 1970; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1980a, 1980b). Relying heavily on parents and teachers for information is extremely risky. The parents are likely to be unable to be objective; clinical and empirical reports indicate that divorce is a situation in which parents have par- ticular difficulty maintaining an accurate understanding of the child's perspective (Luep- nitz, 1982; Tessman, 1978). Teachers may not know that much about a given child and it has also been found that teachers can have a nega- tively biased view of the behavior of children they know to be from divorced families (San- trock & Tracy, 1978).

Consistent Research Findings

Given these criticisms, there are some find- ings that have been fairly consistent through- out the literature which merit noting. Most studies which have compared children from di- vorced and intact families have found some statistically significant differences between the two groups in some areas, sometimes favoring divorced families and sometimes favoring intact families (Biller, 1969; Felner et al., 1975; Felner et al., 1980; Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979; Hodges et al., 1979; Santrock, 1975; Santrock & War-

456 FAMILY RELATIONS October 1985

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

shak, 1979; Tuckman & Regan, 1966). However, it should be noted that there are also several studies showing no significant differences in either direction (Bernard & Nesbitt, 1981; Raschke & Raschke, 1979; Thomes, 1968). A clearer picture emerges when studies are or- ganized by variables that have consistently been identified as mediating the effects of d ivorce.

Age. Divorce seems to have some negative short-term effects on most children's social or cognitive development, but younger children seem to have more severe reactions to the divorce of their parents (Hetherington, 1966; 1979; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1981; Long- fellow, 1979; Santrock, 1975). Children who are under age 5 at the time of divorce seem to be more vulnerable to developmental disruption and depression (Longfellow, 1979; McDermott, 1968). Younger children also tend to show more anxiety than older children (Tuckman & Regan, 1966) and to somatize more than older children, showing more eating disturbances, weight gain or loss, and more physical com- plaints (Luepnitz, 1979).

However, there is some question as to how early children show reactions to parental separation. Lamb (1977) found that young in- fants showed no preference in their attach- ment behavior for either parent by sex; similar- ly, Spelke, Zelazo, Kagan and Kotelchuck (1973) found that the father's presence was just as comforting as the mother's in certain un- familiar situations. Developmental literature in- dicates that children form a primary attach- ment to a specific person sometime between 6 months and 1 year of age (Rutter, 1979), with additional attachments soon thereafter. None of the divorce studies reviewed included chil- dren under 2 years of age. This raises the ques- tion of whether a child who has not yet formed a strong attachment to a parent would react negatively to reduced contact with that parent. Generalizing from the developmental literature, one could conclude that reduced contact with the primary attachment figure when a child is between the ages of 6 and 12 months would be quite stressful, and less stressful than if con- tact were reduced with a secondary attach- ment figure. Before 6 months, the distinctions between primary and secondary attachment would be less important, as it would be after about 12 months of age.

However, this remains speculative and is based on generalization from a body of litera- ture that does not explicitly address the issue of the relative levels of stress experienced by an infant under each of the various patterns of custody and visitation established by families after a divorce. Lay and judicial wisdom has dictated that the younger the child, the more likely that custody goes to the mother (Bratt, 1977), with shorter periods of visitation but at

no greater frequency than that provided for older children. Although at least one study with older children has demonstrated that the dura- tion of visitation, but not its frequency, is asso- ciated with better noncustodial parent-child relationships (Hess & Camara, 1979), virtually nothing is known about the patterns of custody and visitation that will enhance post- divorce family relationships when very young children are involved.

Longfellow (1979) has presented a break- down by age level/developmental level of the immediate stress reactions of children to divorce from a compilation of data (Kelly & Wallerstein, 1976; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974, 1975, 1976). Preschool children (21/2 to 6 years) were frightened and confused, and tended to blame themselves. Wallerstein and Kelly (1975) note that this self-blaming attitude was par- ticularly resistant to change. These children showed a great need for physical contact and comfort, and expressed fears of punishment or rejection. All of the preschool children had dif- ficulty expressing feelings and only the 5- and 6-year-olds had any understanding of what the divorce meant in terms of changes taking place. Early latency children (7 to 8 years) did not blame themselves, but expressed feelings of sadness, fear and insecurity. They had dif- ficulty expressing anger toward their parents and had a strong desire for parental reconcilia- tion. In later latency (9 to 10 years), the children had a better understanding of the situation and could better express their anger. However, they felt a conflict of loyalty, were lonely, and were ashamed of their parents' behavior. The adoles- cents (13 to 18 years) most openly expressed their anger, sadness, and shame. They also en- gaged in examination of the familial relation- ships and their own values and concepts. Chil- dren in this age group were better able to dis- engage themselves from their parents' con- flicts and regain their emotional equilibrium.

Sex. Boys typically show more,, maladjust- ment and more prolonged problems than girls in response to divorce. For boys, the increase in aggression, dependency, disobedience, and developmental regression is greater than for girls and the effects persist for a longer period of time (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979; Hetherington et al., 1979; McDermott, 1968). Boys show more problems in mother/son interaction than they do in father/son interac- tion (Hetherington, 1979; Hetherington et al., 1981).

The differences between boys and girls in their reactions to parental divorce are more puzzling than the age differences in children. At least one study (Santrock & Warshak, 1979) has found that boys show more competent be- havior, more maturity, and are less demanding in the custody of their fathers. A possible ex- planation for the poor adjustment of boys

October1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 457

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

following divorce is that they are almost always in the custody of their mothers and have limited contact with their fathers. Given that the formation of functional subsystems within a family frequently crosses generations down the line of gender (Minuchin, 1974), boys may feel the relative loss of their fathers more acutely than do girls (Hetherington, 1979).

Another possible factor is that boys are usually more aggressive than girls at all ages. One study (Tuckman & Regan, 1966) showed an increase in aggression for both sexes in chil- dren from divorced families, but that increase may push the boy's behavior past acceptable limits while an increase in a girl's aggressive behavior might still not be labeled problematic behavior. There is evidence that some of the in- creased aggressive behavior shown by boys may represent the boy's childlike attempt to re- establish a masculine presence in the family (Tooley, 1976). From a systems point of view, this would be more likely to occur in families where the father's involvement was minimal and sporadic after the divorce. The boy's be- havior would occur with subtle encouragement by other family members (Haley, 1976) as an at- tempt to compensate for the "loss" of the father. Confirmation of the occurrence of such a dynamic, however, remains an empirical issue.

When a son is a great deal like the father, the mother may vent hostility toward the father on the son, thereby enacting the dysfunctional cross-generation enmeshed relationship that has been documented in the family therapy literature (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 1980; Hetherington, 1979; Kopf, 1970). It is likely that some minimum number of occasions for direct contact between the adults would be necessary if a process of scapegoating a son is to be avoided. That is, some contact with the true target of the mother's anger may help minimize its displacement on a son who hap- pens to resemble the father in some ways.

Parental conflict. Several studies have shown that predivorce parental conflict is associated with poorer adjustment in children, and that children from intact but conflict- ridden homes have more behavior problems than do children from divorced homes where the parents no longer show a high level of con- flict (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979; Hodges et al., 1979; Kurdek & Siesky, 1980; Longfellow, 1979; Luepnitz, 1979; McCord, Mc- Cord, & Thurber, 1962; Nye, 1975; Raschke & Raschke, 1979).

Several researchers have found that both divorced men and women report that the most stressful period in the transition from married to divorced life was during the period im- mediately before the separation, marked by overt and covert mistrust and disagreement (Albrecht, 1980; DeFrain & Eirick, 1981; Weiss,

1975). If this period is most stressful for the parents, it is reasonable to hypothesize that this is also a stressful time for the children. At least one study found that children also reported this period to be the most stressful (Luepnitz, 1979). A crucial factor may be whether the separation and divorce function as a mechanism to reduce the parental tension or whether it serves as a respite for each parent to regroup and rearm for a continuing battle whenever they have contact. There is some evi- dence that a small proportion of divorced parents continue to be over involved in each other's lives in a hostile, conflicted way

(Kressel, Jaffe, Tuchman, Watson & Deutsch, 1980). The structure of custody and visitation may be particularly crucial for these families which do not seem to be able to use the distance of divorce to improve their level of functioning. For these families, structuring the exchange for visitation so that only one parent is needed to accomplish the actual transfer (e.g., picking the children up from school) may benefit the children (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1976; Kurdek, Blisk, & Siesky, in press).

Post-divorce stability. Hodges, Wechsler and Ballantine (1979) found that low income, young parents, and more moves were associ- ated with more problems in children from di- vorced families. There was no similar relation- ship for intact families. DeFrain and Eirick (1981) found that fathers tended to move less often after a divorce than did mothers. Given the fact that mothers more often have custody of the children, this means that the children frequently experience not only the relative loss of the father from the home, but the loss of the home itself, their neighborhood friends, and other familiar surroundings (Hetherington, 1979; Longfellow, 1979). In addition, custodial mothers tend to show a marked decline in an- nual income, reported in one study to be an in- itial average decrease of $6000 (Kohen, Brown, & Feldberg, 1979). Current patterns of custody, visitation, and child support show low frequen- cies of deviation from the traditional mother custody, bimonthly visitation with a father who pays support (DeFrain & Eirick, 1970; Moore & Davenport, 1979; Koch, 1982). This fact challenges any supposition that arrangements are tailored to meet the specific needs of the particular family. It is more logical to conclude that these decisions are made according to fairly rigid, conventionalized standards (Der- deyn, 1976; Garrett-Fulks & Worell, 1983; Lowery, 1982; Marschall & Gaty, 1975) that poorly accommodate the variety of circum- stances among individual families in minimiz- ing stressful changes.

Mother/child-fatherlchild relationships. Several studies have found that the quality of the relationships between the child and each parent is an important variable in the adjust-

458 FAMILY RELATIONS October-1985

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

ment of children after divorce. Hess and Camara (1979) found that children who had a good individual relationship with each parent following divorce had fewer problems than any other group of children. In fact, a good relation- ship with the custodial parent seemed to act as a buffer against a poor relationship with the noncustodial parent. The level of parental har- mony also played an important role. Finally, the duration of contact with the father was posi- tively related to the quality of the father-child relationship and, indirectly, to the child's ad- justment. These findings suggest that patterns of visitation are related to characteristics of the child's relationship with that parent, but the direction and details of the causal linkage to child adjustment have not been empirically determined. The intertwining of the continuing parental relationship, the noncustodial parent- child relationship, patterns of visitation, and child adjustment are obvious. Untangling the causal network remains an enormous empirical problem.

One study (Koch, 1982) indicates that, while increased visitation is associated with a good noncustodial parent-child relationship, that association is mediated by the quality of the post-divorce parental relationship. This raises the intriguing possibility that, even after di- vorce, the characteristics of the relationship between the two adults continue to determine other relationships in the family system, a posi- tion long espoused by those working clinically with intact families (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 1980; Okun & Rappaport, 1980; Perez, 1979). Thus, family relationship variables seem to be more closely related to children's post-divorce adjustment than the divorced family status, per se (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979; Hetherington et al., 1981; Kopf, 1970; Kurdek & Siesky, 1980; Longfellow, 1979; Raschke & Raschke, 1979; Rutter, 1979).

Aspects of Custody

There is evidence that the adjustment of the children to divorce may be affected by at least two characteristics of the custody arrange- ments: sex of the custodial parent interacting with sex of the child, and the type of custody (sole, joint, or split).

Santrock and Warshak (1979) found that chil- dren seemed to be better adjusted on mea- sures of social development when in the custody of the parent of the same sex rather than of the opposite sex. In comparing the same-sex custodial arrangements, significant differences were found in four areas. Father custody boys were less demanding, more mature, more sociable, and more independent than father custody girls. Mother custody girls were less demanding, more mature, more sociable, and more independent than mother custody boys. Although another study (Kurdek

et al., in press) did not detect enhancing ef- fects for same-sex matching, this question was not the major focus and effects may have been obscured by procedural confounds.

Ample confirmation of the ability of custodial fathers to function competently in the role of primary caretaker has been demon- strated in the literature (DeFrain & Eirrick, 1981; Lewis, 1978; Luepnitz, 1982; Roman & Haddad, 1978; Santrock & Warshak, 1979). However, a note of caution is needed since, in most parts of the country, it is still highly infre- quent for a father to receive custody except under unusual circumstances (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1979; Lowery, 1982). Custodial fathers continue to be a highly select group who may not be directly comparable to a typical sample of custodial mothers.

Although judges are still reluctant to grant joint custody in most situations (Settle & Lowery, 1982), at least two studies show better results for joint custody than sole custody (II- feld, llfeld, & Alexander, 1982; Luepnitz, 1982). The authors assumed that returning to court to alter custody arrangements was indicative of post-divorce parental conflict, which they felt would be harmful to the children. Ilfeld et al. (1982) examined court records over a 2-year period and found that the relitigation rate for joint custody cases was half that for sole custody cases (16% vs. 32%). They also found that, for a subset of cases where at least one of the parents had not wanted joint custody, the relitigation rate was no higher than that for sole custody cases (33% vs. 32%).

Luepnitz (1982) concluded that joint custody has more advantages and fewer disadvantages than sole custody. She found that none of the joint custody parents in her study had mini- mized contact with the other parent, as had many of the single parents; no joint father had ceased to support the children financially, as had many of the noncustodial fathers; and joint parents did not report feeling overwhelmed by child care responsibilities, as did the sole custody parents.

There were, of course, some disadvantages to the joint custody arrangement as compared to the sole custody. The major disadvantage in joint custody was that the ex-spouses felt tied to one another. Since joint custody is more feasible when parents live near each other, spouses reported constraints on their freedom to relocate after the divorce. However, this seems to be mostly a disadvantage for the parents and in some ways, reflects the post- divorce reality of a continuing tie with the other adult. Approximately half the children in the sole custody situation desired more contact with the noncustodial parent, suggesting that joint custody might be beneficial to these chil- dren. Given the fact that divorced mothers with custody typically suffer a significant economic

October1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 459

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

loss upon divorce (Albrecht, 1980; Luepnitz, 1982; Santrock & Warshak, 1979), the finding that joint custody fathers did not default on their child support is of great interest and may balance the disadvantage noted above. If joint custody results in less geographic mobility (Luepnitz, 1982; Rothberg, 1983) and a more equitable financial situation, it may well mini- mize some of the major stress factors for divorced families.

Although there seem to be some potential advantages to joint custody over sole custody, there are some conditions under which joint custody might increase the problems associ- ated with divorce (Benedek & Benedek, 1979; Clingempeel & Repucci, 1982). If the increased contact between the parents in a joint custody situation results in increased conflict, the chil- dren may be better off in sole custody with less interaction between the parents. Other poten- tial problems include switching between school districts or between homes which are quite dissimilar. To the extent that there is greater dichotomy between the two homes, children may experience considerable stress in making continual transitions and maintaining balanced loyalties (Steinman, 1981). In that regard, the age of the child is likely a factor in coping with dual but equal households.

It remains to be seen whether the generally favorable benefits derived from joint custody stem from the confirmation of the partnership between equals, from the relatively evenly dis- tributed contact with both parents, or from some combination of the two. Clearly the limi- tations of joint custody need to be further ex- plored. Although some early results suggest that the benefit of joint custody may be more widely distributed among various kinds of divorcing families than earlier thought, careful examination of special cases needs to be u ndertaken.

Split custody is a rare form of custody that involves dividing siblings, placing one or more in the custody of each parent (Lewis, 1978). Vir- tually nothing is known about this structure of custody and its impact on the family. A reason- ably sized sample of such families would be difficult to obtain. What little is known is that it is generally held in disfavor both by parents (Moore & Davenport, 1979; Lowery, 1982) and by the courts (Bratt, 1977; Lowery, 1981). In families with more than one child, split custody could conceivably alleviate the typical custodial parent's complaint of being over- burdened and the typical noncustodial parent's complaint of a loss of influence and involve- ment (Luepnitz, 1982). However, a great deal needs to be done in understanding the role of sibling relationships in intact families (Bank and Kahn, 1982) before such an arrangement is recommended for divorcing families.

Correlates of Visitation

Conflict in the marriage sometimes makes for an unusually close relationship between father and children in an attempt to minimize marital interaction (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). However, a more typical pattern is that fathers in conflicted marriages may become more in- volved in work and other activities outside the home, resulting in his becoming a less signifi- cant parental figure (Friedman, 1980). With divorce, some fathers actually become much more involved with their children and develop a closer relationship with them (Friedman, 1980; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). This seems to be more likely when a father is in a situation of caring for the children's needs on a daily basis, either when the children are visiting for a period of time or when the father has custody. Hess and Camara (1979) found that the dura- tion, but not the frequency, of visitation with the fathers was related to better father-child relationships. They concluded that a visitation structure which encourages the father to incor- porate the time with his child as part of his life- style minimizes the loss subjectively experi- enced by the child. The family systems litera- ture suggests that continuity in a parenting role would minimize the demand on the chil- dren to develop new ways of interacting with their father. Because evidence suggests that fathers generally do continue basic features of their relationship with their children, the ex- istence of the "Disneyland fathers," in sub- stantial numbers, has not been demonstrated (Koch, 1982).

Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) explored factors that fostered visitation in fathers who did not have custody. They found that the following factors were related to a pattern of continuing regular visitation after divorce: fathers whose children expressed pleasure in the visits (more often younger children); fathers whose chil- dren were not angry at them over the divorce; fathers whose children were in the custody of chronically distressed mothers; fathers who were lonely, but psychologically intact and not depressed; fathers who were economically secure and better educated; and fathers in families where there was no longer intense animosity between the parents. The last feature has been confirmed as a major factor in other research (Koch, 1982).

It seems that when fathers have joint cus- tody or liberal visitation with the children, they have no intense conflict with the ex-wife, and are relatively well-adjusted psychologically, they continue to visit the children and continue to pay child support regularly. It seems that key factors may be to insure that the father has easy access to his children and input into his children's lives, both of which are frequently denied fathers in actual practice. The current typical pattern for visitation seems to be

460 FAMILY RELATIONS October1985

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

weekends together, every other week (Hether- ington, Cox & Cox, 1979; Koch, 1982; Waller- stein & Kelly, 1980). Bi-monthly contact is gen- erally considered "reasonable" visitation and constitutes the norm.

Summary

An examination of the divorce literature sug- gests that there are five areas that deserve more extensive and more systematic research regarding the effects of divorce on children: age differences, sex differences, conflict in the parental dyad, life changes concomitant with divorce, and custody/visitation arrangements.

Younger children seem to fare worse than do older children after a divorce. At present, the research suggests a linear relationship: the younger the child, the more severe the impact. However, little is known about the impact on children under 2 years of age.

Boys seem to fare worse than girls in a divorce. The mechanism of this gender dif- ference is still unknown. It may not be so much the gender of the child perse as it is the disrup- tion of the cross-generation, male subsystem in traditional custody arrangements.

As for the role of conflict in the family, ac- cumulating evidence suggests that parental conflict predicts family dysfunction better than does family status (intact or divorced). This raises the question of what level of con- flict in an intact marriage must be reached before the negative effects of that conflict on the children exceed the potential negative ef- fects of divorce. It would also be important to determine the extent to which continued con- flict in the post-divorce parental relationship influences the decisions that determine other stress factors such as the distribution of finan- cial resources, changes in residence, and reliti- gation.

There is some evidence that joint custody could help to eliminate some of the stress ex- perienced by families by decreasing the in- cidence of other changes associated with divorce. Relative to pre-divorce arrangements, families with joint custody show less dis- crepancy in the financial resources available to the child, in the functional roles as parents, in the child's physical and emotional access to both parents, and in access to a familiar com- munity than traditional custody families. This custodial arrangement comes closer than tra- ditional or other nontraditional arrangements (sole father custody, split custody) to minimiz- ing changes in both the structural and func- tional characteristics of the family. Whether it is the continuity in structure, in function, or perhaps the demographic features (relatively high socioeconomic status) of the families studied that accounts for its apparent benefits has yet to be determined. This area needs fur- ther empirical exploration. In many joint

custody arrangements, greater access to both parents, fewer life changes, and parents' legal status as equals are confounded. Studies com- paring joint custody with equal time, equal status, and fewer changes to other kinds of joint arrangements are clearly needed. Addi- tionally, studies identifying family characteris- tics that are counterindications for joint custody are needed, lest joint custody become an unrealistic panacea for difficult decisions about custody.

It is important to determine which combina- tion of changes are most stressful for which kinds of families. The stress literature sug- gests that similar events are experienced dif- ferently by different people and that there are strategies for minimizing the harmful effects of stressful events (Hetherington, 1979; Lazarus, 1966; Luepnitz, 1979). For some, divorce is the occasion for deterioration and impaired func- tioning; for others, it is an opportunity for growth and integration of complex issues. The area is in critical need of a better understand- ing of what factors make the difference.

REFERENCES

Albrecht, S. L. (1980). Reactions and adjustments to divorce: Differences in the experiences of males and females. Fami- ly Relations, 29, 59-68.

Bane, M. J. (1979). Marital disruption and the lives of children. In G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1982). The Sibling Bond. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Benedek, E. P., & Benedek, R. S. (1979). Joint custody: Solution or illusion? American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1540-1544.

Bernard, J. M., & Nesbitt, S. (1981). Divorce: An unreliable pre- dictor of children's emotional predispositions. Journal of Divorce, 4, 31-41.

Biller, H. B. (1969). Father absence, maternal encouragement and sex role development in kindergarten age boys. Child Development, 40, 539-546.

Bleckman, E. A. (1982). Are children with one parent at psycho- logical risk? A methodological review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 179-195.

Bratt, D. (1977). Paternal custody of the young child under the Kentucky No-fault Divorce Act. Kentucky Law Journal, 66, 165-183.

Clingempeel, W. G., & Repucci, N. D. (1982). Joint custody after divorce: Major issues and goals for research. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 102-127.

Crosby, J. F. (1980). A critique of divorce statistics and their in- terpretation. Family Relations, 29, 51-58.

DeFrain, J., & Eirick, R. (1981). Coping as divorced single parents: A comparative study of fathers and mothers. Fami- ly Relations, 30, 265-274.

Derdeyn, A. P. (1976). Child custody contests in historical per- spective. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 133, 1369-1376.

Felner, R. D., Farber, S. S., Ginter, M. A., Boike, M. A., & Cowan, E. L. (1980). Family stress and organization following paren- tal divorce or death. Journal of Divorce, 4, 67-76.

Felner, R. D., Stolberg, A., & Cowan, E. L. (1975). Crisis events and school mental health patterns of young children. Jour- nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 305-310.

Friedman, H. J. (1980). The father's parenting experience in di- vorce. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1177-1182.

Garrett-Fulks, N. J., & Worell, J. (1983, August). Social percep- tions of divorced parents. In J. Worell (Chair), Issues in child custody: Process and outcome. Symposium at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta

October`1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 461

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Glick, P. C. (1979). Children of divorced parents in demographic perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 112-125.

Goldenberg, J., & Goldenberg, H. (1980). Family therapy: An overview. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Goldsmith, J. (1980). Relationships between former spouses: Descriptive findings. Journal of Divorce, 4, 1-20.

Haley, J. (1976). Problem solving therapy. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. E. (1973). Children in fatherless families. In B. M. Caldwell & H. N. Riccuiti (Eds.), Review of child development research: Volume 3: Child development and child policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Hess, R. D., & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family relation- ships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 79-96.

Hetherington, E. M. (1966). Effects of parental absence on sex- typed behavior in negro and white preadolescent males. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 87-91.

Hetherington, E. M. (1979). Divorce: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 34, 851-858.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979). Play and social interaction in children following divorce. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 26-49.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1981). The aftermath of divorce. In Contemporary readings in child psychology (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Hodges, W. F., Wechsler, R. C., & Ballentine, C. (1979). Divorce and the pre-school child: Cumulative stress. Journal of Divorce, 3, 55-69.

Huntington, D. S. (1982). Attachment loss and divorce: A recon- sideration of the concepts. In L. Messinger (Ed.), Therapy with remarriage families. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.

Ilfeld, F. W., Jr., llfeld, H. Z., & Alexander, T. R. (1982). Does joint custody work? A first look at outcome data of relitiga- tion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 62-66.

Jacobs, J. W. (1982). The effect of divorce on fathers: An over- view of the literature. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 1235-1241.

Kelly, J., & Wallerstein, J. (1976). The effects of parental di- vorce: Experiences of the child in early latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 20-32.

Koch, M. P. (1982). The visitation experience of divorced, non- custodial fathers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky.

Kohen, J. A., Brown, C. A., & Feldberg, R. (1979). Divorced mothers: The costs and benefits of female family control. In G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation. New York: Basic Books.

Kopf, K. E. (1970). Family variables and school adjusment of eighth grade father-absent boys. The Family Coordinator, 19, 145-150.

Kressel, K., Jaffe, N., Tuchman, B.. Watson, C., & Deutsch, M. (1980). A typology of divorcing couples: Implications for mediation and the divorce process. Family Process, 19, 101-116.

Kurdek, L. A. (1981). An integrative perspective on children's divorce adjustment. American Psychologist, 36, 856-866.

Kurdek, L. A., Blisk, D., & Siesky, A. E. (in press). Correlates of children's long-term adjustment to their parents' divorce. Developmental Psychology.

Kurdek, L. A., & Siesky, A. E., Jr. (1980). Effects of divorce on children-The relationship between parent and child perspectives. Journal of Divorce, 4, 85-99.

Lamb, M. (1977). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of life. Child Development, 48, 167-181.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping proc- ess. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Leupnitz, D. A. (1979). Which aspects of divorce affect chil- dren? The Family Coordinator, 28, 79-85.

Leupnitz, D. A. (1982). Child custody. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Lewis, K. (1978, November). Single-father families. Paper pre- sented at the meeting of the American Association of Psychiatric Services for Children, Atlanta.

Longfellow, C. (1979). Divorce in context: Its impact on chil- dren. In G. Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Lowery, C. R. (1981). Child custody decisions in divorce pro- ceedings: A survey of judges. Professional Psychology, 12, 492-498.

Lowery, C. R. (1982, August). Child custody in divorce: How parents decide. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.

Marschall, P. H., & Gaty, M. J. (1975). The custody decision process: Toward new roles for parents and the state. North Carolina Central Law Journal, 7, 50-72.

McCord, J., McCord, W., & Thurber, E. (1962). Some effects of parental absence on male children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 361-369.

McDermott, J. F., Jr. (1968). Parental divorce in early childhood. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 1424-1432.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moore, N. V., & Davenport, C. V. (1979, March). Custody and visitation: An explication of prevalent patterns. Paper pre- sented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco.

Musetto, A. P. (1978). Evaluating families with custody orvisita- tion problems. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 4, 59-65.

Nye, F. I. (1957). Child adjustment in broken and in unhappy un- broken homes. Marriage and Family Living, 19, 356-361.

Okun, B. F., & Rappaport, L. J. (1980). Working with families:An introduction to family therapy. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.

Perez, J. F. (1979). Family counseling: Theory and practice. New York: D. Van Nostrand.

Porter, B., & O'Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and child- hood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy- chology, 8, 287-295.

Raschke, H. J., & Raschke, V. J. (1979). Family conflict and chil- dren's self-concepts: A comparison of intact and single- parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 367-374.

Roman, M., & Haddad, W. (1978). The disposable parent. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rothberg, B. (1983). Joint custody: Parental problems and sat- isfactions. Family Process, 22, 43-52.

Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation, 1972-1978: New find- ings, new concepts, new approaches. Child Development, 50, 283-305.

Santrock, J. W. (1975). Father absence, perceived maternal be- havior, and moral development in boys. Child Development, 46, 753-757.

Santrock, J. W., & Tracy, R. L. (1978). Etfects of children's fami- ly structure status on the development of stereotypes by teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 754-757.

Santrock, J. W., & Warshak, R. A. (1979). Father custody and social development in boys and girls. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 112-125.

Settle, S. A., & Lowery, C. R. (1982). Child custody decisions: Content analysis of a judicial survey. Journal of Divorce, 6, 125-138.

Spelke, E., Zelazo, P., Kagan, J., & Kotelchuck, M. (1973). Father interaction and separation protest. Developmental Psychol- ogy, 9, 83-90.

Steinman, S. (1981). The experience of children in a joint- custody arrangement: A report of a study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 403-414.

Steigman, A. W. (1966). Father absence during early childhood and antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 71, 71-74.

Tessman, L. H. (1978). Children of parting parents. New York: Jason Aronson.

Thomes, M. M. (1968). Children with absent fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 89-96.

Tooley, K. (1976). Antisocial behavior and social alienation post divorce: The "Man of the House" and his mother. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 33-42.

Tuckman, J., & Regan, R. A. (1966). Intactness of the homes and behavioral problems in children. Journal of Child Psy- chology and Psychiatry, 7, 225-233.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1979). Divorce, child custody and child support. Current Population Reports (Special Studies Series P-23, #84). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Govern- ment Printing Office.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1974). The effects of parental divorce: The adolescent experience. In J. Anthony & C. Loupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk. New York: Wiley and Sons.

462 FAMILY RELATIONS October1985

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1975). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the pre-school child. Journal of the

American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 600-616. Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1976). The effects of parental

divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256-269.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980a). Effects of divorce on the visiting father-child relationship. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1534-1539.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980b). Surviving the breakup. New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic Books.

-CALL FOR PAPERS-

Manuscripts Solicited for Special Issue of Psychotherapy

The Division of Psychotherapy (29) of the American Psychological Association announces that the Summer 1987 issue of Psychotherapy will include a separate supplement devoted to "Psychotherapy with Families." The guest editor for the supplement is Ronald F. Levant, Ed.D., Boston University.

A list of potential topics follows: I. Theoretical/Empirical Topics

1. The debate on epistemology-what's it all about? 2. The Milan Model: Strategic or systemic? (And what difference does it make?) 3. Family therapy research (outcome, process). 4. Integrating theories of personality and psychotherapy with theories of social systems

and social change. II. Clinical Topics

1. Ericksonian hypnosis and family therapy. 2. Integrative approaches to family therapy. 3. Bridging the gap between child therapy and family therapy. 4. Marriage strengthening/divorce counseling.

Submissions should be prepared in triplicate according to the guidelines of the Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd edition).

Deadline for submissions will be August 1, 1986. Please address inquiries and submissions to: Donald K. Freedheim, Ph.D. Editor, Psychotherapy Department of Psychology Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 368-2841

October1985 FAMILY RELATIONS 463

This content downloaded from 132.174.254.81 on Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:18:52 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms