Just
so that we agree, not too long ago (e.g., in the 1950s and 60s), divorces were
much harder to obtain than they are today. Courts were deeply involved in
divorce proceedings, not so much because of monetary settlements and child
custody issues (these are the two problems requiring court intervention today),
but because the court had to hear sufficient reasons that a divorce should be
granted. Typically, the divorce actions would begin with claims of infidelity
or physical abuse of some type. Such claims would often require proof.
Furthermore, there was some embarrassment associated with divorce. Finally, the
divorce rate was not as high then as it is now.
I
mention all of this because we know that crime rates, teenage birth rates,
out-of-wedlock birth rates, single head-of-household families rates, welfare
rates, (possibly poorer educational institutions) and so on increased during
the late 1960s and 1970s until recently (despite the fact that minority groups
were winning many civil-rights battles during the 60s and 70s and despite that
fact that President Johnson started his Great Society program in the mid 60s --
a social policy that was going to eliminate poverty in the US). We have seen
many theories of human behavior and social policy suggestions based on those
theories that implicate one or more of these (and other) social
"deficiencies" in one or more of the others. For example, lack of
proper parenting has been implicated in crime. Teenage birth rates have been
implicated in the rise in welfare rates and vice versa (e.g., the ease of
obtaining welfare has been said by some to be an incentive for having babies).
Herrnstein even argued that part of the problem was a change in demographics.
Namely, he suggested that more and more of the US population were coming from
poorer larger families. More intelligent people, he argued were choosing not to
have any children or were having fewer children. As a result, those children
who were being born were generally less intelligent as a group than prior
generations. In short, the failure of people to choose properly and carefully
those with whom they have babies might be part of the explanation for many of
the social problems that some say we currently have.
Regardless
of the changes that have or have not taken place in the structure and function
of American families, there are many claims that parental behavior towards
their children and towards each other (including divorce) can have effects on
children as they grow up as well as on how they turn out as adults. If parental
actions, even if those actions simply consist of monitoring with whom their
children associate (recall the theory that most of the character traits that
people develop are the result of genes and the peers that people have during
adolescence), determine what people become, then it might be argued that having
partial parenting, because of divorce, cannot be a good thing (e.g., Behrman
& Quinn, 1994, Grych & Fincham, 1999). Of course, we can examine
research that looks at how the children from divorced v. married couples turn
out (e.g., Lamb, Sternberg, & Thompson, 1997; Morrison, & Cherlin, 1995). (Remember, it could easily
be that children who grow up with parents that fight, cannot get along, are
having extra-martial affairs, and so on would do better had their parents
gotten divorced, see Jekielek, 1998; Kelly, 1998; Neher &
Short, 1998). It is also likely that children from parents who have other
behavioral problems, e.g., are violent towards each other, may be adversely
affected by the parental behavior (e.g., McNeil & Amato, 1998). Finally,
you should be thinking that effects of divorce might well depend on other
variables, e.g., the age of the child at when the divorce occurs (e.g., Pagani, Boulerice, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 1997). Although there is
considerable argument over the size of the effect on children from divorced
parents, a number of researchers have argued that such children have a higher
risk of developing some immediate (Houseknecht
& Sastry, 1996) and long term problems (but see Evans & Bloom, 1996, for a failure
to find significant effects among college students of having parents who
were divorced -- you should be asking: but who cares about college students?
Aren't they least likely to be the people who would be engaging in crime and
other socially deviant actions? Shouldn't we look at the effects on those who
are most likely to be "at risk"?). For example, one recent review of
some of the literature (Rodgers, 1996) provides the following list of problem
outcomes in later life: poor academic
achievement, low self-esteem, psychological distress, delinquency, recidivism,
substance use, sexual precocity, adult criminal offending, depression, and
suicidal behavior.
If we believe that such outcomes are more likely among children of divorced
parents, we can wonder whether it might not be a good thing to reduce the
incompatibility problems that lead couples to get divorced before they get
divorced.
Remember
that, in general, a couple that seeks to dissolve their marriage by divorce can
be thought of as a couple who did not make very good decisions when they first
decided to marry. That is, when people decide to get married, presumably they
are making this decision because either one or both believes, at the time, that
they will remain together for a long time. Otherwise, why bother to marry?
Thus, we can view divorce as the result of poor decision-making (poor
mate-selection) at the start of a relationship. How can we improve this
decision-making? We know that most relationships begin with "romantic
love" (see Rubin, 1970 for a measure of romantic love) but there some
indication that men and women begin such relationships with different views of
what romantic love is (e.g., Cimbalo,
& Novell, 1993). If so, it might not be surprising were we to find that men and women
tend to begin relationships expecting different things from them. Still,
"being in love," is a powerful emotion and seems to be highly
associated with sexual behavior in a developing relationship. However, there is
ample evidence that these strong emotional reactions tend to fade as the
relationship ages. This is important, because it raises the possibility that
decisions made while people are "in love," may be based on feelings
and information that not predictive of feelings and behavior as the
relationship ages. If all of this is true, wouldn't it be a good idea to help
people think rationally about the long term consequences of entering into a
relationship that might produce children?
Some
claim to have developed measures of the likelihood that couples will remain
together. You and your significant other can take a Relationship Test. See how
compatible you are according to the researcher who designed the test (but
notice that there is a fee to take the full test and this might raise some
concerns regarding the motivation of the test designer). This test is designed
to measure relationships in the following areas: (a) Realistic Expectations,
(b) Personality Issues, (c) Communication, (d) Conflict Resolution, (e)
Financial Management, (f) Leisure Activities, (g) Sexual Relationship, (h)
Children and Marriage, (i) Family and Friends, (j) Equalitarian Roles, and (k)
Religious Orientation. If you have ever participated in "dating
services," you might compare these dimensions to those that they typically
measure, e.g., religion, financial matters, active/inactive - athletic/couch
potato, interest in and willingness to experiment with sex, and smoking and
other habits (e.g., alcohol, etc.). Are these the only ones that you think
might be important for couples who are planning to get married? What about
political beliefs? What about intellectual and job interests? What about the
feeling of being in love?
So
not only do we have to worry about whether to test couple's compatibility, we
have to worry, as always, about how to measure the things that we are
interested. What is the validity of the measuring instrument? Does it measure
what it claims to? Are any validity data collected from relevant samples? Is
the data interpreted correctly? Take a look at the data reported by Olson if you are interested and see what you
think.
What
is the ideal role of the woman and the man in a family with children? Should
women with children work? Should men contribute to childcare and if so, how? If
women with children do work, what should they do with the children while they
are working? In general, do childcare services do as good (or even better) job
of rearing children than mothers? Are women better at caring for children than
men because they are biologically predisposed to care for children? Before you
answer think about the fact that men and women are built differently. Women
have breasts from which young children can nurse. Men tend to have more muscle
than women and might have been genetically selected (over millions of years of
primate development) for fighting and hunting. Might these physical differences
be associated with different behavioral predispositions or temperaments that
might make them better or worse at childcare? We know that there are many
behavioral differences between the genders. (Which gender exemplars tend to
commit all of the crimes? Which tend to excel in mathematics? Which tend to be
interested in talking about relationships? Which tend to desire long-term
commitments before having sexual relationships?) Does it make sense for women
spend less time with children and more time engaged in business activities? [We
can all agree that education and child development may be an important factor
in dealing with various social problems, right? If agree, then does it make
sense for mothers, and fathers, to pass so much of parenting and education over
to the state? Alternatively, we know that many parents do not do a good job
parenting. If so, might the state do a better job?]
What
kind of relationship has to exist for relationships to last? As members of
society that takes money (in the form of taxes) and uses that money to help the
"greater good" of the society, do we care about whether marriages
last beyond the years when all children have left the home? That is, one might
make the argument that the primary social function of marriage, beyond the
benefits that the married couple get themselves, is to take care of children.
If children simply dropped from the sky randomly, would society care about
marriage? If one of the primary social functions of marriage is to care for
children, then why doesn't the state (remember that the primary beneficiary of
inadequate child raising is the rest of the members of society - children who
grow up to be poor, to be criminals, to require free health care, and so on are
those that cost the rest of us the most money) require that people who are
about to get married be assessed for their ability to raise children. After
all, I am sure that you would be in favor of assessing and monitoring the
ability of schools to educate children. I am sure that you would apply the same
ideas to day-care centers. If so, why wouldn’t you apply the same to
prospective parents? If a major reason for marriage is the care and raising of
children, then why wouldn't we test the quality of the relationship in this
area as well as in the areas Olson seems to care so much about? Is the only
relevant issue, how well will these two get along? Some research (Baharudin, & Luster, 1998) suggests for example, that
the quality of child's home environment is related to the intelligence,
education-level, and self-esteem of the mothers. Does this mean that we should
test couples intelligence or only allow college graduates to get married and
have children?
From
a different perspective, how far should the state be allowed to enter into
"family" business? A recent case highlights one aspect of this very
broad issue. A local school system has a "zero-tolerance" drug
policy. The police stopped one of the students after school hours driving his
car. The police found a trace of pot in the boy's car. The amount was so small
that the police did not even file a citation, much less arrest the boy.
However, the police did inform the boy's school. The boy was suspended from
school. Do you think this is a reasonable action on the part of the school?
After all, the boy was not in school at the time. In fact, normal school hours
of operation were over. Should a school attempt to control the behavior of its
students outside of normal school hours? No, you say? Well, don't school
already attempt to control the behavior of students outside of normal school
hours? Homework! Teachers set up all sorts of consequences for students the
sole purpose of which is to increase the odds that students will do their
homework outside of normal school hours. What is the difference between
homework and taking drugs or any other behavior?
In
many European countries, young children are encouraged to drink a small amount
of wine with their meals. Drinking laws are different. In our country, we have
laws that say children cannot legally drink. If a child were caught with
alcohol in school, "zero-tolerance" schools would suspend such
children. However, should schools also suspend children for drinking in the
home? Suppose they were drinking without the parent's knowledge. Suppose the
parents knew and thought that it was perfectly OK? One reason the school might
give for acting aggressively in these areas is because they would believe that
if a child is allowed to drink in the home, that child will be a negative
influence on the rest of the children in the school. Thus, they might argue
that this is a preventative measure to protect other children. Notice how this
argument rests on assumptions about human nature, e.g., that there is an
association between drinking at home and drinking at school (or at least
influencing other children). Will other children really be influenced? Does
behavior in one situation tend to correlate with similar behavior in other
situations?
The
question of public intervention into families does not stop at the schools.
After all, we have social workers in our society. Child protective services
agents can remove children from their parents if they believe that the child's
welfare is in danger in the home. Most people think this is a good idea, in
general. Remember the film you saw at the beginning of the quarter? Remember
that not too long ago children were considered property of parents and had very
few, if any, rights. If the state can enter families and remove children,
forcibly and against the child's (as well as the parent's) wishes, why
shouldn't the state have an interest in the quality of marriage relationship
before children are conceived? If you think the state might play some role,
then what agencies should play that role and how much of role should those
agencies play? For example, if child protective services agencies were going to
forcibly remove children from families, wouldn't you want to know whether the
services were making accurate decisions? As always, the services can make two
kinds of errors: they can fail to remove children whom they should have removed
or they can remove children whom they should not have removed. Shouldn't the
service be evaluated in terms of these two error rates? But, what goes into
"should have removed and should not have removed." How shall we
measure who should and should not have been removed? Do we consider only
physical injury to the children, for example? If a child is being brutally
beaten, then I can understand why we might want to protect that child. But,
what should be done about parents who are not involved in their child's
education? Aren't these parents doing real damage to the child? Might not this
child grow up to be a burden on the rest of us if something isn't done? What
about parents who let their children drink wine at dinner? If you think that
the state does have an interest in the welfare of children, then why wouldn't
you also agree that marriage relationships should be assessed much more
thoroughly and carefully by the state? Why shouldn't the state require training
before people get married, the same way that they require training before
people receive drivers' licenses? Notice that couples do receive marriage
licenses! Marriage is not a right in the sense that the state licenses
marriages. Currently, one could argue that the state is doing a terrible job,
given the divorce rate. Let me know what you think.
On
the other hand, marriage, in and of itself, might have beneficial effects. For
example, a recent study (Curran, Muthen, and Harford, 1998) reported that
marriage might increase the rate of reduction in alcohol consumption with age.
Other studies show correlations between being married and death rates,
hospitalization rate, and other outcomes of interest. Married people live to an
older age, have fewer illnesses, tend to recover faster from illnesses, etc. Such
findings have been explained by proposing that marriage offers social support
for life's stressors, supports that tend to mitigate the adverse effects of
these stressors on psychological and physical health. Were we to make marriage
too difficult, we might give up some of the these social benefits (assuming
that marriage is actually causal and/or the social support hypothesis is
correct, of course.)
Of
course we will never prevent mistakes. We can do things to decrease the odds of
mistakes to as a low a rate as cost/benefit analyses allow, but mistakes will
happen. People will have children who should not. What should society do in
such cases? We could punish the parents. Mainland China does this. But
punishing the parents might produce problems for the child because our primary
punishments in our society are prison (the parent can't parent in prison) and
monetary fines (if the parent has less money so will the child). We could add
additional punishments, e.g., shame and social ridicule. These are part of the
Chinese punishment system. (This issue shows the conflict that sometimes arises
between controlling the behavior of the particular individual who has done
something that the rest of society does not want that person to do again and
preventing other people from doing it the first time.) Sometimes we argue that
the parents simply are unfit, or the parent simply says he or she is unfit, and
the child is put up for adoption.
One
of the interesting aspects of adoption is that here we don't seem to mind if
the adoption agencies measure and test prospective parents before allowing them
to adopt. That is, we want seem to think it is perfectly reasonable to want
adoption agencies to select from a pool of perspective parents the pairs who
will provide the best homes for the children. But, as always, we can ask
whether the adoption agencies are measuring features of the prospective parents
that are predictive of the outcomes that the agencies and we care about. As
with child protective services we can ask what the error rates of the agencies
are. As with child protective services there is the issue of outcome measures.
What defines an error? If an adopted child does not go to college is that an
error? If the adopted child grows up to be an abusive parent is that an error?
What outcome measures should we use? Since other social systems besides
adoption exist, e.g., foster care, we need to ask which are better. But what
outcome measures should we use? Should SAT scores be included? You get the
point. How should we evaluate success?
The
last 15 to 20 years has seen a major change in the role of women in the home
and family, in the workplace, and in schools. More women are attending college
than men. More women are working. Women have begun to break the "glass
ceiling" in many sectors of the economy. Income differentials between men
and women have been substantially reduced. There is no question that these
changes have presented women with many options that many may not have had 15 to
20 years ago. Economic independence brings with it the freedom to engage in
many different kinds of activities. As with virtually everything else, these
changes in social structure have brought with them other consequences. One of
them might well be the rate of divorce (because economic independence gives the
women the freedom to leave without having to worry where and how they will be
able to live -- remember that many married women never worked outside of the
home in the 1950s and 60s). Another is the rise and use of day care services.
In
families in which both the mother and the father work full 40-hour-per-week jobs
pre-school age children must be taken care of, somehow, if both of the parents
are working. Day-care services have grown in recent years and the issue of
whether and what role the government should play in day-care has been raised a
number of times. Should day-care be seen in the same manner as public
education? That is, virtually all parents have handed over the job of the education
of their children to local government agencies. Should we expect the government
to do the same for "pre-school" age children? Should all children be
"entitled" to quality day-care? If so, what should be taught in day
care? What kinds of skills do 0 to 5 year old children learn that must be
taught at good quality day care? What about honesty, aggression, generosity,
manners, how to treat others, the seeds of religion, self-esteem, racial prejudice,
color-naming, same-different judgments, fine motor skills, coloring in the
lines, music listening, hard-work ethic, athletic skills, word meanings and
grammar, English accent ("dis" and "dat" v. this and that),
and so on? To think about it differently, do you believe that much of a child's
"character" depends on the models, the reinforcement schedules, the rules,
the standards, and so on with which the child is presented during their first 5
or so years? If so, then isn't the issue of what happens in day care a very
important issue as more and more mothers (and fathers) decide that the mothers
will work rather than stay at home? Should the government be involved in social
policy that contributes to mothers being away from home during a child's early
years of development? Are children better off being taken care of by experts in
day care or by mothers (some of whom might resent not being able to work)?
USA
Today ran a recent
article describing a study published in the March, 1999 volume of Developmental
Psychology, a well-respected journal. The study was meant to compare the
impact on children of mothers working or staying at home during a child's early
years. The first author of the study is quoted at the end of the USA Today story
as follows: "The message should be that being at home during the early
years, or being employed during those years, are both good choices. Both can
result in healthy, well-developed children." In other words, both the news
article and the study's first author (a psychologist) apparently conclude that there
is no harm to children of mothers working compared to staying home while the
child is growing up. Do you agree? Read the USA news article and then come back
here.
It
is worth examining the nature of the research that was done in a bit more
detail. Let's look at the independent variable in this research first. Is the working-mother
v. stay-at-home-mother variable the same as causal variables that psychologists
study in the laboratory? In real sense it is not. Because working v. home was
not manipulated, you can be sure that there were many different varieties of
each in the study. For example, some stay-at-home moms might have spent less
time with their children than some of the working moms. Some working moms might
abuse their children. The fact is that at the level of details about how
parents actually interact with their children, the variable examined in this
study really consists of two distributions of many different parenting
"styles." We have no idea from the study exactly how the parents
interacted with their children. It might be for example that working moms spend
much more time with their children on the weekends than stay-at-home moms. It
might be fathers spend more time with their children if the moms work. The only
thing we know is that in one group the mothers worked outside of the home and
in the other they did not. (What about the extra money that comes into the
family as a result of the mothers work? Might this not provide benefits to the children
in that family? Would they be more likely to have a computer, visit interesting
and educational places on vacations, live in a neighborhood with a better
school, and so on?)
On
the dependent variable side, we can see that a number of "measures"
and "assessments" were taken of the children. These assessments and
measures are virtually all interview and questionnaire-based. That is, no direct
observations of how the children played with other children were taken. No
archival measures, e.g., number of referrals to the principle, number of times
observed fighting, and number of visits to doctor's offices, were reported.
Instead the data consisted many of self- and parental reports in interviews as
well as results from some standardized tests. The validity of the conclusions
depends heavily on whether the sample of measures captures everything about
children that you might think is relevant to examine. For example, did they
give a mathematics test (see Muller, 1996, a study suggesting that effect of
maternal work on mathematics performance in the 8th grade is really
due to whether the child is supervised after school)? Did they test the
children for honesty? Did they provide measures of the children's willingness
to "share" with others? Did they test how frequently the children
wore their safety helmets when riding bicycles (see Coreil, Wilson, Wood, & Liller, 1998, for a
description of a study that showed that children with mothers who worked more
than 28 hours a week were less likely to wear bicycle helmets)? Did the test the children
for "conservation," for vocabulary size, and so on? Did they include
that empirical fact that children of working mothers are less likely to be
breast fed than children of non-working mothers (see Lindberg, 1996)? Note the difference and range of detail that is
possible in measures. How much can we trust self-report and interview data? If
the measures did not assess everything that we might think is important about
child development, then is it fair to conclude that working moms do not produce
different outcomes than those that stay at home?
Sampling
of different categories and types of behavior is not the only issue of concern.
Another is the reliability of the measures. If the measures were not
particularly reliable, then we would expect small differences even if the
difference in rearing actually produced large real differences among children.
Another
key issue concerns the effects of time away on outcome measures. If working moms
produce different children than mothers who stay at home, then one should
expect to see the effect magnified the longer the mother's time away from home
is. To their credit the authors did examine this issue. However, from the USA
Today article, it appears that there was a small effect. The longer the time
the mother's spent away from home, the worse the children's language
development. Although the author claims these effects were small, they were in
exactly the direction that one would expect if there were effects of mother
absence, namely, the language deficits were bigger, the longer the mother was
away. On the other hand, these differences apparently got smaller, although
they did not disappear, the older the children.
[Note
that if the study is correct in the conclusion that such a "large"
difference in child raising practices does not make much difference, couldn't
this be taken as evidence in favor of the genetic or inherited view of
"character." After all, if this major difference in childhood
environment has virtually no effect, then maybe the lack of effect of environment
is because genetics determines so much.]
A
recent report by the Center for Policy Initiatives, here in San Diego,
concluded that while the unemployment rate is down (to 4.7%) in San Diego, as
it has done Nationwide, from the 1980s, and while the economy seems to churning
along, the "underclass" is not doing as well. For example, apartment
rentals now cost people in San Diego about 40% of their incomes. This is up
from 30% in the 1980s. Poorer people tend to be renters. Single mothers tend to
be renters. Although the per capita GNP increased about 32% from 1980 to 1997,
the median income for workers increased only 13% during the same period. In
addition, minority women have not done nearly as well in this economy, the
report claims. For example, Latina women actually are earning less inflation
corrected dollars now! In addition, about 19% of the area's population lives
below the poverty line while in 1980 it was only about 11%. In short, although
the college educated have been doing better, the underclass might actually be
doing worse. That is, the gap between the haves and the have-nots might be
widening. If all of this is accurate, we must once again wonder what the
direction of the causal arrows are among all of these "social
life-style" variables. Can we isolate one or a few of them as the
"root causes" or should we simply think of things like intelligence,
race, sexual precocity, violence in the family (see the cycle of violence revisited),
divorce, family size, ethnic background, poverty, education level, criminal
activity and so on as a "portfolio of correlated factors" that tend
to cluster together (see NIJ
research report for examples). What are the consequences of the different
views?
Want to read more about marriage, divorce, children,
and families? Here is a list of resent publications, some of which I used
above.
Amato, P. R. (1996).
Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 58(3), 628-640.
Baharudin, R., &
Luster, T. (1998). Factors related to the quality of the home environment and
children's achievement. Journal of Family Issues, 19(4), 375-403.
Behrman, R. E., &
Quinn, L. S. (1994). Children and divorce: Overview and analysis. Future of
Children, 4(1), 4-14.
Cimbalo, R. S., &
Novell, D. O. (1993). Sex differences in romantic love attitudes among college
students. Psychological Reports, 73(1), 15-18.
Curran, P. J., Muthen, B.
O., & Harford, T. C. (1998). The influence of changes in marital status on
developmental trajectories of alcohol use in young adults. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 59(6), 647-658.
Evans, J. J., & Bloom,
B. L. (1996). Effects of parental divorce among college undergraduates. Journal
of Divorce & Remarriage, 26(1-2), 69-91.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr.
(1994). History and current status of divorce in the United States. Future
of Children, 4(1), 29-43.
Grych, J. H., &
Fincham, F. D. (1999). Children of single parents and divorce. In E. Wendy K. Silverman,
E. Thomas H. Ollendick, & et al. (Eds.), Developmental issues in the
clinical treatment of children. (pp. 321-341): Allyn & Bacon, Inc,
Boston, MA, USA.
Hines,
A. M. (1997). Divorce-related transitions, adolescent development, and the role
of the parent-child relationship: A review of the literature. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 59(2), 375-388.
Houseknecht,
S. K., & Sastry, J. (1996). Family "decline" and child
well-being: A comparative assessment. Journal of Marriage & the Family,
58(3), 726-739.
Jekielek,
S. M. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption and children's emotional
well-being. Social Forces, 76(3), 905-936.
Johnson,
W. R., & Neal, D. (1998). Basic skills and the Black-White earnings gap. In
E. Christopher Jencks, E. Meredith Phillips, & et al. (Eds.), The
Black-White test score gap. (pp. 480-497): Brookings Institution, Washington,
DC, USA.
Kelly,
J. B. (1998). Marital conflict, divorce and children's adjustment. Child
& Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7(2), 259-271..)
Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K.
J., & Thompson, R. A. (1997). The effects of divorce and custody
arrangements on children's behavior, development, and adjustment. Family
& Conciliation Courts Review, 35(4), 393-404.
Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K.
J., & Thompson, R. A. (1999). The effects of divorce and custody
arrangements on children's behavior, development, and adjustment. In E. Michael
E. Lamb & et al. (Eds.), Parenting and child development in
"nontraditional" families. (pp. 125-135): Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, USA.
Lindberg, L. D. (1996).
Women's decisions about breastfeeding and maternal employment. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 58(1), 239-251.
McNeal, C., & Amato, P.
R. (1998). Parents' marital violence: Long-term consequences for children. Journal
of Family Issues, 19(2), 123-139.
Morrison, D. R., &
Cherlin, A. J. (1995). The divorce process and young children's well-being: A
prospective analysis. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57(3),
800-812.
Muller, C. (1995). Maternal
employment, parent involvement, and mathematics achievement among adolescents. Journal
of Marriage & the Family, 57(1), 85-100.
Neher, L. S., & Short,
J. L. (1998). Risk and protective factors for children's substance use and
antisocial behavior following parental divorce. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 68(1), 154-161.
Pagani, L., Boulerice, B.,
Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (1997). Behavioural development in children
of divorce and remarriage. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry
& Allied Disciplines, 38(7), 769-781.
Phillips, M., Brooks-Gunn,
J., Duncan, G. J., Klebanov, P., & Crane, J. (1998). Family background,
parenting practices, and the Black-White test score gap. In E. Christopher
Jencks, E. Meredith Phillips, & et al. (Eds.), The Black-White test
score gap. (pp. 103-145): Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA.
Rodgers, B. (1996). Social
and psychological wellbeing of children from divorced families: Australian
research findings. Australian Psychologist, 31(3), 174-182.
Rubin, Z. (1970).
Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 16(2), 265-273.
Shiono, P. H., & Quinn,
L. S. (1994). Epidemiology of divorce. Future of Children, 4(1), 15-28.
Spruijt,
E., & Iedema, J. (1998). Well being of youngsters of divorce without
contact with nonresident parents in the Netherlands. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 29(3), 517-527.
Wallerstein,
J. S. (1998). Children of divorce: A society in search of policy. In E. Mary
Ann Mason, E. Arlene Skolnick, & et al. (Eds.), All our families: New
policies for a new century. (pp. 66-94): Oxford University Press, New York,
NY, USA.