Divorce Understanding Outcomes for Children

Divorce

Understanding Outcomes for Children of Divorce

The issue of divorce is complex and sensitive. This is particularly so for families with children, whose lives are dramatically altered by the eventual or sudden revelation of divorce. Child psychologists have taken a particular interest in the effects of divorce on children and teens, debating the manner in which divorce may or may not be psychologically devastating to the child in the long-term.

In the debate presented by the literature review and critical analysis to follow, it is clear that the primary research problem concerns achieving any universal understanding of the negative impacts of divorce on children and teens or of the degree to which such claims may be anecdotal and exaggerated in an empirical sense. To the point, a number of experts on the subject offer a number of facts to support either case. A distinct fact provided by those who argue that divorce is a trauma from which children are likely to eventually recover is the claim that cultural changes in the nature of the family unit indicate that children may be conditioned to accept and understand changes within the family, particularly when they relieve all members from an unhappy partnership. This is underscored by the fact claimed here that in unhappy marriages, the male presence is often already absent or disruptive, indicating that a change in circumstances would be a positive scenario with relatively acceptable losses.

This is a fact which is countered by that which suggests that divorce rarely produces more favorable circumstances for children. This is underscored by the powerful claim that a failed marriage will impact the child's impression of the parents, who, it denotes, have failed in one of the chief tasks of adulthood. As the research hereafter reports on the apparent impact of divorce on children and teens, the primary problem will be to determine the relevance of claims to either end.

Integrated Literature Review:

Some of the research confronted underscores the view that the consequences of divorce will differ according to individual circumstances. The article by Amato (2000) produces the claim that research supports both views suggesting that divorce may be destructive but may well be a beneficial outcome depending on the state of the family unit beforehand.

This is further supplemented in the article by Amato & Cheadle which produces the claim that the alleviation of marital distress may be beneficial to children upon the demise of the marriage. But it also demonstrates an important construct to our research, reporting that in conditions where children are allowed to presume some sense of personal responsibility for the end of a marriage, the psychological consequences may last into adulthood. In the research conducted by Baker's (2005) text, there are myriad instance in which this is reinforced by negative parental behaviors such as undermining their former partners in front of the child.

An interesting point of affirmation for the findings which permeate the research is that offered by Barnes & Burt (2008) which attempts to explain a common association between divorce and delinquency in teenagers. Attempting to prove the argument that a genetic tendency toward certain personality traits predisposing individuals toward divorce could also be found in children of divorce, who would therefore tend toward delinquent behavioral patterns. An inverse support to the same claim, the text by Clarke-Stewart & Brentano makes the case that positive sociological and psychological adjustment may be produced in those whose environmental surroundings are more emotionally supportive. The article by Corliss (2002) indicates that this is a pointedly modern perspective based on more current research suggesting that the majority of children of divorce are actually emotionally healthy and stable members of society. This endorses the environmental view as well.

The environmental view is seen as a single strand in the fabric of possible explanations for the way that children cope with or fail to cope with parental divorce, according to the study by Hetherington et al. (1989). It is also thus that clinical attention to the experience of divorce is argued by Konstam (2009) to be necessary as a way of deciphering this complex morass of psychological predictors.

The text by Marquedt (2006) takes a contrary perspective, suggesting that divorce is always a destructive force. The source of the text is the testimony of children who have endured this experience and who report the emotional trauma.

Critical Analysis:

The research by Amato (2000) would be of particular importance to our research, providing us with the understanding that the consequences of divorce must be evaluated according to individual cases rather than according to universal projections.

"In general, the accumulated research suggests that marital dissolution has the potential to create considerable turmoil in people's lives. But people vary greatly in their reactions. Divorce benefits some individuals, leads others to experience temporary decrements in well-being, and forces others on a downward trajectory from which they might never recover fully." (Amato, 1269)

One post-marital condition which may predispose children of divorce to long-term negative consequences is that induced by a sense of permeating guilt for a role in the end of the parental union. Amato & Cheadle (2008) refer to this as the 'child effects model,' which is often enabled by a failure of parents to make proper and united assurances to maintain a positive relationship with their children separate from the dissolution of the marriage. According to Amato & Cheadle, "the child effects model assumes that parents' marital distress is the result of (rather than the cause of) children's behavior. Our analysis shows that the associations between parents' divorce and marital conflict and children's behavior problems are comparable for biological and adopted children." (Amato & Cheadle, 1139)

This is a finding which is crucial to our understanding of the factors differentiating children of divorce who suffer long-term negative consequences and those who succeed to enjoy well-adjusted and stable lifestyles. To the former, one of the most troubling consequences of a failure of parents to separate their roles as parents from their feelings concerning a divorce is the degree to which this foists pressure upon the child to choose sides or develop feelings of ambivalence and resentment toward both parents. Baker reports that "according to psychologist Douglas Darnall (1998) there are three types of parents who undertake to alienate their children from the other parent: naive, active, and obsessed. In his experience most, in not all, parents occasionally will behave as naive alienators, making negative comments about the other parent." (Baker, 5)

The suggestion that such negative conditions might produce a sense of resentment, hostility and maladaptive behavior in the child of divorce is supported in more focused research such as that provided by Barnes & Burt (2008). This study proceeds from the claim that a genetic predisposition might be used to prove a link between divorce and delinquency. Ultimately though, the study reports that this link cannot be proved. In its resolution, the study finds that "it is the experience of parental divorce, and not common genes, that drives the association between divorce and adolescent delinquency." (Barnes & Burt, 1668) This produces the finding that environmental factors proceeding from the divorce are linked to the manner in which children and teenagers ultimately respond behaviorally, psychologically and emotionally.

The inverse of this is also true. Such is to say that those who are surrounded by a positive and emotionally supportive network of friends and family will endure divorce with better results. According to the research provided in the exhaustive text by Clarke-Steward & Brentano (2006), this is a force which can have tangible and lasting benefits as children and teens enter into adulthood. The text reports that "after the divorce, especially if the experience is stressful, people whose friends and relatives offer them social support adjust better. Social support from family and friends is related to better psychological adjustment and fewer health problems." (Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 81) This finding underscores the view that divorce outcomes for children are not universal, and that moreover, parental orientation may not alone be used as a predictor for the emotional outcome endured by the child.

Corliss (2002) seems to argue that an unpredictable and wide array of explanations may converge to predict the manner in which children or teens adjust to divorce as they enter adulthood. Moreover, within this array, the article reports that "a psychology professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, and her co-author John Kelly declare that 75% to 80% of children of divorce are functioning well, with little long-term damage." (Corliss, 1) This is a compelling and more recently established claim that denotes the changing understanding of divorce.

Greater nuance is required, denotes the article by Hetherington et al. (1989), which would report to the changing of academic perspective on the subject. Here, it would be concluded that a greater focus is being applied not from the view that divorce is inherently emotionally or psychologically 'pathogenic.' Instead, the attempt is made to understand the conditions that render certain divorce environments inherently pathogenic while others allow children to develop with some sense of normalcy. Among the factors which this article elucidates are necessary to be considered, Hetherington et al. indicate that "the long-term effects are related more to the child's developmental status, sex, and temperament; the qualities of the home and parenting environments; and to the resources and support systems available to the parents and child than they are to divorce or remarriage per se." (Hetherington et al., 303)