PAUL R.AMATO The Pennsylvania State University The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children I use a divorce-stress-adjustment perspective to in divorce (Preston McDonald,1979).In con- summarize and organize the empirical literature trast,demographers estimate that about half of on the consequences of divorce for adults and first marriages initiated in recent years will be vol- children.My review draws on research in the untarily dissolved(Cherlin,1992).Observers have 1990s to answer five questions:How do individ- attributed this change to a number of factors,in- uals from married and divorced families differ in cluding the increasing economic independence of well-being?Are these differences due to divorce women,declining earnings among men without or to selection?Do these differences reflect a tem- college degrees,rising expectations for personal porary crisis to which most people gradually fulfillment from marriage,and greater social ac- adapt or stable life strains that persist more or ceptance of divorce (Cherlin,1992;Furstenberg, less indefinitely?What factors mediate the effects 1994;White,.1991). of divorce on individual adjustment?And finally, Remarriage following divorce is common,and what are the moderators (protective factors)that nearly one-half of current marriages involve a sec- account for individual variability in adjustment to ond (or higher order)marriage for one or both divorce?In general,the accumulated research partners(U.S.Bureau of the Census,1998,Table suggests that marital dissolution has the potential 157).Second (and higher order)marriages,how- to create considerable turmoil in people's lives. ever,have an even greater likelihood of dissolu- But people vary greatly in their reactions.Divorce tion than first marriages.As a result,about one benefits some individuals,leads others to experi- out of every six adults endures two or more di- ence temporary decrements in well-being,and vorces (Cherlin,1992).The shift from a dominant forces others on a downward trajectory from pattern of lifelong marriage to one of serial mar- which they might never recover fully.Understand- riage punctuated by periods of being single rep- ing the contingencies under which divorce leads resents a fundamental change in how adults meet to these diverse outcomes is a priority for future their needs for intimacy over the life course. research. The increase in marital dissolution has had ma- jor implications for the settings in which children Of all the changes in family life during the 20th are nurtured and socialized.Slightly more than century,perhaps the most dramatic-and the most half of all divorces involve children under the age of 18.More than one million children experience far-reaching in its implications-was the increase parental divorce every year (U.S.Bureau of the in the rate of divorce.Near the middle of the 19th Census,1998,Table 160),and about 40%of all century,only about 5%of first marriages ended children will experience parental divorce before reaching adulthood (Bumpass,1990).The high Department of Sociology,The Pennsylvania State Univer rate of marital disruption,combined with an in- sity,University Park,PA 16802-6207(pxa6@psu.edu). crease in births outside marriage,means that about Key Words:children of divorce,divorce,family-level stres- half of all children will reside at least temporarily sors. in single-parent households,usually with their Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (November 2000):1269-1287 1269
Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (November 2000): 1269–1287 1269 PAUL l R. AMATO The Pennsylvania State University The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children I use a divorce-stress-adjustment perspective to summarize and organize the empirical literature on the consequences of divorce for adults and children. My review draws on research in the 1990s to answer five questions: How do individuals from married and divorced families differ in well-being? Are these differences due to divorce or to selection? Do these differences reflect a temporary crisis to which most people gradually adapt or stable life strains that persist more or less indefinitely? What factors mediate the effects of divorce on individual adjustment? And finally, what are the moderators (protective factors) that account for individual variability in adjustment to divorce? 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. Understanding the contingencies under which divorce leads to these diverse outcomes is a priority for future research. Of all the changes in family life during the 20th century, perhaps the most dramatic—and the most far-reaching in its implications—was the increase in the rate of divorce. Near the middle of the 19th century, only about 5% of first marriages ended Department of Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802-6207 (pxa6@psu.edu). Key Words: children of divorce, divorce, family-level stressors. in divorce (Preston & McDonald, 1979). In contrast, demographers estimate that about half of first marriages initiated in recent years will be voluntarily dissolved (Cherlin, 1992). Observers have attributed this change to a number of factors, including the increasing economic independence of women, declining earnings among men without college degrees, rising expectations for personal fulfillment from marriage, and greater social acceptance of divorce (Cherlin, 1992; Furstenberg, 1994; White, 1991). Remarriage following divorce is common, and nearly one-half of current marriages involve a second (or higher order) marriage for one or both partners (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998, Table 157). Second (and higher order) marriages, however, have an even greater likelihood of dissolution than first marriages. As a result, about one out of every six adults endures two or more divorces (Cherlin, 1992). The shift from a dominant pattern of lifelong marriage to one of serial marriage punctuated by periods of being single represents a fundamental change in how adults meet their needs for intimacy over the life course. The increase in marital dissolution has had major implications for the settings in which children are nurtured and socialized. Slightly more than half of all divorces involve children under the age of 18. More than one million children experience parental divorce every year (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998, Table 160), and about 40% of all children will experience parental divorce before reaching adulthood (Bumpass, 1990). The high rate of marital disruption, combined with an increase in births outside marriage, means that about half of all children will reside at least temporarily in single-parent households, usually with their
1270 Journal of Marriage and the Family mothers (Castro Bumpass.1989).Because of and a lack of government services represent more remarriage,about one in seven children currently serious threats to the well-being of adults and chil- lives with a parent and a stepparent (Cherlin. dren than does marital instability (Coontz,1992; 1992).and about one in three children will live Demo,1992;Skolnick,1991;Stacey,1996) with a stepparent for some time prior to reaching The polemical nature of divorce scholarship age 19(Glick,1989).These patterns vary by race. makes it difficult to write on this topic without For example,compared with Whites,African being identified as either a conservative or a lib- Americans are more likely to bear children outside eral voice.Nevertheless,although complete objec- of marriage,more likely to divorce,and more tivity is impossible,my goal in this article is to likely to cohabit rather than remarry following di- assess the state of knowledge on divorce in a bal- vorce (Cherlin,1992).Nevertheless,regardless of anced and relatively nonpartisan manner.Indeed, race,the decline in two-parent households,the in- a review of current literature might help to inform crease in nonresident parents,and the introduction the debate between those who see divorce as a of parents'new partners (whether married or co- major social problem and those who see divorce habiting)into the home represent major transfor- as a necessary and beneficial alternative to man- mations in the lives of America's children. datory lifelong marriage The increase in divorce-and the implications Because it is impossible to cover the full of this increase for the lives of adults and chil- breadth of divorce scholarship in the 1990s in a dren-has generated a high level of interest single article,my review focuses on the conse- among social scientists.Indeed,a search of the quences of divorce for the well-being of adults SOCIOFILE database revealed 9,282 articles pub- and children.I chose this focus because it encom- lished (and dissertations completed)between 1990 passes,either directly or indirectly,much of the and 1999 in which"divorce"appeared in the title research in this field and because it is central to or abstract.The authors of these works represent debates about the rise in marital instability.I omit a variety of disciplines,including developmental (or touch only briefly on)many other aspects of psychology,clinical psychology,family therapy, divorce,such as legal issues related to custody sociology,demography,communication studies, determination and child support.I also exclude family science,history,economics,social work, material on the dissolution of cohabiting relation- public health,social policy,and law.The extent ships (including those with children)because we and diversity of divorce scholarship pose a sober- know relatively little about this topic.Readers ing challenge to any reviewer attempting to syn- should note that my review draws on qualitative thesize current knowledge on this topic. as well as quantitative research,although I do not Reviewing the literature on divorce also is usually identify individual studies on the basis of challenging because of the ongoing,contentious their methodology. debate over the consequences of marital disrup- tion for adults and children.Some scholars see the THEORY two-parent family as the fundamental institution of society-the setting in which adults achieve a Researchers in the 1990s have employed a variety sense of meaning.stability,and security and the of theories and conceptual perspectives to explain setting in which children develop into healthy, how divorce affects adults and children:these in- competent,and productive citizens.According to clude feminist theory (Carbonne,1994),attach- this view,the spread of single-parent families con- ment theory (Hazan Shaver.1992).attribution tributes to many social problems,including pov- theory (Grych Fincham,1992),symbolic inter- erty,crime,substance abuse,declining academic actionism (Orbuch,1992),systems theory (Em- standards.and the erosion of neighborhoods and ery,1994),the social capital perspective (Teach- communities (Blankenhorn.1995:Glenn.1996: man.Paasch.Carver,1996).and the life-course Popenoe,1996).In contrast,other scholars argue perspective (Amato Booth,1997).The largest that adults find fulfillment,and children develop number of studies,however,begin with the as- successfully,in a variety of family structures.Ac- sumption that marital disruption is a stressful life cording to this view,divorce,although temporar- transition to which adults and children must ad- ily stressful,represents a second chance for hap- just.Many researchers link their work to estab- piness for adults and an escape from a lished stress perspectives,such as family stress dysfunctional home environment for children. and coping theory (Hill,1949;McCubbin Pat- Poverty,abuse,neglect,poorly funded schools, terson,1983;Plunkett,Sanchez,Henry,Rob-
1270 Journal of Marriage and the Family mothers (Castro & Bumpass, 1989). Because of remarriage, about one in seven children currently lives with a parent and a stepparent (Cherlin, 1992), and about one in three children will live with a stepparent for some time prior to reaching age 19 (Glick, 1989). These patterns vary by race. For example, compared with Whites, African Americans are more likely to bear children outside of marriage, more likely to divorce, and more likely to cohabit rather than remarry following divorce (Cherlin, 1992). Nevertheless, regardless of race, the decline in two-parent households, the increase in nonresident parents, and the introduction of parents’ new partners (whether married or cohabiting) into the home represent major transformations in the lives of America’s children. The increase in divorce—and the implications of this increase for the lives of adults and children—has generated a high level of interest among social scientists. Indeed, a search of the SOCIOFILE database revealed 9,282 articles published (and dissertations completed) between 1990 and 1999 in which ‘‘divorce’’ appeared in the title or abstract. The authors of these works represent a variety of disciplines, including developmental psychology, clinical psychology, family therapy, sociology, demography, communication studies, family science, history, economics, social work, public health, social policy, and law. The extent and diversity of divorce scholarship pose a sobering challenge to any reviewer attempting to synthesize current knowledge on this topic. Reviewing the literature on divorce also is challenging because of the ongoing, contentious debate over the consequences of marital disruption for adults and children. Some scholars see the two-parent family as the fundamental institution of society—the setting in which adults achieve a sense of meaning, stability, and security and the setting in which children develop into healthy, competent, and productive citizens. According to this view, the spread of single-parent families contributes to many social problems, including poverty, crime, substance abuse, declining academic standards, and the erosion of neighborhoods and communities (Blankenhorn, 1995; Glenn, 1996; Popenoe, 1996). In contrast, other scholars argue that adults find fulfillment, and children develop successfully, in a variety of family structures. According to this view, divorce, although temporarily stressful, represents a second chance for happiness for adults and an escape from a dysfunctional home environment for children. Poverty, abuse, neglect, poorly funded schools, and a lack of government services represent more serious threats to the well-being of adults and children than does marital instability (Coontz, 1992; Demo, 1992; Skolnick, 1991; Stacey, 1996). The polemical nature of divorce scholarship makes it difficult to write on this topic without being identified as either a conservative or a liberal voice. Nevertheless, although complete objectivity is impossible, my goal in this article is to assess the state of knowledge on divorce in a balanced and relatively nonpartisan manner. Indeed, a review of current literature might help to inform the debate between those who see divorce as a major social problem and those who see divorce as a necessary and beneficial alternative to mandatory lifelong marriage. Because it is impossible to cover the full breadth of divorce scholarship in the 1990s in a single article, my review focuses on the consequences of divorce for the well-being of adults and children. I chose this focus because it encompasses, either directly or indirectly, much of the research in this field and because it is central to debates about the rise in marital instability. I omit (or touch only briefly on) many other aspects of divorce, such as legal issues related to custody determination and child support. I also exclude material on the dissolution of cohabiting relationships (including those with children) because we know relatively little about this topic. Readers should note that my review draws on qualitative as well as quantitative research, although I do not usually identify individual studies on the basis of their methodology. THEORY Researchers in the 1990s have employed a variety of theories and conceptual perspectives to explain how divorce affects adults and children; these include feminist theory (Carbonne, 1994), attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver, 1992), attribution theory (Grych & Fincham, 1992), symbolic interactionism (Orbuch, 1992), systems theory (Emery, 1994), the social capital perspective (Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1996), and the life-course perspective (Amato & Booth, 1997). The largest number of studies, however, begin with the assumption that marital disruption is a stressful life transition to which adults and children must adjust. Many researchers link their work to established stress perspectives, such as family stress and coping theory (Hill, 1949; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; Plunkett, Sanchez, Henry, & Rob-
The Consequences of Divorce 1271 FIGURE 1.THE DIVORCE-STRESS-ADJUSTMENT PERSPECTIVE Mediators(Stressors) Adjustment Adults Sole parenting responsibility or loss Severity and duration of of custody of children psychological,behavioral, and health problems Loss of emotional support Continuing conflict with ex-spouse Economic decline Functioning in new roles Other stressful divorce-related events Identity and lifestyle not Divorce Children tied to former marriage Process Decline in parental support and Short-term(crisis model) effective control Loss of contact with one parent Continuing conflict between parents Long-term(chronic strain model) Economic decline Other stressful divorce-related events Moderators(Protective Factors) Resources (individual,interpersonal,structural) Definition and meaning of divorce Demographic characteristics inson,1997),general stress theory(Pearlin,Men- process typically sets into motion numerous aghan,Lieberman,Mullan,1981;Thoits, events that people experience as stressful.These 1995),and the risk and resiliency perspective stressors,in turn,increase the risk of negative (Cowan,Cowan,Schulz,1996;Hetherington. emotional,behavioral.and health outcomes for 1999:Rutter.1987).Because stress frameworks adults and children.The severity and duration of dominate the literature on divorce,I give them these negative outcomes varies from person to particular attention here.And because these person,depending on the presence of a variety of frameworks have much in common,I combine moderating or protective factors.Successful ad- their various elements into a general divorce- justment occurs to the extent that individuals ex- stress-adjustment perspective.This conceptual perience few divorce-related symptoms,are able model integrates the assumptions found in many to function well in new family,work,or school discrete pieces of research,helps to summarize roles,and have developed an identity and lifestyle and organize specific research findings from the that is no longer tied to the former marriage (Kit- 1990s,and provides a guide for future research on son,1992;Kitson Morgan,1990). divorce.This perspective also is useful because it Thinking of divorce as a process leads to sev- can be applied to children as well as adults. eral useful insights.Uncoupling begins with feel- ings of estrangement-feelings that typically The Divorce-Stress-Adjustment Perspective emerge after a period of growing dissatisfaction with the relationship(Kayser,1993).Because vir- The divorce-stress-adjustment perspective,out- tually all people enter marriage with the expec- lined in the Figure,views marital dissolution not tation (or the hope)that it will be a mutually sup- as a discrete event but as a process that begins portive,rewarding,lifelong relationship, while the couple lives together and ends long after estrangement from one's spouse is typically a the legal divorce is concluded.The uncoupling painful experience.Estranged spouses might
The Consequences of Divorce 1271 FIGURE 1. THE DIVORCE-STRESS-ADJUSTMENT PERSPECTIVE inson, 1997), general stress theory (Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, & Mullan, 1981; Thoits, 1995), and the risk and resiliency perspective (Cowan, Cowan, & Schulz, 1996; Hetherington, 1999; Rutter, 1987). Because stress frameworks dominate the literature on divorce, I give them particular attention here. And because these frameworks have much in common, I combine their various elements into a general divorcestress-adjustment perspective. This conceptual model integrates the assumptions found in many discrete pieces of research, helps to summarize and organize specific research findings from the 1990s, and provides a guide for future research on divorce. This perspective also is useful because it can be applied to children as well as adults. The Divorce-Stress-Adjustment Perspective The divorce-stress-adjustment perspective, outlined in the Figure, views marital dissolution not as a discrete event but as a process that begins while the couple lives together and ends long after the legal divorce is concluded. The uncoupling process typically sets into motion numerous events that people experience as stressful. These stressors, in turn, increase the risk of negative emotional, behavioral, and health outcomes for adults and children. The severity and duration of these negative outcomes varies from person to person, depending on the presence of a variety of moderating or protective factors. Successful adjustment occurs to the extent that individuals experience few divorce-related symptoms, are able to function well in new family, work, or school roles, and have developed an identity and lifestyle that is no longer tied to the former marriage (Kitson, 1992; Kitson & Morgan, 1990). Thinking of divorce as a process leads to several useful insights. Uncoupling begins with feelings of estrangement—feelings that typically emerge after a period of growing dissatisfaction with the relationship (Kayser, 1993). Because virtually all people enter marriage with the expectation (or the hope) that it will be a mutually supportive, rewarding, lifelong relationship, estrangement from one’s spouse is typically a painful experience. Estranged spouses might
1272 Journal of Marriage and the Family spend considerable time attempting to renegotiate to children.divorce can result in less effective par- the relationship,seeking advice from others,or enting from the custodial parent,a decrease inin- simply avoiding (denying)the problem.Conse- volvement with the noncustodial parent,exposure quently,the first negative effects of divorce on to continuing interparental discord,a decline in adults can occur years prior to final separation and economic resources,and other disruptive life legal dissolution.In addition.overt conflict be- events such as moving,changing schools,and ad- tween parents during this period might lead to be- ditional parental marriages and divorces.These havior problems in children-problems that can mediating factors represent the mechanisms be viewed as early effects of marital dissolution through which divorce affects people's function- (Davies Cummings,1994). ing and well-being.(For discussions of mediators. Furthermore,it is often the case that one see Amato,1993;Kitson,1992;McLanahan spouse wants the marriage to end more than the Booth.1989:McLanahan Sandefur.1994: other spouse does (Emery,1994).When this hap- Rodgers Pryor,1998:Simons and Associates pens,the spouse who is considering divorce might 1996.) mourn the end of the marriage even though it is It is important to recognize that mediators can still legally and physically intact.Indeed,when be viewed as outcomes in their own right.For the marriage is legally terminated,the initiating example,a particular study might focus on the spouse often experiences a great deal of relief. impact of divorce on single mothers'standard of The spouse who wanted the marriage to continue, living.But a declining standard of living,in turn, in contrast,might not mourn the end of the mar- can have consequences for single mothers'sense riage until the legal divorce is completed.Spous- of financial security,children's nutrition,and older es,therefore,often experience the greatest degree adolescents'opportunities to attend college.Me- of emotional distress at different points in the di- diators,therefore,represent short-or medium- vorce process(Emery,1994).The same principle term outcomes of divorce that can have additional applies to children.For example,an older child long-term consequences for adults'and children's might experience stress prior to the divorce,dur- well-being. ing the period when the parents'marriage is un- Moderators introduce variability into the man- raveling.For this older child,the physical sepa- ner in which divorce and mediating factors are ration of constantly warring parents might come linked to personal outcomes.Protective factors act as a relief.For a younger child in the same family, like shock absorbers and weaken the links be- however,the departure of one parent from the tween divorce-related events and people's expe- household might be a bewildering event that gen- rience of stress,and hence the extent to which erates considerable anxiety.In other words.mem- divorce is followed by negative emotional,behav- bers of divorcing families can experience different ioral,or health outcomes (Rutter.1987).Re- trajectories of stress and adjustment. sources that lessen the negative impact of divorce Legal divorce does not necessarily bring an might reside within the individual (self-efficacy, end to the stress associated with an unhappy mar- coping skills,social skills),in interpersonal rela- riage,even for the partner who initiates the di- tionships (social support),and in structural roles vorce.Instead,during the time in which the mar- and settings (employment,community services. riage is ending,and in the immediate postdivorce supportive government policies).For example,al- period,new events and processes (mediators) though divorce often brings about an initial de- emerge that have the potential to affect people's cline in emotional support,people vary in their emotions,behavior,and health.For adults,medi- ability to reconstruct social networks following di- ators include:having sole responsibility for the vorce,including how quickly they are able to care of children (among custodial parents);losing form new,supportive intimate relationships.An- contact with one's children (among noncustodial other moderator refers to the manner in which parents),continuing conflict with the ex-spouse people regard divorce,with some individuals over child support,visitation,or custody;loss of viewing it as a personal tragedy (typically the emotional support due to declining contact with partner who is left behind)and others viewing it in-laws,married friends,and neighbors;down- as an opportunity for personal growth or as an ward economic mobility (especially for mothers); escape from an aversive or dysfunctional marriage and other disruptive life events,such as moving (typically the partner who initiates the divorce). from the family home into less expensive accom- Finally,a number of demographic characteristics, modation in a poorer neighborhood.With regard such as gender,age,race,ethnicity,and culture
1272 Journal of Marriage and the Family spend considerable time attempting to renegotiate the relationship, seeking advice from others, or simply avoiding (denying) the problem. Consequently, the first negative effects of divorce on adults can occur years prior to final separation and legal dissolution. In addition, overt conflict between parents during this period might lead to behavior problems in children—problems that can be viewed as early effects of marital dissolution (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Furthermore, it is often the case that one spouse wants the marriage to end more than the other spouse does (Emery, 1994). When this happens, the spouse who is considering divorce might mourn the end of the marriage even though it is still legally and physically intact. Indeed, when the marriage is legally terminated, the initiating spouse often experiences a great deal of relief. The spouse who wanted the marriage to continue, in contrast, might not mourn the end of the marriage until the legal divorce is completed. Spouses, therefore, often experience the greatest degree of emotional distress at different points in the divorce process (Emery, 1994). The same principle applies to children. For example, an older child might experience stress prior to the divorce, during the period when the parents’ marriage is unraveling. For this older child, the physical separation of constantly warring parents might come as a relief. For a younger child in the same family, however, the departure of one parent from the household might be a bewildering event that generates considerable anxiety. In other words, members of divorcing families can experience different trajectories of stress and adjustment. Legal divorce does not necessarily bring an end to the stress associated with an unhappy marriage, even for the partner who initiates the divorce. Instead, during the time in which the marriage is ending, and in the immediate postdivorce period, new events and processes (mediators) emerge that have the potential to affect people’s emotions, behavior, and health. For adults, mediators include: having sole responsibility for the care of children (among custodial parents); losing contact with one’s children (among noncustodial parents); continuing conflict with the ex-spouse over child support, visitation, or custody; loss of emotional support due to declining contact with in-laws, married friends, and neighbors; downward economic mobility (especially for mothers); and other disruptive life events, such as moving from the family home into less expensive accommodation in a poorer neighborhood. With regard to children, divorce can result in less effective parenting from the custodial parent, a decrease in involvement with the noncustodial parent, exposure to continuing interparental discord, a decline in economic resources, and other disruptive life events such as moving, changing schools, and additional parental marriages and divorces. These mediating factors represent the mechanisms through which divorce affects people’s functioning and well-being. (For discussions of mediators, see Amato, 1993; Kitson, 1992; McLanahan & Booth, 1989; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Rodgers & Pryor, 1998; Simons and Associates, 1996.) It is important to recognize that mediators can be viewed as outcomes in their own right. For example, a particular study might focus on the impact of divorce on single mothers’ standard of living. But a declining standard of living, in turn, can have consequences for single mothers’ sense of financial security, children’s nutrition, and older adolescents’ opportunities to attend college. Mediators, therefore, represent short- or mediumterm outcomes of divorce that can have additional long-term consequences for adults’ and children’s well-being. Moderators introduce variability into the manner in which divorce and mediating factors are linked to personal outcomes. Protective factors act like shock absorbers and weaken the links between divorce-related events and people’s experience of stress, and hence the extent to which divorce is followed by negative emotional, behavioral, or health outcomes (Rutter, 1987). Resources that lessen the negative impact of divorce might reside within the individual (self-efficacy, coping skills, social skills), in interpersonal relationships (social support), and in structural roles and settings (employment, community services, supportive government policies). For example, although divorce often brings about an initial decline in emotional support, people vary in their ability to reconstruct social networks following divorce, including how quickly they are able to form new, supportive intimate relationships. Another moderator refers to the manner in which people regard divorce, with some individuals viewing it as a personal tragedy (typically the partner who is left behind) and others viewing it as an opportunity for personal growth or as an escape from an aversive or dysfunctional marriage (typically the partner who initiates the divorce). Finally, a number of demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, and culture
The Consequences of Divorce 1273 can moderate the effects of divorce.As a result The Selection Perspective of the particular configuration of moderating fac- tors,some individuals are resilient and others are The main alternative to the divorce-stress-adjust- vulnerable following divorce,resulting in a diver- ment perspective is based on the notion that poor sity of outcomes.(For discussions of these and ly adjusted people are selected out of marriage. other moderators see Bloom,Asher,White, According to the selection perspective,certain in- 1978:Booth Amato.1991:Pearlin et al..1981: dividuals possess problematic personal and social Wheaton.1990). characteristics that not only predispose them to Imbedded within the divorce-stress-adiustment divorce,but also lead them to score low on indi- perspective are two contrary models.The first,a cators of well-being after the marriage ends.Con- crisis model,assumes that divorce represents a sequently,the adjustment problems frequently ob- disturbance to which most individuals adjust over served among the divorced might be present early time.According to the crisis model,factors such in the marriage or might predate the marriage. as personal resources and definitions determine Some evidence is consistent with the assumption the speed with which adjustment occurs.But giv- that people bring traits to marriage that increase en a sufficient amount of time,the great majority the risk of divorce,including antisocial personal- of individuals return to their predivorce level of ity traits,depression,and a general history of psy- functioning.The second model,a chronic strain chological problems (Capaldi Patterson,1991: model,assumes that being divorced involves per- Davies,Avison,McAlpine,1997;Hope,Power, sistent strains,such as economic hardship,lone- Rodgers,1999:Kitson.1992:Kurdek.1990). liness,and,for single parents,sole parenting re- Whereas the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective sponsibilities.Because these problems do not go assumes that marital disruption causes adjustment away,declines in well-being associated with di- problems,the selection perspective assumes that vorce might continue more or less indefinitely adjustment problems cause marital disruption.Se- According to the chronic strain model,factors lection also can occur if the best adjusted divorced such as personal resources and definitions deter- individuals are especially likely to remarry.If this mine the level of distress that individuals experi- is true,then the mean level of functioning in the ence,but divorced individuals do not,in general. divorced (and not remarried)population should return to the same level of well-being they expe- decline over time. rienced early in the marriage. The selection perspective,as applied to chil- Some researchers have argued that stress per- dren.assumes that at least some child problems spectives tend to focus exclusively on the negative observed following divorce are present during the aspects of divorce and ignore positive outcomes marriage-an assumption consistent with several for adults (Ahrons.1994:Wheaton.1990)and longitudinal studies(Amato Booth,1996;Cher- children (Barber Eccles,1992:Gately lin et al..1991:Elliot Richards.1991:Hether- Schwebel,1991).For example,women(as well as ington,1999).Many researchers assume that these their children)might feel that they are substan- problems are caused by parents'marital discord tially better off when a relationship with an abu- or by inept parenting on the part of distressed or sive husband ends.The notion that divorce can be antisocial parents.Of course,to the extent that beneficial,however,is not inconsistent with the dysfunctional family patterns are reflections of the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective.Many unraveling of the marriage,then these early ef- stress theorists.such as Thoits (1995)and Whea- fects on children can be viewed as part of the ton (1990),have argued that potentially stressful divorce process.But the selection perspective events,such as divorce,can have positive long- goes one step further and argues that inherent term consequences when people resolve their characteristics of parents,such as antisocial per- problems successfully.Indeed,the divorce-stress- sonality traits,are direct causes of dysfunctional adjustment perspective explicitly focuses on the family patterns and divorce,as well as child prob- contingencies that lead to negative,positive,or lems.The discovery that concordance (similarity mixed outcomes for individuals.Nevertheless,the between siblings)for divorce among adults is divorce-stress-adjustment perspective assumes higher among monozygotic than dizygotic twins that for most people,the ending of a marriage is suggests that genes might predispose some people a stressful experience,even if much of the stress to behaviors that increase the risk of divorce occurs prior to the legal divorce,is temporary,or (McGue Lykken,1992;Jockin,McGue,Lyk- is accompanied by some positive outcomes. ken,1996).Consequently,some children from di-
The Consequences of Divorce 1273 can moderate the effects of divorce. As a result of the particular configuration of moderating factors, some individuals are resilient and others are vulnerable following divorce, resulting in a diversity of outcomes. (For discussions of these and other moderators see Bloom, Asher, & White, 1978; Booth & Amato, 1991; Pearlin et al., 1981; Wheaton, 1990). Imbedded within the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective are two contrary models. The first, a crisis model, assumes that divorce represents a disturbance to which most individuals adjust over time. According to the crisis model, factors such as personal resources and definitions determine the speed with which adjustment occurs. But given a sufficient amount of time, the great majority of individuals return to their predivorce level of functioning. The second model, a chronic strain model, assumes that being divorced involves persistent strains, such as economic hardship, loneliness, and, for single parents, sole parenting responsibilities. Because these problems do not go away, declines in well-being associated with divorce might continue more or less indefinitely. According to the chronic strain model, factors such as personal resources and definitions determine the level of distress that individuals experience, but divorced individuals do not, in general, return to the same level of well-being they experienced early in the marriage. Some researchers have argued that stress perspectives tend to focus exclusively on the negative aspects of divorce and ignore positive outcomes for adults (Ahrons, 1994; Wheaton, 1990) and children (Barber & Eccles, 1992; Gately & Schwebel, 1991). For example, women (as well as their children) might feel that they are substantially better off when a relationship with an abusive husband ends. The notion that divorce can be beneficial, however, is not inconsistent with the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective. Many stress theorists, such as Thoits (1995) and Wheaton (1990), have argued that potentially stressful events, such as divorce, can have positive longterm consequences when people resolve their problems successfully. Indeed, the divorce-stressadjustment perspective explicitly focuses on the contingencies that lead to negative, positive, or mixed outcomes for individuals. Nevertheless, the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective assumes that for most people, the ending of a marriage is a stressful experience, even if much of the stress occurs prior to the legal divorce, is temporary, or is accompanied by some positive outcomes. The Selection Perspective The main alternative to the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective is based on the notion that poorly adjusted people are selected out of marriage. According to the selection perspective, certain individuals possess problematic personal and social characteristics that not only predispose them to divorce, but also lead them to score low on indicators of well-being after the marriage ends. Consequently, the adjustment problems frequently observed among the divorced might be present early in the marriage or might predate the marriage. Some evidence is consistent with the assumption that people bring traits to marriage that increase the risk of divorce, including antisocial personality traits, depression, and a general history of psychological problems (Capaldi & Patterson, 1991; Davies, Avison, & McAlpine, 1997; Hope, Power, & Rodgers, 1999; Kitson, 1992; Kurdek, 1990). Whereas the divorce-stress-adjustment perspective assumes that marital disruption causes adjustment problems, the selection perspective assumes that adjustment problems cause marital disruption. Selection also can occur if the best adjusted divorced individuals are especially likely to remarry. If this is true, then the mean level of functioning in the divorced (and not remarried) population should decline over time. The selection perspective, as applied to children, assumes that at least some child problems observed following divorce are present during the marriage—an assumption consistent with several longitudinal studies (Amato & Booth, 1996; Cherlin et al., 1991; Elliot & Richards, 1991; Hetherington, 1999). Many researchers assume that these problems are caused by parents’ marital discord or by inept parenting on the part of distressed or antisocial parents. Of course, to the extent that dysfunctional family patterns are reflections of the unraveling of the marriage, then these early effects on children can be viewed as part of the divorce process. But the selection perspective goes one step further and argues that inherent characteristics of parents, such as antisocial personality traits, are direct causes of dysfunctional family patterns and divorce, as well as child problems. The discovery that concordance (similarity between siblings) for divorce among adults is higher among monozygotic than dizygotic twins suggests that genes might predispose some people to behaviors that increase the risk of divorce (McGue & Lykken, 1992; Jockin, McGue, & Lykken, 1996). Consequently, some children from di-