Part Two. The Denial: Downplaying the Consequences of Family Structure for Children
Introduction
In an earlier paper (Glenn & Sylvester,
2006), we reported a study of the articles (266 in all) published in the Journal
of Marriage and Family (JMF)* from 1977-2002 that dealt with the
relationship between family structure and child well-being. We found that, over
that period, family scholars became more concerned about the impact of divorce
and out-of-wedlock childbearing on children. Despite the overall shift in scholarly
views, a number of family scholars still maintain relatively sanguine views
about the increase in single-parent families and its implications for child
well-being. In the course of our research, we found a number of recurring arguments
from this perspective.
In this paper, we discuss common arguments employed by authors of articles
in the JMF who took relatively sanguine views toward unwed childbearing
and divorce. We find that, in many cases, the apparent scholarly disputes about
family structure are merely matters of rhetorical emphasis. Some arguments from
scholars who take a sanguine view provide useful antidotes to overly gloomy
views of divorce and father absence, but others appear to be ideologically driven
efforts to discount and minimize strong evidence for consequences of family
structure for children. A few of the arguments suffer from fundamental analytical
errors, and even more serious, a few scholars seem to want family researchers
to stop asking questions about the impact of family structure—an apparent
example of the anti-scientific view that a lack of knowledge is better than
knowledge.
The Shift in Scholarly Attitudes toward Family Structure
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many scholars believed that the rise in
divorce was not particularly problematic for children, a conclusion not based
solidly in empirical research because research on the subject had been sparse.
In 1979, two authors of an article in the JMF concluded that there were “no
consistent findings” on the effects of divorce on children (Raschke &
Raschke, 1979, p. 369). While divorce rates were up, some scholars pointed to
a corresponding rise in remarriage as evidence that families were not weakening
(Moroney, 1979, p. 462). “Although family structure has changed considerably
over time,” explained one scholar, “the socialization and supportive
functions appear to have survived and, in the opinion of some social scientists,
to have been strengthened in the twentieth century” (Moroney, 1979, p.
462).
Over the years, though, additional research made such rosy statements increasingly
untenable. Studies using nationally representative data sets consistently indicated
that children in single-parent and stepparent families suffered from higher
rates of emotional problems, behavioral problems, and academic failure (e.g.,
Dawson, 1991; McLanahan & Booth, 1989; Peterson & Zill, 1986)—differences
not largely removed by statistically controlling variables likely to commonly
affect both family structure and child outcomes and thus produce a spurious
(non-causal) relationship between the two. Most children in all kinds of family
structures did not display the problems studied, but differences in the risk
of problems among different kinds of families were often found to be statistically
significant and large enough to be important. It was found that remarriage did
not remedy the apparent negative effects of divorce, as children in stepfamilies
did only about as well as children living with single parents (McLanahan &
Booth, 1989). More researchers began to believe that family composition did
have important effects on child well-being, and even those scholars who remained
sanguine about single parenting and divorce had to acknowledge the new data.
Retired Arguments
As the empirical evidence grew, some arguments for optimistic assessments of
family structure trends were essentially retired. At one time, a few scholars
suggested that the increase in father absence was in fact nothing new and alarming,
as parental death used to be quite frequent (Sweetser, 1985). Subsequent research
indicated, however, that parental death and divorce have different consequences
for children. Outcomes for children who lose a parent to death are substantially
better than for children whose parents divorce (Glenn & Kramer, 1985; 1987;
Aquilino, 1994; Biblarz & Gottainer, 2000). Thus, the argument equating
parental death with parental divorce has largely disappeared.
Early assessments of single-mother families also tended to be optimistic about
the role of “social fathers” or “father figures” for
children. For instance, a 1983 article reporting a qualitative study of young
unwed mothers argues that “neither kinship nor household membership is
necessary for a male to perform those psychological and instrumental functions
commonly associated with fatherhood in our society” (Gershenson, 1983,
p. 597). According to the study’s author, grandfathers, stepfathers, boyfriends,
and other male relatives and neighbors “provide a wide variety of possible
males who could serve as fathers to the child” (p. 592). In fact, given
that array of men, children in so-called father-absent homes may even benefit
from “[m]ultiple fatherhood” (p. 592). The author instructs other
researchers that they “must recognize increases in support which occur
as a new father enters the family’s life” (p. 598). Almost anyone
would agree that such men can play positive, influential roles in children’s
lives, but the implicit and dubious conclusion of the Gershenson article is
that they frequently do so to an extent that largely offsets the effects of
the absence of a biological father.
Research on “social fathering” continues (Jayakody & Kalil,
2002), but there is no compelling evidence that a substantial percentage of
children in single-mother families enjoy close, involved relationships with
“social fathers.” Evidence is even scarcer that stepfathers or cohabiting
boyfriends consistently improve child well-being. Stepfather-stepchild relationships
are, on average, less close than biological father-child relationships (White,
1999; Fine et al., 1992; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992), and living
with a stepparent or a cohabiting boyfriend is associated with higher risks
of behavioral problems as well as physical or sexual abuse (Coleman, Ganong,
& Fine, 2000; Martin & Walters, 1982). Despite the hopes of their mothers
(and possibly researchers), children themselves may not view these men as “fathers.”
The hope that other men can easily substitute for absent biological fathers
has received little or no empirical support. Accordingly, the argument that
they can, and often do, has apparently become rare.
Does Family Structure Matter? Not “Necessarily”
As the empirical literature on family structure has expanded, arguments in
defense of divorce and single parenting have generally moved beyond the early
Pollyannaish assessments. A more common approach now is to argue against a purportedly
unjustified alarmism about the negative effects of divorce and unwed childbearing.
“Certainly the consequences of divorce are not trivial,” writes
Judith Stacey (1993), a vocal proponent of family diversity, “but divorce,
in and of itself, does not harm the young nearly so much as [certain scholars]
have claimed” (p. 547). (We will return to use of the phrase “in
and of itself.”) David Demo (1992) agrees that the negative consequences
of divorce and single parenting “have been greatly exaggerated”
(p. 105).
Of course, there are reasonable and legitimate arguments that can be made
about the magnitude of family structure effects, and no doubt some commentators
have exaggerated that magnitude. However, virtually no one has argued that differences
between children who grow up in different family structures are absolute and
categorical—and no author of an article in the JMF during 1977-2002
came even close to doing that. For instance, to our knowledge no one has ever
claimed that all “children of divorce” become delinquent while no
persons whose parents had intact marriages ever do. There would seem to be little
need, therefore, to rebut such extremist beliefs about family structure effects.
Yet, consider the following statements from JMF authors who took a
relatively optimistic view of divorce and single parenting (all with emphasis
added):
“In conclusion, the results of the current investigation support the
belief that parental marital disruption does not necessarily culminate in
adjustment problems in a college-student population” (Greenberg &
Nay, 1982, p. 346).
“Marriage does not always enhance one’s well-being…”
(Walker, 2000, p. 598).
“These findings support the contention that family structure does not
automatically adversely affect family members’ well-being. . . . Our
findings suggest that . . . divorce and remarriage are not necessarily associated
with the host of adjustment problems that have at times been reported in the
clinical literature” (Lansford et al., 2001, p. 842, 850).
“Data on fathering demonstrate that marriage is neither a sufficient
nor a necessary context for responsible fathering” (Walker & McGraw,
2000, p. 566).
“[S]ingle-parent and stepparent families . . . do not necessarily imply
a pathological social unit that cannot function or provide an appropriate
environment for raising children” (Baydar, 1988, p. 968).
“Residing with two parents offers no guarantee of positive parental
involvement for children” (Videon, 2002, p. 499).
All these statements are accurate and would serve to puncture extreme fatalism
about the effects of family structure—if any serious family scholars held
such extreme views. No scholar or reasonably sophisticated policy maker, even
a staunch believer in family structure effects, could conceivably disagree with
such conclusions, which are essentially attacks on straw men. As such, these
and similar statements do nothing to rebut the argument that an intact family
tends to be the most supportive family structure for children. Rather, the argument
that divorce is largely benign has been replaced with the unremarkable and almost
obviously correct statement that growing up outside of an intact two-parent
family does not doom children to poor outcomes.
It is notable that scholars rarely make such statements about other factors
that influence child well-being. In our examination of the JMF articles, we
found no examples of authors pointing out, for instance, that growing up in
poverty does not inevitably result in poor child outcomes. Nor do scholars apparently
feel obliged to emphasize that low levels of maternal education do not necessarily
lead to educational difficulties for children. The restriction of the “not
necessarily” statements to conclusions about negative family structure
effects suggests that some scholars feel a particular discomfort about reporting
or accepting evidence for such effects.
If only to reassure parents and children in non-intact families, it is important
to point out that most children, regardless of their living arrangements, do
not exhibit serious emotional, behavioral, or academic problems. In fact, many
authors whose articles indicate negative effects of divorce stress that such
effects are not automatic, inevitable, or even likely. There is a problem only
when authors use the “not necessarily” statements to try to avoid
the issue of whether there is strong evidence that family structure substantially
affects the probability of undesirable outcomes. Insofar as this rhetorical
approach is meant to be an argument against concern about divorce and out-of-wedlock
childbearing, it lacks meaningful heft.
The Problem of Parental Conflict
A valid argument made by some scholars who take relatively sanguine views toward
divorce is that many problems assumed to be the result of the divorce actually
stem from pre-divorce parental conflict. The typical cross-sectional study on
divorce compares children in intact homes with those from divorced homes at
one point in time. Most of those studies indicate that children of divorce suffer
from significantly higher rates of emotional and behavioral problems, even when
a number of variables that could affect both parental divorce and child outcomes
are statistically held constant. However, pre-divorce characteristics of the
parental marriage were not until recently usually included as control variables
in these studies, and some of these variables may have negatively affected the
children even if the parents had not divorced. For example, children whose parents
divorce are more likely to have lived in homes marked by parental conflict,
and there is strong evidence that parental conflict is harmful to children,
regardless of their parents’ marital status (Kelly, 2000, p. 963; Emery,
1999). Thus, perhaps exposure to such conflict, not divorce, is responsible
for much of the observed difference in child outcomes between the children of
divorce and persons whose parents did not divorce.
Longitudinal or retrospective studies that include measures of pre-divorce
parental conflict allow estimates of the effects of the divorce net of the lingering
effects of the conflict. Such studies do indicate that some of the
alleged effects of divorce were present before the divorce occurred (Amato &
Booth, 1996), but there is not agreement about the size of those effects. Some
authors contend that preexisting factors account for “most of the negative
effects” (Sun, 2001, p. 712) or “many of the problems” (Videon,
2002, p. 490) divorce presents to children. Other authors argue that divorce
itself brings substantial additional negative consequences. One study that indicates
significant negative effects of pre-divorce conflict also indicates that “factors
associated with divorce, itself, such as parental absence, changes in custody
and relationships, and declines in parents’ psychological well-being,
explain increases in children’s behavior problems over and above the effect
of pre-disruption parental quarrels” (Morrison & Coiro, 1999, p. 635).
Amato (2000) writes, “Even if pre-divorce family factors (including genetic
factors) predispose children to certain emotional and behavioral problems, divorce
itself brings about new conditions that exacerbate these differences. . . .
[T]he evidence is strong that divorce has an impact on well-being net of selection”
(p. 1279, 1282).
Research also indicates that the effects of divorce vary depending on the quality
of the marriage. The end of a highly conflicted marriage seems typically to
improve outcomes for children, as it frees them from an angry and unstable home
life (Amato, 2000). On the other hand, divorces that dissolve low-conflict marriages
appear “to have a strong negative influence” for children (Booth
& Amato, 2001, p. 210). Moreover, a nationally representative study estimates
that around two-thirds of divorces end low-conflict marriages (Amato & Booth,
1997).
Therefore, while it is true that the simple correlation of family structure
with child outcomes tends to overestimate negative family structure effects,
the most sophisticated research on the topic estimates that there are important
family structure effects.
Explaining Family Structure Effects
As evidence grew that children with married parents displayed higher levels
of well-being, at least in part because of their living with married parents,
researchers began investigating in more detail the reasons why marriage was
associated with better outcomes for children. If family structure affects child
well-being and development, through what mechanisms do the effects occur?
To answer this question, researchers use some measure of family structure as
the “predictor” or “independent” variable, i.e., the
variable the effect of which is to be estimated. Then they use some outcome,
such as academic achievement or mental health, as the “dependent”
variable, i.e., the variable that is likely to be affected by the independent
variable. Variables that might commonly affect both the independent and dependent
variables and thus create a “spurious” (or “non-causal”)
relationship (correlation) between them are then measured and statistically
held constant in the research. Variables that may create spurious relationships
between family structure and child outcomes include race, mother’s level
of education, and, as previously mentioned, pre-divorce characteristics of marriages.
Finally, variables that are likely to be “intervening” or “mediating”
variables are then identified, i.e., variables likely to be affected by the
independent variable and in turn to affect the dependent variable. These variables
are also entered into the analysis to estimate their effects on the dependent
variable and to see what the remaining relationship of the independent variable
to the dependent variable is once these variables are statistically held constant.
If holding constant a mediating variable substantially changes the relationship
between the independent variable and the dependent variable, it is identified
as an apparent important mechanism through which the independent variable affects
the dependent variable. Mediating variables used in family structure research
include the extent of parental supervision, the closeness of parent-child relationships,
family income, and so on.
Two variables emerge as the apparent primary mechanisms through which family
structure affects child outcomes, namely, family income and the nature of parent-child
relationships. It appears that divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing typically
result in family structures less able to provide the economic and parental resources
that help children thrive.
Family Structure and Income
Income consistently emerges as one of the most important mediating variables
between family structure and child well-being (e.g., see Carlson & Corcoran,
2001; Lerman, 2000a; 2000b; Morrison & Cherlin, 1995; Smock et al., 1999).
Single parents must usually make do largely on only one income, and according
to one estimate, a parental divorce typically leads to a decline in a child’s
standard of living of about one-third (Waite & Gallagher, 2000, p. 126).
This income drop may create more stress at home, lead the family to move to
a poorer neighborhood, and, among other things, make it more difficult to afford
college tuition. According to Morrison and Cherlin (1995), “declines in
economic circumstances appear to be linked to the experience of behavior problems
among children of divorce” (p. 811).
That out-of-wedlock childbearing and divorce contribute to child poverty is
not in doubt; in the case of divorce, the effect is often direct, immediate,
and readily observable. However, because poverty can also contribute to divorce
and unwed childbearing, determining precisely how family structure and family
economic status are causally related is difficult, as is always the case when
the causal arrows between two variables run both ways. Furthermore, some of
the correlation between family economic status and child outcomes is almost
certainly spurious (non-causal) due to the influence of other variables that
likely affect both of them, such as the degree of parental competence. Nevertheless,
the evidence that family income is an important mediating variable between family
structure and child outcomes is strong and very convincing, both to us and to
the JMF authors who reported research on the topic.
Family Structure and Family Process
Research also indicates that family structure influences parenting behavior
and parent-child relationships. Parenting behaviors, in turn, are thought to
have important effects on child outcomes. A basic premise is that two parents
can do more than one. Research indicates that children in single-parent families
receive less attention and supervision than children in intact homes; single
parents who are tired, stressed out, and/or preoccupied with establishing new
romantic relationships are not likely to be very effective parents. In these
and perhaps other ways as well, family structure influences what happens inside
a family—what scholars call “family process.” Three authors
summarize much of the evidence:
Studies have found that marital dissolution, as well as remarriage, disrupts
primary bonds between parents and children. Numerous reviews show that single
parents (custodial and noncustodial) are involved less in their children’s
school work, exert less parental influence, and find it more difficult to
supervise and discipline their children-parenting strategies that lead to
single-parent families’ exhibiting significantly higher rates of adolescent
deviant behavior in general. [Researchers] report that single parents have
less restrictive rules than do married parents and that stepparents and cohabiting
male partners have less frequent involvement and fewer positive responses
to children compared with biological parents (Longmore, Manning, & Geiordano,
2001, p. 324).
Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing also make it very difficult for fathers
to maintain positive, involved relationships with their children over the years.
“[R]educed paternal contact,” one scholar notes, “is one of
the most consistent and pronounced effects of divorce on children” (Cooney,
1994, p. 46).
As the authors of another study explain:
[O]ur findings largely support the contention that family structure influences
child development through its impact on family processes. Our results suggest
that children of divorce are at risk for adjustment problems because their
parents are less likely to engage in competent parenting and are more likely
to engage in parental conflict than parents who are married to each other
(Simons et al., 1999, p. 1031).
As with income, the issue is complex, because parents with conflictual relationships
tend to be selected into divorce. And although parental conflict sometimes increases
after divorce, the research reported in the JMF in 1977-2002 does not provide
good estimates of the separate effects of pre-divorce parental characteristics
and of influences that arose only after the divorce. For instance, while “single
parents tend to make fewer demands on children and utilize less effective disciplinary
strategies than married parents,” perhaps those same parents tend to have
traits that would predispose them to divorce or to have a child out of wedlock
as well (Simons, Johnson, & Conger, 1994, p. 357). White (1994) makes a
similar point when she writes, “We cannot know the extent to which the
weaker parent-child solidarity of those raised in single-parent families is
an outcome of divorce itself, of the poverty and family stress that follow divorce,
or of family conflict and problems that arose before the divorce” (p.
946).
Nevertheless, most 1977-2002 JMF authors who address the topic believe that
there are important family structure effects on family process or that the two
are so intertwined as to be inseparable. Amato (1993) states that family structure
influences family process because “it creates opportunities for certain
types of interaction and places constraints on others” (p. 52). “In
effect,” explain Lorenz et al. (1997), “the major event of divorce
becomes the cause of other events,” which affect child outcomes more directly
(p. 229). A somewhat different stance is taken by Dawson (1991), who writes:
Most researchers agree that family structure per se is essentially a proxy
for related processes that affect children’s health and well-being.
These include changes in family relationships that accompany marital conflict
and disruption—decreased communication between the custodial parent
and child, diminished affection and interest, increased restrictiveness—and
factors related to the task overload faced by all single parents, including
never-married women (p. 574).
The “Per Se” Problem
Scholars who doubt the existence of important family structure effects readily
acknowledge the importance of income and family process. In fact, many of these
authors emphasize the relevance of income and family process in an attempt to
downplay the importance of family structure. They commonly employ two rhetorical
approaches. One tactic is to claim that family structure “per se”
or “in and of itself” has little impact. Another is to argue that
income, family process, or some other variable is a “better predictor”
of a specified outcome than family structure. Often these two approaches are
paired together. Even though these arguments appear regularly in the Journal
of Marriage and Family, they represent a departure from the usual way in
which social science evidence is interpreted. The “per se” arguments
are often misleading. Occasionally, they are even illogical and lead to patently
incorrect conclusions.
Before we discuss specific examples, it is important to stress something we
alluded to earlier, namely, that family structure—in common with similar
variables such as social class, race, gender, age, and birth cohort—has
its effects through specific mechanisms. If all of these mechanisms could be
identified, measured, and incorporated into research designs, family structure
would have no “direct” effects. Family structure comes earlier in
the causal chain than the specific mechanisms through which it influences child
outcomes. In other words, family structure is a distal cause and the specific
mechanisms are the more proximate causes of child outcomes. If all of the specific
mechanisms were controlled in a study, would it therefore be the case that family
structure is of no importance whatsoever?
Of course not. The total effects of family structure would be the total of
all of its indirect effects through the specific mechanisms. If all mediating
variables are not controlled, then the estimated total effects of family structure
is the sum of its estimated direct effects and of all of its indirect effects.
Yet several JMF authors essentially say that indirect effects of family structure
do not count.
For example, in an article titled “Does Family Structure Matter?”
the authors champion the “perspective [that] stresses the importance of
family processes in all family structures and posits that family structure per
se is comparatively unimportant in predicting well-being and relationship quality”
(Lansford et al., 2001, p. 849). To support this view, they point to their finding
that family structure differences in child well-being “were no longer
significant after controlling for family process variables” (p. 850).
Given that almost all scholars who have addressed the issue have concluded that
family structure affects family process, it makes no sense to conclude that
family structure is irrelevant because controlling family process variables
reduces its estimated direct effects.
In a similar vein, Demo and Adcock (1988) write, “Children’s behavioral
problems associated with [the inadequate supervision by single mothers] may
. . . be attributable to low income and the need for maternal employment rather
than being the result of single-parent family structure per se” (p. 640).
Yet, insofar as single-mother families are likely to have low incomes in large
measure because they are single, it makes no sense to dismiss the impact of
family structure as these authors do. The fact that a single mother does not
have access to a husband’s financial contributions creates a greater need
for maternal employment, which Demo and Adcock hypothesize contributes to the
lower rates of parental supervision displayed by single mothers. Demo and Adcock
continue, “[T]he effects of marital disruption on children may be indirect,
operating through the economic and emotional impact of divorce on custodial
mothers” (p. 640). Here, the authors concede possible indirect effects
of family structure, but the overall thrust of their treatment of the topic
is to imply, incorrectly, that because the effects are indirect, they are not
reason for concern.
One of the most predictable effects of divorce is reduced contact between fathers
and children. One longitudinal study by Shapiro and Lambert (1999) indicates
that children of divorce on average have worse relationships with their fathers
than children in intact families. But the authors write:
We do not suggest, however, that divorce, itself, is wholly responsible for
negative changes in the quality of the father-child relationship. We find
that the connection between divorce and relationship quality is moderated
by the residential status of the focal child. . . . [I]t is divorced fathers
who discontinue residence with their focal child who perceive the largest
decrease in relationship quality over time. (p. 405-406)
The authors’ logic here is simply wrong. If divorce is the reason why these
children don’t live with their fathers (and the authors present no evidence
to the contrary), no evidence the authors report is inconsistent with the conclusion
that divorce is wholly responsible for the estimated negative changes in the
father-child relationship. Again, the point needs to be stressed that indirect
effects are just as important as so-called “direct” ones, which are usually
labeled as “direct” only because the mechanisms through which the effects occur
have not been identified. In the technical language of causal modeling, family
structure is an “exogenous” variable and family process and family economic
status are “endogenous” variables, i.e, among the variables believed to be affected
by the exogenous variables. We refrain from saying that it is never useful to
compare the estimated total or direct effects of an exogenous variable with
those of an endogenous variable, but such comparisons are rarely done and need
to be justified. In the case of family structure comparisons with family process
or family economic status, the most likely purpose is the ideological one of
trying to downplay and divert attention away from the evidence for the effects
of family structure. Further evidence for an ideological basis for the “per
se” statements about family structure is that they are almost never made in
regard to other broad variables that have their effects through specific mechanisms.
For instance, we found no instances in our examination of JMF articles of authors
saying “it is not poverty per se” that has negative effects on children, although
such specific mechanisms as attendance at poor schools, bad neighborhood influences,
and so forth were often incorporated into the research.
The “Better Predictor” Problem
Very similar to the “per se” problem is another interpretive strategy that
involves comparing the estimated effects of predictor and mediating variables.
We call this the “better predictor” problem, and it consists of researchers
asking whether some mediating variable (typically family process or income)
is a “better” or “more important” predictor of child outcomes than family structure.
Here are some examples:
“[R]ecent research indicates that family processes better explain adolescent
well-being than family composition. . . .” (Rodgers & Rose, 2002,
p. 1024).
“As other investigators have pointed out, the tone and quality of the
relationships within the family may be more important than the family type
in affecting the individual” (Hannum & Mayer, 1984, p. 747).
“More consequential than family type for children’s well-being
is the quality of parent-child and other family relationships” (Demo,
1992, p. 115).
“Our analyses show that behavioral and emotional involvement with both
mother and father are important for the well-being of boys. For boys, both
childhood and ongoing relationships with mothers and fathers are more important
for well-being than paternal presence” (Wenk et al., 1994, p. 234).
“[B]eing in a single-parent versus a traditional two-parent family
may not be as critical a factor for adolescent outcomes as are parenting practices
per se, particularly support and monitoring” (Barnes & Farrell,
1992, p. 773).
In all of these cited articles, the “better predictor” statements
are based on comparisons of estimated direct effects only and fail to take into
account indirect effects. As we point out above, as mechanisms through which
family structure has its effects are identified and incorporated into the research,
the estimated direct effects dwindle, eventually becoming weaker than the estimated
direct effects of almost any of the mediating variables. And if all of the mechanisms
could be identified, the estimated direct effects of family structure would
be zero. Thus the better the causal model, the greater the advantage that mediating
variables have over exogenous ones when the estimated direct effects of the
two are pitted against one another.
To be more concrete, such variables referred to in the quotations above as
“tone and quality of the relationships within the family,” “the
quality of parent-child and other family relationships,” “ongoing
relationships with mothers and fathers,” and “parenting practices”
are all variables likely to be affected by family structure. Indeed, it is through
family structure’s influence on those parenting variables that family
structure effects are likely to occur. Thus, comparing the estimated direct
effects of those parenting variables with the estimated direct effects of family
structure after the parenting variables are statistically “held constant”
(controlled) is not meaningful.
Comparing the estimated direct effects of family income with the estimated
direct effects of family structure also has been common in JMF articles. In
a 1982 article, Elaine Blechman writes that research findings that control for
“extraneous socioeconomic variables . . . consistently point to the major
impact of parent income . . . and the minor or nonexistent impact of family
type” (p. 187). In a study of early school achievement, two authors write,
“The socioeconomic status of single mothers, not family configuration,
. . . seems to be the key [variable]” (Entwisle & Alexander, 1995,
p. 407-408). Another article argues, “[E]ffects that appear to be caused
by divorce may actually be the result of inadequate income—the loss of
the father being relatively less critical than the loss of his financial contribution”
(Demo & Acock, 1988, p. 640). Contrary to Blechman’s assertion, however,
income is not an “extraneous” variable when investigating the effects
of family structure. In the real world, the absence of a father and the absence
of a father’s income often go hand-in-hand.
Still other conspicuous examples of the “better predictor” problem
are in JMF articles dealing with teen sexual activity and pregnancy. Research
has consistently indicated that girls who grow up outside of intact, married
homes are more likely to have sex at an early age and to become pregnant as
teenagers (e.g., Longmore, Manning, & Geiordano, 2001; Moore & Chase-Lansdale,
2001). Yet some authors de-emphasize this linkage, as in the following two quotations:
Our analyses suggest that process, rather than structural, variables are
of primary importance when the role of the family in predicting adolescent
sexual behavior and risk due to sexual behavior is considered (Miller, Forehand,
& Kotchick, 1999, p. 93-94).
Our analysis suggests that family context rather than structural factors
are of primary importance when considering the role of the family environment
with respect to teenage sexual initiation. As we hypothesized, the family
context—more specifically the mother-child relationship, the level of
interaction, and the mother’s attitudes toward and discussion of sex—does
influence adolescents’ sexual debut[s] (Davis & Friel, 2001, p.
679-680).
Parental monitoring and susceptibility to negative peer pressure are likely
mediating variables between family structure and teenage girls’ sexual
behavior, and there is also an explanation that directly connects structure
and process: Girls in single-mother homes are on the average more aware of their
mothers’ sexuality because single mothers, unlike married ones, are likely
to date. Whitbeck, Simons, and Kao (1994) explain:
As single mothers reestablish their social lives after divorce, begin dating,
and initiate new intimate relationships, their sexual attitudes and behaviors
may become more apparent to their teenage children. Such adult behaviors may
be particularly salient at this developmental stage because adolescents are
contending with many of the same issues in their own lives . . . . [One study]
found that . . . divorced mothers develop less restrictive attitudes toward
sexual behavior than women who remain in intact marriages (pp. 615-616).
Sometimes authors combine several mediating variables in their comparisons
with family structure. For instance:
Divorce and single-parent families have been dramatic developments over the
past three decades, but the evidence . . . suggests that they may not be as
important for children’s well-being as paternal abandonment, neglect,
and failure to pay child support (Demo, 1992, p 111).
We must stress that the frequent occurrence of the inappropriate comparisons
in the academic family literature that we call the “per se” and
“better predictor” problems does not mean that most family structure
researchers have made them or that we are the first to point out their inappropriateness.
Several JMF authors are explicit about avoiding the problems:
One of the effects of divorce is a loss of income, so one cannot use income
after divorce as a control that implies ‘equalization’ before
the impact of divorce” (Keith & Finley, 1988, p. 800).
And, in a report of a study of family structure and adolescent drug use:
[A]lthough peer influence is predictive of substance use in adolescence,
it is likely that susceptibility to peer influence is, in turn, partially
determined by marital disruption. Thus, control for peer influences is not
appropriate, given the purposes of this study (Flewelling & Bauman, 1999,
p. 179).
Apparently almost all family scholars and researchers agree on the mechanisms—such
as family process and income—that crucially affect child well-being and agree
that gaining a better understanding of those mechanisms is worthwhile. However,
some scholars look beyond those proximate causes and trace a family’s social
and economic resources back to more distal influences, such as family structure.
Others, in contrast, are reluctant to look back at the distal causes, or at
least at family structure, thus departing from the longstanding social science
tradition of linking proximate causes to distal ones such as class, race, gender,
age, birth cohort, and amount of education—all of which are similar to family
structure in that they have their effects through a number of specific mechanisms.
Changing the Subject, Embracing Family Structure Diversity
Some scholars make explicit their attempt to draw attention away from family
structure. Katherine Allen (1993) writes, “The real culprits in children’s
lives are persistent poverty, conflict, neglect, abuse, and abandonment, not
parental divorce” (p. 48). Raschke and Raschke (1979) argue that scholars
should pay “less attention to ferreting out the ‘ills’ of
the single-parent family” (p. 373).
A handful of scholars argue (if they mean what they say) that researchers should
altogether avoid asking questions about the impact of family structure. Thompson
and Walker (1995) proclaim, “Scholars must stop asking about the price
of deviance that faces individuals, families, and society when . . . couples
divorce, when parents remarry, and when women, especially mothers, live without
men” (p. 858). Allen (1993) writes, “I hope the narrow question
of whether living in a continuously intact family of origin versus living apart
from a biological parent at some point in one’s life is soon obsolete”
(p. 49).
This demand that family scholars not examine family structure effects is often
accompanied by an ideological insistence that scholars embrace family structure
diversity. In 1979, Moroney stated, “No one family type is superior to
another or should be favored over others” (p. 462). Over the years, other
scholars echoed his pronouncement. Thompson and Walker (1995) write approvingly
of the argument that scholars “must embrace the diversity of family life
rather than treat anything other than the standard package as deviant”
(p. 859).
David Demo (1992) joins this group. He calls for researchers to study more
closely the “linkages between socioeconomic resources, family processes,
and child outcomes” (p. 115). He does not want scholars, however, to examine
the linkages between divorce and those very socioeconomic resources and family
processes. He writes:
[W]e must accept the challenge of viewing divorce from a . . . perspective
that considers divorce, single-parent families, and step-families as ‘normative
lifestyle choices that are firmly established in society, rather than as social
problems or pathological behaviors.’ We must place children and their
families at the heart of our inquiry rather than letting ourselves become
obsessed with comparing children of divorce with those in two-parent families,
or with identifying effects of divorce (1993, p. 45).
To be sure, scholars should not denounce any family structure as “deviant,”
just as they should not become “obsessed” with family structure, but
they can follow these admonitions while still studying the effects of divorce.
Furthermore, it is unclear why identifying the effects of divorce is in opposition
to placing “children and their families at the heart of our inquiry.”
We can only conclude that Demo is uncomfortable with discussing negative consequences
of divorce.
Conclusion
Over the past few decades, most family scholars and researchers have come to
agree that family structure influences child well-being. A nontrivial portion
of scholars, however, attempt to downplay the apparent negative effects of divorce
and unwed childbearing, usually by using rhetorical devices or interpretive
strategies not usually applied to social science evidence. An apparent major
reason for downplaying family structure effects is to avoid stigmatizing children
or afflicting parents with guilt, and these are admirable goals. But pursuit
of these goals through denial is shortsighted and in the long run is likely
to hurt those it is intended to help. Even short term benefits from this strategy
are problematic. For instance, telling a single mother that her family form
is just as good as any other puts the blame for any problems she faces and for
any failures she experiences directly on her—hardly the best way to avoid
stigma and guilt.
A mantra often repeated by family diversity advocates is that “all kinds
of families deserve support.” We would change that to “people in
all kinds of families deserve support,” and we fail to see how denying
that people in some kinds of families face greater difficulties than others
is conducive to effective support of those people with the greater needs. If,
as research indicates, divorce and unwed childbearing tend to disadvantage children,
it does parents and their children a disservice to pretend that family structure
is irrelevant or outside the bounds of appropriate research.
Scholars should continue to study family structure and the mechanisms through
which it may affect child well-being so that personal and policy decisions can
be based on sound knowledge. Social science findings are inherently tentative,
but that should not deter family scholars and researchers from an imperfect
pursuit of the truth.
Notes
*Prior to 2001, the Journal of Marriage and Family was known as the
Journal of Marriage and the Family. For ease, the new journal title
is used throughout this report and in the online bibliography at www.familyscholarslibrary.org.
Works Cited
Allen, K.R. (1993). The dispassionate discourse of children’s adjustment
to divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55 (1), 46-50.
Amato, P.R. (1993). Family structure, family process, and family ideology.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 55 (1), 50-54.
Amato, P.R., & Booth, A. (1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent-children
relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58 (2), 356-365.
Amato, P.R., & Booth, A. (1997). A Generation at risk: Growing up in
an era of family upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 62 (4), 1269-1287.
Aquilino, W.S. (1994). Later life parental divorce and widowhood: Impact on
young adults’ assessment of parent-child relations. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 56 (4), 908-922.
Barnes, G.M., & Farrell, M.P. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors
of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 54 (4), 763-776.
Baydar, N. (1988). Effects of parental separation and reentry into union on
the emotional well-being of children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50
(4), 967-981.
Biblarz, T.J., & Gottainer, G. (2000). Family structure and children’s
success: A comparison of widowed and divorced single-mother families. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 62 (2), 533-548.
Blechman, E.A. (1982). Are children with one parent at psychological risk?
A methodological review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44 (1), 179-195.
Booth, A., & Amato, P.R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring
postdivorce well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (1), 197-212.
Carlson, M.J., & Corcoran, M.E. (2001). Family structure and children’s
behavioral and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (3),
779-792.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage:
Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (4),
1288-1307.
Cooney, T.M. (1994). Young adults’ relations with parents: The influence
of recent parental divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56 (1),
45-56.
Davis, E.C., & Friel, L.V. (2001). Adolescent sexuality: Disentangling
the effects of family structure and family context. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63 (3), 669-681.
Dawson, D.A. (1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being:
Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 53 (3), 573-584.
Demo, D.H. (1992). Parent-child relations: Assessing recent changes. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 54 (1), 104-117.
Demo, D.H. (1993). The relentless search for effects of divorce: Forging new trails or tumbling down the beaten path?
Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (1), 42-45.
Demo, D.H., & Acock, A.C. (1988). The impact of divorce on children. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 50 (3), 619-648.
Emery, R.E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Entwisle, D.R., & Alexander, K.L. (1995). A parent’s economic shadow:
Family structure versus family resources as influences on early school achievement.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 57 (2), 399-409.
Fine, M.A., et al. (1992). Perceived adjustment of parents and children: Variations
by family structure, race, and gender. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54
(1), 118-127.
Flewelling, R.L., & Bauman, K.E. (1990). Family structure as a predictor
of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 52 (1), 171-181.
Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1985). The psychological well-being of adult
children of divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47 (4), 905-912.
Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1987). The marriages and divorces of the
children of divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49 (4), 811-825.
Glenn, N.D. & Sylvester, T. (2005). The shift: Scholarly arguments
about family structure, 1977-2002. New York, NY: Institute for American
Values.
Gershenson, H. (1983). Redefining fatherhood in families with white adolescent
mothers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45 (3), 591-599.
Greenberg, E.F., & Nay, W.R. (1982). The intergenerational transmission
of marital instability reconsidered. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44
(2), 335-347.
Hannum, J.W., & Mayer, J.M. (1984). Validation of two family assessment
approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46 (3), 741-748.
Jayakody, R., & Kalil, A. (2002). Social fathering in low-income, African
American families with preschool children. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64 (2), 504-516.
Keith, V.M., & Finlay, B. (1988). The impact of parental divorce on children’s
educational attainment, marital timing, and likelihood of divorce. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 50 (3), 797-809.
Kelly, J.B. (2000). Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and
divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39 (8), 963-73.
Lansford, J.E., et al. (2001). Does family structure matter? A comparison of
adoptive, two-parent biological, single-mother, stepfather, and stepmother households.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63 (3), 840-851.
Lerman, R. (2002a). Impacts of marital status and parental presence on
the material hardship of families with children. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute. Available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410538.
Lerman, R. (2002b). Married and unmarried parenthood and economic well-being:
A dynamic analysis of a recent cohort. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410540.
Longmore, M.A., Manning, W.D., & Geiordano, P.C. (2001). Preadolescent
parenting strategies and teens’ dating and sexual initiation: A longitudinal
analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 (2), 322-335.
Lorenz, F.O., et al. (1997). Married and recently divorced mothers’ stressful
events and distress: Tracing change across time. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 59 (1), 219-232.
Martin, M.J., & Walters, J. (1982). Familial correlates of selected types
of child abuse and neglect. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44 (2),
267-276.
McLanahan, S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only families: Problems, prospects,
and politics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51 (3), 557-580.
Miller, K.S., Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B.A. (1999). Adolescent sexual
behavior in two ethnic minority samples: The role of family variables. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 61 (1), 85-98.
Moore, M.R., & Chase-Lansdale, P.L. (2001). Sexual intercourse and pregnancy
among African American girls in high-poverty neighborhoods: The role of family
and perceived community environment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63
(4), 1146-1157.
Moroney, R.M. (1979). The issue of family policy: Do we know enough to take
action? Journal of Marriage and Family, 41 (3), 461-463.
Morrison, D.R., & Cherlin, A.J. (1995). The divorce process and young children’s
well-being: A prospective analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57 (3),
800-812.
Morrison, D.R., & Coiro, M.J. (1999). Parental conflict and marital disruption:
Do children benefit when high-conflict marriages are dissolved? Journal
of Marriage and Family, 61 (3), 626-637.
Peterson, J.L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships,
and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48 (2),
295-307.
Rodgers, K.B., & Rose, H.A. (2002). Risk and resiliency factors among adolescents
who experience marital transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64
(4), 1024-1037.
Raschke, H., & Raschke, V. (1979). Family conflict and children’s
self-concepts: A comparison of intact and single-parent families. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 41 (2), 367-374.
Shapiro, A., & Lambert, J.D. (1999). Longitudinal effects of divorce on
the quality of the father-child relationship and on fathers’ psychological
well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 (2), 397-408.
Simons, R.L., Johnson, C., & Conger, R.D. (1994). Harsh corporal punishment
versus quality of parental involvement as an explanation of adolescent maladjustment.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 56 (3), 591-607.
Simons, R.L., et al. (1999). Explaining the higher incidence of adjustment
problems among children of divorce compared with those in two-parent families.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 (4), 1020-1033.
Smock, P., et al. (1999). The effect of marriage and divorce on women’s
economic well-being. American Sociological Review 64.
Stacey, J. (1993). Good riddance to ‘the family’: A response to
David Popenoe. Journal of Marriage and Family, 55 (3), 545-547.
Sun, Y. (2001). Family environment and adolescents’ well-being before
and after parents’ marital disruption: A longitudinal analysis. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 63 (3), 697-713.
Sweetser, D.A. (1985). Broken homes: Stable risk, changing reasons, changing
forms. Journal of Marriage and Family, 47 (3), 709-715.
Thompson, L., & Walker, A.J. (1995). The place of feminism in family studies.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 57 (4), 847-865.
Thomson, E., McLanahan, S.S., & Curtin, R.B. (1992). Family structure,
gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54 (2),
368-378.
Videon, T.M. (2002). The effects of parent-adolescent relationships and parental
separation on adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64
(2), 489-503.
Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New
York: Doubleday.
Walker, A.J., & McGraw, L.A. (2000). Who is responsible for responsible
fathering? Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (2), 563-569.
Walker, A.J. (2000). Refracted knowledge: Viewing families through the prism
of social science. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (3), 595-608.
Wenk, D., et al. (1994). The influence of parental involvement on the well-being
of sons and daughters. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56 (1), 229-234.
Whitbeck, L.B., Simons, R.L., & Kao, M.-Y. (1994). The effects of divorced
mothers’ dating behaviors and sexual attitudes on the sexual attitudes
and behaviors of their adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and Family,
56 (3), 615-621.
White, L. (1994). Growing up with single parents and stepparents: Long-term
effects on family solidarity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56 (4),
935-948.
White, L. (1999). Contagion in family affection: Mothers, fathers, and young
adult children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61 (2), 284-294.
About this Report
This report was commissioned by the National Fatherhood Initiative, in partnership
with the Institute for American Values, and written by Professor Norval Glenn
of the University of Texas at Austin and Thomas Sylvester of the Institute for
American Values. The sponsors are grateful to their academic advisors for their
review and suggestions, and to their financial contributors for their generous
support.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2001-DD-BX-0079 awarded by the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance
is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau
of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crimes. Points of
view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not represent
the views of the Department of Justice.
© 2005, Institute for American Values. No reproduction of the materials
contained herein is permitted without the written permission of the Institute
for American Values.
This report can be printed from http://www.familyscholarslibrary.org. A PDF
version is available for download as well.
Institute for American Values
1841 Broadway, Suite 211
New York, NY 10023
Tel: (212) 246-3942
Fax: (212) 541-6665
Website: www.americanvalues.org
Email: info@americanvalues.org