Depression & Divorce Long-Term Effects on Adult Children

Parental Divorce and Depression:Long-Term Effects on Adult Children

Naomi WauterickxAnneleen Gouwy

Piet Bracke

ABSTRACT. Experiencing a parental divorce in childhood can have asignificant impact on depression in adulthood. Investigating this rela-tionship among 4,727 men and women of the Panel Study of Belgianhouseholds, we found not only a direct influence of parental divorce ondepression, but also an indirect effect through specific relationship char-acteristics in adulthood. Separate analyses of respondents involved in apartner relationship yielded similar results: Parental divorce has a largeimpact on depression through relationship commitment and financialmeasures in adulthood. These Belgian results support international stud-ies. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2006 by The Haworth Press,Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Parental divorce, depression, divorce in Belgium, adultchildren of divorce, depression and divorce

INTRODUCTION

Divorce, together with its causes and implications, continues to be aninterest field for research. The break up of the marital bonds concerns

Naomi Wauterickx, PhD, Anneleen Gouwy, PhD, and Piet Bracke, PhD, are withthe Department of Sociology, University of Ghent, Belgium.

Address correspondence to: Piet Bracke, Department of Sociology, University ofGhent, Universiteitstraat 4 - B-9000 Gent, Belgium (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 45(3/4) 2006Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JDR

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J087v45n03_03 43

not only the partners, but also the children. Therefore, it is important topay attention to the consequences of a divorce on children, in both theshort and long terms. Although a great deal of attention is focused on thenegative consequences in the short term, the conclusion is frequentlydrawn that these can subside in the course of the years, because of the spe-cific behavioral characteristics of the child and certain life experiences(Louis and Zhao 2002). Nevertheless, cross-sectional and longitudinalresearch up to twenty years after the parental divorce shows that impor-tant differences continue to exist between children of divorced parentsand children of intact families. Only in the last ten years has more atten-tion been devoted to a possible explanation for these long-term conse-quences, and mediating factors, which on both the economic and relationallevels, appear to exercise a decisive influence (Amato and Sobolewski2001; McLeod 1991; Ross and Mirowsky 1999; Dronkers 1997).

LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCESOF PARENTAL DIVORCE

Although the relations between a parental divorce, on the one hand,and the social, mental and financial life of the children in adulthood, onthe other hand, have already been repeatedly described, a clear unravel-ing of different interactions between these mechanisms is lacking. Achange occurred here in the 1990s under the influence of Amato (1991).His research stressed the direct general relation between the experienceof a parental break-up and growing symptoms of depression in adult-hood. One shortcoming of the general model, however, is the absenceof possible indirect effects. This was broached by the work of McLeod(1991). Although a much greater emphasis was here placed on the inter-mediary importance of socio-economic and relational qualities in adult-hood, the results seemed to be based only on married men and women.This entails restrictions, nonetheless; for, we have strong reasons to sup-pose that children of divorced parents will opt to cohabitate instead ofmarriage, either as a matter of choice, or because of the consequences oftheir own divorce, whereby the consequences of a parental divorce onrelational characteristics are underestimated.

A theoretical and methodologically well-underpinned work with em-phasis on the actual mediating effect of economic and relational charac-teristics on the relation between parent divorce and depression appearedin 1999 (Ross and Mirowsky 1999). The total effect of a parental divorce

44 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

appears to be reflected, in full agreement with the life course perspec-tive, by a low socio-economic status and problems in interpersonal rela-tionships. A shortcoming of this work, however, was that it neglecteddifferences in the sexes. Irrespective of non-significant interaction ef-fects, differences between men and women can be expected (see below).The most recent, most comprehensive study in this field of researchonce again comes from Amato’s hand (Amato and Sobolewski 2001).

This study brings in not two, but three mediating paths: socioeco-nomic considerations (education and income), the relation instability(marital status and previous marital history) and the quality of the parent-child relationship (the bonding with the mother and the father). Onceagain, no separate analyses were carried out according to sex, and onceagain, respondents with a partner were not studied separately.

Parental Divorce and Depression

It can be generally assumed that adults with divorced parents reporta lower level of well-being (Amato and Keith 1991), are depressive(Amato 1991; Chase-Lansdale, Cherlin and Kiernan 1995; McLeod1991; Rodgers 1994), have more emotional problems (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale and McRae 1998; Cherlin, Kiernan and Chase-Lansdale 1995;Dykstra 2000) and are less satisfied with different social and family-re-lated aspects of life (Glenn and Kramer 1985).

Previous explanations were geared chiefly to the “individuation” and“parenting” theory (Aquilino and Supple 2001; Conger and Chao 1996)and Bowlby’s attachment theory (Holman and Birch 2001). A secondtype of explanation is the existence of a possible intergenerational transferof depression by a genetic predisposition to certain anti-social charac-teristics, health ailments and/or other personality characteristics (Bhrol-chain 2001; Conger and Chao 1996; Dykstra 2000).

A possible sociological theoretical framework is the aforementioned“life course perspective” (Dykstra 2000; Feng et al. 1999; McLeod1991). The key notion of this theory is that events early in life can deter-mine the further development of the course of life to a high degree. Rossand Mirowsky (1999) speak of a “Life Course Disruption Hypothesis.”This hypothesis states that a parental separation affects depression inadulthood because it interrupts the socio-economic status and the forma-tion of interpersonal relations. We continue to follow this route through-out the rest of this study. To this are linked three explanations concerningthe relation between parental separation and a greater depressive nature

Wauterickx, Gouwy, and Bracke 45

in adulthood: the socialization method, economic deprivation and thefamily-stress model (Amato 1991; Amato and Booth 2001; Amato andKeith 1991; Amato and Sobolewski 2001). In general, they explain thelink between separation and depression on the basis of mediating fac-tors such as a dramatic drop in the standard of living, the deprivation ofa role model and stressing living conditions.

Parental Divorce and Socio-Economic Status

A divorce almost automatically leads to a reduced standard of living,primarily for single mothers. This economic course of women is some-times indicated with the term “falling from grace” (Furstenberg andCherlin 1991). After a divorce and additional loss of income, many singlemothers are financially obliged to move and to work more hours, thusdevoting less time to their children (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994).The reduced “quality time” with children leads to a situation where di-vorced parents are less helpful with household chores and supervise so-cial activities to a lesser degree. The moving and loss of economicresources also affect the education opportunities of these children(Amato and Keith 1991). According to sociologists and/or developmentpsychologists, the diminished social control and inefficient regulationsof the divorced parents in particular have a negative effect on the chil-dren’s behavior (Barber 2000; Furstenberg and Kiernan 2001).

More specifically, children of divorced parents tend to drop out ofschool earlier, are less inclined to attend higher education, and in gen-eral are less educated (Elder and Russell 1996; McLanahan and Sande-fur 1994). Furthermore, children of divorced parents can once again beexpected not to be able to commence university studies because the fi-nancial barriers are still higher. Even the recommendations of educatorsfor the further educational opportunities are lower for children of di-vorced parents (Dronkers 1994). In adulthood, these short-term conse-quences can lead to a higher chance for unemployment, work with alower status, a lower income and financial problems (Amato and Keith1991; Morrison and Ritualo 2000). Dropping out of school may, how-ever, be a strategy for improving the circumstances of the family afterthe divorce (McLanahan 1988); joining the labor force earlier can meanadditional income to the benefit of the family’s economic situation.

In general, there is a clear connection between a broken home and theultimate socioeconomic status of the children (performance at school,occupation and income). Financial tensions increase the attention paid


to family problems, which can in turn aggravate feelings of frustration,rage and depression (Conger et al. 1990). We, therefore, expect an indi-rect link between parental divorce and depression owing to the level ofeducation, the current income and perception of this income.

Parental Divorce and Relational Characteristics

The breakdown of a marriage often leads to difficulties in forming in-terpersonal relations for the children involved (Amato and Booth 2001;Amato and Keith 1991; Amato and Sobolewski 2001; Furstenberg andKiernan 2001; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Wolfinger 2000). Anumber of sociological and psychological explanations are alreadyavailable for this. The best known is the socialization theory applied byAmato and Keith (1991). This model states that negative effects from adivorce are the result of dysfunctional learning experiences associatedwith single-parent families. When the disadvantages of living with oneparent are taken into account, two hypotheses can be formulated, in fact(McLanahan and Bumpass 1988). On the one hand, there is the “absentfather” hypothesis, that stresses the importance of a father in brokenhomes and the consequences for the personality development of the chil-dren (including girls; cf. Popenoe 1996; Kalmijn and De Graaf 2000);and on the other, the “supervision” hypothesis (Simons and Johnson1996) whereby time spent with the mother is essential for parental su-pervision and social control. Children who as such are not socialized inthe same way as children in two-parent homes, feel more rapidly at-tracted to their peers with the same rebellious character, which can havean effect on the later personality and behavior patterns up to adulthood(Simons and Chao 1996).

Marriage and motherhood mark a transition in the life of young peo-ple: the formation of a new, procreative family in exchange for the oldnuclear family. Although early marriage can be linked to an early(read: premarital) pregnancy, there seems to be no increase from earlywedding to family structure (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). A clearconnection in several studies, however, is the greater chance that chil-dren from divorced parents have for living together (Amato andSobolewski 2001; Furstenberg and Kiernan 2001; Rodgers 1994).Premarital living together can also be linked to a greater chance of di-vorce in adulthood (Cherlin, Kiernan and Chase-Lansdale 1995).White (1990) uses the “kinds of people”-argument: the kind of peoplewho decide to flout conventions by going to live together are the same


kind of people who feel less bound to the “institution of marriage” andconsequently are more positive about a divorce. Also, without takinginto account the previous relation history, the general conclusion isthat there is a greater chance for divorce for children of divorced par-ents, compared with those of parents who have stayed married (Keithand Finlay 1988; McLanahan and Bumpass 1988; McLeod 1991).People also frequently refer to the “intergenerational transfer of a di-vorce.” A cited explanation (Christensen and Brooks 2001; McLanahan1988) is the greater recognition of the divorce option: children from bro-ken homes are more inclined to end the marriage instead of solving re-lation problems in a constructive way.

In order to unravel the effect of parental divorce on one’s own rela-tionship, it is more interesting, depending on the problems, to take cer-tain qualities of relations into consideration than the actual divorce.Examples are the relation quality (Holman and Birch 2001; McLeod1991) and the relational involvement (Amato and DeBoer 2001). Wolf-inger (2000) has shown that multiple transitions in childhood, such asparental divorce and step parenting, diminish the relational involvementin later life. Barriers and alternatives influence the chance for maritalstability leading up to one’s own divorce significantly more in childrenfrom broken versus intact homes (White 1990). Similarly, objectiveeconomic circumstances such as income, economic pressure and workinstability, have an indirect influence on marital interactions, owing tothe pressure that occurs when attempting to meet social needs withimproper means (Conger et al. 1990).

In general, there is a clear link between a parental divorce and variouscharacteristics of an intimate relationship in adulthood. Effects on themarriage quality and the marriage involvement can ultimately result in alower well-being when these children become adults. We therefore ex-pect an indirect link between parental divorce and depression throughthe current marital status and, in the case of involvement in an intimaterelationship, through specific relational characteristics.

Sex Differences

Are boys and girls influenced differently by a parental divorce overa longer period? Education psychologists distinguish two types of be-havior problems or “coping styles” (Raschke 1988) as reaction to stress(Furstenberg and Cherlin 1991): Internalizing (depression, anxiety,isolating behavior) and externalizing (aggression, disobedience, lying).


Boys in conflict-ridden families show primarily externalizing prob-lems. Girls, immediately after the divorce, show fewer problems at firstglance. But this conclusion is premature, as girls tend to internalize theirproblems, with lowered self-esteem and well-being as a result. Thiscontinues to surface in adulthood, known as the “sleeper effect” (Rodgers1994; Spruijt, De Goede and Van Der Valk 2000). Why does this hap-pen? Perhaps women are more included to assume maternal attitudesafter the parental divorce (McLeod 1991). It can also be that thesenegative attitudes come to the surface only when the daughters them-selves enter a relationship at an (young) adult age. A third possibleexplanation is that the more negative effects on women are a compensa-tion for the absence of a male role model in childhood (McLanahan andBumpass 1988).

The specific dynamics between men and women in a partner relation-ship are also of importance, when sex differences are considered. It ispossible, that it is not so much the parental divorce, but characteristics intheir own relation, that have a strong influence on the current living cir-cumstances of individuals in a partner relationship. The reported relationsatisfaction for women is lower than for men (Jacquet and Surra 2001)also because women from divorced families are clearly at a greater dis-advantage as regards their interpersonal skills (Rodgers 1994). Thereare also various indications that the significance attached by men and wo-men to their financial possibilities in intimate relations are sex-related.Deutsch et al. (2003) have, for example, found that the more men earn,the more they feel appreciated and the more thankful their partners are.When women contribute more to the family income than men, they re-port a higher role tension, with significantly lower marital satisfaction(Perry-Jenkins, Seery and Crouter 1992). Just as important is the finan-cial situation of men and women when the relationship is ended. It hasbeen repeatedly established that women experience greater financialdisadvantage from a divorce than men (Bracke 1998). It is worth askingwhether these negative influences have not subsided, owing to the in-creased participation of women in the labor market in the last decades.Bradbury and Katz (2002) have concluded, however, that the loss of theman’s financial contribution is too great to be compensated fully by di-vorced women.

Owing to the existing results in connection with sex-differentiatedeffects of one’s own and parental divorce, all analyses in this study arecarried out separately for men and women. Although this can generateduplicate information, another study (Conger et al. 1990) has shownthat such a method does not yield great distortions.


RESEARCH DESIGN

Sample and Data

The seventh data wave of the Panel of Belgian Households (PSBH)1

has been used to broach these issues. The PSBH is a representative ran-dom sample of Belgian private households, in which all members aged16 and older are included. Compiled in 1998, the data used for theseanalyses contain information on 4,614 respondents aged 19 to 54,whose parental marital status is known. The age restriction was intro-duced because information on the work situation and the intimate rela-tion would not be excessively distorted by age. In general, we have dataon 2,226 men and 2,388 women of an average age of 37.1 and 36.7, re-spectively. Women differ from men in this sample as regards their occu-pation (more unemployed and part-time workers) and marital status(more divorced and married women and never-married men). With re-gard to the entire sample, the majority of the respondents are married(61.4%), yet a significant part of those not married are living together(11.1%). It must be said in general that the group of respondents with di-vorced parents is small in this sample (11.3%). This should not consti-tute a stumbling block, however, because this target group can beexpected to be larger in course of time.

For the second part of the analyses, we concentrate only on respon-dents who are married and/or are living together. Because informationconcerning the parental marital status was also needed, in the end 3,344individuals were included in this sub-sample: a total of 1,599 men and1745 women of an average age of 37.7 and 36.7, respectively. There areno differences as to household income, because of the pooled incomeflow. Only 9.5% of individuals with a partner in this sample are childrenof divorced parents, an indication that when confronted with parentaldivorce in childhood, a partner relationship does not seem so interesting.

Measurement

Dependent Variable

We measured unipolar depression using a modified version of theHealth and Daily Living Form global depression scale (Moos et al.1985). This scale measures depression by the frequency (0 = Never; 4 =Often) with which respondents experienced 17 symptoms during theprevious three months. The items relate to the criteria for the diagnosis


of major depression as determined by the Diagnostic and StatisticalManual DSM-III-R. For the present purpose, two items were omitted.An item about crying was left out, because crying occurs much less inmen (Schaeffer 1988; Bracke 1996). An item, indicating “physicalcomplaints,” was removed because of a lack of face validity. The scoreson the remaining 15 items were averaged to obtain the final depressionscore. We used mean substitution to create complete data for those re-spondents whose data were incomplete for five or fewer items of the de-pression scale. Because the frequency distribution of the scale showed asignificant positive skew, the natural log was employed to avoid violat-ing the normality assumption of certain statistical procedures.

Independent Variables

Parental Divorce. Information concerning the marital status of theparents was collected on the basis of the following retrospective ques-tion: “Did you, as a child/young person go through your parents’ defini-tive separation?” A zero score implies that the parents are still together;and a score of one, that the parents are divorced. It also means that chil-dren whose parents were once separated temporarily and/or parents, whoare in a conflict-ridden relationship, are categorized under intact families.

Sex. A very important variable is of course sex and so the analyses areusually carried out separately for men (= 0) and women ( = 1).

Control. Control variables are age (in years) and specifically for re-spondents with a partner, the divorce of in-laws and partner depression.The study has shown that a transfer of feelings takes place between part-ners in an intimate relationship (Jacquet and Surra 2001).

Mediating Variables

Socio-Economic Status. There are three measurements in general ofthe current socioeconomic status of the adult respondents. First, the ed-ucation level is operationalized to the highest diploma obtained. Ingeneral, there are nine categories ranging from no diploma to a graduatedegree. The two other measurements are the objective and subjectivefinancial situation. The objective comprises the net household incomeof the couple on an annual basis divided into seven categories. Thesubjective financial situation or more precisely, the experiencing ofsubjective financial problems, was measured on the basis of the followingquestion (6 answer categories): “A household can have different sourcesof income, and several members of that household can contribute to it.


With the income of your household in mind, do you find it very difficult(1), difficult (2), rather difficult (3), rather easy (4), easy (5) or very easy tomake ends meet?”

Relational Characteristics. For the relational characteristics, it isnecessary to divide variables for the sample in general and partners (liv-ing together and/or married) in particular. To measure the marital statusof all respondents, two dichotomized variables are compiled: “divorced”with category 1 for individuals who have never been married and haveno partner and 0 for all others, and “single” with category 1 for individu-als who never married and have no current partner, and 0 for all others.For individuals who at the time of the survey were involved in an inti-mate relation, information was obtained on the relation type in whichthey were involved (living together or married), the previous relationhistory (sum of the number of broken off living-together situations anddivorces) and the relational involvement. This latter variable is a sum-med up scale of six items where both partners were asked whether theyfound this to be a very bad (1), bad (2), good (3) or very good (4) de-scription of their current relation. 2 Cronbach’s alpha for these six itemstogether is 0.68.

Methods

In the following analyses, which in the first instance pertain to data ofall respondents and later to respondents who are married/living to-gether, the influence of a parental divorce is checked against various eco-nomic variables and relational characteristics. Depending on the mea-suring level of the dependent respondents, this is carried out on the basisof an OLS or logistical regression analysis. The next step is to check theeffect of parental divorce on the later mental health as well as, directly orindirectly, via the current financial situation, as specific relational charac-teristics. To clarify the specific effect of these indirect paths, the intermedi-ating variables are introduced gradually in the regression analysis.

RESULTS

General Effect of Parental Divorce

Parental Divorce and SES and Marital Status

When we take a look at the influence of a parental divorce on variousaspects of life (Table 1), we immediately notice that one’s own chance


TA

BLE

1.R

egre

ssio

nsa

ofS

ocio

econ

omic

Sta

tus

and

Inte

rper

sona

lRel

atio

nson

Par

enta

lDiv

orce

Men

Wo

men

Div

orc

edc

Sin

gle

cD

egre

ebO

FS

bS

FS

bD

ivro

ced

cS

ing

lec

Deg

reeb

OF

Sb

SF

Sb

Par

enta

ld

ivo

rce

0.74

7**

�0.

105

�0.

831*

**�

0.45

1***

�0.

502*

**0.

700*

*�

0.08

0�

0.64

1***

�0.

335*

**�

0.43

5***

(2.5

70)

(0.5

88)

(�5.

322)

(�6.

710)

(�6.

540)

(3.1

13)

(0.

453)

(�4.

643)

(�5.

347)

(�5.

887)

[2.1

10]

[0.9

00]

[2.0

14]

[0.9

23]

Ag

e0.

082*

**�

0.18

3***

�0.

012*

0.00

40.

001

0.06

5***

�0.

188*

**�

0.03

9***

0.00

3�

0.00

3

(6.9

44)

(21.

158)

(�2.

384)

(1.8

29)

(0.2

71)

(7.2

74)

(19.

988)

(�8.

494)

(1.5

05)

(�1.

410)

Co

nst

ant

�6.

330

4.89

64.

985

2.62

03.

984

�5.

148

4.53

75.

946

2.58

44.

057

R2

0.02

50.

286

0.01

40.

025

0.02

00.

025

0.24

50.

034

0.01

40.

014

*p>

0.05

;**

p>

0.01

;***

p>

0.00

1.O

FS

:Obj

ectiv

efin

anci

alsi

tuat

ion.

SF

S:S

ubje

ctiv

efin

anci

alsi

tuat

ion.

aB

ivar

iate

regr

essi

onan

alys

esfo

ror

dina

land

inte

rval

varia

bles

,log

istic

regr

essi

onfo

rdi

chot

omou

sde

pend

entv

aria

bles

.b

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

regr

essi

onco

effic

ient

sw

itht-

valu

esbe

twee

nbr

acke

ts.

cU

nsta

ndar

dize

dre

gres

sion

coef

ficie

nts

with

the

squa

rero

otof

the

Wal

d-st

atis

ticbe

twee

nbr

acke

ts.O

dds

ratio

sar

egi

ven

betw

een

rect

angu

lar

brac

kets

(onl

yfo

rpa

rent

aldi

vorc

e).

53

of divorcing in adulthood is highly dependent on whether one’s parentswere divorced. More specifically: the chance that an individual will di-vorce is twice as high for men and women who experienced a parentaldivorce as children. Put another way, 12.5% of children from brokenhomes, compared with 9.1% of children from intact families in our sam-ple are already divorced. This difference is more pronounced amongwomen: 14.5% of women from broken homes versus 10.2% of womenfrom intact families were divorced at the time of the survey (the figuresfor men are10.2% versus 8.0%) (no table).

Having had divorced parents is connected, in a negative way, also tosubsequent education considerations and the financial situation. Oncethey become adults, their highest diploma, net household income, andsubjective assessment of that income are lower in comparison with peo-ple who grew up in intact families. The question can be raised whetherthe intergenerational transfer of the chance for divorce is not the real ex-planation for the connection between parental divorce and the lower fi-nancial situation. Additional analyses (no table) show, however, thatalthough the level of education and one’s own divorce are important in-dicators for the household income and the subjective assessment there-of, the parental divorce continues to exercise an independent effect onthese financial indicators.


Men and women who lived through a parental divorce when theywere children, are decidedly more depressive than people who have notgone through such an experience (Model 1, Table 2). This result is atleast noteworthy, in view of the fact that the average time that has lapsedsince the event in this sample is twenty-one years. The connection be-tween parental divorce and depression is stronger for men, including af-ter control of age, but the difference is small. Striking in general are thelow explained variance percentages (R2) resulting from this regressionanalysis. Such results however are found in comparable studies (Aqui-lino and Supple 2001; Amato and Sobolewski 2001; Keith and Finley1988; Mack 2001). This can be explained in part by the small number ofadults with divorced parents for whom sufficient information is present.On the other hand, it is possible that alternative theories can explain theproposed connection. In general, we ask: Which variables explain indi-rectly the link between a parental divorce and depression?

In the first instance, we find that children with divorced parents di-vorce sooner themselves. Literature concerning the intergenerational


transfer of separation/divorce is once again confirmed with this result.Children of divorced parents often report a lower marriage quality andare much more positive about divorce as a solution to marital problems.Nevertheless, this more positive attitude in no way diminishes the nega-tive mental consequences of one’s own divorce. Can it therefore be thata parental divorce and one’s own divorce can each exert an independenteffect on depression? The results from Table 2 confirm as much. Themental health of men and women suffers from the experience of a paren-tal divorce, but is also strongly influenced, in a negative way, by one’sown divorce. The results show a small sex-related difference once again.Men experience more trouble from the parental divorce than their owndivorce, whereas women are more depressive when they themselves


TABLE 2. Regression of Depression Scores on Parental Divorce, Controlledfor the Divorced and Single State (Model 1) and Controlled for the EducationalDegree and Financial Problems (Model 2)

Men Women

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Parental divorce 0.057* 0.049* 0.045* 0.035

(2.518) (2.114) (2.210) (1.751)

Age � 0.001 � 0.001 � 0.002* �0.002*

(� 0.642) (0.729) (�2.077) (�2.175)

Divorced 0.089** 0.086** 0.123*** 0.090***

(2.745) (2.614) (5.068) (3.551)

Single 0.023 0.020 0.006 � 0.003

(1.150) (0.994) (0.301) (� 0.161)

Educational degree 0.002 0.003

(0.466) (1.015)

Obj. financial situation 0.018* 0.012

(2.144) (1.573)

Subj. financial situation � 0.037*** � 0.041***

(-5.410) (�6.669)

Constant 0.633 0.727 0.795 0.916

R2 0.008 0.022 0.016 0.034

* p > 0.05; ** p > 0.01; *** p > 0.001.

break up with their partner. This could be explained by the drastic finan-cial consequences of their own divorce, which for women are alwaysmore detrimental (Bracke 1998). Table 2 shows that a second importantmediating variable, the negative subjective assessment of the financialsituation, fosters the depressive behavior of men and women.

To summarize, the study of this population shows that going througha parental divorce in childhood can have negative influences on mentalhealth up to adulthood. This applies only for both men and women, andis independently noticeable, including after the decidedly strong impactof one’s own divorce experience and/or financial problems. It was ear-lier stated that only few respondents divorce themselves in the end. Thenext question that we can then ask ourselves is: Can the presence of astable relationship counter the negative effect of a parental divorce?

Effect of Parental Divorce in Relations

Parental Divorce, SES and Relational Characteristics

In Table 1, we already saw that children of divorced parents experi-ence very negative effects into adulthood. We find comparable resultsalso for children of divorced parents who are currently in a heterosexualrelationship (Table 3). Because respondents with a partner are treatedseparately in this second part of our analyses, it is possible to go deeperinto relational characteristics and their influence on the relation betweenparental divorce and depression. Consequently, relational involvement,previous relation history and the type of partner relation are included asintermediating variables in the analyses.

An initial observation is that children of divorced parents prefer liv-ing together, when they become adults, over the traditional wedding.The chance of living together for men and women with divorced parentsincreases further, when the partner too is a child of divorced parents.Furthermore, for both men and women, a parental divorce during theirchildhood contributes to a greater chance of relation break-ups in adult-hood (both for those living together and for those who are married). Ad-ditionally, the number of broken relationships for women increases whenthe partner is also a child of divorced parents. This implies that womenwith a history of multiple marital relations acquire a negative reputationto a certain degree among men without divorced parents, which has aneffect on a specific partner selection.

The next finding from the results in Table 3 is that sons of divorcedparents, but not daughters, report lower involvement in their current


TA

BLE

3.R

egre

ssio

nsa

ofS

ocio

econ

omic

Sta

tus

and

Inte

rper

sona

lRel

atio

nson

Par

enta

l(-in

-law

)D

ivor

cefo

rM

en,

Wom

enan

dT

heir

Par

tner

s

Deg

reeb

Deg

ree

par

tner

bO

bj.

fin

anci

alsi

tuat

ion

bS

ub

j.fi

nan

cial

situ

atio

nb

Rel

atio

nsh

ipin

volv

emen

tbR

elat

ion

ship

his

tory

bT

ype

of

par

tner

rela

tio

nsh

ipb

Men P

aren

talD

ivo

rce

�0.

849*

**�

0.30

3�

0.23

1**

�0.

284*

*�

0.09

5*0.

252*

**�

0.68

4**

(�4.

014)

(�1.

559)

(�2.

817)

(�2.

930)

(�2.

424)

(5.6

55)

(3.1

17)

[0.5

05]

Div

orc

ep

aren

ts-i

n-l

aw�

0.45

7*�

0.43

5*0.

073

�0.

201*

�0.

017

0.10

0�

0.76

6***

(�2.

240)

(�2.

329)

(�0.

923)

(�2.

141)

(�0.

441)

(2.3

38)

(3.5

68)

Ag

e�

0.02

4**

�0.

058*

**0.

014*

**�

0.00

7*�

0.00

5***

0.00

5**

0.10

6***

(�3.

117)

(�8.

274)

(4.8

60)

(�1.

987)

(�3.

784)

(3.0

10)

(9.8

07)

Co

nst

ant

5.54

16.

797

2.28

84.

357

3.37

4�

0.06

0�

2.01

2

R2

0.01

70.

044

0.02

60.

010

0.01

10.

028

0.10

0

57

TA

BLE

3(c

ontin

ued)

Deg

reeb

Deg

ree

par

tner

bO

bj.f

inan

cial

situ

atio

nb

Su

bj.f

inan

cial

situ

atio

nb

Rel

atio

nsh

ipin

volv

emen

tbR

elat

ion

ship

his

tory

bT

ype

of

par

tner

rela

tio

nsh

ipb

Wo

men

Par

enta

lDiv

orc

e�

0.48

1**

�0.

379

�0.

049

�0.

183a

�0.

057

0.19

1***

�0.

642*

*

(�2.

581)

(�

1.86

7)(�

0.62

5)(�

1.94

8)(�

1.44

7)(4

.841

)(2

.968

)[0

.506

]

Div

orc

ep

aren

ts-i

n-l

aw�

0.11

7�

0.76

1***

�0.

225*

*�

0.25

1**

�0.

052

0.16

2***

�0.

656*

*

(�0.

598)

(�3.

592)

(�2.

761)

(�2.

577)

(�1.

287)

(3.9

32)

(2.9

37)

Ag

e�

0.05

3***

�0.

021*

*0.

014*

*�

0.00

3�

0.00

5***

0.00

3*0.

111*

**

(�8.

215)

(�2.

949)

(�2.

761)

(�0.

830)

(�3.

767)

(2.1

94)

(1.2

93)

Co

nst

ant

6.50

95.

367

2.31

94.

176

3.38

90.

001

�1.

970

R2

0.04

10.

013

0.0

250.

006

0.01

00.

026

0.10

0

a:p

=.0

52

*p

>0.

05;*

*p

>0.

01;*

**p

>0.

001.

aB

ivar

iate

regr

essi

onan

alys

esfo

ror

dina

land

inte

rval

depe

nden

tvar

iabl

es,l

ogis

ticre

gres

sion

for

dich

otom

ous

depe

nden

tvar

iabl

es.

bU

nsta

ndar

dize

dre

gres

sion

coef

ficie

nts

with

t-va

lues

betw

een

brac

kets

.c

Uns

tand

ardi

zed

regr

essi

onco

effic

ient

sw

ithth

esq

uare

ofth

eW

ald

stat

istic

betw

een

brac

kets

.Odd

sra

tios

are

give

nbe

twee

nre

ctan

gula

rbr

acke

ts(o

nly

for

pare

ntal

divo

rce)

.

58

relationship than sons from intact families. This is in line with theintergenerational divorce transfer, corroborative results, which alreadyhave been cited (see Tables 1 and 2). One last interesting observationconcerns the influence of a parental divorce on the current financial sit-uation. Men have a lower household income and the subjective assess-ment of that income is more negative when their parents divorced whilethey were children. Additional analyses (no table) qualify this picture:These long-term consequences for men can be tempered by stayingchildless or acquiring their own dwelling. Among women, surprisingly,it is not the parental divorce, but that of the in-laws, that is decisive fortheir own financial situation. This implies that adult women, irrespec-tive of the growing emancipation, are still highly dependent on thefinancial situation of their partner, and especially in economicallyadverse situations.


When the direct effect of a parental divorce on mental health is stud-ied for men and women involved in an intimate relation (Table 4, Mod-els 1 and 3), there seems to be a weak association for women, and nonefor men. Yet, a sex-related difference can be observed. This becomesclearer when odd ratios are calculated (no table). Women have 35%more chances of being depressive in adulthood (when this variable isused in dichotomized form3), when one is the child of divorced parentsversus non-divorced parents. The direct effect subsides even furtherwhen controlled for relational involvement and the mental health of thepartner (Models 2 and 4). In other words, the smaller relational involve-ment and greater depression of the partner are crucial for the mentalhealth of women with divorced parents.

The economic and relational variables for men and women are intro-duced gradually in a regression model: first the socio-economic vari-ables (Model 1), and then the relational characteristics (Model 2). Amongmen, the partner’s level of education is highly decisive for the mentalhealth, which corresponds to the thesis that men involved with a womanwith a higher diploma felt threatened, and that can have negative reper-cussions on depression (Tzeng and Mare 1995). Of interest is also thepositive effect of the (perceived) financial situation of the family onmental health. In general, we see that men and women faced with thenegative consequences of a parental divorce in adulthood assess their fi-nancial situation in negative terms, independently from their level ofeducation and actual household income (Table 3), which ultimately


aggravates depression (Table 4). For men and women together, a lowrelational involvement aggravates depression. This is bad news for menin particular: information from Tables 3 and 4 makes it clear that menwith divorced parents are less involved in their current relationshipwhich leads to mental problems.

The relation solidarity and one’s own assessment of the householdincome in adulthood, influenced by the parental marital status, plays an


TABLE 4. Regression of Depression Scores on Parental (in-law) Divorce Con-trolled for Age, Educational Degree and Financial Problems (Model 1) andControlled for Relationship Variables and Depression of the Partner (Model 2)

Men Women

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Parental divorce 0.022 0.010 0.052* 0.035

(0.790) (0.346) (2.007) (1.407)

Divorce parents-in-law 0.026 0.005 0.024 0.003

(0.947) (0.188) (0.890) ( 0.118)

Age 0.002 0.001 �0.002 �0.002a

(1.452) (0.778) (�1.604) (�1.960)

Educational degree �0.004 �0.006 0.005 �0.002

(�0.934) (�1.340) (1.168) (�0.393)

Educational degree (partner) 0.015*** 0.014** �0.001 0.001

(3.187) (3.095) (�0.189) ( 0.343)

Objective financial situation 0.004 �0.004 0.025* 0.023*

(0.390) (�0.381) (2.509) (2.376)

Subjective financial situation �0.038*** �0.026*** �0.033*** �0.025***

(�4.699) (�3.392) (�4.492) (�3.501)Type of relationship

0.022 �0.016(0.876) (�0.664)

Relationship history 0.029 �0.002

(1.670) (�0.140)

Relationship involvement �0.031*** 0.037***

(�4.866) (-6.295)

Depression partner 0.325*** 0.293***

(12.159) (12.297)

Constant 0.644 0.556 0.833 0.865

R2 0.023 0.152 0.022 0.161

a: p = .050* p > 0.05, ** p > 0.01, *** p > 0.001.

important role in explaining depression in intimate relations. This impliesthat views and experiences in adulthood, partially influenced by eventsin childhood, are essential for defining the current mental health. An im-portant element in this story is the partner him/herself. It has alreadybeen suggested (Table 3) that the previous history of the in-laws canplay a role in explaining certain long-term effects, such as the financialsituation of women and the previous relation history of men. In additionto the parental divorce of the in-laws, we introduced a second “partnermeasure” in our analyses, that is, the current mental health of the partner(model 4). The great influence of the mental health of one partner on theother is convincing proof that extensive exchange of feelings takesplace in relations through interactions between the partners. This, incombination with the former indications of the specific partner choicerelative to the parental previous history, can also help to explain themechanism of long-term effects. Table 4 clearly shows that the mentalhealth of the partner has a strong effect on feelings of depression in menand women and that, only for women, the association between a paren-tal divorce and depression is hereby reduced in scope.

In the end, an interaction term that combines the parental divorce andthe current age was included in the analyses. This, however, is not sig-nificant for men or for women, as the degree of explained variance doesnot change anything. It can, therefore, be concluded that a parental di-vorce is stressful for young as well as older men and women.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions

Corijn (1999) has shown that the number of divorces in Belgium, es-pecially after the 1994 amendment4 of the relevant legislation has in-creased sharply. A study of the effects of this radical event in the lives ofthose concerned (including children) cannot be shoved to the side. InBelgium too, we find proof that parental divorce exerts serious influ-ence on depression in adulthood by disrupting the socio-economic andrelational development of these children. It thus appears, in the first in-stance, that children, especially girls, with divorced parents are quickerto divorce in adulthood. In connection with mental health, we see thatone’s own divorce increases depression both indirectly (through the pa-rental divorce) and directly. Here, a distinction can be drawn betweenmen and women: Women report more mental problems as a result of a


divorce, while men experience greater mental problems as a result of apreviously experienced parental divorce. After socio-economic vari-ables are introduced, the subjective assessment of the financial situationappears to play an important role too. Children of divorced parents ex-perience more financial discomfort as a result of the new family situa-tion, which in later life leads to a negative assessment of one’s ownfinancial possibilities. This has a negative impact on the mental healthof both men and women. In the end, one’s own chances for divorcingand the subjective financial situation are two mechanisms that help toexplain a greater tendency for depression among children of divorcedparents.

Although one’s own chances for divorce rise considerably when theparents are divorced, the number of people who actually do divorce issmall. The question that we asked ourselves was how the presence of astable relationship can counter the negative effect of a parental divorce.The results confirm the story thus: A parental divorce influences the lifeof children far into adulthood, including in relations, because of a lowerrelational involvement and more pronounced previous relation history,which is also decisive for the mental health. An important additionalfinding, specifically in partner relations, is the influence of the partneron certain socio-economic and relational characteristics. When a childof divorced parents enters a relation with someone who has grown up insimilar circumstances, this seems to aggravate the own negative long-term effects. A certain degree of selectivity comes into place here. Chil-dren of divorced parents have a greater chance of entering a partnerrelationship as a result of the converging views concerning marriageand relations.

Alternative Explanations

In addition to a certain degree of selectivity in the group of respon-dents and the limited nature of cross-section data, some critical notescan also be cited.

The long-term effects in this study had to do in particular with de-pression as an indicator of mental health. We found no significant con-nection, however, between parental divorce and depression for malerespondents who were married and/or living together. A possible expla-nation is that men with partners no longer experience a negative healtheffect from a parental divorce. On the other hand, the study of depres-sion may itself lie at the basis of these specific results. The study hasshown that boys in families with a high conflict content showed pre-


dominantly externalized problems, while girls showed internalized pro-blems (Furstenberg and Cherlin 1991; Simons and Chao 1996; Fur-stenberg and Kiernan 2001; Spruijt et al. 2000; Wolfinger 1998; Barber2000). To study whether men who are married/living together show amore externalizing instead of internalizing (depressive) behavior, itwould be interesting to be able to include data on drinking behavior, forinstance, in a subsequent analysis. If no noticeable differences betweenchildren from broken homes and from intact families were found, we cansuppose that the marriage functions as a buffer for depressive behavior.

A second alternative explanation stresses the possible presence of“pre-disruption effects” (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale and McRae 1998),which can lead to “reverse causation” (Bhrolchain 2001). This meansthat the possible long-term effects are the result of processes, which hadplayed a role already before the actual parental divorce, such as certainbehavior characteristics of the children and the qualities of the originalfamily. However, earlier results have found only a limited influence ofsuch behavior characteristics for the parental divorce (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale and McRae 1998; Cherlin, Kiernan and Chase-Lansdale1995). In addition to behavior characteristics as a substitute for parentaldivorce, family characteristics are also sometimes also cited as a causeof negative long-term effects. As parental sources of financial assistancecan have a positive influence at school and later career possibilities ofchildren, the financial situation of a family is often used as an alterna-tive explanation (Fischer and De Graaf 2001; Louis and Zhao 2002; El-der and Russell 1996). However, research into the connection betweenparental divorce and life outcomes of the children concerned has repeat-edly shown that the level of education and/or of occupational activity ofthe parents abates but does not eliminate the relation. Thus, childrenfrom broken homes experience more negative economic and relationalevents (Fischer and De Graaf 2001; Dronkers 1997; Dykstra 2000), in-cluding when the social class of the parent(s) is taken into consider-ation. It is also possible that other interests play a role as an explanationfor the relations found. Sometimes, no connection is found between pa-rental divorce and the school career of the children, irrespective of thesocial class of the parents, which feeds the false supposition that the so-cial class of the parents explains the relation as a whole. Wadsby andSvedin (1996) have pointed to the importance of the financial support ofthe government and the diminished stigmatization of children whoseparents are divorced. Morrison and Rituali (2000) have also shown thatthe combination of financial contributions from work and social trans-


fers can provide divorced mothers with a level of income equal to thatbefore the actual divorce.

A good delineation of the various forms of family is essential in thistype of study. Children raised in single-parent families can be childrenof divorced parents or of a widowed parent. Research (Mack 2001;McLeod 1991) has shown that experiencing a parental divorce duringchildhood has a far more negative effect on the current relation qualityand the depression of the adult children than the loss of a parent. A dis-tinction can moreover be drawn between children who grow up in a sin-gle-parent versus a recomposed family. The remarriage of the parentwith child custody rights makes it possible to obtain a family incomeequivalent to that before the parental divorce, thereby raising the socialcapital of the separated children and abating the long-term conse-quences (Fokkema 2001; Furstenberg and Cherlin 1991; Morrison andRitualo 2000). On the other hand, several transitions (divorces and/ormarriages) appear to aggravate the negative consequences in the longterm (Amato and Booth 2001; Spruijt, De Goede and Van Der Valk2000; Wolfinger 2000). It is, therefore, important to draw a clear dis-tinction between children from these different forms of family. Other-wise, the effects found could be an underestimation of the existingnegative long-term influences. A conflict-ridden parental relation canalso have important consequences on the well-being of the children (cf.Raschke 1988). In an intense conflict, a divorce can be expected to havepositive effects on the well-being of the children (Amato, Loomis andBooth 1995). Because of this, moderate effects of a parental divorcewere found in this study too.

A subsequent remark concerns the choice of the most important(read: most relevant) mediating factors. Put another way: Which long-term effects are the most pertinent in respondents whose parents are di-vorced? This study stressed economic and relational characteristics;these are work instability (Conger et al. 1990) and work involvement(McLanahan and Sandefur 1994) on the economic-financial level andmarriageable age (Keith and Finlay 1988; Raschke 1988), confidence(King 2002), age when first child is born (Cherlin, Kiernan and Chase-Lansdale 1995; Popenoe 1996) and specific marital values (Keith andFinlay 1988). Another important mediating variable, which was not in-cluded in this study, is the child-parent relation. It has repeatedly beenobserved that a parental divorce weakens the bond between parent andchild up to adulthood (Amato and Sobolewski 2001; Holman 2001;King 2002; Spruijt, De Goede and Van Der Valk 2000).


NOTES

1. With thanks to Dimitri Mortelmans and the entire PSBH-team for supplying thedata.

2. These six items are: “We hid nothing from each other,” “we spend most of ourfree time together,” “we usually agree, certainly on important things,” “we alwaysdiscuss our differences of opinion,” “we are often in the company of friends, we visit agreat deal and our house is always open for them,” and “we have a lot of contact withfamily.” This contrasts to an earlier supposition that having a daughter as opposed to ason increases the chance of divorcing (Simons and Chao 1996). This can be explainedby the greater involvement of the father in the upbringing of a son.

3. This dichotomized variable “depression” is given a score 1 when the answer tothe first item (you feel depressed) is “regularly” or “often” and furthermore, the sameanswer categories are to be found on 4 of the 15 depression items in all; in all othercases, the score 0 is given.

4. The Belgian Act of June 30, 1994 relative to the divorce proceedings entails aconsiderable reduction of the divorce proceedings.

REFERENCES

Amato, P.R. (1991). Parental Absence During Childhood and Depression in Later Life.The Sociological Quarterly, 32 (4), 543-556.

Amato, P.R. & Booth, A. (2001). Consequences of Parental Divorce and Marital Un-happiness for Adult Well-Being. Social Forces, 69 (3), 895-914.

Amato, P.R. & DeBoer, D.D. (2001). The transmission of marital instability acrossgenerations: Relationship skills or commitment to marriage? Journal of Marriageand the Family, 63 (4), 1038-1051.

Amato, P.R. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental Divorce and Adult Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 43-58.

Amato, P.R., Loomis, L.S. & Booth, A. (1995). Parental Divorce, Marital Conflict, andOffspring Well-Being During Early Adulthood. Social Forces, 73 (3), 895-915.

Amato, P.R. & Sobolewski, J.M. (2001). The effects of divorce and marital discord onadult children’s psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 66, 900-921.

Aquilino, W.S. & Supple, A.J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices duringadolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues,22 (3), 289-308.

Barber, N. (2000). Why Parents Matter. Parental investment and child outcome.Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.

Bhrolchain, M.N. (2001). Divorce Effects and Causality in the Social Sciences. Euro-pean Sociological Review, 17 (1), 33-57.

Bracke, P. (1996). Sex Differences in Self-Reported Depression in a RepresentativeSample of the Flemish Population: The Validity of a Self-Report Inventory. Ar-chives of Public Health, 54, 275-300.


Bracke, P. (1998). Depressiviteit en de economische gevolgen van echtscheiding voorvrouwen en mannen. Mens en Maatschappij, 73, 233-252.

Bradbury, K. & Katz, J. (2002). Women’s Labor Market Involvement and Family In-come Mobility When Marriages End. New England Economics Review, 4, 41-74.

Chase-Lansdale, P., Cherlin, A.J. & Kiernan, K.E. (1995). The Long-Term Effects ofParental Divorce on the Mental Health of Young Adults: A Developmental Per-spective. Child Development, 66, 1614-1634.

Cherlin, A.J., Chase-Lansdale, P. & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce onmental health throughout the life course. American Sociological Review, 63 (2),239-249.

Cherlin, A.J., Kiernan, K.E. & Chase-Lansdale, P. (1995). Parental Divorce in Child-hood and Demographic Outcomes in Young Adulthood. Demography, 32 (3),299-318.

Christensen, T.M. & Brooks, M.C. (2001). Adult Children of Divorce and Intimate Re-lationships: A Review of the Literature. The Family Journal: Counseling and Ther-apy for Couples and Families, 3, 289-294.

Conger, R.D. & Chao, W. (1996). Adolescent Depressed Mood. In: Simons, R.L. et al.(Eds.), Explaining Differences Between Divorced and Intact Families (p. 157-175).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Conger, R.D. et al. (1990). Linking Economic Hardship to Marital Quality and Insta-bility. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 643-656.

Corijn, M. (1999). Echtscheiding in Vlaanderen. Bevolking en Gezin, 28 (1), 59-89.Deutsch, F.M., Roksa, J. & Meeske, C. (2003). How Gender Counts When Couples

Count Their Money. Sex Roles, 48 (7/8), 291-304.Dronkers, J. (1992). Zullen wij voor de kinderen bij elkaar blijven? De veranderende

effecten van eenoudergezinnen op de schoolloopbaan van de kinderen. Mens enMaatschappij, 67, 23-44.

Dronkers, J. (1994). The Changing Effects of the Lone Parent Families on the Educa-tional Attainment of Their Children in a European Welfare State. Sociology, 28,171-191.

Dronkers, J. (1997). Zoals de ouden zongen, piepen de jongen. Intergenerationeleoverdracht van de kans op scheiding in Nederland. Mens en Maatschappij, 72,149-165.

Dykstra, P.A. (1998). De langetermijngevolgen van een ‘ongelukkige’ jeugd. In:Dronkers, J. & Junker, M. (Eds.), Daders, slachtoffers en andere tegenslag. Desamenhang tussen ongewenste uitkomsten (p.19-47). Amsterdam: Amsterdam Uni-versity Press.

Dykstra, P.A. (2000). Diversiteit in gezinsvormen en levenskansen van kinderen oplange termijn. Bevolking en Gezin, 29 (2), 109-140.

Elder, G.H. & Russell, S.T. (1996). Academic Performance and Future Aspirations. In:Simons, R.L. et al. (Eds.), Explaining Differences Between Divorced and IntactFamilies (p.176-194). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Feng, D. et al. (1999). Intergenerational Transmission of Marital Quality and MaritalInstability. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61 (2), 451-463.


Fischer, T. & De Graaf, P. (2001). Ouderlijke echtscheiding en de levensloop vankinderen: negatieve gevolgen of schijnverbanden? Sociale Wetenschappen, 44,134-159.

Fokkema, T. (2001). Forse inkomensdaling voor vrouwen na echtscheiding en vroegeverweduwing: bieden hertrouw en werk uitkomst? Bevolking en Gezin, 30 (1), 5-29.

Furstenberg, F.F. & Cherlin, A.J. (1991). Divided Families. What happens to childrenwhen parents part? Cambridge, Massachussets: Harvard University Press.

Furstenberg, F.F. & Kiernan, K.E. (2001). Delayed Parental Divorce: How much dochildren benefit? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 446-457.

Glenn, N.D. & Kramer, K.B. (1985). The Psychological Well-Being of Adult Childrenof Divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 905-912.

Holman, T.B. (2001). Premarital Prediction of Marital Quality or Breakup. Research,Theory and Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenium Publishers.

Holman, T.B. & Birch, P.J. (2001). Family-of-Origin Structures and Processes andAdult Children’s Marital Quality. In: Holman, T.B. (Ed.), Premarital Prediction ofMarital Quality or Breakup (p. 79-103). New York: Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers.

Jacquet, S.E. & Surra, C.A. (2001). Parental Divorce and Premarital Couples: Commit-ment and Other Relationship Characteristics. Journal of Marriage and the Family,63, 627-638.

Kalmijn, M. & De Graaf, P. (2000). Gescheiden vaders en hun kinderen: eenempirische analyse van voogdij en bezoekfrequentie. Bevolking en Gezin, 29 (2),59-84.

Keith, V.M. & Finlay, B. (1988). The Impact of Parental Divorce on Children’s Educa-tional Attainment, Marital Timing and Likelihood of Divorce. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 50, 797-809.

King, V. (2002). Parental Divorce and Interpersonal Trust in Adult Offspring. Journalof Marriage and the Family, 64, 642-656.

Louis, V.V. & Zhao, S. (2002). Effects of Family Structure, Family SES and Adult-hood Experiences on Life Satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 23 (8), 986-1005.

Mack, K.Y. (2001). Childhood Family Disruptions and Adult Well-Being: The Differ-ential Effects of Divorce and Parental Death. Death Studies, 25, 419-443.

McLanahan, S. (1988) Family Structure and Dependency: Early Transitions to FemaleHousehold Headship. Demography, 25 (1), 1-16.

McLanahan, S. & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational Consequences of Family Dis-ruption. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (1), 130-152.

McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing Up with a Single Parent. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

McLeod, J.D. (1991). Childhood parental loss and adult depression. Journal of Healthand Social Behavior, 32, 205-220.

Moos, R.H. et al. (1985). Health and the Daily Living Form Manual, Revised Version.Stanford: Social Ecological Laboratory, Veterans Administration and StanfordUniversity Medical Center.

Morrison, D.R. & Ritualo, A. (2000). Routes to children’s economic recovery after di-vorce: Are cohabitation and remarriage equivalent? American Sociological Review,65, 560-580.


Perry-Jenkins, M., Seery, B. & Crouter, A.C. (1992). Linkages Between Women’sProvider-Role Attitudes, Psychological Well-Being, and Family Relationships.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 311-329.

Popenoe, D. (1996). What Do Fathers Do? In: Popenoe, D. (Ed.), Life Without Father(p.139-163). New York: Martin Kessler Books: The Free Press.

Raschke, H.J. (1988). Divorce. In: Sussman, M.B. & Steinmetz, S.K. (Eds.), Handbookof Marriage and the Family (p. 597-624). New York: Plenum Press.

Rodgers, B. (1994). Pathways Between Parental Divorce and Adult Depression. Jour-nal of Child Psychology, 35 (7), 1289-1308.

Ross, C.E. & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Men who cry. Social Psychological Quarterly, 47,138-146.

Ross, C.E. & Mirowsky, J. (1999). Parental Divorce, Life-Course Disruption andAdult Depression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 1034-1045.

Schaeffer, N.C. (1988). An application of item response theory to the measurement ofdepression. Sociological Methodology, 18, 271-307.

Simons, R.L. & Chao, W. (1996). Conduct Problems. In: Simons, R.L. et al. (Ed.), Un-derstanding Differences Between Divorced and Intact Families (p.125-143). Thou-sand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Simons, R.L. & Johnson, C. (1996). Mother’s Parenting. In: Simons, R.L. et al. (Ed.),Understanding Differences Between Divorced and Intact Families (p.81-93).Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Spruijt, E., De Goede, M. & Van Der Valk, I. (2000). Veranderende gezinsvormen enhet welbevinden van jongeren. Bevolking en Gezin, 29 (2), 85-108.

Tzeng, J.M. & Mare, R.D. (1995). Labor Market and Socioeconomic Effects on Mari-tal Stability. Social Science Research, 24, 329-351.

White, L.K. (1990). Determinants of divorce: A review of research in the eighties.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 904-912.

Wolfinger, N.H. (1998) The Effect of Parental Divorce and Adult Tobacco and Alco-hol Consumption. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 39, 254-269.

Wolfinger, N.H. (2000). Beyond the intergenerational transmission of divorce. Jour-nal of Family Issues, 21 (8), 1061-1086.


Documents

Depression & Divorce Long-Term Effects on Adult Children