essay about factors of divorce

Essays About Divorce: Top 5 Examples and 7 Prompts

Essays about divorce can be challenging to write; read on to see our top essay examples and writing prompts to help you get started.

Divorce is the legal termination of a marriage. It can be a messy affair, especially if it includes children. Dividing the couple’s assets also often causes chaos when divorce proceedings are in session. 

Divorce also touches and considers religion and tradition. Therefore, laws are formed depending on the country’s history, culture, and belief system.

To help you choose what you want to talk about regarding this topic, here are examples you can read to get an idea of what kind of essay you want to write.

1. Divorce Should Be Legalized in the Philippines by Ernestine Montgomery

2. to divorce or not to divorce by mark ghantous, 3. what if you mess up by manis friedman, 4. divorce: a life-changing experience by writer louie, 5. divorce’s effects on early adult relationships by percy massey, 1. the major reasons for divorce, 2. why i support divorce, 3. my divorce experience, 4. how to avoid divorce, 5. divorce and its effects on my family, 6. the consequences of divorce, 7. divorce laws around the world.

“What we need is a divorce law that defines clearly and unequivocally the grounds and terms for terminating a marriage… Divorce is a choice and we all should have the freedom to make choices… in cases where a union is more harmful than beneficial, a divorce can be benevolent and less hurtful way of severing ties with your partner.”

As the title suggests, Montgomery and his other colleagues discuss why the Philippines, a predominantly Catholic country, needs to allow divorce. Then, to strengthen his argument, he mentions that Spain, the root of Christianity, and Italy, where the Vatican City is, administer divorce. 

He also mentions bills, relevant figures, and statistics to make his case in favor of divorce more compelling. Montgomery adds that people who want a divorce don’t necessarily mean they want to marry again, citing other motives such as abuse and marital failure.

“Divorce, being the final step in a detrimental marriage, brings upon the gruesome decision as to whether a married couple wishes to end that once made commitment they had for each other. As opposed to the present, divorce was rare in ancient times…”

Ghantous starts his essay with what divorce means, as not only an end of a commitment but also the termination of legal duties and other obligations of the couple to each other. He then talks about divorce in ancient times, when men had superior control over women and their children. He also mentions Caroline Norton, who fought with English family law that was clearly against women.

“So even though G‑d has rules,… laws,… divine commandments, when you sin, He tells you: ‘You messed up? Try again.’ That’s exactly how you should be married — by treating your spouse the way G‑d treats you. With that much mercy and compassion, that much kindness and consideration.”

Friedman’s essay discusses how the Torah sees marriage and divorce and explains it by recounting a scene with his daughters where they couldn’t follow a recipe. He includes good treatment and forgiveness necessary in spouses. But he also explains that God understands and doesn’t want people in a failed marriage to continue hurting. You might also be interested in these essays about commitment .

“Depending on the reasons that led up to the divorce the effects can vary… I was fourteen years old and the one child that suffered the most emotional damage… My parents did not discuss their reasons for the divorce with me, they didn’t have to, and I knew the reasons.”

The author starts the essay by citing the famous marital promise: “For better or worse, for richer or poorer,” before going in-depth regarding the divorce rate among Americans. He further expounds on how common divorce is, including its legalities. Although divorce has established legal grounds, it doesn’t consider the emotional trauma it will cause, especially for children.

Louie recounts how his life changed when his dad moved out, listing why his parents divorced. He ends the essay by saying society is at fault for commercializing divorce as if it’s the only option.

“With divorce becoming more prevalent, many researchers have taken it upon themselves to explore many aspects of this topic such as evolving attitudes, what causes divorce, and how it effects the outcome of children’s lives.”

Massey examines the causes of divorce and how it impacts children’s well-being by citing many relevant research studies. Some of the things he mentions are the connection between the child’s mental health, behavioral issues, and future relationships. Another is the trauma a child can endure during the divorce proceedings.

He also mentions that some children who had a broken family put marriage on a pedestal. As a result, they do their best to create a better future family and treat their children better.

Top 7 Prompts on Essays About Divorce

After adding to your knowledge about the subject, you’re better prepared to write essays about divorce.

There are many causes of the dissolution of marriage, and many essays have already discussed these reasons. However, you can explain these reasons differently. For example, you can focus on domestic abuse, constant fighting, infidelity, financial issues, etc.

If you want to make your piece stand out, you can include your personal experience, but only if you’re comfortable sharing your story with others. 

If you believe divorce offers a better life for all parties involved, list these benefits and explain them. Then, you can focus on a specific pro of legalizing divorce, such as getting out of an abusive relationship. 

If you want to write an essay to argue against the negative effects of divorce, here’s an excellent guide on how to write an argumentative essay .

This prompt is not only for anyone who has no or sole guardian. If you want to write about the experiences of a child raised by other people or who lives with a single parent, you can interview a friend or anyone willing to talk about their struggles and triumphs even if they didn’t have a set of parents.

Aside from reasons for divorce, you can talk about what makes these reasons more probable. Then, analyze what steps couples can take to avoid it. Such as taking couples’ therapy, weekly family get-together, etc. To make your essay more valuable, weigh in on what makes these tips effective.

Divorce is diverse and has varying effects. There are many elements to its results, and no two sets of factors are precisely the same for two families. 

If you have an intimate experience of how your immediate and extended family dynamic had been affected by divorce, narrate those affairs. Include what it made you and the others around you feel. You might also be interested in these essays about conflict .

This is a broad prompt, but you can narrow it down by focusing on an experience you or a close friend had. You can also interview someone closely related to a divorce case, such as a lawyer, reporter, or researcher. 

If you don’t have any experience with divorce, do not know anyone who had to go through it, or is more interested in its legal aspects, compiles different divorce laws for each country. You can even add a brief history for each law to make the readers understand how they came about.

Are you looking for other topics to write on? Check out our general resource of essay writing topics .

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

The dissolution of a marriage is almost always an upsetting event, at the very least marked by disappointment and the loss of dreams and expectations.

In addition, there are legal, financial, parental, emotional, and practical challenges that require time, energy, and changes in responsibilities. It can take people years to regain equilibrium. Nevertheless, divorce serves an important function legally and emotionally.

• Why People Get Divorced
• How to Heal from Divorce
• How Divorce Affects Children

One of the most significant events of the 20th century was a change in the roles women could take on in private and public life, allowing women more opportunities for satisfaction and happiness . With a shift in roles inside and outside the house came a necessary—and often contentious—shift in the division of responsibilities inside the home, one of many factors fueling a highly publicized rise in divorce rates and liberalization of divorce laws.

Infidelity has long been a leading cause of divorce, along with financial upheavals. But one consequence of liberalized attitudes to divorce is a major addition to that list—the search for emotional closeness. Individuals today have high expectations for relationship satisfaction.

Research suggests that common reasons for divorce include lack of intimacy, lack of commitment, infidelity, and basic incompatibility. Other prevalent causes are constant conflict, financial differences, addiction , and abuse. Many people articulate the root of their divorce as a betrayal—of expectations, hopes, and dreams for the marriage .

A therapist can help you reach a decision by exploring the struggles you’re facing, identifying whether or not those problems can be resolved, creating a realistic picture of what life would look like afterward, and how your children could be affected and protected. In the process of answering these questions, a moment of clarity often emerges.

This can be one of the most difficult and painful conversations—so it’s worth taking time to prepare. Be kind, direct, and firm; avoid blaming, shouting, or being defensive. Lay out a plan for where you or your partner could live short term. Acknowledge your spouse’s emotions, and allow them to process the change before sharing it with others.

The divorce rate is surprisingly difficult to measure, but the famous “50 percent” statistic may be an overestimate. Some estimates place the divorce rate around 42 to 45 percent.  Demographic and socioeconomic factors linked to a lower likelihood of divorce include a higher education level, marrying at an older age, and not having divorced previously.

Divorce is as much an emotional process as it is a legal process, and It takes courage to start the process of splitting. One or both partners may experience waves of self-doubt. Both need an array of skills to work out the inevitable conflicts and disappointments that arise.

During divorce, two people must come to terms with the relationship failure, set up emotionally and usually financially independent lives, and put the relationship firmly in the past. It is important to understand and accept the role each partner played in the relationship breakdown. It is often helpful for divorcing partners to set up rules of engagement to limit contact with each other. The outside perspective of a professional counselor can be especially beneficial.

Eventually, the emotional turbulence subsides and it becomes possible—and necessary—to incorporate a richly nuanced story of the relationship, its failure, the divorce, and the resulting emotional growth into one's identity . Many exes find it helpful to adopt some kind of ritual—such as an exchange of letters or gifts—to mark the end, acknowledging a past together and moving toward a future apart.

A divorce can lead to deep or surprising losses. For parents, spending less time with children often hits hardest, in addition to the partnership of sharing in a child’s successes and disappointments. People may feel that they’ve lost their best friend, family traditions, financial security, and vision for the future. Acknowledging these losses is the first step toward healing.

It can be incredibly difficult to release the anger that can accompany rejection and divorce. People may resist moving forward because they aren’t ready to detach from their suffering. Letting go of anger means letting go of the hope that the other person will ever feel remorse, see their perspective, or come back to them.

The first step is to accept that the divorce is happening, even if it wasn’t your choice. Try to work through your emotions —through journaling, friends, divorce support groups, or therapy —before beginning legal proceedings. If possible, choose a process that keeps you out of court. Finally, work toward forgiveness , both for your ex and yourself.

Divorce usually breaks up a household and its routines. Children need assurance that they are still loved by both parents and that they will not be abandoned. They also need to be spared any conversations in which one parent denigrates the other for any reason. It is usually not the actual divorce that harms children but seeing their parents fight and in distress.

Because every child reacts differently to divorce, parental response is best tailored to the needs of each child. Often, kids are scared, confused, angry, or disappointed in one or both parents. The stress of the split and readjustment to change—especially if a household move is involved—can heighten anxiety , increase irritability, create behavior problems, beget social withdrawal or difficulty sleeping . There may be a drop in classroom attentiveness, and grades may suffer.

Many of the effects of divorce on children are short lived and resolve within a year or two. But others may be longer lasting and play out in later attitudes toward romantic relationships .

Research shows that children are not necessarily affected by living with a single parent. Family conflict, however, can lead to struggles with mental health, self-esteem, school, and future relationships. The more parents work to reduce conflict, the better off children will be.

Tell your child soon after the decision has been made, and have a conversation together as a family. Explain the facts that matter to them—where they will live, who will pick them up from school—so that they know what to expect. Continue to emphasize your love for them, and the fact that that will never change.

Talk with your child regularly about the emotions they’re experiencing, and accept and validate those feelings. Prepare them for upcoming changes, such as a parent moving out. Keep a schedule, maybe even with a calendar on a wall, so they know what to expect and when they will see each parent.

Successful co- parenting involves shielding children from parental conflict, showing respect for the other parent in front of your child, and supporting their relationship. Maintain open communication with the other parent when possible, or establish an agreed-upon co-parenting schedule. Aim to maintain the child’s routines, activities, relationships, and community.

Reflecting on five key questions about your marriage can help when deciding whether or not to divorce.

Infidelity can cause significant pain and damage trust, and it often leads to relationship difficulties.

When you see a narcissist rapidly move through denial, blame-shifting, and shutting down the conversation, it's a red flag they might be lying.

Have you fallen out of love with your partner's scent? Your relationship may be in trouble.

Sometimes playing nice isn't nice. It's a passive-aggressive way to virtue signal and pull moral rank in the middle of a fight.

Within volatile relationships, breaking up is hard to do. Here are some strategies for safe separation.

Discover the impact of gray divorce on adult children through two sisters' journey from shock and overwhelm to healing and supporting others.

A clinical psychologist describes 20 signs that you should end a relationship instead of spending more time and energy trying to save it.

The DSM-5 spells out what events qualify for PTSD. Yet, trauma is incredibly individualized. These are 7 underrecognized traumatic events.

The challenges and complexities of gray divorce suggest that spouses face unique perils and need more support than spouses ending a short-term marriage earlier in life.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Divorce statistics

Causes Of Divorce: 19 Of The Most Common Reasons

By Brette Sember, JD Updated Mar 15, 2024

What are the most common reasons for divorce? Of course, this is a subjective question, as the reasons people get divorced are as varied as the reasons they fall in love.

However, certain issues arise more often: conflict, infidelity, poor communication, incompatibility, and a lack of romantic intimacy. Even though the overall divorce rate is decreasing among adults aged 16 to 65, approximately 45% of marriages in the US still end in divorce.

Read on to learn about the 19 most common reasons people decide to divorce.

What Are The Most Common Causes of Divorce?

According to various studies, the four most common causes of divorce are lack of commitment, infidelity or extramarital affairs, too much conflict and arguing, and lack of physical intimacy. The least common reasons are lack of shared interests and incompatibility between partners.

The 19 Most Common Reasons for Divorce

1. too much conflict, incessant arguing.

Constant conflict, bitter battles, and going to bed angry every night are no one’s idea of a healthy marriage.

"How you handle conflict is the single most important predictor of whether your marriage will survive."

How long could you stick it out when your home – which is supposed to be your place of peace and release from the daily grind – is more stressful than your worst day at work? In a good marriage, your spouse is your partner, your shelter from the storm, and your number-one cheerleader when you’re down.

In a high-conflict marriage, your spouse is as emotionally dangerous as a terrible boss. Unless interrupted by marriage counseling or therapy, this negative spiral will continue downward until the only place left to go is divorce.

Related Reading

2. Lack of Commitment

A happy and healthy marriage requires commitment from both spouses. Unfortunately, it only takes one spouse with a lack of commitment to the relationship to doom the marriage. If one partner isn’t fully committed to the other, then the marriage will eventually suffer.

Sometimes, the spouse who is still committed to the relationship believes they can singlehandedly save their marriage if they work harder at it. After all, if they put in 200% while their spouse puts in 0%, that equals 100% – right?

When their marriage inevitably ends, after the shock and disbelief have worn off, their rage at being used and taken for granted during the relationship may lead to a very difficult divorce.

3. Infidelity / Extramarital Affairs

Being cheated on by the person who vowed to remain faithful to you forever is a bitter pill to swallow, and most people consider this to be an unforgivable offense. Infidelity doesn’t always lead to divorce, but it does destroy how you see your relationship.

Discovering that your spouse has been engaging in an extramarital affair makes you ask three questions:

• Can my marriage survive this betrayal?
• Can I ever trust my spouse/partner again?
• Am I willing to work on my marriage, or is my partner’s infidelity the last straw?

The answer to these questions depends on whether both of you are willing and able to repair your relationship – almost certainly with the help of a marriage and family therapist (MFT) .

To rescue your relationship, you will have to forgive your partner – and your partner will have to make a genuine apology and commit to acting to end their cheating for good. If you have been drifting apart, focus on reconnecting rather than pointing fingers and playing the blame game.

4. Lack of Emotional and/or Physical Intimacy

Emotional and physical intimacy “grease the wheels” of a smooth-running relationship. When they’re gone, however, serious relationship issues often take their place.

Communication breakdown, anger, resentment, sadness, loneliness, infidelity, and greatly diminished self-esteem are some of the most serious issues – and left untreated, they can irreparably damage a relationship and pave the road to divorce.

When emotional intimacy is low or non-existent, your sex life will probably suffer as well. When you feel emotionally distant or disconnected from your spouse, your marriage may become a sexless one.

To reignite the spark, try to remember why you fell in love with your spouse and consciously view them through those lenses.

Also, think about what you used to love doing together and carve out time to do those things together again. Spending quality time doing something you both enjoy can help rebuild emotional intimacy, leading to physical intimacy.

Emotional and physical intimacy is like super-glue to strengthen your love and marriage bonds.

5. Communication Problems Between Partners

A breakdown in the lines of communication is one of the biggest predictors of divorce. Couples who don’t communicate well cannot resolve issues together and tend to suffer more misunderstandings and hurt feelings than those who have learned how to resolve conflict respectfully.

Good communication is physical as well as verbal, and it is required for almost everything in a good relationship, including sex, a couple’s finances, whether or not to have children, areas of disagreement, and other sensitive topics unhappy couples deem too dangerous to discuss.

An inability to communicate turns problem-solving sessions into shouting matches, which will eventually kill love, intimacy, and respect in your relationship.

To make it through the inevitable tough times, you must be willing and able to talk about what’s wrong or not working and decide how to resolve these issues together.

“Being able to communicate well requires both good transmission skills (articulation) and good receptive skills (listening). Without both, communication will be, at best, difficult.”

6. Domestic Violence: Abuse by a Partner or Parent

Domestic violence can include any act of tangible or threatened abuse – including verbal, physical, sexual, emotional, and/or economic abuse. In such a relationship, one person gains or maintains power over their partner via a pattern of abusive behavior.

This abuse can be directed solely at a spouse, or it can also involve one or more children of the marriage. If you or your children are in immediate danger, call 911 now!

For 24/7 confidential help, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 (SAFE) or 1-800-787-3224 (TTY).

In October 2022, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) and the National Domestic Violence Hotline (The Hotline) merged to form Project Opal .

For more resources, visit: https://ncadv.org/get-help

7. Opposing Values or Morals

There have been literal wars fought over differences in race, religion, nationality, and culture – and persecution based on all of these, plus gender, sexuality, and even which political party someone supports.

When two spouses have or develop opposing values and/or morals, and neither can or is willing to see things from their spouse’s point of view, the marriage is likely to end in divorce.

She believes in a woman’s right to choose, and he believes life begins at conception; his best friend is gay, and his wife is homophobic. They fell in love despite their religious difference, but those differences are tearing them apart now that they have children.

When you’re in love, you tend to overlook or rationalize red flags that your core values and morals are too different for a healthy relationship – but when the rose-colored glasses come off, those differences make it difficult or impossible to sustain a happy marriage.

8. Addiction: Alcohol, Drugs, Gambling, or Sex

There are many different types and degrees of addiction, and many top professionals – politicians, businesspeople, doctors, lawyers, portfolio managers, actors, and athletes, to name a few – have been able to hide their addiction successfully as they rose to the top.

Their spouses may be blissfully unaware, willing to look the other way in return for lifestyle/economic benefits, or gaslighted into believing they’re crazy to suspect their spouse’s addiction. No matter how the moment of truth arrives, it is always shattering.

Whether the marriage can survive depends on several factors – including the addict’s willingness and ability to take responsibility for their addiction, a genuine desire to seek treatment, and a lifelong commitment to recovery.

9. Absence of Romantic Intimacy or Love

This one is far too common given how busy and stressful our lives are – especially when you add driving the kids to football/hockey/baseball/ballet/orchestra/theater/choir practice before and after school into the mix.

Too many couples prioritize everything except their relationships, and then one partner is blindsided when the other says, “I want a divorce.” Contrary to popular belief, romantic love is not self-sustaining: without carving out quality time for intimacy and fun as a couple – not just as a family – love withers like a plant without water or sunshine.

Create a weekly carved-in-stone date night. For example, go to bed, wake up earlier, and use the time for daily physical (cuddling and/or sex) and emotional intimacy. Remember what you loved doing while you were dating, then start doing those things again before it’s too late!

10. One Spouse Not Carrying Their Weight in the Marriage

We all know marriages like this: both spouses work full-time, but only one of them takes responsibility for grocery shopping and cooking, household chores, and child-rearing.

Over time, the spouse whose work doesn’t end when they get home can build up a powerful resentment against the other, and unless the situation is addressed and rectified, the marriage could spiral down into divorce.

Sit down and list everything that needs to be done to keep the household running smoothly. Then, place a name beside each task, making sure to divide the chores equitably.

Don’t forget to add your children’s names to tasks they are old enough to tackle or help with – from setting the table to washing the dishes to mowing the lawn to vacuuming the carpets.

“Not carrying your weight” extends to romance and intimacy; if one partner is the only one making romantic gestures, arranging date nights, or initiating sex, that will also take a toll on the marriage.

11. Financial Problems and Debt

Money has been tight for many couples over the last few years. Arguments about money can become nasty and vindictive – and if a couple lacks the communication skills to discuss their financial problems calmly and rationally, that can be a reason for divorce.

In a marriage, financial problems are not limited to carrying massive debt and/or being unable to cover necessities. When the way spouses think about money and debt – no matter how much or how little of it they actually have – are fundamentally incompatible, it can also cause the breakdown of a marriage.

If financial problems are your main issue, consider hiring an expert specializing in financial divorce issues. They could save money by recommending the most efficient property division, tax, and support strategies.

A divorce financial analyst can also provide scenarios extrapolating your cash flow and net worth 5, 10, or even 20 years into the future if you choose Settlement A vs. Settlement B.

12. Marrying Too Young

A study from the University of Utah suggests that the perfect age to get married is between 28 and 32 . This is because those who marry young most likely don’t fully grasp marriage. This could be a reason why a lot of young married couples get divorced.

About 46% of couples who get married young get divorced. Also, 48% of couples who marry before they turn 18 are most likely to get divorced in 10 years, compared to 25% of people who marry after the age of 25.

13. Lack of Shared Interests / Incompatibility Between Partners

Opposites may attract, but similarities are what bind. With no shared interests, you will either start spending less and less time with your spouse as you pursue your hobbies and passions or give them up in favor of your spouse’s interests.

Both of these strategies will build resentment and weaken the bond you share. If you hope to stay together, you will likely need marriage counseling and a willingness to compromise.

For example, if he loves bowling and she loves dancing, he could bowl with his buddies on Thursdays while she goes dancing with her girlfriends – and then they identify something they both love and do that on “Friday date night.”

This applies to every area of your shared life, from household chores to choosing which extracurricular activities their children will do. If you cannot reach a compromise that both of you can commit to, your incompatibility may lead to divorce.

14. Religious Differences

Religious beliefs and practices play a pivotal role in shaping an individual's worldview, values, and daily rituals.

When two partners come from different religious backgrounds, it can sometimes lead to disagreements on fundamental life choices, from dietary habits to child-rearing practices.

While many interfaith couples find ways to blend their beliefs and traditions, for others harmoniously, the differences can become a source of recurring conflict. The challenge often lies in reconciling deeply held beliefs and finding common ground, especially during significant life events or ceremonies.

In some cases, external pressures from family or the broader community can exacerbate these differences.

Religious differences can significantly lead to marital discord without open communication and mutual respect.

15. Parenting Differences

Parenting is one of the most rewarding yet challenging responsibilities a couple can undertake together.

Differences in parenting styles, stemming from individual upbringings, personal beliefs, or cultural backgrounds, can become a significant source of tension in a marriage. While one partner might advocate for a more disciplined approach, the other might lean towards a lenient and nurturing style.

These disparities can lead to disagreements, ranging from education choices to setting boundaries and disciplinary actions. As children grow and navigate different life stages, these differences can become more pronounced, especially if not addressed early on.

Effective co-parenting requires open communication, compromise, and a unified front. Without these, parenting differences can strain the marital relationship, leading to deeper misunderstandings and conflicts.

16. External Family Pressures

Marriage often means merging two families, bringing along a mix of expectations and traditions. External pressures from in-laws, cultural differences, or unsolicited advice can strain a marriage.

Balancing the couple's needs with extended family demands is crucial. Without clear boundaries and open communication, these pressures can lead to resentment, potentially pushing a couple toward divorce.

17. Unrealistic Expectations

Every individual enters marriage with a set of expectations, often shaped by personal experiences, societal norms, or portrayals in media. While some expectations are reasonable, others can be unrealistic, setting the stage for disappointment and conflict.

Whether it's about roles in the household, financial achievements, or emotional support, when reality doesn't align with these lofty ideals, it can lead to feelings of inadequacy and resentment. For a marriage to thrive, it's essential for partners to communicate openly, adjust expectations, and understand that perfection is unattainable.

Unrealistic expectations, if unchecked, can become a silent threat to marital harmony.

18. Trust Issues

Trust is the bedrock of any strong relationship, and its absence can create deep fissures in the foundation of a marriage. Trust issues can stem from past betrayals, misunderstandings, or personal insecurities.

Whether it's doubts about fidelity, financial decisions, or even smaller daily matters, a lack of trust can lead to constant second-guessing and surveillance. This atmosphere of suspicion can stifle open communication and intimacy.

For a marriage to overcome trust issues, it often requires open dialogue, understanding, and sometimes professional counseling. If not addressed, persistent trust issues can erode the bond between partners, making reconciliation challenging.

19. Supporting Each Other's Goals

In a marriage, individual aspirations don't disappear; they intertwine with shared dreams.

Supporting each other's goals is pivotal for mutual growth and fulfillment. When one partner feels their ambitions are sidelined or undervalued, it can lead to feelings of resentment and stagnation.

Whether it's career advancements, personal passions, or educational pursuits, acknowledging and championing these aspirations strengthens the marital bond. Conversely, neglecting or undermining a partner's goals can create a rift, making one feel unsupported or isolated.

Successful marriages often thrive on mutual respect and encouragement, ensuring both partners feel valued in their pursuits.

You May Also Like

Divorce Rates in the World: Divorce Rates by Country

10 Professions With The Highest Divorce Rate [Updated 2024]

50+ Divorce Statistics in the U.S., Including Divorce Rate, Race, & Marriage Length

Divorce Statistics in Florida

Your Guide to Do-It-Yourself Divorce

What Is a Contested Divorce? Everything You Need To Know

Does It Matter Who Files for Divorce First?

Divorce Statistics in Utah

Divorce Statistics in California

Divorce Statistics in Texas

The Cheapest Way to Get Divorced

The Different Types of Divorce

What Is an Uncontested Divorce? Everything You Need To Know

When to Walk Away After Infidelity: 7 Signs It Might Be Time To Leave

Step-by-Step Guide: How To File for Divorce Online

How To Respond to Divorce Papers Without an Attorney

How To Start the Divorce Process: Step-by-Step

What To Do if You Can’t Afford a Divorce Lawyer

Can You Get Divorced Without a Lawyer?

How To Get a Divorce With No Money: Low-Cost Divorce Solutions

Reduce time, cost, and conflict.

Learn about divorce online with Divorce.com

Request a call back

Fill out the form and our team will reach out to you..

When should we call you back?

Your request has been successfully submitted. We will call you back as you requested. In the meantime, you can check our resources page .

Divorce Essay: Causes and Effects

I hope you will enjoy reading this causes and effects of divorce essay. Also you should definitely visit our website Puressay.com , which is one of the best essay writing services. There you will find everything you are looking for. However, if there is something you are interested in and you do not see exactly what you want, in this case contact our team of professional writers and they will provide you with first-class original essay . Don’t waste your time and join us!

Divorce in a family

Why did not they manage to create happy family?

Causes of divorce in a family issue is relatively new, but already urgent problem. It became widespread only a couple of decades ago. According to the statistics, in 1950s only 3% of families got divorced, in ‘60s it was already 10%. In 1980s due to different reasons 33% of family could not avoid divorce. Today the number of divorces is about 45%. So there is no need to explain why this essay about divorce has much importance and must be read. Besides, young generation starts to forget what value family has and why they should try to save it.

Usually young families that exist for less than a year get divorced, also 1/3 of divorces happen in families that exist for 1 – 5 years. That is why the problem of divorces is the problem of young people.

Of course, there are cases when divorce is necessary, when husband and wife do not respect each other, do not love each other and do not take into consideration the opinion of each other, so in this case a man and a woman in a family are almost enemies. So how can it be possible to avoid divorce in such a family? Is it necessary at all? Trying to save the image of a happy family, parents may hurt emotionally their children.

There are about 120 children on a hundred divorced families. And in the most of cases children stay with their mothers. Besides, more than half of women do not marry for the second time, it means that there is no male influence on a child in the process of upbringing.

And our school much feminized lately can not replace the role of the father in a family. This fact leads to bad consequences.

One of the main reasons of unhappy family life and as a consequence of divorce is the fact that future husband and wife do not each other well enough before they decide to get married. When a young man and a young woman with similar opinions and interests meet each other, we can say that they are lucky. However, in most of cases people have to learn to live together, to adapt to family life. Unfortunately, not everyone has patience, desire and knowledge to do that.

Let’s look at the example of two families. In both families husband and wife are talented people. In both families they love each other. But the first family gets divorced, and the second one does not. What did lead to the divorce in the first family? In this family the wife did not see friend in her husband, did not consider him head of the family. She treated him as an enemy and used to think that children were a trap that her husband purposely made to become more successful in the life. So when he studied his postgraduate education, the wife decided to get divorced. In the second family the married couple supported each other. The wife decided not to chase after the husband. The husband continued to get education while she took café of the family. She said she did this for the family’s sake. The husband thanks to his wife’s support became professional and perspective scientist. As a result, the whole family got the benefit, what can not be said about the first one.

In the past you could often hear such a phrase: “On the family council we decided…” Why do we hear it so seldom today? Instead we can often hear about the competition between husband and wife, that they do not want to give way to their second half. And after that they naively think that they can create happy family and get family happiness.

About 40% of women and half of men after divorce create second marriage, so it means that the reason of divorce becomes the reasons of women’s loneliness.

Women after divorce in most of cases do not give birth again. So divorces have negative impact on the demographical situation. Young people so easily decide to get divorced and have very unserious attitude to the marriage, that it seems that divorce is a new fashion trend, and this is another unusual cause of divorce. Nowadays it is so easy to divorce, especially when a couple does not have children. Such a simple way of marriage annulation leads to irresponsible attitude to marriage itself.

Fashion in the sphere of family life is very dangerous. And not everyone realizes it. People often hide their own egoism behind love. It is so easy to blame love and jealousy, wife’s or husband’s bad temper.

Most of cases of divorce due to various reasons happen in the cities-millionaires. In such cities the family social control of relatives, grandfathers and grandmothers, neighbors, etc. is less strong. And young people more often and usually without much thinking get married. Also there is much higher number of venal and fictitious marriages, which very soon come to their end. Also many young girls and boys have to get married because they wait for a child.

Very often young people say that the family is destroyed but they can not say the exact reason. And you want to ask them: “Who were you in love : creators or destroyers? Whom did you become in fact?”

Causes of divorce

Research of the most common divorce reasons among young family gave the following result:

1st place. Cause of divorce is harmful habits, in particular the problem of alcoholism in a family (in most cases husband’s alcoholism);

2nd place. Cause of divorce is adultery of one of the spouses;

3rd place. Cause of divorce is light-minded, thoughtless decision to get married;

4th place. Cause of divorce is living conditions, problems related to them and lack of money;

5th place. Cause of divorce is conflicts in a family because of the parents.

There is another reason that should be mentioned. Everyone knows such a term as marriage of convenience. And everyone understands that the ground of the marriage is not love, but certain benefit of one of the spouses. In such a family in the first years or eve months of marriage the basic rules of mutual respect and moral principles are violated. And it is logically, because what is the base of marriage (material interest instead of feelings), that is the result of marriage. Conflicts in such a family begin from the very beginning, because there is no love and respect between the couple. People often forget that it is not possible to build happy marriage basing on material interest. Such spouses divorce because they have the material aspect, but the spiritual is absent.

The consequences of divorce

What does divorce for the married couple mean? Divorce is a painful phenomenon that leaves marks on a human soul, it is always catastrophe, tragedy that affects people sometimes for years. Divorced spouses sometimes miss each other, feel anxiety, despite the fact that they were the initiators of divorce and considered their family life unhappy. Even if they manage to keep good relationships, for a child divorce is always a catastrophe, it is a tragedy for the whole life, because child can be absolutely happy only having both of parents. Besides, scientists discovered that children of divorced parents in their adulthood divorce more often than children raised in full families.

Divorce is the process that causes much harm to a child, affects the mental health. Moreover, gils raised without father often begin to hate men in general. Divorce also has negative influence on the child’s discipline and the personality development. Children often start doing what they want, they usually have problems with friends, memory and school. Since the child is between parents, he /she will always suffer more than the parents.

Most of divorced men and women become supporters of free relationships because of their previous negative family experience. They also are afraid of the repetition of the situation, that is why they do not get married again.

So, now you see how much important it is to consider all the possible negative consequences of divorce before taking such a decision. Also young people should understand the whole responsibility when they decide to get married. Anyway, I hope that the situation with divorces will improve soon and that people will be more serious about marriage and family relationships.

Calculate Your Price

• Free Samples
• Popular topics

Recent posts

• Best Dissertation Writer: Stop Being Helpless
• Essay On Empathy: How Not to Lose Yourself
• Competent and Experienced Online Assignment Writing Service
• Papers Editing Services Help to Find Your Calling
• It Is Time to Order Best Dissertation Writing Services

Tired of endless home tasks on quarantine? No more worries!

Use your limited chance to get a special 22% OFF!

Apply the code "stayhome" while placing your order and enjoy the outstanding results!

Tia Mowry Dishes on 'Whirlwind Journey' of Recovering From Her and Cory Hardrict's Divorce

Tia Mowry got candid with her Instagram followers about her shocking split from Cory Hardrict .

On Wednesday, April 3, the star captioned a video essay “Resilience: the art of bouncing back, stronger than before ❤️,” where she reflected on navigating her divorce after 14 years of marriage.

" Recovering from a divorce feels like a whirlwind journey," the 45-year-old began alongside clips of herself enjoying life over the last few months. "I found out through the process that divorce isn't a place where we arrive, it's entering a new chapter in life with many nuances, and no one-size-fits-all handbook."

"One moment you're relieved, feeling like you've conquered something significant , then suddenly emotions hit you all over again," explained Mowry, who finalized her divorce from Hardrict in April 2023.

The mother-of-two — who shares son Cree , 12, and daughter Cairo , 5, with the actor — continued, "It's a side of divorce that isn't often discussed, especially when there are kids involved."

"You strive to be a role model, teaching them resilience and self-care. You try different things to soothe and release emotional buildup ," she noted. "Exercise, journaling your thoughts, meditation, and seeking therapy to cope with the breakup and the dreams you had for the future."

The Twitches star concluded by assuring one day she’ll "be able to look back on this time with nothing but warmth and gratitude for the beautiful children brought into my life and the stronger version of myself that emerged from the experience."

The exes announced they would be breaking up in October 2022 before they settled six months later.

In June 2023, Mowry gave a glimpse into why she decided to end her marriage.

"I'm chasing my authentic self, my potential. That's where the magic happens: when you are living your truth ," she said while speaking to Hello Beautiful . "That doesn’t mean that your truth is always going to be rainbows and Skittles. Joy and happiness is like a rollercoaster. What made me happy 10 years ago is different than what's making me happy now."

Never miss a story — sign up for the OK! newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what OK! has to offer. It’s gossip too good to wait for!

In March, Mowry and Hardrict had an unexpected run-in on the Essence Black Women in Hollywood Awards red carpet while speaking with reporters on the press line — however, the pair kept things cordial.

During the interaction, Mowry and Hardrict smiled wide and waved at each other before awkwardly hugging, which they both couldn’t help but acknowledge with a laugh.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Promoting Resilience in Youth from Divorced Families: Lessons Learned from Experimental Trials of the New Beginnings Program

This article focuses on the contributions that the program of research on the New Beginnings Program (NBP) has made to understanding pathways to resilience in youth who experience parental divorce. First, the research demonstrating that divorce increases risk for mental health, physical health and social adaptation problems is reviewed. Next, theory and research linking social environmental-level and youth-level modifiable risk factors and resilience resources to youth’s post-divorce adjustment are presented. The conceptual framework underlying the NBP and the risk factors and resilience resources targeted in this program are described next. The short-term and long-term results of two experimental, randomized efficacy trials of the NBP and moderators and mediators of its effects are then presented. Analyses that examine whether youth self-systems beliefs account for the links between program-induced changes in family-level resilience resources and positive long-term program on adaptation outcomes are presented and how experimental trials can be used to further theories of resilience for youth facing adversities is discussed. The final section describes directions for future research on the NBP.

Parental divorce is one of the most prevalent adversities experienced by adults and children in the U.S. Currently, nearly half of first marriages and about 60% of remarriages end in divorce ( Visher & Visher, 2003 ) and these divorces affect over 1.5 million youth each year ( US Census Bureau, 1999 ). Currently, 10 million children (14% of the population) live in divorced or separated households ( National Center for Health Statistics, 2005 ) and it is estimated that 34% of children in the U.S. will experience parental divorce before reaching age 16 ( Bumpass & Lu, 2000 ). The high prevalence of divorce means that its impact on population rates of problem outcomes is substantial ( Scott et al., 1999 ). Thus, understanding factors that affect children’s resilience after parental divorce not only has important theoretical but also significant public health implications.

Similar to Luthar, Cichetti and Becker (2000) and Masten (2001) , we conceptualize resilience as achieving positive outcomes in the context of significant adversity. We theorize that the effects of adversity and resources available to the individual are mediated through two common mechanisms -- the satisfaction of basic needs and the accomplishment of age-appropriate developmental competencies ( Sandler, 2001 ). Adversity is conceptualized as exposure to major life stressors that increase the probability of mental health, physical health or social adaptation problems. Resources are conceptualized as characteristics of individuals, families and communities, such as coping style and parenting. Resources and adversities are seen as dynamically affecting each other over time.

In this article, we present what we have learned about modifiable resilience resources of youth who have experienced parental divorce through our program of research on the New Beginnings Program (NBP). The NBP is a theory-based preventive intervention for divorced families that has been rigorously evaluated in two randomized experimental trials. Before describing these trials, we summarize the empirical work on the risk that parental divorce confers for mental health, physical health and social adaptation problems across development and discuss the empirically-supported, modifiable risk factors and resilience resources associated with children’s post-divorce adaptation. Next, we articulate the conceptual framework underlying the development of the NBP, briefly discuss the format and nature of the program and the research on its short-term and long-term effects and moderators and mediators of these effects. We then illustrate how data from intervention trials can be used to further theories of resilience by presenting analyses that test whether self-systems beliefs are a pathway to resilience linking program-induced improvements in mother-child relationship quality and positive adolescent outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of directions for research.

Risks conferred by parental divorce

It is well documented that parental divorce can have serious negative effects on child and adolescent functioning. Meta-analyses of 92 studies published through the 1980s ( Amato & Keith, 1991 ) and 67 studies in the 1990s ( Amato, 2001 ) showed that youth in divorced families had more conduct, internalizing, social, and academic problems than those in non-divorced families. These differences occurred across age and gender and were slightly larger in more recent studies. Although less well studied, divorce has also been shown to be associated with higher levels of children’s physical health problems (see Troxel & Matthews, 2004 ). Adolescents in divorced families are more likely than those in non-divorced families to report elevated levels of drug and alcohol use (e.g., Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994 ; Hoffmann & Johnson, 1998 ) and are two to three times more likely than their counterparts in non-divorced families to experience clinically significant levels of mental health problems, receive mental health services (e.g., Hetherington et al., 1992 ), drop out of school ( McLanahan, 1999 ), leave home early, cohabitate, and experience premarital childbearing ( Goldscheider & Goldscheider, 1998 ; Hetherington, 1999 ). Illustratively, Hetherington et al. (1992) reported that 35% of adolescent girls and 20% of adolescent boys whose parents divorced in childhood scored in the clinical range on mental health problems versus 4% of girls and 4% of boys in non-divorced families. McLanahan’s (1999) analysis of 10 national probability samples revealed school dropout rates of 31% and teen birth rates of 33% for adolescents in divorced families versus 13% and 11%, respectively, for adolescents in non-divorced families.

A large body of research has shown that parental divorce in childhood or adolescence also increases risk for a wide array of problems in adulthood. Adults who experienced divorce in childhood have lower educational and occupational attainment (e.g., Biblarz & Gottainer, 2000 ; Hetherington, 1999 ), more economic and employment problems (e.g., Caspi et al., 1998 ), poorer marital quality (e.g., Amato & Booth, 1991 ) and higher rates of divorce (e.g., Webster & Herzog, 1995 ) than those from non-divorced families. Further, multiple prospective studies with epidemiologic samples have shown that parental divorce is associated with substantial increases in clinical levels of mental health problems, substance abuse, mental health services use, and psychiatric hospitalization in adulthood ( Chase-Lansdale et al., 1995 ; Kessler et al., 1997 ; Maekikyroe et al., 1998 ; Rodgers et al., 1997 ; Zill et al., 1993 ). Parental divorce also increases risk for physical health problems ( Amato & Keith, 1991b ; Hemminki & Chen, 2006 ; Maier & Lachman, 2000 ). For example, in a national probability sample, Maier and Lachman (2000) found that parental divorce was related to increased chronic health problems for men and acute health problems for men and women at midlife. Also, adults whose parents divorced before they were age 21 experienced a 44% increase in mortality risk, controlling for childhood personality and own divorce; their life span was four years shorter than that of their peers from non-divorced families ( Schwartz et al., 1995 ).

The concept of population attributable fraction (PAF; maximum proportion of an outcome due to a risk factor or percent of cases that could be prevented by removing it) provides an important perspective on the public health burden of major life stressors. In the case of divorce, PAF refers to the impact of reducing the effects of pathognomonic processes associated with divorce rather than preventing the divorce. Using relative risk (RR) figures from prospective studies of a national probability sample that controlled for pre-divorce stressors, SES, and child’s vocabulary score ( Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994 ; Zill et al., 1993 ), Wolchik, MacKinnon and Sandler (2006) computed PAFs of 36% (RR= 2.38) for clinical levels of mental health problems between ages 18-22, 30% (RR=2.08) for teen pregnancy, and 23% (RR=1.75) for school dropout. In other words, 36% of cases of mental health problems in early adulthood, 30% of teen pregnancies, and 23% of school dropouts could be prevented by eliminating the effects of harmful processes associated with divorce. Using Odds Ratios from Kessler et al.’s (1997) study to determine the size of the relation of parental divorce and mental disorders in adulthood and controlling for demographics, prior disorders, and adversities, the PAFs are sizeable. For example, the PAFs are 31% and 20% for dysthymia and drug dependence, respectively ( Wolchik et al., 2006 ). Thus, a substantial proportion of significant mental health and social adaptation problems in youth whose parents divorce could be prevented by reducing the risks associated with this family transition.

There is some controversy about the extent to which the negative outcomes associated with parental divorce reflect dysfunctional processes that arise before parental separation, such as interparental conflict and parental mental health and substance use problems (Cherlin et al., 1991; Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994 ; Needle et al., 1990). For example, Block et al. (1986) provide evidence that problems in boys who later experience parental divorce predate the divorce by up to 11 years. Cherlin et al. (1991) show that by controlling for predivorce functioning at age 7, the effects of divorce at age 11 are substantially reduced, particularly for boys. However, in several other prospective studies, the effects of divorce remain significant after controlling for family-level variables or predivorce child functioning (e.g., Acock & Kiecolt, 1989; Chase-Landsdale, et al., 1995 ; Furstenberg & Teitler; Needle et al.; Zill, et al., 1993 ). For example, controlling for emotional and school-related problems at age 7, Chase-Lansdale et al. (1995) reported a 39% increase in the likelihood of meeting the clinical cutoff for psychological problems in young adults who experienced parental divorce in childhood.

It is important to note that although parental divorce is associated with significant elevations in risk for a wide array of problems at each stage of development, there is marked variability in children’s and adolescents’ responses to parental divorce (e.g., Hetherington, 1989 ; Sandler, Wolchik & Braver, 1988 ). Although almost all youth are highly distressed after parental divorce, most do not manifest serious mental health, physical health or social adaptation problems as a result of the divorce (e.g., Amato, 2001 ; Amato & Keith, 1991 ). Across multiple studies, about 70 to 75% of youth from divorced families did not experience clinically significant mental health problems (e.g., Hetherington, Bridges & Insabella, 1998 ; Wolchik et al., 2006 ).

Role of risk factors and resilience resources in post-divorce adaptation outcomes

In the context of the significant public health burden associated with divorce, the variability in adaptation outcomes has prompted researchers to examine factors that affect children’s post-divorce outcomes. There is currently a large body of work that has demonstrated links between children’s adaptation outcomes after parental divorce and social environmental-level and youth-level risk factors and resilience resources. In our summary, we focus on risk factors and resilience resources that are potentially modifiable because of our interest in developing interventions to promote resilience.

Social-environmental risk factors and resilience resources

A large body of research has shown that interparental conflict is one of the most damaging aspects of divorce (e.g., Amato & Keith, 1991b ; Grych, 2005 ). In addition, researchers have consistently shown that the occurrence of other stressful events that often happen after parental divorce predicts children’s post-divorce externalizing and internalizing problems and mental disorder cross-sectionally and longitudinally ( Sandler, Tein & West, 1994 ; Stolberg & Anker, 1983 ; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein & Sandler, 2000 ). Stressful events that are common after parental divorce include moving, changing schools, spending less time with the non-custodial parent (in most families, the father [ Kelly, 2006 ]), parental distress, mother beginning work outside the home or increasing hours of employment, and parents beginning new romantic relationships.

There is strong, consistent empirical support for the protective effect of high quality mother-child relationships (e.g., Amato & Keith, 1991 ; Kelly & Emery, 2003 ; Wolchik, Sandler, Weiss, & Winslow, 2007 ). Mother-child relationships that are characterized by warmth, supportiveness, effective problem-solving skills, positive communication, and low levels of conflict and negativity are consistently associated with lower mental health problems and positive social adaptation outcomes following divorce (e.g., Hetherington et al., 1992 ; Simons et al., 1996 ; Simons, Lin, Gordon, Conger & Lorenz, 1999 ; Wolchik et al., 2000 ). Maternal discipline that is consistent and appropriate, rather than punitive, also facilitates children’s post-divorce adjustment ( Forgatch et al., 1988 ; Wolchik et al., 2000 ). Although most of the research on this resilience resource has examined direct relations between maternal parenting and children’s post-divorce adjustment, a few studies have shown that high quality parenting mitigates the negative effect of divorce-related stressors on mental health problems ( Camara & Resnick, 1987 ; Hetherington, Cox & Cox, 1982 ; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein & Sandler, 2000 ). For example, Wolchik, Wilcox et al. (2000) showed that relations between divorce stressors and internalizing problems and externalizing problems were stronger for children who reported both low acceptance and low consistency of discipline than for those who reported either high consistency of discipline and low acceptance or high acceptance and low consistency of discipline. Children with high levels of both acceptance and consistent discipline had the lowest levels of adjustment problems.

Although not as well studied as the mother-child relationship, there is growing support for the importance of the father-child relationship in children’s post-divorce adjustment. Studies on the amount of contact between non-residential fathers and children have yielded mixed results ( Amato & Gilbreth, 1999 ; Whiteside & Becker, 2000 ; King, 1994 ). However, there is consistent support for a significant association between father-child relationship quality and children’s positive post-divorce adaptation outcomes ( Amato & Gilbreth, 1999 ; Amato & Fowler, 2002 ). In Amato and Gilbreth’s (1999) meta-analyses, the dimensions of the father-child relationship that involved feelings of closeness and authoritative parenting were significantly related to better academic success and lower levels of externalizing problems and internalizing problems.

In one of the few studies to examine the joint effects of parenting by mothers and fathers, King and Sobolewski (2006) found that high quality, responsive parenting of fathers and mothers was significantly related to lower levels of children’s post-divorce mental health problems, even after accounting for the quality of the relationship with the other parent. These researchers also compared adjustment outcomes of children who had a positive relationship with one parent, both parents, or neither parent. Similar to the findings of other researchers (e.g., Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1991 ), they found that having a positive relationship with either the mother or father was associated with fewer mental health problems compared to not having a close relationship with either parent. More recently, Sandler, Miles, Cookston and Braver (2008) found that high levels of warmth in mother-child and father-child relationships independently predicted fewer externalizing problems. For internalizing problems, the relation between problems and warmth differed depending on level of interparental conflict. In families with high conflict, children had lower internalizing problems when there was high warmth in mother-child relationship or father-child relationship, even if warmth in the relationship with the other parent was low. In families with low conflict, high warmth in the father-child relationship was significantly associated with fewer internalizing problems when warmth in the mother-child relationship was high but not when warmth in the mother-child relationship was low.

Youth-level risk factors and resilience resources

Researchers have identified several youth-level factors that predict post-divorce adaptation. There is evidence that how children appraise and cope with divorce stressors is predictive of mental health outcomes. Using a short-term longitudinal design, Sheets, Sandler, and West (1996) found that appraisals that events involved a high level of threat were related to higher levels of mental health problems. Also, the use of avoidant coping has been shown to be related to higher mental health problems ( Armistead, McCombs, Forehand, Wierson, Long, & Fauber, 1990 ; Sandler et al., 1994 ) whereas the use of coping strategies that involve problem focused coping and positive reframing related to lower mental health problems after parental divorce ( Sandler et al.,1994 ; Sandler, Tein, Mehta, Wolchik, & Ayers, 2000 ). Further, coping efficacy, a global belief that one can deal both with the demands made and emotions aroused by a situation, has been shown to relate to lower internalizing problems ( Sandler et al., 2000 ). Using a measure in which children from divorced families rated how much they would have positive or negative thoughts in response to stressors commonly experienced by children in divorced families, such as parental arguments, Mazur, Wolchik and Sandler (1992) found that positive illusions were related to lower mental health problems and negative cognitive errors were related to higher mental health problems, controlling for the effects of recent stressful events. In another sample, Mazur, Wolchik, Virdin, Sandler and West (1999) found that positive illusions buffered the effects of stressful divorce events on child report of depression and mother report of externalizing problems. In addition, negative cognitive errors amplified the relations between stressful divorce events and both mother and child report of internalizing problems and externalizing problems for older children (mean age =11.5) but not younger children (mean age= 9.3).

There is also evidence that children’s self-systems beliefs about social relatedness, self-worth and control predict post-divorce adjustment. For example, several researchers have found that concerns about social relatedness, defined as fear of abandonment, predict higher levels of mental health problems ( Kurdek & Berg, 1987 ; Wolchik et al., 1993 ; Wolchik, Tein, Sandler & Doyle, 2002 ). Sandler (2000) reported that self-worth was significantly related to depression and externalizing problems in children from divorced families. Studying control beliefs, Fogas, Wolchik, Braver, Freedom and Bay (1992) found that higher levels of internal locus of control were related to lower levels of internalizing problems. Sandler, Kim-Bae and MacKinnon (2000) found that low levels of unknown control beliefs for positive events mitigated the relation between stressors and psychological symptoms and that lower levels of unknown control beliefs for positive as well as negative events were related to fewer psychological symptoms.

Nearly all the studies of the risk factors and resilience resources for youth in divorced families have used correlational or nonexperimental designs and thus causal inferences about the relations between these variables and children’s post-divorce adaptation cannot be drawn ( Cole & Maxwell, 2003 ). Randomized experimental trials of preventive interventions that assess changes in children’s adaptation and in the risk factors and resilience resources targeted by the intervention provide a rare opportunity to strengthen the ability to draw causal inferences ( Cole & Maxwell, 2003 ; Hinshaw, 2002; Howe, Reiss & Yuh, 2002 ; Rutter, 2005 ; Rutter, Pickles, Murray, & Eaves, 2001 ; Sandler et al., 2006 ). If an intervention has a positive impact on children’s adaptation outcomes in a well-conducted randomized experimental trial, and the intervention effects on the outcomes are accounted for by changes in the risk factors, resilience resources or both, inferences about the causal nature of the relations between the risk factors and resilience resources and adaptation outcomes are strengthened over what can be inferred from correlational studies. This is because randomization to the experimental and control conditions makes it unlikely that third variables (e.g., biological factors such as shared genes; psychosocial variables, such as parental stress; economic factors, such as poverty) account for the relations between program-induced changes in the risk factors and resilience resources and program-induced changes in the adaptation outcomes (e.g., Rutter, 2005 ). In this next section, we describe the theory and development of the NBP, format and nature of the program, and findings of research on its short-term and long-term effects and moderators and mediators of these effects.

The NBP: An experimental study of risk factors and resilience resources in divorced families

Theory and development of the nbp.

The NBP was developed in the mid 80′s and has been evaluated in two experimental trials (For details of these trials, see Wolchik et al., 1993 ; 2000 ; 2002 ; Wolchik et al, 2007 ). To date, we have examined the short-term program effects in both trials and conducted a six-year follow-up of one of them. We are currently collecting 15-year follow-up data.

The development of the NBP involved several steps. First, we examined the literature for theories on positive adaptation in the face of parental divorce and other adversities and identified empirically-supported potentially modifiable risk factors and resilience resources associated with positive post-divorce adaptation. Second, we conducted generative studies and conducted secondary data analyses to provide further insight into the processes that influence post-divorce adaptation. Next, we developed an intervention to affect these risk factors and resilience resources and evaluated it in randomized field trials.

The conceptual model underlying our research on the NBP combines elements from a person-environment transactional framework and a risk and protective factor model. Our model posits that dynamic person-environment interactions underlie individual development across time. Changes in social environmental-level and youth-level risk factors (e.g., interparental conflict, avoidant coping) and resilience resources (e.g., high quality mother-child relationships, active coping) are viewed as shaping the development of adaptation problems and competencies in an individual, which in turn influence the social environment and development of competencies and adaptation problems at later developmental stages (e.g., Cicchetti & Schneider-Rosen, 1986 ; Sameroff, 1975 ; 2000 ).

Although not available at the time the NBP was developed, Cummings, Davies and Campbell’s (2000) “cascading pathway model” has provided a useful developmental framework for our research on the long-term effects of the NBP. From this perspective, adversities such as divorce can lead to an unfolding of failures to resolve developmental tasks, increased susceptibility to mental health problems and impairment in developmental competencies. In this framework, the resilience resource of high quality parenting plays a central role in facilitating successful adaptation after divorce. Further, the skills and resources developed in the early post-divorce period are seen as providing important tools and resources for coping with future challenges. Dynamic interactions between children’s successful adaptation and the skills developed and resources available to them are hypothesized to lead to a positive cascade of adaptive functioning in multiple domains over time. For example, high quality mother-child relationships may lead to lower levels of externalizing problems, which increase the likelihood of positive interactions with mothers, fathers and peers which may lead to further improvements in externalizing problems over time.

The NBP was designed to promote positive adaptation after divorce by reducing children’s exposure to risk factors and increasing their resilience resources. We defined positive adaptation as experiencing low levels of mental health problems and accomplishing developmentally appropriate tasks. The development of the NBP was guided by a “small theory” ( Lipsey, 1990 ) approach. Our use of the term small theory is based on two features. First, small theory specifies a model of precursors of positive adaptation based on theory and empirical (usually correlational) evidence ( West & Aiken, 1997 ). To maximize the chances of impacting positive adaptation, processes are selected based on data demonstrating that they are related to outcomes and are potentially modifiable. These processes are called putative mediators because changing them is predicted to lead to changes in post-divorce adaptation. Second, the public health objective of promoting positive adaptation is a central goal. Thus, program developers who use this model are primarily concerned with maximizing program effects on outcomes by targeting multiple processes in the program ( Rothman, 1980 ).

There are significant advantages of using a small theory approach to program design. First, developing a small theory serves an important heuristic role by forcing program developers to specify central processes hypothesized to underlie the development of adaptation problems. Once these processes are specified, their plausibility can be probed by using existing data sets ( West , Sandler, Pillow, Bacca & Gersten, 1991 ). Second, the identification of potentially modifiable processes allows for efficient program design by targeting processes that are most likely to impact desired outcomes. Third, the small theory, in combination with a careful evaluation of implementation of the program, offers guidance for program revision. This information helps distinguish between intervention components that were too weak or poorly implemented to have an effect and those that were well implemented but did not have their theoretically intended effect. Fourth, analyses identifying processes that account for program effects can be used to identify the “core components” to be preserved in adaptations for cultural groups not well represented in the trial as well as in disseminated versions ( West & Aiken, 1997 ). Finally, evidence that experimentally-induced change in putative mediators accounts for program effects on adaptation outcomes provides stronger support for the causal effects of these variables than that from passive correlational studies (e.g., Patterson & Fisher, 2002 ; Sandler, Wolchik et al., 1997 ). Such tests of the underlying small theory can add to our understanding of the basic processes that affect children’s response to adversity ( Coie et al., 1993 ).

The small theory articulates both a psychosocial theory (links between the putative mediators and adaptation outcomes based on theories of problem development and psychosocial research) and a program theory (links between the putative mediators and change strategies based on theories of behavior change and intervention research) ( West & Aiken, 1997 ). The psychosocial theory of the NBP was based on the transitional events perspective ( Felner, Farber, & Primavera, 1983 ; Felner, Terre, & Rowlinson, 1988 ; Kurdek, 1981 ) and empirical work on the modifiable correlates of children’s post-divorce adjustment problems. From the transitional events perspective, divorce is viewed as a process that leads to the occurrence of multiple stressors in children’s social and physical environments (such as spending less time with their father and interparental conflict), and adaptation problems are viewed as a consequence of both the stressful events that occur and the social environmental- and youth-level resilience resources available to the children (e.g., Felner et al., 1983 ; Kurdek, 1981 ; Sandler, Wolchik, & Braver, 1988 ).

This framework was used to organize the research findings available at the time we developed NBP. These findings provided consistent empirical support for significant associations between children’s adaptation outcomes after divorce and the following risk factors and resilience resources: (a) quality of the child’s relationship with the custodial parent (e.g., Hetherington, Cox & Cox, 1982 ; Stolberg & Bush, 1985 ); (b) effective discipline (e.g., Santrock & Warshak, 1979 ); (c) contact between the child and the noncustodial parent (e.g., Guidubaldi et al., 1986 ; Warren et al., 1984 ); (d) interparental conflict (e.g, Hetherington et al., 1978 ; Stolberg & Anker, 1983 ); and (e) contact with and support from non-parental adults ( Guidubaldi & Cleminshaw, 1983 ; Santrock & Warshak, 1979 ). As noted earlier, the research published since the NBP was developed has provided additional support for the importance of these risk factors and resilience resources for children’s post-divorce adaptation.

Figure 1 shows that in our conceptual model, these risk factors and resilience resources are negatively affected by parental divorce but positively changed by the NBP and that the program-induced changes in these putative mediators are hypothesized to affect youth adaptation outcomes. Most of the risk factors and resilience resources for which there was consistent empirical support when we developed the NBP were in the parent’s rather than the child’s control. Thus, we selected mothers, given that they are the primary residential parents in most divorced families, to be the change agents. The intervention was designed to teach mothers skills to affect the above five risk factors and resilience resources. Changes in these variables were expected to lead to positive changes in children’s post-divorce adaptation outcomes. Figure 2 depicts the program theory component of the NBP, which specifies the links between the targeted risk factors and resilience resources and intervention strategies. As shown, for each putative mediator, multiple change strategies were employed. When possible, the intervention strategies used were based on techniques that researchers had demonstrated changed the targeted risk factors and resilience resources.

Links between Divorce, Risk Factors and Resilience Resources Targeted in NBP and Youth Adaptation Outcomes.

Change Strategies for each Putative Mediator

Format and nature of the NBP

In both trials, the program was delivered to primary residential mothers in a group format. Two masters’ level co-leaders conducted groups that consisted of 8 to 10 mothers. The program included 11 weekly group sessions (1.75 hours each) and two additional individual sessions (1 hour each) that were designed to tailor program skills to each mother’s family. The program was cognitive-behavioral in orientation with a strong emphasis on skills acquisition and enhancement. All sessions were highly structured and included both didactic and experiential components. Weekly home practice assignments were given in which mothers used the program skills with their children. Home practice was cumulative so that skills taught early in the program were continued in later sessions. To ensure high fidelity, sessions were delivered using detailed manuals and extensive training and supervision were provided.

The content of the program was highly similar in the two trials. About half of the sessions focused on improving the quality of the mother-child relationship and about a third addressed effective discipline. The program activities were designed to affect several dimensions of the mother-child relationship, including responsiveness, closeness, acceptance, support, reinforcement for positive behaviors, and its general affective nature. The segment on discipline focused on monitoring misbehavior, developing and using age-appropriate expectations, communicating these expectations clearly, and using appropriate and consistent consequences. The segment on interparental conflict included teaching mothers several ways to reduce children’s exposure to interparental conflict, including anger management skills. Contact between the father and child was addressed in the second individual session, during which mothers and leaders worked collaboratively to decrease obstacles to visitation. The program in the first trial targeted increases in the amount and quality of support children received from nonparental adults (e.g., aunts, mother’s friend). This component was dropped in the second trial to increase the amount of time focused on discipline. Additional details on the nature of the program and intervention strategies can be found in Wolchik et al. (2007) .

Evaluation of the NBP

The NBP has been evaluated in two randomized, experimental trials. The first one, conducted in 1986 and 1987, was a small-scale trial (N = 70; target child age range = 8-15 yrs) that used an intervention versus wait list control group design. The second larger trial (N = 240; target child age range = 9-12 yrs), conducted in 1991 through 1994, was designed not only to assess whether the positive program effects achieved in the initial trial could be replicated and whether these effects persisted over time, but also to determine whether the addition of a children’s group produced additive effects. Because this trial included several follow-up assessments, a literature control group was used as the comparison condition. The orientation of the children’s group was cognitive-behavioral and focused on skill acquisition and enhancement. This component targeted increasing effective coping, reducing negative thoughts about divorce stressors, and improving mother-child relationship quality. Mothers and children in the control group each received three books on children’s divorce adjustment and a syllabus to guide their reading. Analyses comparing the mother-only to the mother plus child condition revealed that adding the child group did not increase program benefits on any mental health outcome beyond the effects of the mother program alone (Wolchik et al., 2000 ; 2007 ). Thus, our discussion of the results focuses on the mother program.

In both trials, families were recruited primarily through random sampling of court records for divorce filings of families with children. Media articles, presentations to school personnel and word of mouth were also used. In the second trial, mothers who expressed interest in the program participated in an in-home recruitment visit. Multiple eligibility criteria were used in both studies, including the divorce occurred within the past two years, the mother did not plan to remarry during the course of the study, and neither the mother nor the child was in treatment for psychological problems at the time. In the first trial families were eligible if there was at least one child between 8 and 15 years old. Because of the child component in the second trial, the age range was narrowed to 9 to 12 years old. See Wolchik et al. ( 1993 ; 2002 ) for additional eligibility criteria. Because the intervention was designed to be preventive, families were excluded if the child had test scores indicating clinical levels of depression or extreme levels of externalizing problems or endorsed an item about suicidal ideation. These families were referred for treatment.

In both trials, nearly all the mothers were Caucasian (90 %; 88%). About three-fourths of the mothers in the first trial and half in the second trial had completed some college courses. Most mothers had sole maternal legal custody (74%; 63%). Of the families that met the eligibility criteria in the second trial, 36% were randomly assigned to condition.

In the second trial, families that participated in the in-home recruitment visit but were not interested in the intervention study were asked to complete an interview (63% agreed; Refusal Group [RG]; n=70) Comparisons of the RG and those assigned to condition on 27 demographic, putative mediator and mental health outcome variables revealed three significant differences: acceptors had higher maternal education, higher family income and fewer children than RG families.

Analyses for both trials were conducted using an intent-to-treat design, such that all participants who were randomized to condition were included in the analyses, regardless of their level of attendance in the program. Attendance in both trials was high and did not differ significantly across condition. Retention in the assessments was extremely high in both trials. Illustratively, in the second trial, 98% of the participants randomly assigned to condition completed the 3- and 6-month follow-ups and 91% completed the 6-year follow-up. Assessments at each time point included multiple measures of the targeted mediators as well as youth’s adaptation outcomes.

Short-term Findings

The initial trial revealed positive program effects at post-test on the putative mediators of mother-child relationship quality, effective discipline, divorce stressors, and father-child contact (i.e., mothers’ willingness to change visitation) ( Wolchik et al, 1993 ). For mother-child relationship quality, divorce stressors and discipline, program effects were moderated by baseline functioning such that program benefits were greatest for families with poorer initial functioning. Importantly, positive program effects occurred for youths’ mental health problems. Similar to the pattern of effects for the putative mediators, program effects were stronger for those youth with higher initial levels of mental health problems.

The positive findings observed at post-test in the initial trial were replicated in the second trial ( Wolchik et al., 2000 ). Significant program main effects occurred for the putative mediators of effective discipline, as assessed by questionnaire, and a behavioral observation measure of mother-child relationship quality. Program by baseline interactions for questionnaire measures of mother-child relationship quality and father-child contact (i.e., maternal attitudes toward the father-child relationship) were also significant. Program benefits were greater for families with poorer initial functioning. For mother/child reported externalizing problems, there was a significant program by baseline interaction indicating that program benefits were greatest for those with higher initial problems. There was also a significant main effect to improve mother/child report of internalizing problems. However, according to teacher report, the mother program led to higher internalizing problems relative to the literature control. The proportion of children scoring below the clinical cutoff point for internalizing or externalizing problems (Child Behavior Checklist; Achenbach, 1991 ) was significantly higher in the mother program condition (82%) than in the literature control condition (72%). Analyses of 6-month follow-up data revealed a significant program by baseline interaction for mother/child and teacher reports of externalizing problems. Program benefits were greatest for those with higher baseline problems.

Long-term Findings

The 6-year follow-up was conducted when the youth were in mid-to-late adolescence. Post-hoc comparisons of the effects of the mother program versus the mother-plus-child program on children’s mental health problems at post-test, 3-month follow-up and 6-month follow-up revealed that only one of tests of main or interactive effects was significant or marginal ( Wolchik et al., 2007 ). Thus, at 6 year follow-up, the mother program and mother plus child program conditions were combined and compared to the literature control to provide a more parsimonious perspective on the long-term findings. Because previous analyses had also consistently shown that program benefit was greater for families who had poorer functioning at baseline, an empirically-derived composite risk index was created and used as the baseline covariate and the risk by program interaction was included in all models. The risk index was composed of the variables assessed at baseline that were significant predictors of multiple adolescent outcomes in the literature control group ( Dawson-McClure, Sandler, Millsap & Wolchik, 2004 ). This index included standardized scores on baseline measures of externalizing problems and a composite of environmental stress (i.e., interparental conflict, negative life events, maternal distress, reduced contact with father, current per capita annual income).

In terms of the pitative mediators, a significant interactive effect occurred for mother-adolescent relationship quality; program benefits were greater for families with higher baseline risk. There were positive program effects on a wide range of developmentally salient outcomes; significant main and/or interactive effects were found for 12 of the 15 outcomes tested ( Wolchik et al., 2007 ). Significant positive main effects were found for grade point average, number of sexual partners, and percent of adolescents with a mental disorder in the past year. Illustratively, 14.8% of adolescents in the NBP had a mental disorder in the past year (assessed with the DISC) versus 23.5% of those in the control group. Interactive effects were found for parent/adolescent reported internalizing problems, parent/adolescent reported externalizing, teacher reported externalizing problems, symptoms of mental disorder, alcohol use, marijuana use, other drug use, polydrug use and competence. As in previous analyses, program benefits were greater for those with higher baseline risk.

In addition to assessing whether there were differences between the control and NBP conditions on the putative mediators and mental health and social adaptation outcomes, we assessed whether the magnitude of the program effects changed over time. Theoretically, the effects of preventive interventions may remain stable, decrease over time, or increase over time. Effects of an intervention, particularly a relatively short one such as the NBP, may fade over time as the positive short- term effects on risk factors and resilience resources are counteracted by multiple life changes that occur independently of the intervention, such as new significant adults entering the family, economic changes, and changes in friendships. Alternatively, the immediate improvements in risk factors and resilience resources and improvements in mental health problems may have positive cascading effects. Improvements in mental health problems can lead to more positive interactions with family members and peers, which could further strengthen both social environmental-level and youth-level resilience resources, which then in turn positively affect adaptation outcomes.

To examine the nature of change in the magnitude of program effects over time, we selected variables that were assessed with the same measures at all time points. The effect sizes for these variables were plotted for the high risk group at post-test, short-term (3- and 6- month) follow-up, and 6-year follow-up. As shown in Figure 3a , for discipline and relationship quality, the effect sizes decreased from post-test to short-term follow-up and then increased somewhat from short-term to 6-year follow-up. For active coping, the effect size showed a sizeable increase from short-term to 6-year follow-up. A similar pattern of change occurred for self-esteem. The growth in program effects for active coping and self-esteem is consistent with a cascading pathways model in which changes in social-environmental-level resources, such as mother-child relationship quality, at one point in development promote increases in youth-level resources, such as self-esteem, at later developmental stages. Growth in the magnitude of program effects also occurred for the mental health outcomes. As shown in Figure 3b , for both parent/adolescent and teacher reports of externalizing problems, effect sizes at 6-year follow-up were considerably larger than those at post-test or short-term follow-up. For parent/adolescent report of internalizing problems, the growth in effect size occurred between the short-term and 6-year follow-ups. These patterns of change are consistent with a cascading pathways model in which program-induced changes increase over time.

Figure 3a Changes in the Magnitude of Program Effects across Time—Putative Mediators. Figure 3b Changes in the Magnitude of Program Effects across Time—Adaptation Outcomes.

Mediational Analysis

Short- and long-term mediational analyses were conducted to test the theoretical proposition that program-induced changes in putative mediators would account for improvements in adaptation outcomes. Findings from the initial trial revealed that program effects on mental health problems at post-test were mediated by mother-child relationship quality ( Wolchik et al, 1993 ). In the second trial, analyses revealed that the program effects on internalizing problems at post-test were mediated by improvements in mother-child relationship quality, and the program effects on externalizing problems at post-test and 6 month follow-up were mediated by improvements in mother-child relationship quality and effective discipline (Tein, Sandler, MacKinnon, & Wolchik, 2004). Mediation was primarily present for families with poorer baseline functioning (i.e., poorer mother-child relationship quality and/or higher externalizing problems). The results of the mediational analyses for the 6-year program effects showed that program-induced changes in effective discipline at post-test mediated the positive program effects on grade point average, regardless of risk status (Zhou, Sandler, Millsap & Wolchik, in press). For the high baseline risk families only, improvements in mother-child relationship quality at post-test mediated the positive program effects on symptoms of mental disorder, internalizing problems, and externalizing problems in adolescence. In all tests of mediation, mediation was partial rather than complete.

Furthering our understanding of pathways to resilience: Exploring mechanisms of action of family-level resilience resources

Contextual resilience model.

Although the mediation analyses described above indicate that mother-child relationship quality and effective discipline partially accounted for several of the program effects on adaptation outcomes at post-test and the short-term and six-year follow-ups, these mediational relations do not completely describe the pathways through which improvements in mental health problems and academic performance occurred. Using a contextual resilience model ( Sandler, 2001 ; Sandler, Wolchik & Ayers, 2008 ), we recently completed analyses to explicate further the processes through which program-induced changes in mother-child relationship quality account for program effects on adolescent outcomes. In this model, similar to other ecological models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Kurdek, 1981 ; Wyman et al., 2000 ), youth are viewed as active agents who are nested within the contexts of family, community, and culture. In each level, there are risk factors and resilience resources that can exacerbate or mitigate the effects of major life events on adaptation outcomes, and risk factors and resilience resources are viewed as mutually influencing each other within and across levels. Youth are seen as actively construing themselves in relation to their social contexts of family, community and culture around the fulfillment of basic needs through self-system beliefs, which reflect the degree of satisfaction of basic needs. Changes in the level of satisfaction of these needs are proposed to affect adaptation outcomes.

Applying this model to parental divorce, we propose that the stressors that occur following the divorce, such as increased conflict between the parents and change in residence and schools, threaten the satisfaction of three basic needs: positive self-worth, social relatedness and control. We also argue that resilience resources promote need satisfaction directly or by mitigating the negative effects of stressors on need satisfaction. Similar to the cascading pathways model, positive changes in risk factors and resilience resources are viewed as having a dynamic influence on other social environmental-level as well as youth-level variables over time, leading to more effective satisfaction of youths’ basic needs and further improvements in adaptation outcomes. Further, competencies developed in the process of adapting to stressful events provide important resources for coping with future challenges.

As discussed earlier, our previous research has provided support for the role of these three self-systems beliefs in children’s post-divorce adaptation. In a cross-sectional model, Fogas et al. (1992) found that locus of control partially mediated the relations between divorce stressors and depression and anxiety and Sandler, Kim-Bae and MacKinnon (2000) found that unknown control beliefs significantly mediated the relation between stressors and psychological symptoms. Sandler’s (2000) cross-sectional analyses provided support for self-esteem as a mediator of the relation between adversity (defined as recent negative events, economic poverty, parent demoralization and interparental conflict) and depression. Focusing on the need for social relatedness, Wolchik, Tein, Sandler and Doyle (2002) tested a model in which the effects of divorce stressors and mother-child relationship quality on mental health problems were accounted for by fear of abandonment. Using a prospective longitudinal design, they found that the relation between divorce stressors as well as the relations between mother-child relationship quality and both internalizing problems and externalizing problems, assessed five months later, were mediated through fear of abandonment.

There are several plausible ways in which high quality parenting might influence adaptation outcomes through its effect on the satisfaction of the needs of social relatedness, control beliefs and positive self-worth. First, high quality mother-child relationships may reduce feelings of helplessness (Wolchik, Ramirez, Sandler, Fisher, Balls, & Brown, 1992) or facilitate children’s engagement with developmental goals, such as autonomy and social competence, both of which have an impact on adaptation outcomes ( Davies, Forman, Rasi & Stevens, 2002 ). It is also possible that caregivers who use positive parenting strategies shield children from exposure to some uncontrollable stressors, which may promote children’s sense of control. A greater sense of control may help children become re-engaged in mastery-enhancing developmental tasks that were disrupted by the divorce, which leads to improvements in adaptation problems. Also, high quality mother-child relationships may provide emotional and tangible support for coping with stressors, promote children’s sense of emotional security which could lead to a more varied repertoire of coping responses ( Power, 2004 ), and help children to interpret stressors in more hopeful ways and less threatening ways. A wider range of coping options and more hopeful appraisals may enhance children’s sense of mastery over their environment, which leads to improvements in adaptation outcomes ( Kliewer, Sandler, & Wolchik, 1994 ; Lengua, Sandler, West, Wolchik & Curran, 1999 ; Sandler, Tein, Metha, Ayers & Wolchik, 2000 ).

Mother-child relationships that include high levels of responsiveness and warmth may promote children’s beliefs that they will be able to cope with both controllable as well as uncontrollable stressors. For stressors within a child’s control, coping efficacy beliefs may lead to use of active coping strategies, which are associated with positive adaptation outcomes ( Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001 ). Rothbaum, Weisz and Snyder (1982) describe secondary control strategies for events that cannot be directly controlled, such as believing that powerful others will help control such events or believing that the world is predictable and makes sense. Supportive caregivers may promote both types of beliefs and thus promote children’s sense of their efficacy to cope with stressors beyond their control. Interactions with mothers who are responsive, warm and affectionate may also enhance children’s self-esteem, which may lead to improvements in adaptation outcomes by encouraging less threatening appraisals of stressors or buffering the negative effects of divorce-related stressors on adaptation outcomes ( Kliewer & Sandler, 1992 ). Effective discipline may positively affect youths’ adaptation outcomes through enhancing their sense of the predictability of their environments. The consistent occurrence of expected consequences for misbehaviors may promote a sense of control, which could influence adaptation outcomes through its effect on threat appraisals, coping efficacy or coping efforts ( Skinner & Wellborn, 1994 ).

Testing models that link parenting, self-systems beliefs and adaptation outcomes

The second trial included measures of self-systems beliefs, parenting and adaptation outcomes. Thus, this data set allowed an examination of whether self-system beliefs are pathways by which program-induced improvements in parenting influence adaptation outcomes. Measures of control and positive self-worth were included in the data set. Control was operationalized as coping efficacy, or a belief that one can handle problems effectively; positive self-worth was assessed using a measure of self-esteem. Because previous analyses have shown that program-induced improvements in internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and symptoms of mental disorder were mediated by changes in mother-child relationship quality for families with high baseline risk ( Zhou et al., 2008 ), these outcomes were included in the models.

A total of six three-path mediational models were tested in which two mediators (i.e., mother-child relationship quality; self-systems beliefs) intervene sequentially between the independent and dependent variables ( Taylor, MacKinnon, & Tein, 2008 ). Given that there are significant program × baseline risk interactions for all three outcomes tested, two-group Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to examine mediation of program effects for high and low risk groups simultaneously. Analytic procedures followed those outlined in Zhou et al (2008) . The models were part-longitudinal; paths from program condition to relationship quality and from relationship quality to coping efficacy or self-esteem were longitudinal, whereas the paths from coping efficacy or self-esteem to the mental health outcomes were cross-sectional. Models controlled for baseline levels of the mediators and the baseline mother-child relationship quality by program interaction. MPlus software (Version, 4.0, Muthén & Muthén ,1998 ) was used; full maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) was implemented to account for missing data, and bias-corrected bootstrapping was used to test for the significance of mediated effects 1 .

For all models, the two-group analysis did not yield evidence of moderation by risk, indicating that the mediational paths were invariant across high and low risk groups. The three models testing whether coping efficacy mediated the effects of mother-child relationship quality on the mental health outcomes all fit the data well: χ 2 (20) = 18.61, p = .55, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .06, CFI = 1.00 for externalizing problems; χ 2 (20) = 14.303, p = .81, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .05, CFI = 1.00 for internalizing problems; and χ 2 (20) = 15.03, p = .77, RMSEA = .00, SRMR = .05, CFI = 1.00 for symptoms of mental disorder. The results of the model testing the mediational relations for externalizing problems are provided in Figure 4 . As shown, paths from program condition to post-test relationship quality (unstandardized path coefficient, B = .21, p =.000), from relationship quality to coping efficacy at 6-year follow-up (B = .83, p = .04), and from coping efficacy to externalizing problems at 6-year follow-up (B = -.08, p = .000) were significant. The test of the mediated effect was also significant (95% Confidence Intervals: -.04, -.002) 2 .

Coping Efficacy as a Mediator of the Effects of Program-induced Changes in Relationship Quality on Symptoms of Mental Disorder.

Note. The primary paths of interest (i.e., the three indirect paths and the direct path) are represented by solid bold lines; all other paths are dashed. All path coefficients are unstandardized; significant coefficients are presented in bold.

The tests of the models for internalizing problems and symptoms of mental disorder also showed that the effects of program-induced improvements in mother-child relationship quality at post-test on these outcomes at six-year follow-up were mediated by increases in coping efficacy at six-year follow-up. The paths from program condition to post-test relationship quality (B = .21, p = .000) were significant. The path from relationship quality to coping efficacy was extremely close to significance for internalizing problems (B = .79, p =.051) and for symptoms of mental disorder, the corresponding path was marginally significant (B = .12, p = .07). Paths from coping efficacy to internalizing problems (B = -.10, p = .000) and to symptoms of mental disorder (B =.-1.68, p = .000) were significant. Tests of the mediated effects were significant for both models (internalizing 95% CI: -.05, -.002; symptoms of mental disorder 95% CI: -.77, - .02) 3 . Although the models testing whether self-esteem mediated the effects of mother-child relationship quality on internalizing problems, externalizing problems and symptoms of mental disorder fit the data well, mediation was not significant for any of these three models.

These results suggest that self-system beliefs about control are one potential mechanism through which increases in the quality of mother-child relationships improve adaptation outcomes. One fruitful direction for future research involves examining whether self-systems beliefs about social relatedness serve a similar role. Given the salience of disruption of intimate social bonds, beliefs about social relatedness may be a particularly important influence on adaptation outcomes after parental divorce. It will also be useful to test more complex models of how program-induced improvements in quality of parenting impact adaptation outcomes over time. For example, researchers could study how reciprocal relations between youth internalizing problems and externalizing problems and quality of parenting affect self-systems beliefs as well as other resilience resources, such as coping efforts and peer relationships.

Summary and directions for future work

The program of research on the NBP illustrates the rich interplay that can exist between theoretical and correlational work on risk factors and resilience resources and experimental trials that successfully manipulate these processes. The NBP targeted empirically-supported modifiable risk factors and resilience resources and assessed changes in these variables as well as children’s adaptation outcomes. Rigorous evaluations showed that the NBP improved quality of parenting, defined as mother-child relationship quality and effective discipline, and youth adaptation outcomes. For most outcomes, the program effects were stronger for those entering the program with high levels of risk. Mediational analyses showed that both short-term and long-term effects program on multiple adaptation outcomes were accounted for by changes in the quality of parenting. For several resilience resources and adaptation outcomes, the program effects increased over time. Our research focused on unpacking the relation between improvements in parenting and positive change in adaptation outcomes suggests that coping efficacy is one pathway through which resilience achieves it effects. These findings provide support for the cascading pathway model of adjustment to adversity, in which there are positive, dynamic relations between resilience resources and youth adaptation outcomes and between resilience resources within and across levels.

There are several important directions for future research. One of the most significant directions involves transporting the NBP into natural delivery systems. Research on other evidence-based programs has shown that implementation of such programs in real-world settings typically deviates markedly from the original design (e.g., Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002) and that low fidelity of implementation is related to lower levels of effectiveness (Maher & Davidson, 2000). Effectively transporting university-tested programs into ongoing services requires understanding that there are barriers to consistent high quality implementation because of important differences between university and real world settings (e.g., Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001). For example, the level of resources devoted to program implementation (e.g., training, supervision; monitoring of implementation) in the experimental trials of NBP is not realistic in settings outside the university. In addition, parents in community settings are more diverse than the participants in the NBP trials (e.g., diverse cultural backgrounds, fathers as well as mothers, never married as well as married parents). The goal of our program of research is to proactively identify such barriers and adapt the NBP so that it is appropriate for the broader population of divorced families and to maximize the likelihood that the NBP will be delivered with high levels of fidelity and quality in community settings. Prior to widespread dissemination of the NBP, it is critical to conduct an effectiveness trial of the NBP, in which its effects are examined as it is delivered in natural service delivery systems under normal and sustainable conditions. This study can address not only the effects of the NBP on youth adaptation outcomes but other important issues, such as whether there are there differential effects across sub-groups of parents, what types of recruitment strategies are most effective, whether variability in implementation relates to outcomes, and the impact of delivery of the NBP on the service delivery systems.

Acknowledgments

Support for this research was provided by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 2R01 MH49155-06, 1R01MH057013-01A1 to conduct a six-year follow-up of a preventive intervention for divorced families, Grants 2P30 M439246-18, 5P30MH068685-3 to establish and maintain a Preventive Intervention Research Center at Arizona State University. The authors are grateful to Susan Westover and Lillie Weiss for their help in designing the intervention and to Jenn-Yun Tein and Laura Legge for their help in managing the dataset and analyzing the data, respectively. We are also thankful to the families who participated in this program of research.

(In press) Journal of Personality

1 Evidence suggests that MLE procedures are superior to traditional missing data techniques (e.g., Muthén, Kaplan, & Hollis, 1987 ), and bias-corrected boostrapping has been shown to be the most powerful test of mediation for three-path mediational models ( Taylor et al, 2008 ).

2 The significant program by baseline mother-child relationship quality interaction indicates that the positive relation between participation in the intervention and post-test mother-child relationship quality was stronger for families with lower baseline mother-child relationship quality.

3 For these models, the significant program by baseline mother-child relationship quality interaction was significant, indicating that the positive relation between participation in the intervention and post-test mother-child relationship quality was stronger for families with lower baseline mother-child relationship quality.

• Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; Burlington, VT: 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR. Children of Divorce in the 1990s: An Update of the Amato and Keith (1991) Meta-Analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15 :355–370. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Booth A. Consequences of parental divorce and marital unhappiness for adult well-being. Social Forces. 1991; 69 :895–914. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato P, Fowler F. Parenting practices, child adjustment and family diversity. Journal of Marriage & Family. 2002; 64 :703–716. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Gilbreth J. Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999; 61 :557–573. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Keith B. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1991; 110 :26–46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amato PR, Keith B. Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1991b; 53 :43–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Armistead L, McCombs A, Forehand R, Wierson M, Long N, Fauber R. Coping with divorce: A study of young adolescents. Journal of Clinical child Psychology. 1990; 19 :79–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldwin DV, Skinner ML. Structural model for anti-social behavior: Generalization to single-mother families. Developmental Psychology. 1989; 25 :45–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biblarz TJ, Gottainer G. Family structure and children’s success: A comparison of widowed and divorced single-mother families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62 :533–548. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfrenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchanan CM, Maccoby EE, Dornbusch SM. Caught between parents: Adolescents’ experience in divorced homes. Child Development. 1991; 62 :1008–1029. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bumpass L, Lu H-H. Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in the United States. Population Studies. 2000; 54 :29–41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Camara KA, Resnick G. Marital and parental subsystem in mother-custody, father-custody, and two-parent households: Effects on children’s social development. Advances in Family Interventions, Assessment and Theory. 1987; 4 :165–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, Wright BRE, Moffitt TE. Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review. 1998; 63 :424–451. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chase-Lansdale PL, Cherlin AJ, Kiernan KK. The long-term effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A developmental perspective. Child Development. 1995; 66 :1614–1634. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicchetti D, Schneider-Rosen K. An organizational approach to childhood depression. In: Rutter M, Izard CE, Read PB, editors. Depression in Young People: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives. Guilford Press; New York: 1986. pp. 71–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coie JD, Watt NF, West SG, Hawkins JD, Asarnow JR, Markman HJ, Ramey SL, Shure MB, Long B. The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research program. American Psychologist. 1993; 48 :1013–1022. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2003; 112 :558–577. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, Wadsworth ME. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127 :87–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummings EM, Davies PT, Campbell SB. Developmental Psychopathology and Family Process: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications. The Guilford Press; New York: 2000. New directions in the study of parenting and child development; pp. 200–250. [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies PT, Forman E, Rasi JA, Stevens KL. Assessing children’s emotional insecurity in the interparental relationship: The security in the interparental system scales. Child Development. 2002; 73 :544–-562. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson-McClure SR, Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, Millsap RE. Risk as a moderator of the effects of prevention programs for children from divorced families: A six-year longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2004; 32 :179–190. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Felner RD, Farber SS, Primavera J. Transitions and stressful life events: A model for primary prevention. In: Felner RD, Jason LA, Moritsugu JN, Farber SS, editors. Preventive psychology: Theory, research and practice. Pergamon Press; New York: 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Felner RD, Terre L, Rowlinson RT. A life transition framework for understanding marital dissolution and family reorganization. In: Wolchik SA, Karoly P, editors. Children of divorce: Empirical perspectives on adjustment. Gardner Press; New York: 1988. pp. 35–65. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fogas BS, Wolchik SA, Braver SL. Parenting behavior and psychopathology in children of divorce: Buffering effects; Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention; New York. Aug, 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fogas BS, Wolchik SA, Braver SL, Freedom DS, Bay RC. Locus of control as a mediator of negative divorce-related events and adjustment problems in children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1992; 62 :589–598. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forgatch MS, Patterson GR, Skinner ML. A mediational model for the effect of divorce on antisocial behavior in boys. In: Hetherington EM, Arasteh JD, editors. Impact of divorce: single parenting, and step-parenting on children. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1988. pp. 135–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Furstenberg FF, Jr., Teitler JO. Reconsidering the effects of marital disruption: What happens to children of divorce in early adulthood? Journal of Family Issues. 1994; 15 :173–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldscheider FK, Goldscheider C. The effects of childhood family structure on leaving and returning home. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998; 60 :745–756. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grych JH. Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child maladjustment: implications for the development of prevention programs. Family Court Review. 2005; 43 :97–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guidubaldi J, Cleminshaw H. Impact of family support system on children’s academic and social functioning after parental divorce. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association; Anaheim, CA. Aug, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guidubaldi J, Cleminshaw HK, Perry JD, Nastasi BK, Lightel J. The role of selected family environment factors in children’s post-divorce adjustment. Family Relations. 1986; 35 :141–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemminki K, Chen B. Lifestyle and cancer: effect of parental divorce. European Journal of Cancer Prevention. 2006; 15 :524–530. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetherington EM. Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development. 1989; 60 :1–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetherington EM, Laursen Brett, Collins W. Andrew. Relationships as developmental contexts. Vol 30. The Minnesota symposia on child psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 1999. Social capital and the development of youth from nondivorced, divorced and remarried families; pp. 177–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetherington EM, Bridges M, Insabella GM. What matters? What does not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions and children’s adjustment. American Psychologist. 1998; 53 :167–184. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetherington EM, Clingempeel WG, Anderson ER, Deal JE, Stanley-Hagan M, Hollier EA, Lindner MS. Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective. Monographs of the Society for Child Development. 1992; 57 :2–3. Serial No. 227. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetherington EM, Cox M, Cox R, Stevens JH, Jr, Matthews M. Mother-child, father-child relations. National Association for the Education of Young Children; Washington, DC: 1978. The aftermath of divorce; pp. 149–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hetherington EM, Cox M, Cox R. Effects of divorce on parents and children. In: Lamb M, editor. Nontraditional families. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1982. pp. 233–288. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffmann JP, Johnson RA. A national portrait of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1998; 60 :633–645. [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe GW, Reiss D, Yuh J. Can prevention trials test theories of etiology? Development and Psychopathology. 2002; 14 :673–694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kessler RC, Davis CG, Kendler KS. Childhood adversity and adult psychiatric disorder in the US National Comorbidity Survey. Psychological Medicine. 1997; 27 :1101–1119. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly JB. Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: Insights from empirical and clinical research. Family Process. 2006; 46 :35–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly JB, Emery RE. Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 2003; 52 :352–362. [ Google Scholar ]
• King V. Nonresident father involvement and child well-being: Can dads make a difference? Journal of Family Issues. 1994; 15 :78–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• King V, Sobolewski JM. Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent welll-being. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006; 68 :537–557. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kliewer W, Sandler IN. Locus of control and self-esteem as moderators of stressor-symptom relations in children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1992; 20 :393–413. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kliewer W, Sandler IN, Wolchik SA. Family socialization of threat appraisal and coping: Coaching, modeling, and family context. In: Hurrelman K, Nestmann F, editors. Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence. Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence. Walter De Gruyter; Oxford, England: 1994. pp. 271–291. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA. An integrative perspective on children’s divorce adjustment. American Psychologist. 1981; 36 :856–866. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurdek LA, Berg B. Children’s beliefs about parental divorce scale: Psychometric characteristics and concurrent validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1987; 55 :712–718. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lengua LJ, Sandler IN, West SG, Wolchik SA, Curran PJ. Emotionality and self-regulation, threat appraisal, and coping in children of divorce. Development and Psychopathology. 1999; 11 :15–37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipsey MW, Sechrest L. Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In: Perrin E, Bunker J, editors. Research methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; Washington, DC: 1990. pp. 33–51. (DHHS Publication No. 90-3454) [ Google Scholar ]
• Long N, Forehand R, Fauber R, Brody G. Self-perceived and independently observed competence of young adolescents as a function of parental marital conflict and recent divorce. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1987; 15 :15–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development. 2000; 71 :543–562. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maekikyroe T, Sauvola A, Moring J, Veijola J, Nieminen P, Jaervelin MR, Isohanni M. Hospital-treated psychiatric disorders in adults with a single-parent and two-parent family background: A 28-year follow-up of the 1966 Northern Finland Birth Cohort. Family Process. 1998; 37 :335–344. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maier EH, Lachman ME. Consequences of early parental loss and separation for health and well-being in midlife. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2000; 24 :183–189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Masten AS. Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist. 2001; 56 :227–238. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur E, Wolchik SA, Sandler IN. Negative cognitive errors and positive illusions for negative divorce events: Predictors of children’s psychological adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1992; 20 :523–542. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur E, Wolchik SA, Virdin L, Sandler IN, West SG. Cognitive moderators of children’s adjustment to stressful divorce events: The role of negative cognitive errors and positive illusions. Child Development. 1999; 70 :231–245. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLanahan S. Father absence and the welfare of children. In: Hetherington EM, editor. Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Mahwah, New Jersey: 1999. pp. 117–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén B, Kaplan D, Hollis M. On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random. Psychometrika. 1987; 52 :431–462. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. M-Plus User’s Guide. Fourth Edition Muthén and Muthén; Los Angeles, CA: 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Health Statistics Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Report. 2005; 53 :1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patterson GR, Fisher PA. Recent developments in our understanding of parenting: Bidirectional effects, causal models, and the search for parsimony. In: Marc HB, editor. Handbook of Parenting. 2nd ed Vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; Mahwah, NJ: 2002. pp. 59–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Power TG. Stress and coping in childhood: The parents’ role. Parenting. 2004; 4 :271–317. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodgers B, Power C, Hope S. Parental divorce and adult psychological distress: Evidence from a national cohort: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 1997; 38 :867–872. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothman J. Social R&D: Research and development in the human services. Prentice-Hall; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbaum F, Weisz JR, Snyder SS. Changing the world and changing the self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1982; 42 :5–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutter M. Environmentally mediated risks for psychopathology: Research strategies and findings. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2005; 44 :3–18. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutter M, Pickles A, Murray R, Eaves I. Testing hypotheses on specific environmental causal effects on behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127 :291–324. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sameroff AJ. Early influences on development: Fact or fancy? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1975; 21 :267–294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sameroff AJ. Developmental systems and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 2000; 12 :297–312. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN. Quality and ecology of adversity as common mechanisms of risk and resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2001; 29 :19–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Kim-Bae LS, MacKinnon DP. Coping and negative appraisal as mediators between control beliefs and psychological symptoms in children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2000; 29 :336–347. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler I, Miles J, Cookston J, Braver S. Effects of father and mother parenting on children’s mental health in high-and low-conflict divorced. Family Court Review. 2008; 46 :282–296. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Tein J-Y, Mehta P, Wolchik SA, Ayers TS. Coping efficacy and psychological problems of children of divorce. Child Development. 2000; 71 :1099–1118. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Tein J-Y, West SG. Coping, stress, and the psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development. 1994; 65 :1744–1763. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, Ayers TS. Resilience rather than recovery: A contextual framework on adaptation following bereavement. Death Studies. 2008; 32 :59–73. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, Braver SL. The stressors of children’s postdivorce environments. In: Wolchik SA, Karoly P, editors. Children of divorce: Empirical perspectives on adjustment. Gardner Press, Inc; New York: 1988. pp. 111–143. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, MacKinnon DP, Ayers TS, Roosa MW. Developing linkages between theory and intervention in stress and coping processes. In: Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, editors. Handbook of children’s coping: Linking theory and intervention. Plenum Press; New York: 1997. pp. 3–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandler IN, Wolchik SA, Winslow EB, Schenck C. Prevention as the promotion of healthy parenting following parental divorce. In: Beach SRH, Wamboldt MZ, Kaslow NJ, Heyman RE, First MB, Underwood L, Reiss D, editors. Relational Processes and DSM-V: From neuroscience to assessment and treatment. American Psychiatric Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Santrock JW, Warshak R. Father custody and social development in boys and girls. Journal of Social Issues. 1979; 35 :112–125. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott KG, Mason GA, Chapman DA. the use of epidemiological methodology as a means of influencing public policy. Child Development. 1999; 70 :1263–1272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schwartz JE, Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Keasey C. Tomlinson. Sociodemographic and psychosocial factors in childhood as predictors of adult mortality. American Journal of Public Health. 1995; 85 :1237–1245. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheets V, Sandler IN, West SG. Appraisals of negative events by preadolescent children of divorce. Child Development. 1996; 67 :2166–2182. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons, R. L. & Associates . Understanding differences between divorced and intact families: Stress, interaction, and child outcome. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simons RL, Lin K-H, Gordon LC, Conger RS, Lorenz FO. Explaining the higher incidence of adjustment problems among children of divorce compared with those in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1999; 61 :1020–1033. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skinner EA, Wellborn JG. Coping during childhood and adolescence: a motivational perspective. In: Feathernam DL, Lerner RM, Perlmutter M, editors. Life span development and behavior. Vol. 12. Erlbaum; Hillsdale, NJ: 1994. pp. 91–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stattin H, Romelsjo A. Adult Mortality in the light of criminality, substance abuse, and behavioral and family-risk factors in adolescence. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health. 1995; 5 :279–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stolberg AL, Anker JM. Cognitive and behavioral changes in children resulting from parental divorce and consequent environmental changes. Journal of Divorce. 1983; 7 :23–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stolberg AL, Bush JP. A path analysis of factors predicting children’s divorce and adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 1985; 14 :49–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor AB, MacKinnon D, Tein J-Y. Test of the three path mediated effect. Organization Research Methods. 2008; 11 :241–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tein J-Y, Sandler IN, MacKinnon DP, Wolchik SA. How did it work? Who did it work for? Mediation and mediated moderation of a preventive intervention for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004; 72 :617–624. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Troxel WM, Matthews KA. What are the costs of marital conflict and dissolution to children’s physical health? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2004; 7 :29–57. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Census Bureau Statistical abstract of the United States 1999. 119th edition Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1999.
• Visher E, Visher J. The remarried family: Characteristics and interventions. In: Visher E, Visher J, editors. Textbook of family and couples therapy: Clinical applications. American Psychiatric Publishing; Washington, DC: 2003. pp. 523–538. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warren NJ, Grew RS, Ilgen EL, Konans JT, Bourgoondien ME, Amara IA. Parenting after divorcing: Preventive programs for divorcing families; Paper presented at the meeting of the National Institute of Mental Health; Washington, DC. Jun, 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webster PS, Herzog AR. Effects of parental divorce and memories of family problems on relationships between adult children and their parents. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1995; 50b :S24–S34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• West SG, Aiken LS. Toward understanding individual effects in multicomponent prevention programs: Design and Analysis strategies. In: Bryant KJ, Windle M, West SG, editors. The Science of Prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC: 1997. pp. 167–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• West SG, Sandler IN, Pillow DR, Baca L, Gersten JC. The use of structural equation modeling in generative research: Toward the design of a preventive intervention for bereaved children. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1991; 19 :459–480. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiteside MF, Becker BJ. Parental factors and young child’s post-divorce adjustment: A meta-analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000; 14 :5–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolchik S, MacKinnon D, Sandler I. [Population attributable fraction rates for youth from divorced families.] 2006. Unpublished raw data.
• Wolchik SA, Ramirez R, Sandler IN, Fisher JL, Balls P, Brown C. Inner-city, poor children of divorce: Negative divorce-related events, problematic beliefs and adjustment problems. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 1993; 19 :1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolchik SA, Ruehlman LS, Braver SL, Sandler IN. Social support of children of divorce: Direct and stress buffering effects. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1989; 17 :485–501. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolchik SA, Tein J-Y, Sandler IN, Doyle KW. Fear of abandonment as a mediator of the relations between divorce stressors and mother-child relationship quality and children’s adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2002; 30 :401–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolchik S, Sandler I, Weiss LN, Winslow E. New Beginnings: An empirically-based intervention program for divorced mothers to promote resilience in their children. In: Briesmeister JM, Schaefer CE, editors. Handbook of parent training: Helping parents prevent and solve problem behaviors. John Wiley & Sons; New York: 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolchik SA, West SG, Sandler IN, Tein J-Y, Coatsworth D, Lengua L, Weiss L, Anderson ER, Greene SM, Griffin WA. An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother-child programs for children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000; 68 :843–856. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wolchik SA, Wilcox KL, Tein J-Y, Sandler IN. Maternal acceptance and consistency of discipline as buffers of divorce stressors on children’s psychological adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2000; 28 :87–102. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wyman PA, Sandler I, Wolchik SA, Nelson K. Resilience as cumulative competence promotion and stress protection: Theory and intervention. In: Cicchetti D, Rappaport J, Sandler I, Weissberg RP, editors. The promotion of wellness in children and adolescents. Child Welfare League of America Inc.; Washington, D.C.: 2000. pp. 133–184. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou Q, Sandler I, Millsap RE, Wolchik S, Dawson-McClure SR. Mediation of six-year Effects of the New Beginnings Program for Children of Divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2008; 76 :579–594. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zill N, Morrison DR, Coiro MJ. Long-term effects of parental divorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in young adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 1993; 7 :91–103. [ Google Scholar ]

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes
• Human Interest

YouTuber Aspyn Ovard Files for Divorce the Same Day She Announces Birth of Couple's 3rd Child

Ovard filed for divorce from Parker Ferris on Monday, the same day she announced the birth of their third baby together

Aspyn Ovard/ Instagram

Aspyn Ovard has filed for divorce from Parker Ferris, her husband of more than eight years. 

On Monday, the 27-year-old YouTube star filed for divorce in Salt Lake City, Utah, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE. That same day, Ovard announced the birth of her third child with Ferris in a video posted to her Instagram and TikTok .

“Sweet baby was ready to be born i guess 👶🏼,” she captioned the video showing her with her bump while pregnant and later holding her newborn daughter, with the song lyrics "just trust me you'll be fine" written across the screen.

Later that day, the mom influencer, who has over 2.2 million Instagram followers and nearly 700,000 TikTok followers, posted another video featuring Ferris jokingly pointing at her stomach and mouthing the words to the viral sound, “my friend’s in there.”

Ovard has not yet revealed the name of the newborn.

In the clip, Ferris can be seen wearing his wedding band, although Ovard is not wearing hers.

After filing, Ovard continued to document her daughter's birth on social media, sharing her shock that she had her baby early at 34 weeks on Tuesday afternoon.

“My brain is just not processing what’s happening,” Ovard told the camera from the hospital bed, later adding, “She’s in the NICU right now, she’s doing really well, but she’s super early so she’s going to be there for a minute.”

It is unclear when the baby was born.

PEOPLE reached out for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up to date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

Ferris and Ovard share two other kids — Cove, 4 ½, and Lola, 2 ½. 

The pair tied the knot back in October 2015 in a small ceremony in their hometown St. George, Utah. Ovard was 19-years-old and Ferris was 20. 

“I have a wife! She has a husband!” Ferris said at the time. “I’m sure it will hit me a little later once we actually get situated, living together, normal married life.”

Related Articles

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Divorce — The Main Causes of Divorces in Malaysia

The Main Causes of Divorces in Malaysia

• Categories: Divorce Divorce Rate Malaysia

About this sample

Words: 645 |

Published: Jul 30, 2019

Words: 645 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life Sociology Geography & Travel

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3009 words

5 pages / 2219 words

7 pages / 3092 words

3 pages / 1257 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Divorce

The purpose of this essay is to elaborate on the major causes of divorce, psychological effects and how to cope with it. An increase in amount of U.S. couples divorcing is growing. Statistics stated in the essay is proof. The [...]

Divorce is a common topic in today’s society. Many tend to have big expectation that marriage is supposed to be all glitz and glam but tends to forget the time, effort and willingness it takes to make a marriage work. In the [...]

Divorce is the close of cohabitation, the canceling and restructuring of the judicial tasks and liabilities of marriage, thus destroying the unions of matrimony connecting a married couple beneath the rule of law of the distinct [...]

In this assignment I will discuss one social policy; Safeguarding children and Young People (July 2014). This policy discusses the importance of safeguarding children and how important it is for service providers to be aware [...]

In The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, Offred, the main character lives in Gilead, a dystopia where fertile women are solely used to reproduce children. Known as handmaids, these women are confined into prison-like [...]

A relationship between mother and child is very dynamic, where the mother teaches her son to set boundaries and act appropriately, which then becomes better partners and friends of women. But when mother and son share this [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

By clicking Sign In, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Sign In Up with your social account

We won't post to any of your accounts

Your password must include:

• Min 8 characters
• Min 1 lowercase character
• Min 1 uppercase character
• Min 1 number

Tia Mowry Gets Emotional About ‘Recovering’ From Cory Hardrict Divorce: ‘A Whirlwind Journey’

Tia Mowry offered a glimpse into the ups and downs she’s faced since her divorce from Cory Hardrict last year.

“Resilience: the art of bouncing back, stronger than before. ❤️,” Mowry, 45, captioned an Instagram video essay on Wednesday, April 3, which featured clips from her life.

Mowry, who ended her marriage to Hardrict, 44, after more than a decade together, discussed the challenges she navigated in the aftermath.

“Recovering from a divorce feels like a whirlwind journey,” she said in a voiceover. “I found out through the process that divorce isn’t a place where we arrive, it’s entering a new chapter in life with many nuances, and no one-size-fits-all handbook.”

Related: Most Shocking Celebrity Splits

The social media upload featured sweet moments of Mowry and Hardrict’s kids , son Cree, 12, and daughter Cairo, 5.

“One moment you’re relieved, feeling like you’ve conquered something significant, then suddenly emotions hit you all over again,” she noted. “It’s a side of divorce that isn’t often discussed, especially when there are kids involved.”

View this post on Instagram A post shared by TiaMowry (@tiamowry)

Mowry continued: “You strive to be a role model, teaching them resilience and self-care. You try different things to soothe and release emotional buildup. Exercise, journaling your thoughts, meditation, and seeking therapy to cope with the breakup and the dreams you had for the future.”

At the end of the video, Mowry was heard getting visibly emotional .

“Someday I believe I’ll be able to look back on this time with nothing but warmth and gratitude for the beautiful children brought into my life and the stronger version of myself that emerged from the experience,” she added. “For anyone who’s going through this I would love to hear your experience. Share your story because there’s power in dialogue.”

Related: Tia Mowry and Cory Hardrict: The Way They Were

Mowry encouraged others to share their experiences, adding, “As women we take our power back by sharing our stories and bringing any deep shame we hold from this experience into the light. I love you guys, Tia.”

The actress confirmed in October 2022 that she and Hardrict decided to part ways. They finalized their divorce in April 2023.

You have successfully subscribed.

Subscribe to newsletters

By signing up, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive emails from Us Weekly

Deal of the Day

Check our latest news in Google News

Check our latest news in Apple News

“I have always been honest with my fans, and today is no different. I wanted to share that Cory and I have decided to go our separate ways,” she wrote via Instagram at the time. “These decisions are never easy, and not without sadness. We will maintain a friendship as we co-parent our beautiful children. I am grateful for all the happy times we had together and want to thank my friends, family and fans for your love and support as we start this new chapter moving forward in our lives.”

Related: Tia Mowry's Most Candid Quotes About Her Divorce From Cory Hardrict

The former couple exchanged vows in 2008 after eight years together. They later expanded their family with son Cree in 2011 and daughter Cairo in 2018. Since their split, Mowry opened up about how she and Hardrict have prioritized coparenting.

“I talk to [Cory] every single day. We tell each other [that] we love each other every single day,” she exclusively told Us Weekly in November 2022. “He is family and he will always be family and a part of our lives forever.”

In this article

More Stories