Scrutinizing Single and Cohabiting Parent

Some progressive commentators are too busy celebrating the growing diversity of family to acknowledge that children typically do not do well growing up with a single or cohabiting mother.  Princeton sociologist Sara McLanahan is sufficiently in tune with regnant orthodoxies to argue that "some single motherhood is probably a good sign of society insofar as it indicates that women have the freedom to opt out of bad relationships."  Nonetheless, in a study recently published in Demography, McClanahan expresses deep reservations about the beneficence of trends giving us more and more single mothers, and more and more cohabiting unmarried parents.

 "We should," McLanahan writes, "be concerned about the high prevalence of single mothers, especially among mothers in the lower social strata."  After all, she notes, "across all Western industrialized countries [including Sweden, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom], children in single-mother families have much higher poverty rates than children in two-parent families." McLanahan stresses that the economically disadvantaged status of single mothers persists "even though many countries provide substantial single support to single mothers."  

But McLanahan has her eye on more than economics.  She sees in single motherhood "a proxy for multiple risk factors that do not bode well for children."  She cites data showing, for instance, that "unmarried mothers with low education (a high school degree or less) are more likely to suffer from clinical depression and to have used drugs and tobacco during their pregnancies than married mothers with similar levels of education."

It also disturbs McLanahan that the children of a single mother typically see little or nothing of their father, and she regards "father absence" as potentially "harmful to children."   Further, she believes that "high levels of father absence are likely to be a sign of social disorganization and isolation."

But even if the father is present in the home, McLanahan sees potential risks for children if he is not married to their mother.  Comparing the families formed by cohabiting couples with those formed by married couples, McLanahan identifies distinctively problematic characteristics of cohabiting-couple families.  Compared to married-couple families, such families "are much more likely to include children from other relationships and parents' relationships are more fragile."  The fragility of cohabiting-couple families shows up in statistics showing that "nearly half of cohabiting mothers ... have ended their relationship with their child's father by the time their children are three years old."  It further troubles McLanahan that when cohabiting-couple families are compared to married-couple families, "breast-feeding and language stimulation are less common, whereas harsh parenting is more common."  

(Source: Sara McLanahan, "Diverging Destinies: How Children Are Faring Under the Second Demographic Transition," Demography 41 [2004]: 607-627.) 

The Civility of Fundamentalism  

Whether Horace Mann in the nineteenth century or John Dewey in the twentieth, partisans of state-directed education have disparaged private schools, particularly Catholic parochial schools and, more recently, evangelical Protestant schools, for allegedly not socializing young people in democratic values. While that contention lacks empirical support, political scientists at the University of North Carolina, Duke, and Texas Christian have documented just the opposite, finding that fundamentalist Christian schools are "as successful as public schools in teaching the values necessary [for students] to assume the burdens of citizenship in a democratic society."

The three professors surveyed white tenth and twelfth graders that were enrolled in ten Christian high schools in a metropolitan area in the southwest United States. These schools—all but one with less than 150 students—were chosen because they taught biblical inerrancy, creationism, salvation by faith alone, the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, and that women should graciously submit to their husbands. For the public-school comparison sample, they chose a school district in the same metro area, where they surveyed white students in the tenth and twelfth grades who were not enrolled in special education classes.

At the tenth-grade level, the researchers found that students in the public schools scored higher on eight of the eleven educational objectives measures (particularly among what they call "classic liberal objectives" and "comprehensive liberal objectives"), while the fundamentalist students outperformed their public school peers in three (political knowledge and the "republican" virtues of volunteering and placing values ahead of individual success).

However, by twelfth grade, the fundamentalist students scored higher in seven of the eleven objectives. Not only did they significantly improve their scores on four of the five measures of "classical liberal values," but they also moved from significantly lower to significantly higher than their public school peers on two of those measures: support for democratic norms and in moral reasoning. The fundamentalist students also outperformed their public school peers in political tolerance, although the difference was not statistically significant. In the "comprehensive liberal objective" category that measured support for rights for gays and women and correcting inequality, these students scored, as they had in the tenth grade, significantly lower than their public-school peers, but the gap had narrowed.

These bivariate findings were supported by multivariate tests that controlled for father's education, family income, the number of books that students owned, student GPA, and church attendance. Given that the students in the fundamentalist schools reported higher levels of socioeconomic status, the researchers theorize that the dramatic improvements between tenth and twelfth grade students "may not be the product of the type of school, but of the type of student attending the school."

Nevertheless, these findings suggest that the American republic is threatened less by fundamentalist Christian schools, or the parents who patronize such schools, than by the politically correct crowd who foment fear over the mere existence of "sectarian" institutions.

(Source: R. Kenneth Godwin, Jennifer W. Godwin, and Valerie Martinez-Ebers, "Civic Socialization in Public and Fundamentalist Schools," Social Science Quarterly 85 [2004]: 1097-1111.)

Overwhelmed Mothers, Troubled Children  

Why do children whose parents have divorced often begin to act defiantly or to slide into depression?  Researchers investigating the problems typical among such children now think that the "depressed/withdrawn parenting" of mothers overwhelmed by the consequences of divorce may be to blame.

To identify the reason that parental divorce multiplies children's adjustment problems, a team of researchers from the University of California and San Diego State University recently set to work analyzing data collected over two years from thirty-five middle-class divorced mothers with a child in the fourth grade at the beginning of the study period and compared those data with comparable data collected for children of one hundred seventy-four married middle-class mothers. 

Much as they expected, the researchers found that "mothers rated children from divorced families higher on the C[hildren's]B[ehavior]C[heck]L[ist] Internalizing and Externalizing scales at all three yearly assessments" than they rated children from intact families.  In other words, divorced mothers were more likely to see their children both slip into anxiety and depression (Internalizing behavior problems) and to engage in aggressive, disobedient behaviors (Externalizing behavior problems) than were married mothers.  Likewise, "teachers rated children from divorced families as higher [than peers from intact families] on the T[eacher]R[eport]F[orm] Internalizing and Externalizing scales at two of the three yearly assessments," with TRF ratings for the third year right at the threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.06). 

In their finding that "divorced mothers reported both more depressive symptoms and [parental] withdrawal than did the nondivorced mothers at each yearly assessment," the researchers believe they have found a key reason for the problems documented among children of divorced mothers.  In subsequent statistical analyses, the researchers indeed limn a statistically significant "path from depressive/withdrawn parenting to child externalizing behavior."  The California and San Diego State scholars then likewise trace a similar path for internalizing behavior. In sum, "depressive/withdrawn parenting among the divorced mothers accounted for the higher levels of externalizing and internalizing behavior that the children exhibited at home and school in the fourth and fifth grades."

The propensity of divorced mothers to manifest depressed/ withdrawn styles of parenting did not surprise the researchers.  After all, "divorced mothers are often burdened with multiple demands and fewer resources: assuming household responsibilities that were formerly shared with a spouse, working more hours at their jobs to make ends meet, and making do with less social support than their nondivorced counterparts."  Nor is it surprising that children who watch their depressed mothers withdrawing from them would often succumb to depression or would engage in "acting out behavior ... [as] an attempt ... to re-engage mothers who are preoccupied ... or to gain attention from teachers or other adult caregivers."

Curiously, the researchers see the role of divorced mothers' depressed/withdrawn parenting style "begin[ning] to diminish" as their children move into sixth grade, yet they do not see these children escaping from their Internalizing and Externalizing problems.  What is going on?  On the one hand, sixth-grade children are "developing cognitive abilities" that allow them "to more realistically assess the meaning of a single mother's negative mood and lack of availability."   But on the other hand, children who have already spent much of grade school with a depressed and withdrawn divorced mother may already have developed problems that their new cognitive abilities will not dispel.

The authors of the new study thus emphasize that "externalizing behavior problems that began in earlier years could become self-perpetuating by the time the children reach early adolescence," as such behaviors are "fueled by interactions with deviant peers and other extrafamilial reinforcing mechanisms."  Similarly, children who initially begin experiencing Internalizing problems early in grade school because of a depressed and withdrawn divorced mother may "with the onset of adolescence, [manifest] certain disorders such as major depression" as "predisposing vulnerabilities" expose them to mental pathology.

(Source: Jeffrey J. Wood, Rena L. Repetti, and Scott C. Roesch, "Divorce and Children's Adjustment Problems at Home and School: The Role of Depressive/Withdrawn Parenting," Child Psychiatry and Human Development 35 [2004]: 121-141.)   

Teens Need Moms and Dads, Not Just Two Parents  

Since they cannot by nature procreate, homosexuals have been pushing to change state laws to allow them to adopt children. Some have even argued that what makes for good parenting is not the gender complimentarity of parents, but the devotion of parents (or adoptive parents). While not all husband-wife couples make the best parents, a study by Tami M. Videon of Rutgers University highlighting the independent influence of fathers on the emotional health of adolescents suggests that child well-being depends not on the contributions of mothers or fathers, but upon the contribution of mothers and fathers.

Using the first two waves of data (1994-95 and 1996) from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the professor of psychiatry examined the impact of father-adolescent relationships on depressive symptoms of more than 6,500 boys and girls from intact, two-parent families. In her first model, she found that higher levels of satisfaction with fathers are correlated with fewer depressive symptoms among both boys and girls (p <.001 for both).

These statistically significant relationships held true in her second model, which controlled for relationships with mothers (which also correlated inversely with depressive symptoms for boys and girls). The magnitude of the effects of the father-adolescent relationship were somewhat reduced in this model, "indicating that the mother and father relationship [each] explain a portion of the same variance in adolescent psychological well-being." At the same time, adds Videon, "the father-adolescent relationship has a significant influence on children's well-being beyond the impact of the mother- adolescent relationship."

While Videon clearly intents her research to demonstrate the shortcomings of single motherhood, her findings nonetheless also implies that gay adoption is not a good idea, as well.

(Source: Tami Videon, "Parent-Child Relations and Children's Psychological Well-Being: Do Dads Matter?" Journal of Family Issues 26 [2005]: 55-78.)

Vulnerable to Violence  

Teens (especially boys) who have been exposed to violence—either as a victim or as a witness—are much more likely to commit acts of violence themselves than are peers not so exposed.  Researchers investigating the way exposure to violence pushes young adolescents toward violent acts do not, however, see this pathological pattern equally prevalent in all social settings:  this pattern of violence begetting violence typically shows up among teens denied the stabilizing influence of an intact parental marriage.

In a study conducted for the National Institute of Justice, criminologists Stacey Nofziger and Don Kurtz recently parsed data collected in 1995 as part of the National Survey of Adolescents, looking particularly for circumstances linking youthful exposure to violence to subsequent violent juvenile crime.  Much as they had expected, the researchers find that "exposure to violence has serious consequences for violent offending," with "experiences of violence in the juveniles' lives all serv[ing] as substantial risk factors for violent offending."

However, despite theoretical reasons for supposing that low family income and urban residence would foster adolescent violence and that high family income and rural residence would inhibit such violence, in their initial analysis of their data the researchers find that "neither family income nor where the juvenile lives are significant risk factors."  In contrast, their analysis reveals a strong influence of family structure: "Always having lived with both biological parents appears to be a protection against violent offending (O[dds] R[atio] .463) [ p < 0.001]." 

In a second analysis that takes into account both increasing levels of exposure to violence and differences in types of victimization, family income still fails to predict violent teen offenses, but place of residence does emerge as a predictor, with "juveniles living in small towns and rural communities ... significantly less likely to engage in violent offenses" than urban peers.  And the second analysis once again confirms the deterrent effect of  "always having lived with both biological parents" (Odds Ratio of .578; p < 0.001).

  The researchers conjecture that parental marital status may reduce the likelihood of teens' violent offending in a couple ways.  First, an intact parental marriage "greatly influence[s] the economic stability of the family with two parents generally being able to provide greater economic resources."  Second, an intact parental marriage "increase[s] the family networks" in ways that "increas[e] the likelihood of spending time with family members."  Though both conjectures are plausible, readers may recall that neither of the researchers' statistical models establishes a linkage between household income and teen offending and may therefore regard the second conjecture as more compelling than the first.  Teens who spend leisure with aunts, uncles, and cousins are much less likely to pick up a switchblade than peers spending their spare time on the streets with strangers.

(Source: Stacey Nofziger and Don Kurtz, "Violent Lives: A Lifestyle Model Linking Exposure to Violence to Juvenile Violent Offending," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42 [2005]: 3-26.)

Wives Set the Culture, Not Just the Table  

More than thirty years ago, George Gilder argued in Sexual Suicide that women wield cultural and sexual power that is rarely acknowledged or understood, especially by feminists. That remains the case today, as sociologists at Notre Dame and the University of Indiana have found that wives influence the social views of their families in ways that husbands do not.

Tracking changes in attitudes since the 1970s, the researchers found that a "critical predictor" of more liberal social attitudes in American households is "simply whether the wife works. No matter whether the man or woman is answering the question, the labor force participation of the wife predicts increased feminism—for both the man and the woman."

Using data from the General Social Survey, Professors Catherine Bolzendahl and Daniel Myers explored how American attitudes toward abortion, premarital sex, gender roles, and homemaking have changed across two time periods, 1974-1986 and 1987-1998. They found that, in general, both men and women have grown more liberal in their views in all areas except for abortion, where the researchers detect "a slight conservative shift."

Among women, employment and marital status were consistently associated with more feminist attitudes. In all four domains and across both time periods, working women were significantly more liberal than their non-employed peers (p <.05 in all eight measures). Also, divorced women expressed significantly more liberal attitudes in all domains, especially in premarital sex and homemaking (p <.05 in these four measures).

These patterns were somewhat reversed among men. The more men worked relative to their wives, the more conservative were their social views. With a wife in the workforce, men expressed more liberal views (p <.05 for all eight measures). And while men were generally more liberal than women in all four domains in both time periods, divorce did not appear to strengthen these attitudes as it did for women, except in the area of premarital sex.

For certain, feminists welcome these changes in social attitudes, as well as the influence of working women. Yet they cannot deny what this study suggests: that differences between the sexes remain and that the choices of women exert, as Gilder maintained a generation ago, a powerful influence on men.

(Source: Catherine I. Bolzendahl and Daniel J. Myers, "Feminist Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in Women and Men, 1974-1998," Social Forces 83 [December 2004]: 759-790.)