posted by on Mar 11
Being a psychologist who may have worked with children and families for 40 years, my reading with this book led me finally that Ms. Marquardt’s research was quite flawed which she gave the impression to selectively choose results to support her hypotheses while ignoring data that challenged her details. Despite being quickly ordained with the media as providing strong evidence that divorce in fact is bad for children knowning that it makes a long lasting anguish within their lives, I wouldn’t believe the ebook actually makes such a case. The truth is, I really believe the book shows there exists this type of thing as being a better divorce understanding that staying together with regard to the youngsters doesn’t bring about better outcomes for your adult kids of these families.
The author’s view:
Ms. Marquardt is emphatic in her own belief that almost all divorces are unnecessary. She blames this partly for the myth with the “good divorce” (“good” in this case meaning having little negative impact on the youngsters) since the basis for the people 75% of divorced couples whose marriage is defined as previously being “low conflict” (essentially any divorce not with different substantially abusive situation). The author states that parents in unhappy, low conflict marriages must have the resolve to stick it, continue to work hard on solving their problems, or perhaps delay divorce before the children leave home. Rogues could be the familiar plea to “stay-together-for-the-sake-of-the-children.”
This is what I call the dishonest marriage vs. the great divorce debate. Ms. Marquardt claims the myth from the good divorce is dishonest for the children and that it ceases to appreciate their pain. But I think that producing believe a marriage is okay before children leave is often a least equally dishonest.
Unless someone can prove that divorce is inevitably seriously damaging to most children, who may have the right to tell married adults that they lack different options but in which to stay a miserable marriage? Ms. Marquardt seems to feel she’s the right to do this. So her data has to be compelling. Why don’t we please take a close look.
Study of the info:
Ms. Marquardt contends that “We [children of divorce] might look fine to all the others, but speak with us about our inner lives and you’ll find, underneath the surface, a potent combination of loss and confusion that haunts [emphasis mine] us to this day.” (p.39)This extremely powerful statement from the destructive impact of divorce, i think, isn’t depending on the data but about the author’s personal expertise as well as the stories in the college students she interviewed inside the first phase in the research (to make the questions for that survey). She refers back to the latter as “profound and moving stories of confusion, isolation, and suffering.”(p.32)
Such a negative view is specially striking since mcdougal describes her current life in rather glowing terms: an awesome marriage and family along with a very rewarding career. She indicated this is also true for several of those she interviewed. But, in response towards the question, “How satisfied are you together with your life as a whole?” 94.9% with the adults from divorced families gave a confident response when compared with 97.6% of the adults from intact families. Besides this neglect to result in the case for any significant difference, it appears to indicate that a majority of with the adults from divorced families in this study aren’t suffering on the significant degree that this author claims.
The novel is entitled “Between Two Worlds” because Ms. Marquardt contends that there is a harmful impact, emotionally, morally, and spiritually, from having to move back and forth between your homes of these parents. It is this issue of residing in two different worlds, with some other rules and complex boundaries, that your author stresses since the source of the majority of divorce’s destructive effect on children. I am not minimizing the traumatic impact that divorce has on everyone involved but My goal is to select is a result of the wide array of Marquardt’s data it doesn’t apparently support a lot of the author’s contentions relating to this issue.
Ms. Marquardt concludes that divorce generates a sense moral confusion within the children due to deficiency of a unified parental guidance (the result of moving into two homes) and also the negative impact divorce is wearing children’s spiritual development and religious involvement. Yet, responding to the survey item, “I think my knowledge of right and wrong is cloudy.”, there was virtually no difference inside responses by adults from divorced families and those from intact families. In fact, over 95% of both groups indicated no moral “cloudiness” in any way! Thus, one central hypothesis, that being coming from a divorced family undermines moral clarity, won’t appear to be based on the data.
Another element of the sense to be lost and confused that Ms. Marquardt contends being the outcome of becoming an adult in a very divorced household is that it results in a sense of no home as opposed to a sense of two homes. Yet in response to the question, “After the divorce, which place felt like where you can you?”, 93% responded which they either felt like one parent’s house, or both, felt like home. Which means this hypothesis of “no home” is also not sustained by your data.
Nearly half the questions on the survey correspond with religion and spirituality, which makes sense since this was obviously a study around the “Moral and Spiritual Lives of kids of Divorce.” However the data doesn’t Ms. Marquardt’s contention that divorce has a negative impact on the religious facets of the lives of youngsters from divorced families. A significant percentage of the adults from divorced families rated themselves fat loss religious than their fathers (47%) and mothers (31.4%). Maybe even more striking is 79.1% of the adults describe God as caring (versus 82.3% from intact family group) and 78.8% describe God as loving them unconditionally (versus 79.7% through the intact group). Thus the data does not support the undeniable fact that divorce brings about the youngsters becoming less religious adults.
Now comes the real stunner. In reaction to the statement, “My spirituality has been strengthened by adversity inside my life.” 43.7% of the adults from divorced families strongly agree! If you add in” Somewhat Agree” (30.5%), the message is that nearly three-fourths of adults whose parents divorced describe their spirituality as being previously strengthened! This info is so powerful the author does report it within the text (p.153) in a very one sentence comment yet says nothing about the incredible implications of this exceptional statement of spiritual resilience. Why? Where should it come from? Perhaps this is a critical element in understanding why a lot of the children from divorced families end up okay. It deserves discussion plus a recommendation for even more research, but the author virtually ignores it. I see this like a particularly strong example of the author’s anti-divorce bias.
Thus the author’s own data does not appear to support her conclusions that adults from divorced families are emotionally distraught, morally lost, less spiritual and less religious than adults from intact families.
These more positive results around spirituality, religion, feeling understood and achieving your house are extremely consistent with the research by Dr. Mavis Hetherington. Her research is longitudinal, not retrospective. She has followed countless families of divorce, many provided three decades, periodically re-evaluating the impact of divorce on children and their parents. Data obtained at each stage of life is additional compelling than data obtained in a very retrospective survey. Also, the study was extensively published in peer-reviewed professional journals a duration of years ahead of the author summarized her findings in a book. Dr. Heatherington concludes that 75% of the children from divorce don’t develop any serious psychological problems (in comparison with about 90% from the non-divorced groups). In addition, she reports that six years post-divorce most children have adjusted towards the adjustments to their lives imposed by their parents’ divorce and therefore are more interested in typical developmental issues within their daily lives. This can be in stark contrast to Ms. Marquardt’s much more negative conclusions but is consistent with the results of her own data that she chooses to disregard.
Finally, I want to address what in several ways may be the true core issue of this book, there’s no such thing being a “good” divorce understanding that it is far better for folks to stay married regardless of whether there’s conflict (low as opposed to high).
Appendix A is definitely the results of 33 questions for the five subject groups (the identifiers reference the parents in the adults interviewed). Three subgroups are from Intact Marriages: Very Happy/Low Conflict; Not Happy/Low Conflict; Not Happy/High Conflict. The ultimate two groups are from Divorced Marriages: “Good Divorce” and “Bad” Divorce. The info clearly shows that children/adults are extremely negatively depending high conflict divorces (scores are almost all far worse than any category) which children/adults from happy, intact marriages have the best lives. I’m certain most everyone knew this without reading the book.
However it is critical to emphasize that on 29 in the 33 statements summarized in Appendix A, the “Good Divorce” group has better results compared to the “Bad Divorce” group as well as the majority of those differences can be substantial. What meaning very clearly is what is being done to train parents the way to divorce inside a more child-sensitive way is actually helpful. Kids of these “Good Divorces” find themselves in a more positive place, suggesting dozens of books, workshops, and therapies which the author belittles as creating a false myth how the “good divorce” may have real value.
Simply what does your data say about the author’s primary thesis it is better for parents who’re in unhappy, low-conflict marriages to be married as opposed to try and have a very “Good Divorce”? Most dramatically, about what I take into account the two most significant statements, the final results strongly suggest an even more positive outcome for your “Good Divorce” group! 57.1% in the adults from that group describe themselves as “very happy” in comparison with 47.8% in the unhappy marriage, low conflict group. Similarly, 62.3% from the adults from your “Good Divorce” group describe themselves as “very delighted by life as whole.” in comparison with 56.2% from your unhappy marriage, low conflict group. Industry by storm just those two items, how do the writer conclude it is better for unhappy, low conflict couples, after having tried their utmost to solve their differences, to stay together instead of doing exercises a healthier divorce?
I am not wanting to deny that there’s not be gained from low conflict couples trying to exercise their problems and turn into together. The primary point the following is that I don’t fall for the writer has got the data to generate her case any time these unhappy, low conflict couples plan to divorce they may be being selfish, putting their own needs before their children’s needs, and condemning their kids with a lifetime of profound confusion, isolation, and suffering. Such a contemptuous attitude toward couples they like to divorce is just not disserved.