This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]

On: 13 October 2014, At: 14:09

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Divorce &

Remarriage
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20

Teachers' and School Children's

Stereotypic Perception of the
Child of Divorce: 20 Years
Later
a b b
Joseph Guttmann , Amnon Lazar & Moran Karni
a
Faculty of Education ,
b
Faculty of the School of Social Work , University of
Haifa , Haifa, Israel
Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Joseph Guttmann , Amnon Lazar & Moran Karni (2008) Teachers'
and School Children's Stereotypic Perception of the Child of Divorce: 20 Years Later,
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 49:1-2, 131-141, DOI: 10.1080/10502550801973096

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10502550801973096

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
 primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014
 Teachers’ and School Children’s Stereotypic
1540-4811
1050-2556
WJDR
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage
Remarriage, Vol. 49, No. 1-2, May 2008: pp. 0–0

Perception of the Child of Divorce:

20 Years Later
Joseph Guttmann
Guttmann,
Journal of Divorce
Lazar, and
& Remarriage
Karni

Amnon Lazar
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

Moran Karni

ABSTRACT. This is a replica of a study carried out in 1988. Its main

objective is to reexamine after 20 years how teachers’ and 8th-grade stu-
dents’ evaluations of a child’s academic, social, and emotional functioning
are affected by the knowledge that the child’s parents are divorced. One
hundred and twenty junior high school students and 115 female teachers
watched a specially produced film of a child engaged in various activities.
The child’s gender and family structure were experimentally manipulated.
The main results show that whereas in the earlier study both teachers and
the students rated the child of divorce more negatively than the child of an
intact family, in this study this was true only for the teachers. These and
other results are discussed in the context of cultural attitudes, the more
extensive contact teachers have with children of divorce, and the risk that
they and their students become trapped in the Pygmalion cycle.

KEYWORDS. Stereotyping the child of divorce, divorce, children

of divorce

Joseph Guttmann, PhD, is on the Faculty of Education and Amnon Lazar, PhD,
and Moran Karni, PhD, are on the Faculty of the School of Social Work, University
of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Address correspondence to: Joseph Guttmann, Faculty of Education, University
of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Haifa, Israel (E-mail: yossig@construct.haifa.ac.il).
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 49(1/2) 2008
Available online at http://jdr.haworthpress.com
© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1080/10502550801973096 131
 132 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

Several studies have shown that although at present there is greater

acceptance of divorce than in the past (Cherlin, 1981; Spanier & Thompson,
1984; Weitzman, 1981), the stigma attached to divorced persons and to
children of divorce persists (e.g., Amato, 1990, 1991; Guttmann, Geva, &
Gefen, 1988; Hoffman & Avila, 1998). To account for these seemingly
contradicting trends, Burgoyne and Hames (2002) presented data to support
Gerstel’s (1987) premise that there is apparently a significant decline in the
disapproval of divorce but only as a general social category. When it comes
to the evaluation of the individual divorcee, stigmatization persists.
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

The study of stigmatization, stereotype, or person prototype, as Amato

(1991) refers to this preconceived set of beliefs, of divorced persons, and
of children of divorced parents is not merely an epistemological exercise
but has important consequences. Studies have shown that the stigma of
divorce has a detrimental effect on children of divorced parents (e.g.,
Etaugh & Nekolny, 1990; Grych & Fincham, 1992; Guttmann & Broudo,
1989; Hoffman & Avila, 1998; Hoffman & Willers, 1996). The negative
stereotype and its effects stem from the still common perception that the
two-parent family is the best arrangement for raising well-adjusted chil-
dren. In contrast, the one-parent divorced family is perceived as a deficit
form that is likely to negatively affect the children’s emotional, social,
and cognitive functioning (Amato, 1991; Ball, Newman, & Scheuren,
1984; Guttmann et al., 1988; Santrock & Tracy, 1978).
Only a few studies have focused on the stereotyping of children of
divorce, and most of those that did are over a decade old. In Israel there
have been only a handful of studies, the most recent one by Guttmann and
Broudo (1989). The aim of this study is to make a small and partial
attempt to update the information. Specifically, because the rate of
divorce in Israel increased more than twofold in the past two decades
(from 0.8 in 1970 to 1.9 in 2004; Statistics Abstract of Israel, 2005), it
seems appropriate to reexamine the issue by replicating an earlier study.
Guttmann et al. (1988) investigated how the judgment of teachers and of
seventh- and eighth-grade school children about a child’s emotional, social,
and academic functioning are affected by the knowledge of the child’s fam-
ily structure (single-divorced vs. married). Using an 8-mm film as stimulus
material and a rating scale, the researchers report “a more negative evalua-
tion of the child of divorced parents by both teachers and students on all
three [emotional, social, and cognitive] judgment dimensions” (Guttmann
et al., 1988, p. 555). This study has two objectives: first, to examine teach-
ers’ and students’ stereotypical views of children of divorced parents; and
second, to compare the results with those of the study performed in 1988.
 Guttmann, Lazar, and Karni 133

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

One hundred and twenty junior high school students and 115 female
teachers from three schools in a large city in the northern part of Israel
participated in the study. The students, 60 boys and 60 girls, were 13 and
14 years old. The teachers had 4 to 15 years of teaching experience (for
further details of these and other demographic variables see Table 1).
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

Stimulus Material
The stimulus material included a written introduction in which the two
independent variables (gender and family type) were manipulated, and a
film featuring the target child. In the written introduction the participants
were told that they were taking part in a study designed to investigate
“what and how much can be learned about people from a movie.” They
were also told that they were about to see a short movie and then asked to
respond to a questionnaire. Participants were told that the movie depicts
an 11-year-old child, a boy or a girl (introducing the gender manipula-
tion), engaged in various activities. The child was described as one who

TABLE 1. Sociodemographic characteristics by group (N = 235)

Variables Students Teachers

Gender
Female 60 (50.0%) 115 (100.0%)
Male 60 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Film
Boy married 29 (24.2%) 28 (24.3%)
Boy divorced 30 (25.0%) 30 (26.1%)
Girl married 30 (25.0%) 29 (25.2%)
Girl divorced 31 (25.8%) 28 (24.3%)
Family status
Divorced 15 (12.8%) 1 (0.9%)
Intact 101 (86.3%) 102 (89.5%)
Single (parent) 0 (0.0%) 9 (7.9%)
Dead parent/husband 1 (0.0%) 2 (1.8%)

Note. The frequencies do not add up to the sample size because of missing values.
 134 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

“lives with his/her parents or with his/her divorced mother (introducing

the family type manipulation), his/her 14-year-old sister, and 6-year-old
brother.
The film included academic types of activities (doing homework and
studying), social engagements (playing and chatting with friends), and
behaviors that may reflect emotional states (playing alone, watching tele-
vision, painting, lying in bed doing nothing). The academic and emotional
scenes were filmed in the child’s home; the social scene was filmed out-
side and in the school. Two films were produced, one of a boy and one of
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

a girl, with the attempt to make them as equivalent as possible. The actors
were chosen with their parents’ consent based on their “common” look
and their ability to act before a camera. The final, 11-min versions were
edited from about 40 min of rushes.

Dependent Measures
Two dependent measures were used, a recall test and a rating scale.
The recall test, intended to identify participants who missed the main
experimental manipulation (i.e., the child’s family type and gender) and
eliminate them from the study, consisted of one open-ended question: List
the child’s characteristics given in the written introduction.
We used the rating scale developed by Guttmann, Geva, and Gefen
(1988) to assess participant responses to similar stimuli and the same
situations. The questionnaire included 23 questions that respondents
were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (negative end) to 5 (positive end) the
child’s level of functioning on three dimensions: academic (7 ques-
tions), emotional (7 questions), and social (9 questions). Academic
functioning was assessed by questions about the child’s grades in school
(high to low), the amount of effort invested in school work (a lot to very
little), the child’s ability to concentrate (high to very low), diligence
(high to low), and creativity (very high to not creative at all). The
emotional dimension included questions about the child’s mood (happy
to sad), temper (aggressive to not aggressive), openness (very open to
not open at all), and self-confidence (high to low). The social dimension
included questions about the child’s sociability (high to very low), level
of social engagement (high to low), degree of trust in friends (high to
very low), and social popularity (high to low). Cronbach’s alpha reliabil-
ities for the academic, emotional, and social dimensions were .80, .69.,
and .81. For each dimension we used the mean of the respondents’
scores.
 Guttmann, Lazar, and Karni 135

Procedure
Students and teachers were randomly assigned to four experimental
subgroups created by the combination of the child’s gender and family
type. The students viewed the film in the schools, in a classroom assigned
temporarily for that purpose. The teachers viewed the film in their lounge.
The films were showed to groups of 6 to 15 participants, depending on
their availability. Before viewing the movie, participants were handed the
written introduction, and the researcher read it out loud. If no questions
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

were raised, the film was screened. After the screening, participants were
asked to respond to the recall question, then to complete the questionnaire.

RESULTS

All the participants accurately recalled the family type and gender of
the child as provided in the information sheet. Therefore the statistical
analyses are based on the ratings of all the participants.
A split-plot multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed
on the data (Table 2) to examine the effect of the experimental manipula-
tions on the students’ and teachers’ judgments about the child’s function-
ing. The results of the 2 × 2 × 2 MANOVA (Family Type × Gender ×
Group) procedure on the respondents’ judgments revealed an overall
significant main effect for family type (Wilks’s lambda = .89), F(3, 225)
= 9.69, p < .001; for the child’s gender (Wilks’s lambda = .94), F(3, 225)
= 4.75, p < .01; and for the group (teachers vs. students; Wilks’s lambda =
.75), F(3, 225) = 25.02, p < .001. Across gender and group, the child of
the divorced family was ranked less favorably than the child of the intact
family; across family type and group, girls were ranked higher than boys;
and across family status and gender, students’ ranking was lower than that
of the teachers. The results also revealed an overall interaction effect for
group by the marital status of the child’s parents (Wilks’s lambda = .87),
F(3, 225) = 10.72, p < .001; and for the marital status of the child’s par-
ents by the child’s gender (Wilks’s lambda = .93), F(3, 225) = 5.84, p < .001.
Follow-up analysis of variance tests for each dimension indicated that
F values for the main effects for the marital status of the child’s parents
were significant for all three dimensions (F = 4.10, p < .05 for academic,
F = 12.76, p < .001 for social, and F = 25.41, p < .001 for emotional); the
F values for the child’s gender were significant, at p < .05, for the aca-
demic and social dimensions (6.09 and 5.04); and F values for the group
 Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

136
TABLE 2. Means and standard deviations of the rating of functioning dimensions by marital status of the child’s
parents and child’s gender, for teachers and students

Marital Status Child’s Gender Total

Girls Boys M D

M D T M D T

Students
Academic 3.45 (.77) 3.60 (.57) 3.52 (.67) 2.92 (.67) 3.25 (.88) 3.08 (.90) 3.19 (.88) 3.42 (.75)
Social 3.04 (.78) 2.89 (.63) 2.96 (.71) 2.77 (.56) 2.74 (1.03) 2.75 (.94) 2.91 (.82) 2.81 (.84)
Emotional 3.37 (.48) 3.02 (.48) 3.19 (.51) 3.18 (.38) 3.47 (.67) 3.33 (.67) 3.28 (.57) 3.25 (.62)
Teachers
Academic 3.65 (.67) 2.74 (.81) 3.20 (.87) 3.34 (.91) 2.99 (.52) 3.15 (.62) 3.50 (.69) 2.87 (.68)
Social 3.67 (.61) 3.19 (.81) 3.43 (.75) 3.57 (.85) 2.81 (.71) 3.18 (.74) 3.62 (.58) 2.99 (.77)
Emotional 4.18 (.45) 3.33 (.59) 3.77 (.67) 4.03 (.65) 3.53 (.49) 3.77 (.50) 4.10 (.42) 3.43 (.55)

Note. D = divorced; M = Married; T = Total.

 Guttmann, Lazar, and Karni 137

were significant, at p < .001, for the social and emotional dimensions
(20.61 and 52.57) but not for the academic one. The F values of the inter-
action effects for group with family type were significant for all three
dimensions (F = 20.57, p < .001 for academic; F = 6.87, p < .01 for social;
and F = 21.47, p < .001 for emotional), and the interaction of group with
the child’s gender was found to be significant only for the emotional
dimension (F = 13.02, p < .001).
As can be seen in Table 2, overall teacher scores were consistently higher
across the three dimensions when the child’s parents were believed to be
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

married than when they were believed to be divorced. No such differences

were found in the students’ scores. More specifically, teachers perceived the
academic functioning of the girl in the intact family as significantly better
than that of either the boy or the girl in the divorced family, and that of boy
in the intact family as significantly higher than that of the girl in the divorced
family. Student respondents, however, ranked the academic functioning of
the girl in the divorced family as significantly higher than that of the boy in
the intact family. On the social dimension, the means indicate that teachers
judged the boy and girl in the intact family more favorably than they did the
boy in the divorced family, and the boy in the intact family more favorably
than the girl in the divorced family. No such differences were found in the
students’ rankings. When the teachers believed the child’s parents to be
married, they judged him or her to function significantly better emotionally
than when he or she was thought to be in a divorced family. Student respon-
dents perceived the emotional functioning of the boy in the divorced family
to be significantly higher than that of the girl in the divorced family.
Two background variables were relevant, each for a different group:
respondents’ gender for students and respondents’ age for teachers. To
control for these two variables we performed an additional separate
MANOVA for the students and a multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) for teachers. The results of the two-way MANOVA for the
students yielded no significant results for gender as main effect (Wilks’s
lambda = .99), F(3, 112) = 0.18, p = ns, or for the interaction effects of
gender by the marital status of the child’s parents (Wilks’s lambda = .99),
F(3, 112) = 0.49, p = ns, or of gender by the child’s gender (Wilks’s
lambda = .98), F(3, 112) = 0.84, p = ns). The results of the MANCOVA
for the teachers yielded no significant results for age as main effect
(Wilks’s lambda = .97), F(3, 105) = 1.21, p = ns, for the interaction effect
of age by marital status of the child’s parents (Wilks’s lambda = .94),
F(3, 107) = 2.11, p = ns, or for the interaction effect of age by the child’s
gender (Wilks’s lambda = .93), F(3, 107) = 2.57, p = ns.
 138 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

TABLE 3. Comparison between results of the two studies

(1988 and present)

Academic Social Emotional

Previous Present Previous Present Previous Present

Marital status of the D– D– D– D– D– D–

child’s parents
Child’s gender = G+ = G+ = =
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

Group S+ = S+ S– S+ S–
Interaction: Group × = TD(BG) – = TD(BG) – = TD(BG) –
Marital Status SD(BG)+ SD(G) – SD(G) –
SD(B)= SD(B)+

Note. T = teachers; S = students; B = boys; G = girls; – = less favorable; + = more favorable;

= = the same.

Because this study replicates an earlier one (Guttmann et al., 1988), we

compared the results of the two. The main effect of the family status
manipulation was the same in both studies: In both studies the child of
divorced parents was ranked less favorably than that of married parents
on all three dimensions (see Table 3). However, whereas in this study we
found the group by family status interaction to be significant, it was not in
the 1988 study. That is, whereas in the earlier study both teachers and stu-
dents discriminated on the basis of family type, in this study only the
teachers did so. Another difference in the results of the two studies is that
whereas in this study we found the child’s gender main effect significant,
it was not so in the earlier study. Both studies report no main effect for
dimension (the three dependent measures) nor for its interaction with the
other factors under consideration.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the theoretical hypothesis that a child of divorce

is a triggering cue to an organizing set of negative beliefs about a child’s
functioning. The idea is that if a person categorizes another, the relevant
associations with that specific category are invoked and trigger what
Rosenberg and Sedlak (1972) termed implicit personality, and what Fiske
and Taylor (1984) referred to as schema. A schema for a category of
 Guttmann, Lazar, and Karni 139

people is termed a person prototype (Amato, 1991). The prototype is

reflected in the memory pattern and attitudes toward the other, as well as
in expectations and judgment of that person. Facts inconsistent with the
prototype are ignored through a selective memory process (i.e., Cohen,
1981; Snyder & Uranowitz, 1984). The results of this study show that
although all the participants were sensitive to the family type information
provided to them before the movie, it triggered a consistently less favorable
prototype only in the teachers. On all three studied dimensions (academic,
social, and emotional), teachers rated less favorably the child they catego-
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

rized as a child of divorce than the child in the intact family. This across-
the-board consistency seems to reflect an internal implicit personality that
is inclusive, well formed, and fixed. Although no significant interaction
was found between family type and the dimensions, the size of the gap
between the teachers’ ratings of the two family types is noteworthy. The
gap in their rating of the academic and social functioning of the child of
divorce (0.73 SD and 0.75 SD) was greater than in their rating of the
child’s emotional functioning (0.55 SD). This may be the result of the fact
that the teachers’ interest lies more in the child’s academic and social
behavior. Moreover, the information that the film provided in these areas
was more prominent, which may have triggered the more prejudicial
judgments.
The students’ ranking of the child of divorce presents a more complex
picture. It seems that the experimental manipulation in this study did not
trigger two distinct prototypes for the students, although they were not
oblivious to the family type information, as indicated by significant
differences in their ranking of the two types of children and by the fact
that they all recalled this information. The experimental manipulation
triggered two sets of associations, albeit blurred ones. For example, stu-
dents ranked the academic functioning of the girl of the divorced family
as better than that of the boy of the intact family, found no difference on
the basis of family type or gender in the social behavior of the children,
and ranked the emotional characteristics of the boy of divorced parents
more favorably than those of the girl of the same family background. It is
difficult to explain this inconsistent pattern of results, and therefore we
tend to attribute it to the less conclusive nature of the students’ prototype
of the child of divorce.
Comparing the results of the two studies, the main difference is imme-
diately obvious. Whereas the teachers’ negative prototyping of children of
divorce persisted after nearly two decades, that of the students seems to
have disappeared. The teachers’ results may be attributed to the general
 140 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE

cultural attitude in Israel toward divorce in general and toward children of

divorce in particular. However, we have no data to support this assertion.
Given that the divorce rate in Israel increased during the time interval
between the two studies, based on Amato and Keith’s (1991) meta-analysis
study we expected a decrease in the teachers’ negative stereotyping. Thus
our results seem to reflect the biases of the teachers rather than those of the
general public. It is possible that because their encounter with children of
divorce is broader and more intimate, their stereotype is more resistant to
change over time. However, even if their prejudgment is valid, that is, it is a
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

useful generalization of well-founded data, the results of this study may

serve as a warning: Teachers should be aware of their tendency to stereo-
type children of divorce and pay special attention to exceptions to the rule.
It is the children’s results that may better reflect the cultural attitudes
toward children of divorce, because their judgment probably reflects that
of their parents, which may in turn better represent cultural attitudes in the
country. Nevertheless, the teachers’ prejudicial perception of them is an
important issue for the children of divorce. This is especially so because
the teachers’ most biased evaluations were in the academic and social
behavioral areas, which may expose the children to the vicious cycle
generated by the Pygmalion effect. Studies show that children of divorce
perform less well academically and have more behavioral problems than
children of intact families (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991).
Although these differences are small, they may be meaningful, and they
may be the result of the Pygmalion effect. No experimental manipulation
of this effect is possible because of ethical issues, but it is important to
find out whether children of divorce are being affected by their teachers’
stereotypes, and if so, to what extent. It is our responsibility as researchers
to determine the extent to which the lower academic achievements of
children of divorce and their reported higher incidence of behavioral and
emotional difficulties are the result of objective evaluation, and how
much is due to teachers’ negative prototyping.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R. (1990). Dimensions of the family environment as perceived by children: A

multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 613–620.
Amato, P. R. (1991). The “child of divorce” as a person prototype: Bias in the recall of
information about children in divorced families. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
53, 59–69.
 Guttmann, Lazar, and Karni 141

Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith
(1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.
Ball, D. W., Newman, J. M., & Scheuren, W. J. (1984). Teachers’ generalized expecta-
tions of children of divorce. Psychological Reports, 54, 347–353.
Burgoyne, C. B., & Hames, R. (2002). Views of marriage and divorce: An in-depth study
of young adults from intact and divorced families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,
37, 75–100.
Cherlin, A. J. (1981). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania] at 14:09 13 October 2014

Press.
Cohen, C. E. (1981). Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of
the processing effects of prior knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
40, 441–452.
Etaugh, C., & Nekolny, K. (1990). Effects of employment status and marital status on
perceptions of mothers. Sex Roles, 23, 273–280.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York: Random House.
Gerstel, N. (1987). Divorce and stigma. Social Problems, 34, 172–186.
Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Interventions for children of divorce: Toward
greater integration of research and action. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 434–454.
Guttmann, J., & Broudo, M. (1989). The effect of children’s family type on teachers’
stereotypes, Journal of Divorce, 12, 315–328.
Guttmann, J., Geva, N., & Gefen, S. (1988). Teacher’s and school children’s stereotypic
perception of “the child of divorce.” American Educational Research Journal, 25,
555–571.
Hoffman, C. D., & Avila, A. M. (1998). Young children’s negative stereotyping of peers
from divorced families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 29, 67–78.
Hoffman, C. D., & Willers, M. D. (1996). The effects of multiple divorces on person
perception. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 25, 87–93.
Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality
theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6,
pp. 235–292). New York: Academic.
Santrock, J. W., & Tracy, R. L. (1978). Effects of children’s family structure status on the
development of stereotypes by teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 754–757.
Snyder, M., & Uranowitz, S. W. (1984). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive conse-
quences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 941–950.
Spanier, G. B., & Thompson, L. (1984). Parting: The aftermath of separation and divorce.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Statistics Abstract of Israel. (2005). No. 56. Jerusalem, Israel: Central Bureau of Statistics.
Weitzman, L. J. (1981). The marriage contract: Spouses, lovers, and the law. New York:
The Free Press.