CHAPTER 15
Single-Parent Families
Patricia A. Gongla and Edward H. Thompson, Jr.
With the increase in the number of single-parent families
in recent years, the attention paId to this family form has
grown considerably-in both the academic and the public
media. This increased concem with single-parent fami-
lies has, however, often manifested itself as a concern
about a growing "problem," a problem that may threaten
the American family.
Many times, single-parent families are viewed as ab-
normal and broken. They are blamed for their inade-
quacies and problems in living, because the families are
assumed to contam within themselves the causes of their
own "pathology." Other times, children growing up in
single-parent families are credited with causing many of
the major social problems in America, such as the rise in
adolescent pregnancies, educational failure, and delin-
quency.
Many of these negative claims, however, have been
inadequately investigated. When "pathology" assump-
tions guide research, bias in both focus and design be-
comes apparent. In additIon to the deviance assumption,
much of the existing research shows additional problems.
Some of the investigatIOns assume that all single-parent
families are alike. Other studies tend to focus on an indI-
VIdual family member rather than on the family unit. Still
other studies fail to examine the interplay between the
family and the environment. Almost all investigations
assume that the "missing parent" is indeed absent.
To begin to understand single-parent families, we need
to reconsider these bIases; replace them with a view of
single-parent familIes as an existmg family form; and
design research to allow positive and neutral, as well as
negative, aspects to emerge.
The purpose of this chapter is to help with the recon-
ceptualization of the single-parent family as a family form
and then to examine these families in the context of their
environment, particularly at the macrolevel of analysis.
Specifically, thIS chapter (1) provides a demographIC pro-
file of the single-parent family and briefly examines the
Patricia A. Gongla • Department of Psychiatry and the BIO-
behaVIOral SCiences, UniverSity of CalIfornia, Los Angeles, CA
90024. Edward H. Thompson, Jr •• Department of Soci-
ology, Holy Cross College, Worcester, MA 01610.
397
M. B. Sussman et al. (eds.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family
© Plenum Press, New York 1987
problems in estimating the numbers of single-parent fam-
ilies; (2) reconsiders whether the single-parent family is
indeed a family by comparing one-parent and two-parent
families along three dimensions of family organization-
structural, psychological, and interactional; (3) examines
the single-parent family in relation to the macroenviron-
ment of major social institutions, particularly economics
and employment; (4) examines the microenvironment
that single parent-families inhabit; and (5) examines the
relations occurring within single-parent farrulies.
Demographic Profile
During the 1970s, the single-parent family emerged as
an increasingly significant family form. Before this peri-
od, single-parent families constituted a rather constant
proportion of all American families, at least since the
mid-nineteenth century. From that time until the 1970s,
roughly 10% of American families were maintained by a
single mother or a single father (Bane, 1976; Farley &
Hermalin, 1971; Sennett, 1974; Seward, 1978).
This consistency ended, however, during the 1970s.
By the 1980 U.S. Census, the proportion of single-parent
families had doubled (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1981a), so that they represented 21.4% of all families
with dependent children at home.
Barring extraordinary changes, the proportion and
number of single-parent families will become even great-
er. Outside the rapid increase in the number of cohabitat-
ing couples (Glick & Spanier, 1980; U.S. Bureau ofthe
Census, 1981b, Table F), single-parent families are the
fastest growing family lifestyle in America today, havmg
grown at 21 times the rate of the traditional two-parent
family during the 1970s (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1981a). Over the course of the 1970s, the number of
single-parent families increased by 107% to an unprece-
dented 6.7 million families, whereas the number of two-
parent families actually decreased by 4%, to 24.8 million
families. The net result has been a sharp increase in both
the absolute and the relative number of familIes main-
tained by one parent. Moreover, these figures do not be-
gin to estimate the number of people or the proportion of
the population who, by 1980, had lived in a single-parent
family at some time in their lives. Nor do these figures
398
include the number of households where an unmarried
adult assumed responsibility for an unrelated child.
By 1980, the paths through which single-parent fami-
lies had evolved suggested that single parenting has be-
come a more intentional and less transitional lifestyle
choice for many. Separation and divorce have replaced
the death of a parent as the most common pathway. Many
Americans may be choosing single parenthood over un-
happy marriages or immediate remarriage. In addition,
during the I 970s, an increasing number of never-married
women chose to create single-parent families by carrying
unplanned pregnancies to term and keeping their chil-
dren. As a result of both the sharp increase in numbers and
the emergence of single parenting as a lifestyle option, it
is estimated that a quarter of the mothers and fathers who
have minor children at home will be single parents at
some time in the 1980s, and that half of the children born
in the 1980s will spend part of their childhood living with
either their mothers or their fathers (cf. Norton & Glick,
1979; Weiss, 1979). If current trends continue, it is con-
ceivable that a majority of Americans will, at some point
in their lives, experience living for a period in a single-
parent family.
Thus, far from being an aberration, the single-parent
family IS becoming a very common type of family, al-
ready representing over one fifth of the families in the
white community and nearly half of the families in the
black community (Staples, 1980; U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1981a).1 Any expected reduction in the total
number of single-parent families created by the slow-
down in divorce (Glick, 1979a,b) is likely to be replaced
by the upsurge of families maintained by never-married
mothers (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 198Ib). Recent
trends also suggest that proportionally fewer single-par-
ent families will be maintained by the father, even
though the absolute number of single-parent fathers will
continue to rise (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980b, p.
3).2 Single parents will be younger than in the past
(Glick & Norton, 1977) and more likely to have respon-
sibility for younger, yet fewer, children (U. S. Bureau of
the Census, 1978); and single-parent families will very
likely continue the trend of living alone as opposed to
IGlick (l979a) presented a convincmg argument that the pro-
portion of black single-parent families in the Umted States is
probably overestimated by underestimating the number of
black husbands actually livmg at horne: "probably one-fourth
to one-third of the difference between the proportion of black
families and white fatmlies reported as maintained by a
[single-parent mother1could be explained by the much larger
undercount of black men than that of white men" (p. 4).
2There is some disagreement about the accuracy of the official
figures. The question is whether the offiCial statistics underesti-
mate the number of single-parent fathers in the United States as
well as m Great Britam. Pleck (cited in Rapoport, Rapoport, &
Strelitz, 1980, p. 97) estimated that the 10% figure for the share
of father -headed single-parent families m America IS much
closer to 16%. In England, the Finer Report (cited m Rapoport,
Rapoport, & Strelitz, 1980) reported an estimate of 20%.
PART II • DIVERSITY IN F AMILY LIFE
moving in with relatives (Bianchi & Farley, 1979; U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1981a).
In devising these estimates of continued growth for
single-parent families, it is important, when reviewing
census figures, to be clear about the definition of a family
in order not to overestimate or underestimate the num-
bers. As illustrated in Figure I, a distinction must be
made between female-headed family households (or
male-headed family households) and single-parent
households. The former category can include house-
holds where the children present are not the sons or
daughters of the person who heads the household; for
example, a grandmother raising a grandchild, or a parent
who provides a residence for a two-parent subfamily of
daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild. To ignore the dis-
tinction can result in an inflated estimate of the number
of single-parent families. Mendes (1976b), Lewis
(1978), and Katz (1979), for example, overestimated the
number of single fathers by reporting the generic catego-
ry male-headed families with children.
In this chapter, single-parent families are strictly de-
fined as those families-and not family households-in
which there is a single father or a single mother raising his
or her own children (cf. Weiss, 1979). Although some
single-parent families live with a relative or with a non-
relative and may not be readily visible (see Figure I), the
vast majority of these families do not share their home
with others.
The Dimensions of Family Life
The need to reexamine and to understand the nature and
functioning of single-parent families is prompted at least
by their significant number and visibility. Initially, two
critical and interrelated issues emerge: First, is the single
parent family really a family? And second, how different
are single-parent families from (the norm of) two-parent
families? We will discuss each of these issues in tum.
Is the Single-Parent Family a Family?
The term single-parent family has become a generally
accepted term for a particular kind of family structure,
one in which only one parent lives with and has the major
responsibility for the care of dependent children. The
existence of the term, however, does not necessarily
mean that single-parent families are viewed as desirable
or even as real families. Indeed, the term conveys devia-
tion from the ideal of the nuclear family, which consists
of a wife and a husband and their children. From the well-
known works of Anna Freud (Freud & Burlingham,
1944) and Talcott Parsons (1951; Parsons & Bales, 1955)
onward, the two-parent nuclear unit (whether isolated or
not) has been repeatedly identified as "the contemporary
American family."
At the heart of this definition is the assumption that a
husband-wife bond defines the nucleus of a new family
(see, e.g., Duvall, 1971; Leslie, 1979). Such an assump-
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES 399
FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
(58,426)

I
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY
I
FEMALE-HEADED FAMILY
I
MALE-HEADED FAMILY
HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS
(48,180) (8,540) (1,706)
I I I
I I I r I I
WITHOUT WITH WITHOUT WITH WITHOUT WITH
CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN
(22,973) (2,622) (970)

Ri~ED (25'1'7) I Win"

(5,918)
RELATED
WI~T(736)
RELATED
BUT NOT BUT NOT BUT NOT
OWN WITH OWN OWN WITH OWN OWN WITH OWN
CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN
(639) (24,568) (578) (5,340) (127) (609)
I I
PLUS PLUS PLLs
I
MARRIED
COUPLES MOTHERS
I I
FATHERS
WITH OWN WITH OWN WITH OWN
CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN
LIVING WITH A LIVING WITH A LIVING WITH A
NONRELATIVE NONRELATIVE NONRELATIVE
[1J [1 J [1 J
(12) (264) (18)
I I I
PLUS PLUS PLUS
I
MARRIED
COUPLES MOTHERS
I I
FATHERS
WITH OWN WITH OWN WITH OWN
CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN
LIVING WITH A LIVING WITH A LIVING WITH A
RELATIVE [2J RELATIVE [2J RELATIVE [2J
(254) (494) (55)

24,834 6,098 672

MARRIED- SINGLE- SINGLE-
COUPLE PARENT PARENT
FAMILIES MOTHERS FATHERS
WITH OWN WITH OWN WITH OWN
CHILDREN CHILDREN CHILDREN

Figure 1. Dlstnbution of family households by type and presence of children, and parent-child families by type, 1980 (numbers m
thousands). (I) These famlhes do not mamtam their own household, rather they share a house or apartment with a nonrelatlve, who IS
head of the household Fonnerly called secondary families, the Bureau of the Census now Identifies them as "unrelated subfamihes,"
because they are imbedded withm someone else's household. A very common example IS a smgle parent mother and her child(ren)
livmg with a fnend m whose name the home is owned or rented. (2) "Related subfamilies" however, share a relative's house or
apartment. A very common example IS a smgle parent mother and her child(ren) hvmg in her parents' home. (Source: U.S. Bureau of
the Census, Current PopulatIOn Reports, Senes P-20, No. 366, Household and Family Characteristlcs: March 1980, Tables I, 14,
and 21. Washington, D.C .. U S. Government Pnntmg Office, 198Ia.)

tion is, of course, not the only one possible. Margaret
Mead (1949) suggested that both marriage and the father
role are merely social conventions that are precariously
integrated into the family system. Some theorists, there-
fore, point to the parent-child bond-and not to the hus-
band-wife bond-as the nucleus of the family unit (e.g.,
Rossi, 1977; Slater, 1961). However, the institu-
tionalized standard in American culture has been that the
married couple is necessary for a "family," and diffi-
culty occurs in seeing a family nucleus when the married
400
couple does not exist. The literature, conforming to pub-
lic opinion, has often proposed that, where there is no
married couple, there is no family. If the marriage dis-
solves through divorce or one parent's death, the family is
"broken" or "disorganized." If a marriage has never
existed, the parent-child unit is "incomplete."
This emphasis on the husband-wife bond may be mis-
placed. As Sprey (1979) wrote, "Divorce (or any form of
marital separation) ends a marriage but not a family" (p.
155). The family changes, but it can remain a family.
Similarly, in the case of the never-married parent, family
processes such as child socialization and boundary main-
tenance begin with the arrival of the child (Clapp & Raab,
1978; Plionis, 1975; Sprey, 1967).
It is our thesis that both marriage and mantal disruption
change families; these transitions do not necessarily
create or end families. Yet researchers have traditionally
emphasized the importance of the husband-wife bond,
maintaining a normative perspective that seems the-
oretically inadequate. Sociologically considered, fami-
lies can be defined more broadly, not only in terms of
their structural characteristics, but also in terms of their
psychological and interactive nature. Families clearly
vary in structure (e.g., the number of spouses present and
the degree of embeddedness in the kinship network), and
they also vary in terms of the members' interactive and
psychological presence. This interactive dimension of
family organization refers to the ongoing process of com-
munication and contact among the members, and it varies
both across and within famIlies by at least the expecta-
tions for boundary maintenance, the frequency of con-
tact, and its predictabilIty and quality (cf. Heiss, 1968;
Turner, 1970). The psychological dimension, as we see
it, includes the saliency of each member and the sense of
attachment and identificatIon among members (cf. Boss,
1974, 1980a; Laing, 1972).
If we include all three dimensions within our purvIew
for defining families, then the fact that some families
may be missing one parent does not automatically pre-
clude them from being defined as families. Rather,
whether the parent-child(ren) group sees itself as a fam-
ily, has a common identity, includes defined patterns of
exchange and reciprocity, forms rules for management
of conflict, satisfies the members' affiliation and emo-
tional support needs, and so on become the critIcal crite-
ria for deciding whether a famIly exists. With these cri-
teria, one-parent family systems do not need to be
disqualified a priori from the realm of families. Families
with one parent do indeed exist, whether headed by the
mother or the father, and they are probably as diverse as
two-parent families along the psychologIcal and interac-
tional dimensions.
Are Single-Parent Families Different from Two-
Parent Families?
Most previous literature, using the structural frame-
work of the number of parents present in the household to
PART II • DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
differentiate families, proceeded from an assumption that
single-parent family households, because of their one-
parent structure, had little affinity with the two-parent
family. Grouped on the basis of an absent parent, single-
parent families came to be viewed as a homogeneous
group. This research tradition also introduced an addi-
tional assumption. In the view that single-parent families
were a "unitary phenomenon" (Billingsley & Giovan-
noni, 1971), it was assumed that these families would
produce different interaction patterns among members
and consequently affect individual family members dif-
ferently from the two-parent family system. Thus, one
sees, for example, the large body of literature searching
for the (usually detrimental) effects on children in "fa-
ther-absent" as opposed to "father-present" families.
These assumptions not only have hindered the research
on the single-parent family as a family system (Sprey,
1967) but also have limited exploration of the com-
monalities shared by one-parent and two-parent families
(Gongla, 1982). Therefore, it is difficult not to invoke the
usual plea that "more research needs to be done" that
breaks away from these assumptions. This new research
tradition would foster an awareness that the question of
dissimIlarities between one- and two-parent families re-
quires a complex response.
To begin this reconceptualization, let us reconsider the
traditional, structural classification of families. The
structural distinction of one-parent families versus two-
parent families has usually been made (by the public and
by researchers alike) on the basis of an unfilled spouse
role. However, the criteria for defining when the role is
unfilled has been restricted to four conditions: the occur-
rence of separation, divorce, death, or the birth of a child
to an unmarried woman. This distinction raises the ques-
tion: Do these criteria thoroughly distinguish single-
parent families from two-parent families?
Consider, for example, the two-parent family where
the father is in the military and has lengthy absences from
the family during tours of duty. During his absences, his
role tasks are often performed by the remaining parent,
perhaps in conjunction with the children. Such a family is
often subject to boundary ambiguity, a stress situation
where it is unclear whether the father is psychologIcally
inside or outside the family, and therefore whether his
role tasks should remain open (Boss, 1980a,b). During
the long periods of father absence, is the family really a
two-parent family? Similar boundary ambiguity occurs in
families where one parent is imprisoned, hospitalized for
long periods, traveling frequently on busmess, and so on.
Nor does the parent need to be physically separated from
the home for these issues to emerge. If an unhappy mar-
riage exists, for example, various strategies of escape
may be used. As Bernard (1964) noted years ago, strat-
egies of "absorption in work, in travel, in entertaining, in
clothes, in church work; or retreat through alcohol; or
illicit alliances" (p. 723) are available. In all of these
situatIons, when one of the parents is frequently absent so
that mteraction is mmimal, when the role tasks for both
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
parents are performed by one parent, when a parent is
psychologically distanced from the family, does a two-
parent family exist?
From another viewpoint, one might consider the sin-
gle-parent family where, after a divorce, both parents
maintain a strong commitment to the children. The chil-
dren stay with the noncustodial parent every weekend; the
parents maintain friendly relations with each other and
frequently discuss the welfare of the children; both par-
ents perform parenting tasks; and both (even if one parent
predominates) have frequent interaction with the chil-
dren. This pattern can occur whether joint custody has
been awarded or not, as long as a coparenting relationship
is maintained. In these circumstances, two interrelated
households form one family system, which Ahrons
(1979) identified as the binuclear family system. Should
such a family really be classified as having only one
parent?
It becomes clear from such examples that single-parent
families and two-parent families are not discrete entities.
Whether we really have a one-parent or a two-parent fam-
ily depends on the particular viewpoint used and the di-
mensions of family life explored.
A Typology of Single-Parent Families and Two-
Parent Families
For the sake of conceptualizing, one can focus on the
major dimenslOns of family functioning that were out-
lined previously: the structural, the psychological, and
the interactional. A typology of families can be created by
considering the extent of involvement of one parent on
each of these dimensions. For this typology, two condi-
tions are made. First, although only the presence or ab-
sence of one parent's involvement in each dimension is
referenced, the degree of mvolvement is actually on a
continuum. Second, the viewpoint used is that of the
parent who mayor may not be absent from the family
(see Figure 2).
In both the structural one-parent and two-parent fami-
lies, it is thus possible to consider whether the parent in
STRUCTURAL
TWO PARENTS
INTERACTIONAL
Presence Absence
PSYCHOLOGICAL
Presence A B
Absence C D
Figure 2. Typology of smgle-parent and two-parent families.
401
question is psychologically or interactionally involved
with the family. Theoretically, there are family types to
fit each one of the cells, but certain types are much more
prevalent than others. An explanation or example for each
one of the cells is presented.
Cell A represents the traditional "intact" family: two
married parents, residing in the same household, con-
tinually interacting and psychologically involved with the
family. Society has viewed this as the ideal family, using
it as the norm by which to judge all families.
Cell B is a family where one of the parents has little or
no interaction with the other members yet remains psy-
chologically incorporated in the family. Such families
may exist where a parent is hospitalized or imprisoned or
has long business-related absences.
In Cell C, the involvement of one of the parents is on a
pro forma basis. Interaction continues but the parent in-
vests his or her psychic energy elsewhere, such as in work
or in another person outside the family (e. g., an extra-
marital affair.)
An example of Cell D would be a family where one
parent has a serious mental disturbance, such as severe
depression, and withdraws from interaction and from af-
fective investment in the family. A very different exam-
ple exists in the case of a wealthy family where the
spouses become estranged, but the marriage is main-
tained, perhaps for economic reasons. One of the spouses
may divest herself or himself of the family, eliminating
almost all interaction and psychological involvement.
Economic resources allow separate households and a con-
tmuation of the same lifestyle without the necessity of
much contact with the rest of the family.
As such examples indicate, the families that are so-
cially labeled two-parent can have great vanation in terms
of the extent and type of involvement that the parents
maintain with the family. Similar variation exists among
the families labeled as one-parent, as the examples below
indicate.
The most prominent example of Cell E is the family
where the two parents are granted joint custody of their
children after divorce. The levels of psychological in-
SINGLE PARENT
INTERACTIONAL
Presence Absence
PSYCHOlOG ICAl
Presence E F
Absence G H
402
volvement and interaction of both parents with the chil-
dren remains high. The parents themselves maintain sig-
nificant contact as they share the responsibilities of
raising their children. Observers of custody arrangements
(Abarbanel, 1979; Ahrons, 1980; Galper, 1978; Greif,
1979; Newsome, 1977) estimate that this coparenting pat-
tern may soon be the rule rather than the exception.
Cell F is a situation where one parent ceases continual
interaction with the family yet remains psychologically
attached to it. The parent still views the family members
as significant others and modifies her or his behavior in
line with her or his perception of their expectations. If we
switch viewpoints for a moment, Cell F could include
familtes where the death of a parent has occurred. The
memories of the deceased parent are invoked by the re-
maining family members to guide current behavior,
thoughts, and emotions. The "absent parent" is psycho-
logically inside the family boundary, even though the
parent is phYSically absent (Boss, 1980b; Lopata, 1979).
Examples of families in Cell G are more difficult to
hypothesize than the other family types. However, it is
possible to imagine a situation where a parent might, after
divorce, eliminate most of his or her psychological at-
tachments to the family yet, perhaps out of a sense of
duty, maintain some mteraction with the family, such as
telephone calls on all special occasions and regular letter
contact when sending support checks.
Cell H is the counterpart of Cell A. The familtes here
are the single-parent families portrayed m the literature
and recognized by society. Only one parent lives with and
has sole responsibility for the children. The absent parent
has almost no interaction with and little psychological
investment in the family.
In summary, the typology shows that, in order to un-
derstand the nature and functioning of families, we need
to consider how much investment both parents have in the
family, whether it is structurally classified as one-parent
or two-parent. As Boss (1974) pointed out, "Just because
the father (or mother) is not visible we cannot automati-
cally conclude that he (she) is absent" (p. 6).
This conclusion seems deceptively simple. However,
the examples used in the typology have been presented
from the perspective of one parent's physical, psycholog-
ical, and interactive presence or absence. How the family
members withm the family system perceive and respond
to that parent also needs to be considered. Accordmg to
Boss (1974), "the perceptions of the members of the
system create an important variable if not the most impor-
tant variable of all" (p. 6). A second issue that needs to be
considered is one mentioned earlier: Because parental
roles differ from spousal roles, though they are closely
intertwined, we need to untangle the extent to which the
psychological and interactive investment in one is Similar
to or dissimilar from the other.
The Making of Single Parenthood
Given a conceptual model that indicates that some fam-
lites labeled as single-parent actually have two parents'
PART II • DIVERSITY IN F AMILY LIFE
strong involvement, whereas some two-parent families
have only one parent involved, the question can still be
asked: Is there any value in using only the structural di-
mension to define and classify single-parent families as
being different from two-parent families? If so, under
what conditions?
Recall that the structural dimension is the dimension by
which society often defines and labels families. This fact
has real consequences for families. A family defined as
single-parent is treated differently from a two-parent fam-
ily. A family that becomes labeled as single-parent inhab-
its a different social world from that of the family defined
as "intact." Social institutions and social networks treat
the two classes of family differently (Thompson &
Gongla, 1983). Because of this different treatment, many
single-parent families share common problems, issues,
concerns and may thus adopt similar repertoires of cop-
ing. It is open to investigation how these external social
forces affect the interior of family life and move families
along the continua of the psychological and interactional
involvement of both parents. Schorr and Moen (1979),
for example, contended that, given the problems faced by
single-parent families and the societal reaction that rein-
forces two-parent norms, single-parent families come to
define themselves as different from two-parent families;
members of single-parent families come to believe the
false dichotomy between Cell A and Cell H familtes.
Therefore, whether to continue to consider a family
single-parent or two-parent is not a simple matter, nor is it
detached from normative meaning. The particular issue
that we study may help to determine the definition. If we
study the family in relation to the larger social environ-
ment, the structural definitIOn may be sufficient. If we
study the psychosocial interior of the family, then we
need to consider as well the psychological and interac-
tional dimensions.
The foregoing section suggests that single-parent fami-
lies differ from two-parent families largely on the basis of
theirfamily household: One natural parent does not reside
in the household. Single-parent families are structurally
different from the modal (and normative) two-parent fam-
ily household. However, this is not the only basis of
comparison. How the behavior of the family members is
organized constitutes a second point of comparison, and
how the family as a system is perceived by the family
members becomes a third point of comparison.
We have suggested that some single-parent and two-
parent families may well be more similar than dissimilar
when compared along their interactIOnal and psychologi-
cal dimensions. Families in Cells C and G of the ty-
pology, for example, similarly characterize a situation in
which the present or absent parent minimally engages
himself or herself in the family system, though occasion-
ally being involved in some family activities. As one of
Rubin's (1976) respondents commented:
My father was a very qUiet man He almost never talked, even
when you asked him a questIOn. He'd sit there lzke he didn't hear
yOU. Sometimes, an hour later (It was hke he'd come out of a
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
spell), he'd look at you and say, "Did you want something?"
Most of the tlme, he Just didn't know you were there. (p. 36)
Or as one middle-class, two-parent child described his
family:
My mother was always busy-too busy for us. At least that's the
way it felt when I was little. She was always out doing her thing-
worrying about the poor people or the black people or on one
damn committee to save the world or another. I used to be
Jealous of those people because she didn't seem to spend nearly
as much time worrying about me or caring that I felt lonely or
scared. (Rubin, 1976, p 26)
These two recollections oflife in a two-parent family, one
characterizing the parent's preoccupation and the other
the parent's withdrawal, typify families within Cell C.
From the point of view of the child, these two images
would seem very comparable to what a single-parent
child may remember if he or she grew up in what Mendes
(1979) identified as the sole-executive family: "[This1
single parent is the only parental figure actively involved
in the lives of the children . . . the other parent volun-
tarily or involuntarily has no contact with the family and
performs no parental functiOns" (p. 193).
Our thesis is that, on the one hand, the illside of a
family system is an endless process of movement, some-
times from connectedness and attachment to separateness
and withdrawal; and that, on the other hand, there are
social forces and policies external to the family system
that help to dissolve family connectedness along both its
psychological and interactive bonds. We thus see pat-
terned movement ill some two-parent families from Cell
A to Cell D and in many single-parent families from Cell
E to Cell H. That patterned movement, or adaptatiOn to
both internal and external factors, may follow the path
from both adults' participation within the family (Cell A
or E), to one parent's psychological divestment of the
family (Cell C or G), to his or her subsequent withdrawal
from family activities and interaction (Cell D or H). Al-
ternatively, the pattern of a family's adaptatiOn could
follow the process from connectedness (Cell A or E)
through one parent's withdrawal from the family'S every-
day interaction, decision making, and child-rearing re-
sponsibilities (Cell B or F) to the parent's eventual psy-
chological withdrawal and absence (Cell D or H).
Some family systems may "decompose" as a result of
one parent's interactional absence or psychological ab-
sence. When the parental role is not actively taken by the
person whom the children call mother or father, the fami-
ly system is viewed as having an ambiguous boundary.
How families go about resolving the ambiguity of who is
m and who is out of the family system could potentially
produce both detrimental and beneficial outcomes (cf.
Boss, 1980a; Laing, 1972).
It would seem that decomposition withm families
along the interactional continuum follows from the fami-
ly's adaptations to social forces that are external to the
family system. For example, employment in our postin-
dustrial society often demands a full-time commitment
and thus pulls a parent away from the family. Such divest-
403
ment of involvement with the family system, while inves-
ting oneself in an occupation, has been called the invisi-
ble-American-father syndrome (Biller & Meredith,
1972). This parent is so frequently absent from the family
system (though maybe not from the home) that the family
functions in many respects as if it were a single-parent
family. The physically absent parent in a single-parent
family is also frequently pulled away from the family
system by societal forces, for example, the imposition of
legal visitation restrictions (Greif, 1979; Stack, 1976).
Here, the parent's investment in family interaction is pro-
scribed. Thus, whether the parent (usually the father) is
pulled from the family system while coping with societal
prescriptions or has to abdicate the parental role to com-
ply with proscriptions, the outcome is that the parent's
interactional involvement in the family system is re-
duced. Interactional absence and subsequent family de-
composition therefore seem to result from one member's
adaptation to forces outside the family system.
Rather than being pulled from the family system, some
parents may consciously withdraw their interactional in-
volvement. The Academy Award-winning film Kramer
vs. Kramer appeared to emphasize this type of with-
drawal. However, we see such individual adaptations to
dissatisfaction with parenting as unable to fully aC,count
for many families' decomposition. Often, parents want to
engage themselves in their parental role, yet their interac-
tional involvement is constramed.
Family decomposition along the psychological con-
tinuum, however, appears to be a by-product of one par-
ent's separateness and the family system's subsequent
accommodation to the loss. That' 'absent" parent may be
interactively present on a pro forma basis but emotionally
divested, as illustrated in Rubin (1976); or the parent may
be both interactively and physically absent, as in the case
of desertion. Psychological absence seems to be a "sec-
ondary absence." It need not always appear. Physical
events such as death or divorce or long-term separation
may not mean that the interactively absent parent is per-
ceived by the other members of the family system as
absent (cf. Boss, 1977). Family decomposition along the
psychological continuum may best reflect how the family
system secondarily adapts itself to changes ill the mem-
bers' investment and interactional presence.
In summary, the suggestion is that social forces and
policies outside the fanuly system encourage a family's
patterned movement from connectedness toward sepa-
rateness, whether the family system is two-parent or sin-
gle-parent. Each parent is in a position in a social system
that is defined in terms of a set of interconnected, though
not necessarily consistent, expectations. In concert, other
statuses outside the family system pull at a parent's in-
teractional involvement with or commitment to his or her
family. Although the general expectation is that the par-
ent should parent, the specific expectations that each par-
ent faces often cause role conflicts and demand some
degree of separation of one's time and energy from the
family. The family system is therefore vulnerable, and
the single-parent family would seem to be especially vul-
404
nerable: The noncustodial parent in a single-parent family
system is most often legally required to curtail the time
spent within the (single-parent) family; thus, interactional
absence and decomposition occur along the psychologi-
cal continuum.
Which families decompose along what pathways and
under what conditions is still an empirical problem.
Whether single-parent and two-parent families follow
similar pathways is also an empirical problem.
Macroenvironment: Major Social Institutions
Single-parent families, like all other families, live in a
bureaucratic society. Major social institutions and ser-
vice organizations-education, government, health
care, housing, and so on-are governed by large-scale
bureaucracies and impersonal business forces. The
American family system, whether the two-parent or sin-
gle-parent, must deal with these institutions to acquire
the basic products and services that it needs.
In the early 1970s, Cogswell and Sussman (1972)
noted that bureaucratized services
make certain assumptIOns about the famIly They gear their ser-
vices toward an Ideal of what thefamlly ought to be, namely, a
nuclear tradmonal one . ... Because agencIes Ideallze the tra-
dwonalfamlly, theIr programs are aimed at restonng thIs form
and, thus, are ill-eqUIpped to provide relevant supportive ser-
vIces to vanantfamily forms. (p 513)
Furthermore, as Smith (1980) observed, single parent-
hood is often viewed as a temporary condition or as a
transitional phase in the family life cycle; thus, govern-
ment and business often gear their policies and programs
only to the traditional, two-parent family.
Given the usually slow rate of change in large-scale
service organizations, whether much change has oc-
cun-ed since Cogswell and Sussman's article is doubtful.
For example, they noted that health-care services for
children were organized for the convenience of the med-
ical-care profeSSIOnals and not around the availability of
adults to accompany children to the health-care agency.
A decade later, clients are still supposed to accommo-
date to the schedules of the health-care agency, re-
gardless of whether a nonemployed mother is available
to attend to the child's medical-care needs. Yet, the SIn-
gle parent (like other working parents) may lose income
and even jeopardize a job by meeting the time demands
of a health organization. AddItionally, Horowitz and
Perdue (1977) and Wilk (1979) noted that health profes-
sionals' institutionalized approach to single-parent fami-
lies is to treat these families as if they were two-parent,
or to view whatever clinical problems appear as being a
result of the family's deviant, one-parent structure.
Although many schools have begun to hold parent-
teacher conferences and other parental-participation ac-
tivities during evening hours, school hours remain trun-
cated, so that working parents must continue to seek, and
often to pay for, child-care auangements during their
PART II • DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
working hours. Trends in the public financing of educa-
tion in some states threaten to further shorten school
hours, cut after-school activities, and extend single par-
ents' need for child care.
Market forces and economic policies have created
problems with housing availability for one-parent fami-
lies. The cost of owning a home has escalated tremen-
dously, climbing beyond the reach of many single-parent
families. Suitable apartment space has become more cost-
ly and less available in many areas. Some apartment
owners may not accept children, and many apartments
have been converted to condominiums too expensive for
many single-parent families.
In some major religions communities, single parents
may still have a difficult time. If divorced or never-mar-
ried, they may still be viewed as having committed a
moral wrong. If they tum to their church for consolation
in times of stress, they may instead be saddled with
blame, losing a former source of support. Pais and White
(1979) noted this case when they listed commitment to a
religion that maintains negative sanctions for divorce as a
negative con-elate of adjustment and family redefinition.
Although there are signs of change, such as the divorced
Catholics movement (Young, 1978), change is slow in
the large-scale, bureaucratized churches.
LegislatIOn and social policy have often not been sup-
portive of the single-parent family. Major needs such as
child-care services and long-term educational and voca-
tional upgrading for single mothers (Brown, Feldberg,
Fox, & Kohen, 1976) are not only unfilled but spark
controversy and negative sentiments (Woolsey, 1977).
With the emergence of a more conservative era, Ross and
Sawhill's hope (1975) for neutrality in public policy with
regard to family organization may be too liberal. The
quest, as with the proposed U. S. Senate bill called the
Family Protection Act (1979), appears to be toward
federal governmental support of the traditional, two-par-
ent family.
Nowhere is the impact of social Institutions on single-
parent families as prominent as in the combined areas of
economics and employment. Because of the large dif-
ferences In information about famIlies headed by mothers
versus those headed by fathers, we consider these two
types of families separately in discussing economics and
employment.
Single Mothers
Throughout the 1970s, the income of single-parent
families headed by mothers remained less than one third
of the income for husband-wife families. More impor-
tant, the income difference appears to be getting larger. In
1976, for example, single-parent families maIntained by
the mother had a medIan Income of $5,942, which was
only about one third the median Income for husband-wife
families (Johnson, 1978). By the end of the 1970s, single
mothers commanded half the income of SIngle fathers,
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
and half again the average income of the two-parent fami-
ly (U.S. Bureau ofthe Census, 1980c, Tables 25 andD).3
Families headed by a lone mother are over three times
more likely than those of single fathers, and six times
more likely than two-parent families, to have an income
below the poverty threshold (U .S. Bureau of the Census,
1980a, Table 19). Single-parent families maintained by
the mother now represent the largest fraction of all the
various types of families in poverty (Wattenberg & Rein-
hardt, 1979), and throughout the 1970s, they continued to
account for a large proportion of the families who lived in
poverty (Hoffman, 1977). The reality is that about one
third of all white families maintained by a single mother
(33.5%) and over one half ofthe black families headed by
a single mother (58.8%) were in poverty in 1978 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1980a, Table 19).
Obviously, one implication of these income and pover-
ty figures IS that a substantial portion of separated, di-
vorced, and never-married mothers must at some time
depend on public assistance. The majority of single-par-
ent mothers qualify for public assistance (Sibbison, 1974;
Stein, 1970) . Yet, Schorr and Moen estimated that a
"third of the women-headed, single parent families never
receive welfare." Of the two thirds that do require as-
sistance, the typical single-parent mother in a lO-year
period is assisted for 2 years, leaves welfare, and
eventually depends on it again to make ends meet for a
few more years (Schorr & Moen, 1979, p. 16).
What these data suggest is that the gap between single-
and two-parent family incomes cannot be readily ex-
plained by the small proportion of single mothers who
might be identified as "welfare-dependent." Rather,
public assistance IS more an emergency fund to make ends
meet: "The chief source of Income for single parents is
own earnings, particularly for mothers who obtain a di-
vorce" (Bane & Weiss, 1980, p. 14). Welfare dependen-
cy, when it does exist, seems to be more associated with
the recipient's age, education, and health status than with
the recipient's single-parent status per se.
A number of possible explanations have been advanced
for the wide economic gap between one- and two-parent
families. Some of these explanations do not hold up when
empirically tested. For example, there is a belief about
single-parent mothers' propensity to use welfare: Fami-
lies in or near poverty become single-parent in order to
take advantage of public assistance. The data, however,
tend not to support the proposition that "welfare breaks
up marriage" or that "welfare triggers out-of-wedlock
parenting" (Bould, 1977; Bradbury, Danziger, Smol-
ensky, & Smolensky, 1979; Chief, 1979; Dinerman,
3The $16,000 family Income noted for single-parent fathers IS a
"Guestlmate." The available official statistics do not break
down the average Incomes for males with no Wife present, only
for husband-wife families and females With no husband pre-
sent. The figure is denved from the Income for divorced males
With related (though not necessanly their own) children In the
family household.
405
1977; Ross & Sawhill, 1975). Neither can the economic
inequity that separates single-parent and two-parent fami-
lies be readily explained by the increasing size of the
popUlation living in families with the lowest income-
families headed by a single-parent mother (Bianchi &
Farley, 1979). Nor is the widening economic gap be-
tween single- and two-parent families simply explained
by the slightly greater tendency of lower-income families
to separate or to divorce (Espenshade, 1979).
Rather, one major explanation for the income differen-
tial between one- and two-parent families, which remains
after empirical testing, lies in the effects of marital disrup-
tion. Most single-parent families evolve from marital dis-
ruption, and a sizable reduction in family income gener-
ally follows that disruption. To some extent, whether the
custodial parent is male or female, a drop in family in-
come following marital disruption is predictable and re-
flects the loss of the absent spouse's income and unpaid
services. In recent years, the size of this reduction has
become more severe.
This reduction in income largely explains the economic
gap between single-parent and two-parent families, as
well as the prevalence of single-parent mothers' poverty
or near-poverty (Bane & Weiss, 1980; Bianchi & Farley,
1979; Espenshade, 1979; Hoffman, 1977; Mallan, 1975).
Bradbury et al. (1979) analyzed the aggregate census data
and found that women in 1975 could expect a 40% reduc-
tion in income were they to become the head of the house-
hold. Several analyses of the Michigan prospective study
on 5,000 families (the Panel Study ofincome Dynamics)
similarly indicate that the economic costs for single-par-
ent mothers following marital disruption have become
severe, even with welfare funds. In 1973, divorced or
separated mothers suffered nearly a 30% drop In family
income (Hoffman, 1977). Bane and Weiss (1980) found
that, by 1978, the average Income of widows had fallen
31 %, whereas divorced mothers experienced a 43% drop
and separated mothers a 51 % drop. One would guess that
the never-married would be worse off, on the average,
given the generally younger age, lower education, and
higher percentage of minority families (Johnson, 1978).
These data strongly suggest that, for single-parent
mothers, poor economic conditions are attached to the
state of single parenthood itself. Becoming a single parent
is detrimental to the mother's and her family's economic
well-being.
The reasons for this decline in fortune seem to be tied to
macrosocial forces rather than to psychosocial processes
within the family. Simply stated, large-scale social in-
stitutions provide little support for mother-child fami-
lies. Specifically, two major social factors seem to affect
the family's economic status:
The first factor, the low status of women in the work
force, is Widely recognized. Women are relegated to
lower paying Jobs and may receive lower pay than men
for similar work. Often, less opportunity exists for career
advancement and upward mobility. In addition, the social
ideology of "appropriate" sex roles has left many wom-
406
en ill prepared, in terms of education, job skills, moti-
vation, and work attitudes, to compete successfully for
better paying jobs.
The second factor is the general organization of work
within our society. Employer organizations view em-
ployees as workers, not as family members with family
responsibilities. Family-related tasks, such as child care
and household maintenance, usuaIly cannot be performed
by the worker during working hours. Flexible working
hours have not become a widespread option. Nonethe-
less, as many of these family tasks cannot be accom-
plished during nonworking hours, the assumption under-
lying the work organization is that someone other than the
worker wiIl perform those family tasks. TraditionaIly,
this has meant a two-parent family with the mother re-
maining out of the labor force to care for family needs.
Although this pattern creates problems for the increasing
number of two-parent families where both parents are
employed, it is particularly burdensome to single-parent
families, which are much less likely to have the resources
to pay for appropriate services. In addition, single parents
can rarely make trade-offs with the noncustodial parent
about who wIIl assume responsibility for the family tasks
each time there is a conflict between family and em-
ployment responsibilities.
Other issues, such as a dearth of child-care options, a
lack of flexible business and social-service provision, and
generaIly low social prestige and power for women, con-
tribute to the SIngle mother's burdens (BrandweIn,
Brown, & Fox, 1974). Single mothers are at a particular
disadvantage in seeking better paying and upwardly
mobile jobs that require work beyond the standard eight-
hour day, such as attendance at evening meetings, travel,
weekend report-writing, or a general wiIlingness to de-
vote as much time as necessary to complete business.
Such a schedule is impossible for many single parents, as
they could not fulfill their child-care and household re-
sponsibilities. Economic status is further affected by low
and irregular child-support payments and low levels of
public assistance for the minority of single mothers who
remain out of the labor force (Bane, 1976; Espenshade,
1979). It is important to note that all of these forces con-
tributing to the low income-potential of single-parent
mothers usually occur at a time in the family life cycle
when the children are young and in need of care, and
when family expenses are high (Dinerman, 1977).
The effects of lowered economic status on single-par-
ent families are manifold. Families must often reduce
consumption and move to a poorer neighborhood. Subse-
quent problems with reduced personal safety, higher de-
linquency rates, and poorer schools are likely (Bane &
Weiss, 1980; Brandwein et at., 1974). Low economic
status is also likely to affect child development, although
this factor is rarely examined in research on single-parent
mothers (Herzog & Sudia, 1971). Low income, com-
bined with the unstable or demeaning sources of income
that many single mothers must rely on, may be related to a
low sense of one's personal control of fate and one's
ability to plan for the family's future (Bould, 1977).
PART II • DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
In summary, the economic reality of single-parent
mothers "going it alone" has not improved. Bianchi and
Farley (1979) asked:
[Do] the recent shifts m living arrangements of adults and chtl-
dren suggest that our society has gradually moved away from a
family system which maximized the economIc well-bemg ofwom-
en and children and toward one which appears to mimmlze theIr
well-being but maxImize that of men? (p. 544)
Alternatively, rather than graduaIly moving away from
supporting one family system, could it be that our society
has not moved toward supporting various family systems,
and especially those headed by women?
Single Fathers
From the sparse evidence available, it seems that sin-
gle-parent fathers are in much better financial condition
than are single mothers (Johnson, 1978, p. 32). Probably
because divorced fathers who receive custody of their
children are in good financial circumstances to begin with
(Duncan & Morgan, 1976), single fathers' level of eco-
nomic weIl-being is comparatively less austere, and their
reduction in famIly income is much less dramatic (Es-
penshade, 1979).
In one study, a concerted effort to locate lower-income
single fathers met with failure (Orthner, Brown, & Fer-
guson, 1976). As Orthner and his coIleagues indicated:
"For a man to get custody of mInor- children, he has to
demonstrate a degree of resource availability that wIll be
respected by the courts, his peers, and perhaps his former
spouse" (p. 432). Thus, although not facing the poor
economic conditions that women face, men are stilI con-
fronted by an infleXible work organization that is not
concerned with the worker's family responsibilities. Sac-
rifices have to be made, and as Gerslck (1979) found,
raising the children is very often perceived as worth the
occupatiOnal sacrifices. Such men felt that time flexibility
at work would be most helpful in alleviating the conflict
between their work and their child-care tasks.
Keshet and Rosenthal (1978) reported that a majority
of fathers thought that their child-care duties did limit
their job mobility: Their work lives were hampered in
terms of working hours, earnings. and job transfer. Men
may also face a lack of understanding from co-workers
when they must place child-care needs above their work.
Men are still identified in this society in terms of their
work roles; child care is not supposed to be their primary
domain. Similarly, fathers who are poor may face dis-
crimination in trying to obtain welfare or AFDC funds,
which are culturaIly identified as being for families of
mothers and children.
In summary, although families maintained by single
fathers seem to be in much better financial shape than
those headed by single mothers, these fathers may simi-
larly be hampered in their occupational roles by the paren-
tal tasks and household responsibilities of going it alone.
Life inside these families and the effect of single parent-
ing on fathers, nonetheless, remain virtuaIly uncharted.
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE· PARENT FAMILIES
Microenvironment: The Community
Just as the family redefines and reorganizes itself when
it becomes a single-parent family, so also does the com-
munity redefine its response to this family (Bohannon,
1970). Changes in the informal social networks of rela-
tives and friends, in tum, affect the family's reorganiza-
tion. Previous research, however, has not often examined
the social relationships of the single-parent family, thus
leaving questions about changes in the networks and the
effects of changes on the family largely unanswered.
With few exceptions, it is only the more recent research
that has begun to recognize the importance of examming
the interchange between the family and the microsocial
environment. Most of this work has been restricted to
discussing the social relatIOnships of the parent rather
than those of the children.
As indicated in the aVaIlable studies, what needs to
discussed is: How do the social networks of the family
change when it becomes defined as a single-parent fami-
ly? And what are the effects on the family when networks
change, particularly the levels and types of social
support?
Change in Social Relationships
The literature has suggested that smgle parents, in gen-
eral, have a "roleless role" (Hiltz, 1978). The thesis
holds that American culture has no clearly defined role for
the separated, divorced, WIdowed, or unmarried parent,
nor does it have clear norms for other individuals and
groups to follow when interacting with the single parent
(e.g., Adams, 1975; Udry, 1974). But what does this
mean in terms of the changes in social relationships? If
there is no role, are both the single parent and all former
friends and relatives in a state of complete ambiguity over
whether and how to maintain or change their rela-
tionshIps? Alternatively, are there any cultural norms that
would reduce this ambiguity and help to determine the
nature of relatIOnships after a person becomes a single
parent? To what degree does one's marital status or
change m marital status affect one's relationships WIth
friends and relatives?
To consider these questions, we need to distinguish
between relationshIps with relatives and those with
friends, as norms differ for the two groups.
Relationships with Relatives. A starting point for ex-
anrining the changes in the single parent's relationships
with relatives is a consideration of kinship norms. The
perspective employed here IS a structural one: We assume
that, although kin statuses and roles are not rigidly deter-
mined, there is some degree of structure or patterning in
the kinship system. Kin statuses (or kin roles) are not
interchangeable. In addition, the norm for marriage m
Amencan society IS "free choice": The selection of the
spouse is made by the individual rather than by his or her
kin group. Free-choice marriage is usually correlated
with kInship systems so that the choice of a mate has little
407
effect on the kin groups of either spouse, as few or no
economic or political alliances are made between the kin
groups of the husband and the wife (Zelditch, 1964). The
marriage, instead of linking kin groups, links only the
spouses themselves. From this brief overview, it could be
hypothesized that (1) access to the spouse's relatives
would be primarily indirect, gained through the spouse's
interactive bonds, and, therefore, (2) norms of kinship
that apply to one's own relatives (consanguine kin) do not
fully extend to the relatives of a spouse (affinal kin).
Within the kinship structure, there are more specific
norms governing behavior: the norms which revolve
about the issue of autonomy for the adult child. Adult
children are expected to live relatively independently of
their parents, maintaining separate households and sup-
porting themselves financially. What does all of this
mean for the parent who divorces or who loses a spouse
through death? Based on these kinship norms, one could
further hypothesize that a single parent's (1) relationships
with in-laws will tend to worsen as compared WIth rela-
tionships with blood kin; (2) relationships with blood rel-
atives will tend to remain unchanged; and (3) rela-
tIonships with blood kin will tend to remain unchanged or
to Improve if the single parent maIntains a degree of au-
tonomy similar to that maintained while the parent was
married.
Although more research is needed, the initial evidence
supports the hypotheses. First, after the loss of a spouse,
single parents seem to maintain or increase their ties-
both behaviorally and affectively-with therr own blood
relatives, and the children have patterns of contact similar
to those of theIr parent (Anspach, 1976; Gongla, 1977;
Hiltz, 1978; Spicer & Hampe, 1975; Stack, 1974).
In contrast, the parent's ties with in-laws tend to wors-
en, particularly after separation or dIvorce. In this case,
the child may be able to maintain ties with those relatIves,
provided that the noncustodial parent maintains contact
with the child and thus provides an access route to his or
her own blood kin (Anspach, 1976; Gongla, 1977;
O'Brien & Garland, 1977).
If the single parent's relationships with his or her con-
sangume kin worsen, Issues about the single parent's au-
tonomy may be a major factor in the decline. As Weiss
(1979) indIcated, relatives-particularly the single moth-
er's parents-may criticize the single parent, not under-
standing or approving of the situation, as well as offer
unsolicited advice. The worst case occurs when the single
mother with her children moves into her parents' house-
hold. Here, she is likely to lose much autonomy and to
decline in status as her parents reassert their authority.
This situation leads to tension and strong dissatIsfaction
within the home environment (Colletta, 1979; Weiss,
1979). The children may have problems in determining
where authority lies, as role boundaries become confused
(Dell & Appelbaum, 1977). The children may offer less
support to the single mother and may assume less respon-
sibility than do children who live only with their mothers.
Thus, to maintain good relationships with blood kin, it
seems valuable for previously married single parents to
408
keep some distance and independence from their relatives
and to continue the autonomy that the parents had when
they were married.
Although there is less research about the never-mar-
ried, the literature does suggest that the never-married
maintain ties with their blood kin. In particular, the large
subgroup of young , especially adolescent, mothers seems
to rely heavily on support from relatives, with the greatest
support coming from the young mother's own parents.
Besides receiving financial aid and help with child care, a
large subgroup (perhaps a majority) of unmarried mothers
live for some period with their relatives, usually their own
mother (Bolton, 1980; Grow, 1979; Presser, 1978). Al-
though the young mothers are not" giving up" the auton-
omy of an adulthood that they have not yet reached, there
IS a potential for role conflicts between the two genera-
tions; for example, the young mother may claim more
autonomy in child care than her own parents wish
(Bolton, 1980, p. 112).
These findings on single parents' relations to blood
kin-whether the parent be previously married or never-
married-seem to hold for both blacks and whites. There
may be some difference, however, in the degree to which
smgle parents and their chIldren are mcorporated into the
kin groups. Black single parents may rely more heavily
on aid from kin, and the kin are more ready to offer aid.
Maintaining autonomy, particularly by keeping a sepa-
rate household, may not be as important for black single
parents, particularly if economic resources are low. Prob-
ably more than in the white community, the one-parent
family has a secure position in the kin group, and the km
group gIves stability to the family. The extended-family
structure has more often remained viable among blacks
(Martin & Martin, 1978; St. Pierre, 1980; Stack, 1974),
although today there is some evidence that the viability of
this extended-family system IS being threatened, Iron-
Ically by the rise in separate single-parent households
(Cazenave, 1980).
In summary, the social situation for single parents is
not completely ambIguous with regard to the single par-
ent's relatives. The single parent is not left "roleless."
Although day-to-day interactions with relatives are far
from fully determmed by norms, the patterns of contact,
support, and attachment do seem to be governed to some
degree by the structures and norms of kinship. The smgle
parent remains incorporated m his or her own blood-kin
group. The single parent still has the km status and role
that she or he had before becoming a single parent. What
may be lost, however, IS the kin role in the spouse's kin
group.
Relationships with Friends. Friendships are not gov-
erned by the same norms as kinship. For the most part,
friendships are based on personal commitment. One must
earn the status of friend, rather than being ascribed the
status, as is true of kin relatIonships. One achieves the
status of friend by reciprocating the support offered by
the other. Friends are often in similar life circumstances,
PART II • DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
which enable each one to understand the other's situation
and thus to provide mutual support.
Because of these qualities, friendships are likely to be
called into question when a person becomes a single par-
ent. The person's life circumstances are changed signifi-
cantly, so that a disparity can develop among friends;
others may find it difficult to understand the new situation
of the single parent or to identify with it. Ironically, at the
same time, the single parent's needs for support and aid
become greater. As Weiss (1979) wrote:
Smgle adults, more than the married, need tles outside their
homes, for they are without that fellow adult within the
household who can proVide the married with assistance and
companIOnship. But the smgle parent's needfor ties outside the
home is greater even than that of other single adults because the
single parent, as head of afamily, is more lzkely to need the help
ofothers. All the forms ofassistance-advice, relief, avatlability
in emergencies-that a married parent could expect of a spouse,
must be sought by a single parent from relatIOnships outside the
home. (p. 167)
In effect, as the need for support becomes greater, the
single parent's resources for reciprocating become
smaller.
Given these conditions, we might expect significant
changes to occur m the friendship circles of new single
parents. Although the research evidence is tentative, it
supports this statement. For the divorced and the wid-
owed, the network of married friends may be lost over
time, and the single parent begins to feel margmal to this
"married" community. For the divorced, m particular, a
sense of being a "fifth wheel" may develop (Kitson,
Lopata, Holmes, & Meyenng, 1980). For those not pre-
viously married, difficulty develops in having one's sin-
gle, non-time-constrained friends understand the prob-
lems, responsibIlities, and lack of freedom associated
with being a smgle parent; these friendships are likely to
fade (Clapp & Raab, 1978; Weiss, 1975, 1979). Al-
though single mothers and fathers are likely to maintain
ties with a few close friends from "before" (Clapp &
Raab, 1978; Rosenthal & Keshet, 1980), It is also likely
that a degree of SOCIal isolation will ensue (Hetherington,
Cox, & Cox, 1979; Kitson et at., 1980). This seems
particularly true for men, who are less likely than women
to have formed an affectively rich social-support system
and who are thus more likely to experience lonelmess
(Greenberg, 1979; Schlesinger, 1978).
Whether the smgle parent is the father or the mother, a
reduction in the friendship network is likely after a person
becomes a single parent. A new circle of friends who
understand the single parent's situation may eventually be
formed, but this formation takes time. The new circle is
often other single parents (Goode, 1956; Greenberg,
1979; Hunt, M., & Hunt, B., 1977; Staples, 1980; Weiss,
1979). This new circle may be smaller because the smgle
parent has less ability to reciprocate and less time to in-
vest. With regard to cross-sex friendshIps, single mothers
appear to expenence more difficulties, as they have less
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
behavioral latitude than men because of social norms
(Greenberg, 1979).
In summary, because of the nature of friend rela-
tionships, single parents are likely to undergo a period of
significant change in the friendship network, losing for-
mer friends and thus, perhaps, lacking the social support
that they need. Although new networks of friends are
likely to form eventually, whether these networks provide
adequate support has been inadequately investIgated.
Effects of Support on the Single-Parent Family
Social support IS often viewed as a positive mediating
influence in family stress sitlIations (McCubbin, Joy,
Cauble, Comeau, Patterson, & Needle, 1980, p. 864).
However, not many investigations have assessed how
social support and participation in informal social net-
works affect the one-parent family.
Direct assistance from family and friends (e.g., help
with child care, economic aId, and the performance of
household repairs) can help the family accomplIsh the
necessary tasks. But In addition, social support may play
a much larger role In both family and individual function-
ing. Colletta (1979), for example, found that a lack of or a
dissatisfaction with social support was associated with
restrictive and punishment-oriented chIld-rearing prac-
tices by the single mother. Brassard (1979) also reported a
link between the custodial parent's informal support sys-
tems and positive parenting styles. In terms of individual
functioning, Brown, Feldberg, Fox, and Kohen (1976)
mentioned the presence of more hopeful attitudes among
those with limIted support. Loge (1977) and McLanahan,
Wedemeyer, and Adelberg (1981) noted that positive ad-
Justment to the single parenting role was dIrectly related
to the parent's finding new social roles and an identity
outside the famIly. Social supports, therefore, do appear
to affect the parent's functIOning.
A particularly valuable suggestion of the need for so-
cial support comes from epidemiology. Although the re-
sults are only tentative, research suggests that support
from social networks is Important in reducing the occur-
rence of Illness and death (Berkman & Syme, 1979; Cas-
sel, 1976; Cobb, 1976; Mueller, 1980; Turner, 1980). As
unmarried adults seem to be subject to higher rates of
physical and psychological morbidity and death than are
married adults (Bachrach, 1975; Berkman, 1969; Bloom
eta!., 1978; Gove, 1972; Parker & Kleiner, 1966; Renne,
1971; Verbrugge, 1979), it would seem that single par-
ents are not receiving adequate support from their social
networks. Lacking a spou&e to gIve support, they are not
"protected" from illness (Bloom, Asher, & White,
1978; Kessler, 1979; Pearlin & Johnson, 1977). Single
parents generally do not tum to theIr chIldren for support
(Chiriboga, Como, Stein, & Roberts, 1979), so support
must come from people outside the family. Thus, single
parents seem to have greater unmet needs for informal
social support.
409
Microenvironment: Single-Parent Family
Relations
The widespread belief that single-parent families are
necessarily harmful to those members going it alone is a
sociological problem: Are single-parent families' rela-
tions and their effects detrimental to family members, and
if so, how? We first examine the literature that assumes
that single-parent family relations are detrimental or even
"pathological" and then review the literatlIre in which
single-parent family life is more systematically analyzed
and the psychological and interactional dimensions are
considered.
The Research Tradition
Considerable research on single parenthood has been
published in professional journals since the 1930s (e.g.,
Shaw & McKay, 1932). Much of the research purport-
edly dealing with single-parent families, however, does
not stlIdy the family. Rather, it examines the individual
family members who are residents of single-parent house-
holds; and typically, the investigator's focus is on the
effects that this single parWlt condition has on individual
family members, especially the children. That research is
flawed methodologically and IS based on various biases.
Although occasionally distInguishing among the spe-
cific types of single parenthood that arise from separa-
tion, divorce, death, or the birth of a child to an unmarried
woman, the traditional research usually classifies all sin-
gle-parent families In the same manner, as father-absent
(single-parent) households. This research implies that all
one-parentJamilies are psychosocially identical. Group-
ing all single-parent families together, this homogeneity
assumption resulted in a long tradition of studies that
assumed that father-absent (single-parent) conditions
would produce direct (and usually detrimental) effects on
the individual family members, especially boys.
A typical study divided children Into only two groups,
pairIng those from two-parent families with those from
father-absent (single-parent) households; the study then
typically attributed whatever differences existed between
the children to the children's family life, that is, to the
father's absence or presence. The effects commonly in-
vestigated fall into four categories: sex-role development
(e.g., Badaines, 1976; Biller, 1968; D'Andrade, 1973;
Greenstein, 1969; Hetherington, 1966, 1972, 1973;
Santrock, 1970); general personalIty functions or emo-
tional disturbances (e.g., Baker, 1967; Biller, 1971;
Hoffman, 1971; Pederson, 1966; Trunnell, 1968); cog-
nitive development (e.g., Atkinson & Ogston, 1974;
Carlsmith, 1964; Consortium for the StlIdy of School
Needs of Children from One-Parent Families, 1980;
Landy, Rosenberg, & Sutton-Smith, 1969; Rosenthal &
Hansen, 1980; Santrock, 1972; Shinn, 1978); and vari-
ous other pathological behavioral adaptations, such as
delinquency or suicide (e.g., Dorpat, Jackson, &
RIpley, 1965; Goldstein, 1972; Lester & Beck, 1976;
Miller, 1958).
410
This body of literature assumes that father absence or
presence by itself explains the observed difference
among the children. The implied psychoanalytic per-
spective appears to force the assumption that father ab-
sence deprives the children of the role models and the
childhood experiences necessary for "healthy" devel-
opment, and it further tacitly suggests that the unmarried
mother cannot manage the family environment. As-
sumptions such as these have resulted in a body of liter-
ature so biased that it is of limited use; it can be charac-
terized as "impresslOnistic journalism" (Raschke &
Raschke, 1979, p. 367). Sprey (1967) commented,
"The traditlOnal research design m which one parent
families-often of different nature-are compared with
intact ones is methodologically irrelevant and will easily
lead to misleading generalizations" (p. 31).
Not only have studies following the traditional research
design continued the homogeneity assumption by pitting
father-absent against "intact" family systems, they have
failed to consider the extent to which the (absent) father is
absent. Such researchers have viewed the father as being
completely absent from the family system when (as pre-
viously discussed) the spouse role is unfIlled. Current
research suggests, however, that fathers rarely vanish
magically from the family system (Hetherington, Cox, &
Cox, 1976; Rosenthal & Keshet, 1978), nor is their com-
plete absence often preferred by farrnly members (Gold-
smith, 1979; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Weiss, 1979).
Nonresidential parents are expected to contmue theIr pa-
rental role, and many do for a time, whether previously
married to the child's mother or not (Abarbanel, 1979;
Earls & Siegel, 1980). In additIon, "father presence" in
the two-parent household does not automatically ensure
the father's interaction with hIS children or a warm, ac-
cepting relatlOnship (Blanchard & Biller, 9971; Boss,
1974; Nye, 1957; Raschke & Raschke, 1979; Rubin
1976).
The main point, however, IS that this research traditlOn
has created a conceptual and methodological quagmire by
assuming that the father-absent (single-parent) condition
has a direct and usually detrImental effect on indIvidual
famIly members. Researchers have often failed to consid-
er variables associated with the single-parent condition,
even such obvious factors as sociodemographic dif-
ferences. The Consortium for the Study of School Needs
of Children from One-Parent Families (1980), for exam-
ple, continued this crude post hoc explanatory design.
Finding a high prevalence of troubled children livmg in
single-parent households, it made three unwarranted as-
sumptions: that single-parent family relations bred the
pathology; that the troubled behavior emerged after the
children and the fathers had lived apart; and that smgle-
parent familIes, in fact, shared the same opportunities
and life chances in their community as two-parent fam-
ilies.
An additional problem with this literature is that it often
disregards single-parent families that function normally;
many researchers focus on only those smgle-parent fami-
PART II • DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
lies found in a variety of "clinical" populations, such as
juvenile courts and outpatient clinics (e. g. , Kalter, 1977).
Findings from this large body of literature have not
been unconditionally accepted by all scholars (see, e.g.,
the critical reviews by Biller, 1971; Blechman, 1982;
Blechman & Manning, 1976; Herzog & Sudia, 1968,
1971, 1973; Hetherington & Duer, 1971; Kadushin,
1970; Lamb, 1976; Sprey, 1967). Herzog and Sudia
(1968), for example, argued that some of the effects of
father absence could be accounted for entirely by the
economic poverty that many single-parent families cope
with everyday. McCord, McCord, and Thurber (1962)
pointed out that a mother lives in the father-absent house-
hold, and that her relationship with her child(ren) might
account for some of the "father-absent" effects (cf. Bill-
er & Bahm, 1971; Hetherington, 1972, 1973; Hoffman,
1971; Pederson, 1966). Reports of child pathology result-
ing from the father's absence from the household have
rarely been confirmed in a study that controlled for a
previously Ignored concomitant variable. Moreover,
when representative samples of single-parent and two-
parent families have been studied, and when their dif-
ferences in socioeconomic status have been controlled
for, the hypothesized detrimental effects on the children
attributable to the single-parent family structure have
generally failed to appear. What is found is that there are
fewer differences between children in single-parent fami-
lies and two-parent families than within each family type
(Blechman & Manning, 1976, p. 66; Herzog & Sudia,
1971).
New Research Direction
Some investigators, recognizing the weaknesses of the
traditional parent-absent-parent-present research design,
began studying families and how they interact, that is,
whether the interaction WIthin single-parent and two-par-
ent familIes affects individual members differently. Al-
though most of this research still focuses on the individual
and thus does not directly assess families as families, it IS
nonetheless important.
First, it has begun a new research tradition m which
smgle-parent family relations are more thoroughly ana-
lyzed. Second, it does not assume that single-parent fami-
lies are a homogeneous group, even though they are struc-
turally SImilar and may share a number of common
problems. Third, these studies pay attention to the pres-
ence of the "absent" parent and his or her effect on the
members of the single-parent household. Last, and most
Important, this new research substantiates the idea that
family processes often supersede family structure. For
example, research on how mothers interact with their
children (Aldous, 1972; Biller, 1971; HetherIngton,
1972, 1973; Longabaugh, 1973), on the inaccessibIlity of
the "absent" parent both before separation (Blanchard &
Biller, 1971; Kagel, White, & Coyne, 1978; Minuchin,
1974; Reuter & Biller, 1973) and after separation (Boss,
1977, 1980a; Earl & Lohmann, 1978; Kagel et ai., 1978;
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Weiss, 1979), on the frequen-
cy and types of interaction between parents after marital
disruption (Raschke & Raschke, 1979), and so on has
changed our understanding of single-parent family rela-
tions. These findings strongly suggest that a number of
single-parent families are more similar to two-parent fam-
ilies than they are to other single-parent families.
Effects on Children
Herzog and Sudia (1971) argued, "There has been
repeated evidence that when factors within the home are
studied, family climate has been a more potent variable
than father absence, per se" (p. 85). Nonetheless, few
family-interactIOn studies have yet been able to isolate
which family-interaction patterns and what climate relia-
bly differentiate troubled from nontroubled familIes (Jac-
obs, 1975, p. 56). Rather, the general finding is that
IIvmg in a single-parent family does not necessarily harm
children. That finding, however, appears to be both con-
ditional and dependent on what Herzog and Sudia (1971,
1973) identified as the family's quality, harmony, or cli-
mate. Thus, although particular family patterns have not
been isolated, the general family environment or clImate
has been proposed as crucial.
The weight of what little available evidence there is
appears to support Herzog and Sudia's premise. Nye
(1957) reported that adolescents living in family environ-
ments characterized as "unhappy" showed Significantly
poorer adjustment m areas of psychosomatic Illness, de-
linquent behavior, and parent-child adjustment; no effect
for family structure was noted. Kagel, White, and Coyne
(1978) found that what differentiated disturbed adoles-
cents from normals was the latters' perception of their
family environment as expreSSive, warm, and cohesive;
family structure showed no effect. Similarly, Raschke
and Raschke (1979) found that publIc-school children's
self-concept was lower in "unhappy" homes and when
the children perceived the family environment as conflict-
ridden; again, no slgriificant differences across types of
families was found. Berg and Kelly (1979), however,
showed that not only did children's feelings of acceptance
or rejection by their parents covary with self-esteem, but
an interactive effect also showed the rejecting intact fami-
lies as causing their children to suffer the lowest self-
esteem.
In general, these studies suggest that family environ-
ment, independent of family structure, can limit or exac-
erbate children's social and psychosocial problems. Only
the study by Berg and Kelly (1979) shows that family
structure and family environment combine in a double-
barreled effect, and these results challenge the assump-
tion that single-parent families automatically jeopardize
children's well-being.
One interesting explanation that helps to account for
these findings has been suggested elsewhere (Blechman
& Manning, 1976; Wolff, 1950), It could be that the
decreased size of the single-parent family gives rise to
411
more frequent and intense interaction, an increase in
statements of affection, and a decrease in hostile state-
ments. The reduced family size "changes not only com-
munication rate but communication content" (Blechman
& Manning, 1976, p. 78). Reduced family size further
reduces the status inequities between parent and child
(Weiss, 1979).
This hypothesis is consistent with the research findings
that children who report that their home environment is
filled With turmoil, conflict, and rejection before their
parents' separation also experience less trauma after the
separation. That is, the exit of the parent, in thiS case,
reduces the tension in intrafamilial relationships, permits
an increase in the frequency and intimacy of interaction
among the single-parent family members, and thus en-
hances the child's self-esteem and self-concept. Family
relations move toward a new equilibrium with the exit of
the parent from the household (Boss, 1974; Burchmal,
1964; Lamb, 1977; Magreb, 1978).
That the evolution of a two-parent household to a sin-
gle-parent household may enhance the family system's
move toward a new equilibrium does not imply that the
exiting parent necessarily disappears. On the contrary,
physical absences need not be synonymous with psycho-
logical absences. For the child, two separate parent-child
relationships often continue after marital separation, one
with the "absent" father and one with the "present"
mother. Do both these relationships become more inti-
mate and introduce favorable changes in communication?
Do physically absent fathers become more interactively
and psychologically present m their relationship with
their children? Whether or not children maintain the same
frequency of interaction with their father, does the father
remain psychologically salient in the chIld's phenome-
nological family?
The answer to each of these three questions seems to
be an affirmative although conditional one. Children do
frequently develop close relationships with both parents,
if their noncustodial parent is accessible and the
custodial parent "accepts" the other parent (Abarbanel,
1979; Cline & Westman, 1971; Earl & Lohmann, 1978;
Rosenthal & Keshet, 1978; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980;
Weiss, 1979). The children continue to think of them-
selves as the children of two parents: "Although the
mother's caretaking and psychological role became in-
creasingly central m these families, the father's psycho-
logical significance did not correspondingly decline"
(Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, p. 307; italics in the origi-
nal). In addition, as Weiss (1979) noted, "most single
parents do what they can to foster their children's rela-
tionships with their non-custodial parents. They do so
despite their own feelings, because they believe It
important for the children" (p. 159).
As a result, these tentative findings do suggest that the
quality of the father-child relationship after marital dis-
ruption improves, at least for a while (Earl & Lohmann,
1978; Grief, 1979; Hetherington, et ai., 1976). Over
time, however, father-child relatIOnships become more
412
emotionally shallow if the frequency of encounters de-
creases as a result ofthe restrictions on visitation. Howev-
er, it would be misguided to assume that the father de-
creases in saliency in the eyes of the child. Although
many children would generally prefer more frequent con-
tact with the father and often desire free, unrestricted
access to this parent (Rosen, 1979; Wallerstein & Kelly,
1980), they think of themselves as having two parents.
The father remains psychologically present if not also
interactionally inside the child's (single-parent) family
boundary.
Another area of research, that on "children of di-
vorce," has examined the impact of marital disruption on
children, lookmg closely at children's reactions and ad-
Justments to the disruption of the family and the loss of
everyday contact with a parent (e.g., Despert, 1953;
Landis 1960; Hetherington, 1973; McDermott, 1970;
Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). The earlier investigations in
this body of literature were particularly inclined to con-
ceptually mix two analytically distinct issues: single-par-
ent family relations and the effects of marital disruption.
They were additionally likely not to distinguish whether
the observed effects of the divorce or a parent's death
were immediate, short-term, or long-term; and frequent-
Iy, the samples of children coping with the postdivorce
situation were drawn from clinical populatIOns.
The literature on single-parent family relations pre-
sents the thesis that hostile or reJectmg family relations
result in negative effects whether the observed family
structure is one-parent or two; the children-of-divorce
literature similarly suggests that the quality, harmony, or
climate of the marital disruption shapes the effects on the
children (Sorosky, 1977; Weiss, 1975, 1979). If the mi-
lieu of the divorce situation has an air of hostility or
includes hostile interaction between the spouses over
their parenting roles, the children appear to be espeCially
vulnerable to negative feelings (guilt and fear) and be-
haviors (irritability and aggressiveness). As Anthony
(1974), Cline and Westman (1971), Landis (1960), and
others have suggested, angry parents may well jeopar-
dize their children's well-being.
Because the hostile feelings and interaction are proba-
bly most visible before the divorce, the predivorce rather
than the postdivorce phase may well be the most stressful.
Luepnitz (1979), for example, asked a small group of
(normal) college students who were children of divorce to
recall which aspect of divorce acted as the major stressor.
She found that the household conflict before the divorce
presented the major problems. Using a clmical sample of
children and adolescents who asked for help in the midst
of the divorce, Wallerstem and Kelly (1980, p. 304) Simi-
larly found that the predivorce phase had the greatest
impact and produced the most stress.
What these limited data from the two bodies of liter-
ature suggest is twofold:
First, the quality of the child's family environment in a
single-parent family may be less detrimental than the
quality of his or her family environment preceding the
PART II • DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
marital disruption. This idea is consistent with Bohan-
non's (1970) and Wallerstein and Kelly's (1980) concep-
tualization of divorce as a several-stage process. It is also
consistent with the interpretation that divorce is an adap-
tive strategy for the family in a postindustrial society
(Bane, 1976; Parsons, 1970, p. 166). Whetherthe short-
term or long-term costs, therefore, outweigh the gratifica-
tion and benefits is an empirical question.
Second, the impacts on children caused by marital dis-
ruption and the impacts caused by single-parent family
relations, when controlling for families' socioeconomic
status, need to be analytically and methodologically dis-
tinguished. Studies have shown that the event producing
the single-parent family structure is a stressful one, prob-
ably producing greater stress than events such as the birth
of a sibling or moving to a new community. Yet, studies
have not shown whether the stress actually results from
the parents' separation as spouses, the antecedent con-
flict, or a parent's interactional and/or psychological ab-
sence before, during, or immediately after the marital
separation. Neither have studies shown whether the im-
pacts that persist past the initial stressor(s) are dimimshed
or fueled by smgle-parent family relations. In other
words, there is a need to consider the crucial differences
between marriages and families and to shift the focus
from the conduct of spouses to the relations withm fami-
lies (Sprey, 1979, pp. 155-157).
In summary, because of the history of methodological-
ly flawed-then partly improved-studies that have suc-
cessively reported contradictory fmdings, because of the
analytical and methodological needs to untangle the ef-
fects of the precipitating stressor from single-parent fami-
ly relations, and because of single-parent families' un-
equal access to societal resources, we cannot reject the
null hypothesis: There is no known detnmental effect (on
children) directly attributable to single-parent family re-
latIOns. Single-parent families do not appear automatical-
ly or necessarily to result in a pathological environment
for children. The crucial variable seems to be the manner
in which the family members (includmg the absent par-
ent) redefine their joint situation. In some families, that
redefinition is likely to cause troubles for the child(ren).
But it is still uncharted whether this redefinition is more
detrimental than the unspoken redefinition that occurs m
some two-parent families with a psychologically absent
parent.
Children in single-parent families do, of course, face
special circumstances and problems. To be sure, some
children pay a penalty. They live m a smgle-parent house-
hold in a two-parent society. In a typical situation, their
father lives elsewhere, and their mother must "deprive"
them of her complete attentIOn as she attends to her head-
of-the-household responsibilities. Children do feel de-
prived (Schorr & Moen, 1979; Weiss, 1979). They also
cope with fewer resources and more frequent residence
changes than many of their (two-parent) peers (Bane &
Weiss, 1980; Brandwem et al., 1974; Ferri & Robinson,
1976), as well as with other people's misconceptions of
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
life in a single-parent family. But these special problems
emerge as a result of their membership in a family that
society defines as abnormal and as one that will go away
with "family reconstitution." The problems have not
been known to be reflections of single-parent family rela-
tions; rather, they seem to reflect the economic, psycho-
logical, and social difficulties that result from the fami-
ly's inability to command access to the same resources as
two-parent families (Blechman & Manning, 1976;
Brandwein et al., 1974; Schorr & Moen, 1979). Thus,
some children do pay a penalty, particularly when the
family is headed by a female who has less access to finan-
cial, material, and social rewards, and when "the relative
social acceptability of the cause of parental absence may
result in a real change in a family's access to pleasant and
aversive consequences" (Blechman & Manning, 1976,
p. 69; italics added).
Effects on Parents
In comparison to the volume of literature on children in
single-parent families, relatively little attention has been
addressed to the single parent. ThiS small body of liter-
ature presents the thesIs that most single parents, particu-
larly mothers, must shoulder more exclusively the re-
sponsibilities, pains, and joys of being both the head of
the household and a single adult.
Single parents share problems with all parents. The
needs of the children, role conflicts, and insufficient re-
sources to meet aspirations-all of these affect single
parents, who also cope With special troubles because of
their situation as smgle parents . Weiss (1979) Identified
the fundamental problem In the Single parent's situatIOn [as] the
insuffiCIency of Immediately aVailable support The married par-
ent can rely on a partner. . The Single parent must make do
with much more ilmlted help from chIldren, kin, frIends and
professional helpers (p 265)
Their msufficiency of immediate supports means, effec-
tively, that the smgle parent may suffer from what Weiss
(1979) called an "overload."
First, single parents, who have the sole responsibility
for the household, must meet alone whatever the children
need emotIOnally, physically, and intellectually. ThiS re-
sponsibility overload carries beyond children's needs, to
mclude meeting the demands imposed by the phYSical
environment (e.g., house repairs) as well as the demands
of making decisions virtually alone, without someone
with whom issues can be regularly discussed. As Glasser
and Navarre (1965) argued, the effect is that the single
parent's "responsibilities to home and children tend to
never be completed" (p. 102). Such open-ended, largely
unshared, and potentially burdensome responsibilities
can result in a sense of role strain.
Not all single parents, however, confront role stram.
This cognitive stress, generated when the single parent
feels unable to comply with normative expectations, is
often mitigated by the pattern of role distribution before
marital disruption (Blechman & Manning, 1976) as well
413
as by the single parent's access to social supports. For
example, single fathers may experience less role strain
than single mothers, probably because of their greater
access to scarce resources, more favorable community
attitudes, and special treatment by the children's schools,
neighbors, and work associates (Mendes, 1976a,b;
Orthner et al., 1976). One study (Rosenthal & Keshet,
1978), however, suggests that the strains experienced by
fathers are sirnilarto those identified by mothers. At first,
fathers do feel overwhelmed with child care and house-
hold maintenance because of their inexperience. But mo-
tivated, first, by the fear of losing a relationship with their
children and, second, by finding satisfaction in the par-
enting role, fathers adapt and sense their effectiveness.
Whether or not fathers' strategies for adjusting are, in
fact, effective remains an empirical question.
Second, single parents who assume the responsibility
for housekeeping, child rearing, and employment be-
come committed, thus, to two full-time jobs (Weiss,
1979, p. 272). This task overload largely results from
what Blechman and Manning (1976) identified as "lead-
er strain" (p. 72). This construct refers to the behavioral
consequences of a situation where the single parent must
carry out disparate tasks that overburden his or her avail-
able time and energy. All single parents must endure
some leader strain. Thus, Glasser and Navarre (1965)
suggested that we can also expect some behavioral resolu-
tion. Resolution could hypothetically evolve in three di-
rections, yet it empirically appears to follow one path.
Although single parents could overload their children
with a variety of tasks to reduce their own role conflict or
could curtail their involvement with the children as a
secondary avenue to reducing the strain and conflict, they
are more likely to simply neglect some tasks, particularly
those aSSOCiated with the traditional housewife role (M.
Hunt & B. Hunt, 1977; Loge, 1977; Weiss, 1979). Thus,
it appears that the options to overload the children or to
cut back one's involvement with the children involve too
many significant sacrifices for the parent and the child.
That two pathways to reduce the task overload are
"unselected" does not mean that they are unused. Sin-
gle-parent families are organizationally different from
two-parent families; therefore, there is a blurring of the
distinction between the statuses of adult and child in the
single-parent family. In comparison to most two-parent
families, this blurring leads both to having the children
assume some responsibilities formerly assigned to the
parent and to "depnving"the children of a large quan-
tity of time. The blurring of the adult and child statuses
also changes the qualIty of family interaction and en-
courages more negotiation. As Weiss (1979) suggested:
The absence of [a] parental echelon . permits the develop-
ment of a new relatIOnship between parent and chIldren In whIch
the chIldren are defined as having responsibilitIes and nghts In
the household not very different from the parent's own. (p. 74)
Smgle parents thus do make demands on their children to
assume greater responsibility Within the household's divi-
414
sion of labor, though they worry about overloading the
children (Weiss, 1979). Single parents are also struc-
turally constrained from as much involvement (Le., time
spent) with their children as two parents can afford,
though they do worry about "depriving" the children of
children's needs (Weiss, 1979).
Third, single parents cope with a sense of emotional
overload. Weiss (1979) observed that
Emotional overload occurs because the parent's emotional re-
silience proves Inadequate for the number and intensity of the
children's demands. The absence of relieffrom constant avazl-
ability to the children produces emotIOnal depletion. (p. 275)
Simply stated, a child's love is demanding rather than
supporting. Whereas adolescents are capable of serving
as companions and sources of support (Weiss, 1979, p.
11), children, in general, become an obstacle to a single
parent's intImacy needs.
In a study of single parenting and intimacy, Greenberg
(1979) found:
The majority of the parents Interviewed saw single parenting as
directly constraining their sexual activities because of locatIOn
constraints (haVing to go away from home), reduced amount of
sexual aCtiVity, and reduced quality as a result of tiredness or
Intrusion by children. (p. 316)
For single parents, the very physical responsibility of
caring for children acts as a major constraint: Intimacy
and sharing cannot be left to chance but must be actively
planned (Greenberg, 1979, p. 324). Adjustment to sin-
gle-parenting demands thus may require cons1derable
tIme (Hetherington et al., 1979; Weiss, 1979) and may
require finding new roles outside the family unit as a
single adult, not as a single parent (Clayton, 1971; Loge,
1977; Rosenthal & Keshet, 1978).
Although these three problem areas are indigenous to
the single-parent family system, they are not restricted to
the single-parent family. Many two-parent families are
likely to cope with s1milar problems, especially when one
of the parents is physically or psychologically absent for
long periods of time. It is our belief that many of these
personal troubles are social issues, arising from various
kinds of cultural norms and social policies. The responsi-
bility and task overloads, for example, are exacerbated by
the lack of child-care facilities, the presumption that dual
parenting 1S harmful to the well-being of children, and the
present adversary system in which separating spouses and
lawyers barter parenting time with the children for money
(Abarbanel, 1979; Grief, 1979; Kohen, Brown, & Feld-
berg, 1979). As Gordon (1980) suggested:
It is, after all, not Just task and responsibility overload that lead
. custodial parent, to the nonresidential parent, and to the
to emotIOnal overload. It IS also the strain of lzvlng In a society
which contains members who inSiSt uponforclng all people Into a
mold, while Ignoring the consequences of poverty, inequality
... Single parents need, as other people do, a society that uses
its resources to shape policies based on the recognztlOn of the
diversity of human experiences (p. 287)
PART II • DIVERSITY IN F AMILY LIFE
Discussion
The purpose of this chapter was to present a specific
conceptual framework that would help social and behav-
iorial scientists and clInicians to rethink their views on
single-parent families. The framework presented is, we
think, fairly parsimonious, even though it intentionally
complicates the image of the single-parent family. Sug-
gesting diversity among single-parent families, we do not
claim to have uncovered and reviewed all the relevant
issues, nor have we thoroughly analyzed each of those
included. Rather than presenting such a review, we see
this chapter as beginning to differentiate single-parent
families from the stereotype of the single-parent famdy
household. Much of that argument lies in the chapter.
Considering the number of studies on single-parent
families that have been published, it is surprising that
more systematic attention has not been given to middle-
range theory-building. It 1S also surprising how few em-
pirically grounded generalizations can be made in this
area of family studies. In this chapter, however, some
tentative directions have been suggested. Four 10 particu-
lar stand out.
First, a major task facing researchers interested in pur-
suing the distinction between s1Ogle-parent households
and single-parent families involves reassessing the extent
to which the "absent" parent is absent. Despite marital
status and household arrangements, we cannot assume
that the noncustodial parent is 10teractively and/or psy-
chologicallyabsent. For example, from the perspective of
the children, the family may evolve from occupying a
single household to occupying two households. That is, a
family boundary that includes two parents may continue
to exist despite multiple households. Similarly, the
custodial parent may view the other parent as still par-
tially responsible for the ch11dren and therefore may in-
clude the other parent psychologically and/or interac-
tively withm the family boundary. Thus, the issue is how
the family defines itself. Is the "absent" parent com-
pletely absent? Do the family members share a common,
sense of the family boundary? Is the noncustodial parent
more likely first to disengage interactively than to disen-
gage psychologically? Are multiple-household (single-
parent) families an emergent lifestyle? Is the multiple-
household (single-parent) family only a probable stage in
boundary definition?
Second, we need to examine the positive effects of
single-parent family relations. Much has been written
about the "broken," "unsuccessful" single-parent fami-
ly, yet little attention has been given to how single-parent
families successfully adapt. What are the benefits of be-
coming a s1Ogle-parent family to the children, to the
family system?
Third, Sirnmel (Wolff, 1950), in his insightful treat-
ment of intimacy, suggested that the mere number of
affiliated individuals has a bearing on the qualitative as-
pects of relationships. Thus, what are the effects of vari-
CHAPTER 15 • SINGLE· PARENT FAMILIES
ous structural variables (e.g., family size and the age of
the children) in determining the family's abilities to
adapt? Do one-child single-parent families fare differ-
ently in their ability to successfully redefine the family
boundary from single-parent families with more than one
child? When more than one child is present, is there a
coalescing among siblings? What effects would such a
coalition have on redefining the family's authority struc-
ture and patterns of communication?
Last, more attention needs to be paid to the role that
society has in aiding and thwarting single-parent families'
ability to effectively reorganize and survive. We need
more systematic attention to issues that go beyond the
economics of single-parent family life. The normative
expectation is that single-parent status is temporary. But
this type of assumption is misleading, for it elimmates the
need to examine whether other social institutions, like
medicine, education, or religion, meet the needs of sin-
gle-parent families.
References
Abarbanel, A Shared parenting after separatIOn and divorce A study of
Jomt custody American Journal of orthopsychiatry. 1979,49, 320-
329
Adams, B The family A SOCIOlogical interpretation (2nd ed) Chicago
Rand McNally, 1975
Ahrons, C "The bmuclear famtly Two households, one farruly Alter·
native Lifestyles, 1979, 4, 499-515
Ahrons, C 10mt custody arrangements m the postdlvorce famtly Journal
of Divorce, 1980,3, 189-205
Aldous, 1 Children's percepttons of adult role assignment Father-ab-
sence, class, race, and sex mfiuences Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 1972,34,55-65
Anspach, D Kmshlp and divorce Journal of Mamage and the Family,
1976,38, 323-330
Anthony, E Chtld at nsk from divorce A review In E Anthony & C
Koupermk (Eds ), The child In hlsfamlly, Children at psychiatric rISk,
Vol 3 New York. Wiley, 1974
Atk1Oson, B , & Ogston, D The effects of father absence on male chtl-
dren m the home and school Journal of School Psychology, 1974, 12,
213-221
Bachrach, L Mamal stress and mental disorder An analytical review
(DHEWPubhcattonNo ADM75-217) Wash1Ogton,DC US Gov-
ernmental Pnnt10g Office, 1975
Badames, 1 Identlflcatton, Imltatton and sex role preference 10 father-
present and father-absent black and Chicano boys Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 1976,92, 15-24
Baker, L Impact of father absence on personahty factors of chtldren
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1967,37,269-273
Bane, M Mantal dlsruptton and the hves of chtldren Journal of SOCial
Issues, 1976,2(5), 11-117
Bane, M , & WeiSS, R Alone together The world of smgle-parent faml-
hes American Demographics, 1980,2(5), 11-15
Berg, B ,& Kelly, R The measured self-esteem of chtldren from broken,
rejected and accepted famlhes Journal ofDivorce, 1979,2,363-369
Berkman, L , & Syme, S L SOCial networks, host reSistance, and mor-
tality A mne-year follow-up study of Alameda County reSidents
Amencan Journal of EpidemIOlogy, 1979,109, 186-204
Berkman, P Spouseless motherhood, psychological stress and phYSical
morbidity Journal ofHealth and SOCial BehavIOr, 1969, 10, 323-334
415
Bernard, 1. The adJusttnent of mamed males In T Chnstensen (Ed ),
Handbookofmamageandthefamlly Chicago Rand McNally, 1964
Bianchi, S., & Farley, R RaCial differences m famtly hv10g arrangements
and economiC well-bemg: An analYSIS of recent trends Journal of
Mamage and the Family, 1979,41, 537-551.
Biller, H A note on father absence and masculme development in lower-
class negro and white boys Child Development, 1968,39, 1003-1006
Btller, H. The mother-child relattonshlp and the father absent boy's per-
sonality development Memll-Palmer Quarterly, 1971, 17, 227-241
Biller, H , & Bahm, R. Father absence, perceived maternal behaVIOr, and
mascuhmty of self-control among Jumor high school boys Develop-
mental Psychology, 1971,4, 178-181
Biller, H , & Meredith, D The mVlslble Amencan father Sexual Behav-
IOr, 1972,2, 16-22
Btlhngsley, A , & Glovarmom, 1 Famtly, one parent In R Moms (Ed ),
Encyclopedia of SOCial work, Vol 1 New York National Assoclatton
of SOCial Workers, 1971
Blanchard, R , & Biller, H Father avallablhty and academiC performance
among third-grade boys Developmental Psychology, 1971,4, 301-
305
Blechman, E Are chtldren With one parent at psychological nsk? A
methodological review Journal ofMamage and the Family, 1982,44,
179-195
Blechman, E , & Manmng, M A reward-cost analYSIS of the smgle-
parent famtly In E Mash (Ed ), BehaVIOr modificatIOn andfamilles
New York Brunner/Mazel, 1976
Bloom, B , Asher, S , & White, S Mantal dlsruptton as a stressor A
review and analysIs Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 83, 867-894
Bohannon, P Divorce and after Garden City, N Y Doubleday, 1970
Bolton, F The pregnant adolescent Beverly Hills, Cahf Sage Pubhca-
tlons, 1980
Boss, P Psychological absence In the Intact family A systems approach
to a study on fathering Paper presented at the Theory Construction
Workshop, Nattonal Counctl on Famtly Relattons, St loUIS, 1974
Boss, P A cJanflcatton of the concept of psychological father presence 10
famlhes expenencmg ambigUity at boundary Journal ofMarriage and
the Family 1977,39, 141-151
Boss, P Normattve family stress Famtly boundary changes across the
hfe-span FamIly RelatIOns, 1980,29,445-450 (a)
Boss, P The relattonshlp of psychological father presence, Wife's person-
al quallttes and wlfe/famtly dysfunctIOn m farruhes of rrussmg fathers
Journal of Mamage and the FamIly, 1980,42, 541-549 (b)
Bould, S Female-headed famlhes personal fate control and the prOVider
role Journal of Marriage and the FamIly, 1977, 39, 339-349
Bradbury, K , Danziger, S , Smolensky, E , & Smolensky, P Pubhc
asSistance, female headship and econorruc well-bemg Journal of
Mamage and the FamIly, 1979,41,519-535
Brandwem, R , Brown, C , & Fox, E Women and chtldren last The
SOCial SituatIOn of divorced mothers and their farruhes Journal ofMar-
riage and the FamIly, 1974,36, 498-514
Brassard, 1 The ecology of dIvorce A case study analYSIS of personal
SOCial networks and mother-child interactIOn In a divorced and a mar-
ned famIly Paper presented at the annual meetmg of the Nattonal
Counctl on Famtly RelatIOns, Boston, 1979
Brown,C ,Feldberg,R ,Fox,E ,&Kohen,S Dlvorce.Chanceofanew
hfetlme Journal of Soclallssues, 1976,32, 119-137
Burchmal, L Charactensttcs of adolescents from unbroken, broken, and
reconstttuted famlhes Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1964,26,
44-51
Carlsmlth, L Effect of early father absences on scholasttc aptttude Har-
vard EducatIOn ReVIew, 1964,34, 3-21
Cassel, 1 The contnbutton of the SOCial environment to host resistance
Amencan Journal of EpidemIOlogy, 1976,104, 107-123
Cazenave, N Alternattve mtlmacy, mamage, and famtly hfestyles
416
among low-mcome Black Amencans Alternative Lifestyles, 1980,3,
425-444
Cluef, E. Need deternunatlon 10 AFDC program. Socull Security Bulletin,
1979,42(9), 11-21
Cluriboga, D , Coho, A , Stem, J., & Roberts, J Divorce, stress and
SOCial supports. A study 10 help-seeklOg behaVIOr Journal ofDivorce,
1979,3, 121-135
Clapp, D., & Raab, R. Follow-up of unmamed adolescent mothers
Social Work, 1978,23, 149-153
Clayton, P Meeting the needs of the slOgle parent famIly Family Coordi-
nator, 1971,20,327-336
Cline, D , & Westlnan, J The Impact of divorce on the famIly Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 1971,2,78-83
Cobb, S SOCial support as a moderator of life stress Psychosomatic
MediCine, 1976,38, 301-314
Cogswell, B , & Sussman, M Changmg family and mamage forms.
Comphcatlons for human services systems Family Coordinator, 1972,
21,505-516
Colletta, N. Support systems after divorce. InCidence and unpact Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 1979,41, 837-846
ConsortIUm for the Study of School Needs of Children from One-Parent
FamIhes The most Significant mlnorlty· One-parent children In the
schools Frrst-year report of a longltudmal study cosponsored by the
National ASSOCiation of Elementary School Pnnclpals and the Institute
for Development of Educational ActiVIties, Arhngton, Vrrgmla, 1980
D' Andrade, R Father absence, Identification, and Identity Ethos. 1973,
1.440-445
Dell, P ,& Appelbaum, A Tngeneratlonal enmeshment Unresolved ties
of smgle parents to family of ongm American Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry, 1977,47.52-59
Despert, J Children of divorce New York Doubleday, 1953
Dmennan, M Catch 23 Women, work and welfare SOCial Work. 1977,
22.472-477
Dorpat, T , Jackson, J , & Ripley, H Broken homes and al1empted and
completed SUICide Archives of General Psychiatry. 1965,12. 213-
216
Duncan, G , & Morgan, J Introduction and overview In Five thousand
Amerlcanfamilles-Patterns of economic progress, Vol 4 Ann Ar-
bor, Mlch Institute for SOCial Research, 1976
Duvall,E FamllyDevelopment(4thed) Philadelphia Llppmcott, 1971
Earl, L , & Lohmann. N Absent fathers and black male children SOCial
Work. 1978,28. 413-415
Earls, F , & Siegel. B PreCOCIOUS fathers Amerlcan Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry. 1980.50. 469-480
Espenshade, T The economic consequences of divorce Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 1979, 41, 615-625
Farley, R , & Hermahn, A Family stablhty A companson of trends
between blacks and whites AmerlcanSoclOloglcalReVlew. 1971,36.
1-17
Fern, E , & Robmson, H Copmg alone London NFER Pubhshmg,
1976
Freud, A , & Burhngham, D l'!fants wtthoutfamliles New York Inter-
natIOnal UOlverslty Press. 1944
Galper, M Co-parentmg Philadelphia RunOlng Press, 1978
GefSlck, K Fathers by chOice Divorced men who receive custody of theu
children In G Levmger & 0 Moles (Eds ), Divorce and separatIOn
Context. causes and consequences New York BaSIC Books, 1979
Glasser, P , & Navarre, E Structlrral problems of the one-parent family
Journal of Social Issues. 1965,21, 98-109
Glick, P Futlrre Amencan famlhes COFO Memo 2. 1979 (Sum-
mer/Fall), 1-7 (a)
Glick, P The future ofthe Amencan family Current PopulatIOn Reports.
Senes P-23, 1979,78, 1-7 (b)
Glick, P , & Norton, A Marrymg, dlvorcmg, and hvmg together 10 the
PARTII • DIVERSITYINFAMILYLIFE
US today PopulatlonBulletm, 1977,32, No 5, Washmgton, DC.,
Population Reference Bureau.
Glick, P, & Spanier, G Mamed and unmamed cohabitation 10 the
United States Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1980,42. 19-30
GoldslOlth, J RelatIOnships between former spouses Descrlptlve find-
mgs ReVision of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Na-
tional Council on Family Relations, Boston, 1979
Goldstem, H Internal controls in aggressive children for father present
and father absent famIhes Journal ofConsultmg and Clmlcal Psychol-
ogy, 1972,39. 512
Gongla, P SOCial relatIOnships after marttal separatIOn A study of wom-
en With children Unpubhshed doctoral dissertation, Case Western Re-
serve UOlverstty, 1977
Gongla, P Smgle parent famIhes. A look at famIhes of mothers and
children In H Gross & M B Sussman (Eds ), Alternatives to Tradi-
tional FamIly Llvmg, New York Haworth Press, 1982,5-27
Goode, W Women In divorce New York. Free Press, 1956
Gordon, J Smgle parents' personal struggles and SOCial ISSUes In P Stem
(Ed), Single life Unmamed adults m SOCial context New York St
Marttn's Press, 1980
Gove, W Sex, mantal status and SUICide. Journal of Health and SOCial
BehaVIOr, 1972, 13. 204-213
Greenberg, J Smgle parentmg and mtlmacy Alternative Lifestyles. 1979,
2,308-330
GreenstelO, J Fathenng charactenstlcs and sex-typmg Journal of Per-
sonality and SOCial Psychology, 1969,3. 271-277
Greif, J Fathers, children and Jomt custody. Amerlcan Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry. 1979,49,311-319
Grow, L Today's unmamed mothers. The chOices have changed Child
Welfare, 1979,58. 363-371
HeiSS, J Family roles and interactIOn An anthology Chicago Rand
McNally, 1968
Herzog, E , & SUlda, C. Fatherless homes. A review of research Chil-
dren. 1968,15. 177-182
Herzog, R ,& Sudla, C Boys Infatheriessfamilles Washmgton, D C
US DHEW Office of Child Development, 1971
Herzog, R , & Sudla, C Childten 10 fatherless famlhes In B Caldwell &
H RIccIUti (Eds ), ReView of Child Development Research. Vol 3
Chicago UOlverslty of Chicago Press, 1973
Hethenngton, E Effects of paternal absence on sex-typed behavIOrs 10
Negro and white pre-adolescent males Journal of Personality and
SOCial Psychology, 1966,4, 87-91
Hethenngton, E Effects of father-absence on personality development 10
adolescent daughters Developmental Psychology. 1972,7.313-326
Hethenngton, E GirlS WithOUt fathers Psychology Today. 1973,47,49-
52
Hethenngton, E , & Deur, J The effect of father absence on child devel-
opment Young Children. 1971,26.233-248
Hethenngton, E., Cox, M ,& Cox, R Divorced fathers Family Coordi-
nator. 1976,25.417-428
Hethenngton, E , Cox, M , & Cox, R The development of children 10
mother-headed famlhes In D ReiSS & H A Hoffman (Eds), The
American family DYing or developing New York Plenum Press,
1979
Hiltz, S. Widowhood A roleless role Mamage and Family ReView.
1978, I, I-H)
Hoffman, M Father absence and conscience development Developmen-
tal Psychology. 1971,4, 4OO-4U6
Hoffman, S Manta! mstabillty and the economic status of women De-
mography. 1977,14.67-76
HorOWitz, J , & Perdue, B Smgle parent famlhes. NurSing CliniCS of
NorthAmertca. 1977,12.503-511
Hunt, J ,& Hunt, L Race, daughters and father loss Does absence make
the gul stronger? SOCial Problems. 1977, 25. 90-102
CHAPTER 15 SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
Hunt, M , & Hunt, B The dIvorce experzence New York: McGraw-Hili,
1977
Jacobs, T Farmly mteractlon m dIsturbed and normal famdies' A meth-
odologIcal and substantIve revIew PsychologIcal Bulletin, 1975,82,
33-65.
Johnson, B Women who head famlhes, 1970-1979. TheIr numbers rose,
Income lagged Monthly Labor ReVIew, 1978, 101. 32-37
Kadushm, A Smgle-parent adoptIOns An overvIew and some relevant
research Socwl Services ReVIew, 1970,44. 263-274
Kagel. S , WhIte, R , & Coyne, J Father-absent and father-present faml-
hes of dIsturbed and nondisturbed adolescents. American Journal of
Orthopsychwtry, 1978,48. 342-352
Kalter, N ChIldren of dIvorce m an outpatIent psychiatrIC populatIOn
American Journal ofOrthopsychwtry. 1977,47,40-51
Katz, A Lone fathers perspectIves and Imphcattons for farmly pohcy
Family Coordinator, 1979,28. 521-528
Keshet, H ,& Rosenthal, K Smgle parent fathers A new study Cluldren
Today. 1978,7. 13-17
Kessler, R C Stress, SOCial status and psychologIcal dIstress Journal of
Health and Soctal BehaVIOr. 1979,20. 259-272
KItson, G , Lopata, H , Holmes, W , & Meyenng, S DIvorcees and
WIdows SlmIiantles and dIfferences Amencan Journal of Ortho-
psychwtry, 1980,50, 291-301
Kohen, J , Brown, C , & Feldberg, R Divorced mothers The costs and
benefIts of female famIly control In George Levmger & Ohver Moles
(Eds ), DIvorce and separatIOn Causes. contexts, and consequences
New York BaSIC Books, 1979
Lamg, R D The polmcs ofthefUlmly New York Vmtage, 1972
Lamb, M The role of the father' An overvIew In M Lamb (Ed ), The
role of the father In child development New York WIley, 1976
Lamb, M The effects of dIvorce on chddren's personahty development
Journal of Divorce, 1977,1. 163-174
LandIs, J The trauma of chIldren when parents dIvorce Marriage and
Family LlVlng. 1960,22.7-13
Landy, F , Rosenberg, B , & Sutton-SmIth, B The effect of hmlted
absence of cogmtlon development Ch,ld Development. 1969, 40.
941-944
Leshe, G The family In socwl context (4th ed) New York Oxford
Umverslty Press, 1979
Lester, D , & Beck, A. Early loss as a pOSSIble "sensItizer" to later loss
m attempted SUICIdes PsychologIcal Reports. 1976,39. 121-122
LeWIS, K Smgle-parent fathers Who they are and how they fare Ch,ld
Welfare. 1978, 57, 643-651
Loge, B Role adjustment to smgle parenthood A study of dIvorced and
WIdowed men and women DissertatIOn Abstracts InternatIOnal. 4647-
A, 1977
Longabaugh, R Mother behaVIOr as a vanable moderatmg the effects of
father absence Ethos. 1973. 1. 456-465
Lopata, H Women as WIdows Support systems New York ElseVIer,
1979
Luepmtz, D WhIch aspects of dIvorce affect children Family Coord,-
nator. 1979,28.79-85
Magreb, P For the sake of the chIldren A revIew of the psychologIcal
effects of dIvorce Journal o.f Divorce. 1978. 1. 233-245
Malian, L Young WIdows and theIr chIldren A comparative report
Socwl Secunty Bulletin. 1975,38. 3-21
Martm, E , & Martm, J The black extended family ChIcago Umverslty
of ChIcago Press, 1978
McCord, J , McCord, W , & Thurber, E Some effects of paternal ab-
sence on male chIldren Journal of Abnormal and Socwl Psychology.
1962,64. 361-369
McCubbm. H ,Joy, C , Cauble, A ,Comeau, J , Patterson, J , & Nee-
dle, R Farmly stress and copmg A decade revIew Journal of Mar-
nage and the Family, 1980,42.421-428
417
McDermott, J Divorce and its psychiatnc sequelae m chddren ArchIves
of General Psychwtry. 1970,23,421-428
McLanahan, S , Wedemeyer, N., & Adelberg, T. Network structure,
SOCIal support, and psychologIcal well-bemg m the smgle-parent farm-
Iy. Journal of Mamage and the Family, 1981,43,601-612
Mead, M Male andfemale New York Dell, 1949
Mendes, H. Smgle fatherhood Socwl Work. 1976,21, 308-312 (a)
Mendes, H. Single fathers FamIly Coordinator. 1976.25,439-444 (b)
Mendes, H Smgle-parent famihes A typology of hfestyles. Soctal Work.
1979,24. 293-300
MIller, W Lower class culture as a generatmg mIlieu of gang delmquen-
cy Journal of Soc tails sues. 1958,14,5-19
Mmuchm, S FamIlies andfamlly therapy Cambndge Harvard Umver-
slty Press, 1974
Mueller, D SOCIal networks A promlsmg dIrectIOn for research on the
relatIonshIp of SOCIal envIronment to psychIatrIc dIsorder Socwl SCI-
ence and Med,Cine. 1980, 14A, 147-161
Newsome, 0 Postdlvorce interactIOn An explanatIOn uSing exchange
theory DIssertatIOn Abstracts InternatIOnal, 37 800I-A, 1977
Norton, A , & Ghck, P What's happemng to households? Amencan
DemographICS, 1979,1. 19-23
Nye, F I Chdd adjustment m broken and unhappy unbroken homes
Mamage and FamIly L,Ving. 1957, 19. 356-361
O'Bnen, D , & Garland, T N Bndgmg the gap between theory, re-
search, practIce, and pohcy-makmg The case of mteractlOn WIth km
after dIvorce Paper presented at the annual meetmg of the NatIOnal
Councd on Farmly RelatIOns, San DIego, 1977
Orthner, D , Brown, T , & Ferguson, D Smgle parent fatherhood
An emergmg famdy hfe style FamIly Coordinator. 1979,25. 429-
437
PaIS, J , & WhIte, P FamIly redefimtlOn A revIew of the hterature
toward a model of dIvorce adjustment Journal of D,vorce. 1979,2.
271-281
Parker, S , & Klemer, R Charactenstlcs of Negro mothers m smgle-
headed households Journal of Mamage and the FamIly. 1966,28,
507-513
Parsons, T. The socwl system New York Free Press, 1951
Parson, T , Soctal structure and personality New York. Free Press,
1970
Parsons, T ,& Bales, F FamIly, socwlizatlOnand interactIOn processes
Glencoe, III Free Press, 1955
Pearhn, L , & Johnson, J Mantal status, hfe-strams and depreSSIon
Amencan SOCIOlogIcal ReVIew. 1977,42.704-715
Pedersen, F RelatIOnshIp between father absence and emotional dIstur-
bance m male mIlitary dependents Memll-Palmer Quarterly. 1966,
12, 321-323
Phoms, B Adolescent pregnancy. ReVIew of the hterature Socwl Work.
1975,20. 302-307
Presser, H Sally's corner Coping with unmarned motherhood Paper
presented at the annual meetmg of the Amencan SOCIOlogIcal ASSOCIa-
tIOn, San FranCISco, 1978
Rapoport, R ,Rapoport, R ,& Strehtz, Z Fathers. mothers. and sOCIety
New York Vmtage, 1980
Raschke, H , & Raschke, V FamIly conflIct and chIldren's self concepts
A companson of mtact and smgle-parent famlhes Journal ofMarnage
and the FamIly. 1979,41.367-374
Renne, K Health and mantal expenence m an urban populatIOn Journal
of Mamage and the FamIly. 1971,33, 338-350
Reuter, M ,& BIller, H PerceIved paternal nurturance-Avallablhty and
personahty adjustment among college males Journal of Consultlllg
and Climcal Psychology. 1973,40. 339-342
Rosen, R Some crucIal Issues concernmg chIldren of dIvorce Journal of
D,vorce. 1979,3. 19-25
Rosenthal, D ,& Hansen, J ComparIson of adolescents' perceptIOns and
418
behavIOrs In slngle- and two-parent famihes Journal of Youth and
Adolescence. 1980,9.407-417
Rosenthal, K , & Keshet, H Childcare responsibilities of part-orne and
Single fathers Alternatlve Lifestyles. 1978, 1. 465-491.
Rosenthal, K , & Keshet, H Fathers Without partners A study of di-
vorced fathers and their familles Totowa, N] Rowman and Lit-
tlefield, 1980
Ross, H ,& Sawhill, I Time ofTransltlon The growth offamilles headed
by women Washington, DC. Urban Insotute, 1975
ROSSI, A A blosoclal perspective on parenting Daedolus. 1977,106. 1-
32
Rubin, L Worlds of pam Life m the workmg-classfamlly New York
BasIc Books. 1976
St Pierre. M Black female Single parent family A prellmlnary so-
CIOlogical perspectlve Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Amencan SOCIOlogical Association, New York, 1980
Santrock,] Paternal absence, sex typing, and Idenoficatlon Develop-
mental Psychology. 1970,2.264-272
Santrock,] Relation by type and onset of father absence to cogmtlve
development Child Development. 1972,43.455-469
Santrock,] Effects of father absence on sex-typed behavIOrs In male
children' Reason for the absence and age of onset of the absence
Journal of General Psychology. 1977,130.3-10
Schleslngler, B Single parent fathers: A research review Children To-
day. 1978, 7. 12-39
Schorr, L , & Moen, P The Single pareRt and SOCial pohcy Soczal Pollcy.
1979, 9. 15-21
Sennett, R Famllzes against the City New York Vintage Books, 1974
Seward, R The Amerlcanfamlly A demographic history Beverly Hills,
Calif Sage PubhcatIOns, 1978
Shaw, C , & McKay, H Are broken homes a causative factor In Juvemle
dehnquency? Soczal Forces. 1932, 19. 514-525
Shinn, M Father absence and children's cogmtlVe development Psycho-
logical Bulletm. 1978, 85. 295-324
Slbblson, V Pennsylvanta'sfemale-headed households Familles In diS-
tress Umverslty Park, Pa Institute for the Study of Human Develop-
ment, 1974
Slater, P Parental role differentiation American Journal of Sociology.
1961,67. 296-311
Smith, M The SOCial consequence of Single parenthood. A longitudinal
perspective Family Relatlons. 1980,29. 75-81
Sorosky, A The psychological effects of divorce on children Adoles-
cence. 1977,12. 123-136
Spicer, ] , & Hampe, G Kinship interactIOn after divorce Journal of
Mamage and the Family. 1975,37. 113-119
Sprey,] The study of Single parenthood Some methodological conSid-
erations Family Coordinator. 1967,16. 29-34
Sprey,] Conflict theory and the study of marnage and the family In W
Burr, R Hili, F I Nye, & I ReiSS (Eds ), Contemporary theOrieS
about the family. Vol 2 New York Free Press, 1979
Stack, C All our kin Chicago Aldlne, 1974
Stack, C Who owns the child? Divorce and custody deciSIOns In IOlddle-
class falOlhes Soczal Problems. 1976,23. 505-515
PART n · DIVERSITY IN FAMILY LIFE
Staples, R Inlimacy patterns among black, middle-class single parents.
Alternatlve Lifestyles. 1980,3. 445-462
Stein. R The econolOlc status of falOlhes headed by women Monthly
Labor ReView. 1970,93.3-10
Thompson, E , & Gongla, P Single parent falDllies In the mainstream of
Amencan society. In E Macklin & R Rubin (Eds ), Contemporary
famllzes and alternative lifestyles Handbook on research and theory
Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Pubhcalions, 1983
Trunnell, T The absent father's children's emotional disturbances. Ar-
chives of General PSYChiatry, 1968,19. 180-188
Turner, R Family interactIOn. New York. Wiley, 1970
Turner, R ] Experienced soczal support as a contingency m emotIOnal
well-being Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amencan
SOCIOlogical AsSOCiation, New York, 1980
Udry.] R The soczal context ofmamage (3rd ed ) Philadelphia LIPPin-
cott, 1974
U S Bureau of the Census Mamal status and lzvmg arrangements.
March 1977 Current Population Reports, Senes P-20, No 323 Wash-
Ington, D.C US Government Pnnling Office, 1978
U S Bureau of the Census CharacterlstlCS of the populatIOn below the
poverty level 1978 Current Population Reports, Senes P-60, No 124
Washington, D C US Government Pnntlng Office, 1980 (a)
U S Bureau of the Census Mamal status and llvmg arrangements.
March 1979 Current PopulatIOn Reports, Senes P-20, No 349 Wash-
Ington, DC US Government Pnntlng Office, 1980 (b)
U S Bureau of the Census Money Income offamilies and persons m the
United States Current PopulatIOn Reports, Senes P-60, No 123
Washington, D C US Government Pnntlng Office, 1980 (c)
US Bureau of the Census Household and family Characterlstlcs
March, 1980 Current PopulatIOn Reports. Senes P-20. No 366
Washington, D C US Government Pnntlng Office, 1981 (a)
U S Bureau of the Census MaTltal status and llvmg arrangements
March. 1980 Current PopulatIOn Reports, Senes P-20, No 365
Washington, D C US Government Printing Office, 1981 (b)
U S Senate Senate Bill 1808, The FalOlly ProtectIOn Act, 1979
Verbrugge, L Mantal status and health Journal of Mamage and the
Family. 1979,41,267-285
Wallerstein, ] , & Kelly,] SurvlVlng the breakup How children and
parents cope With dIVorce New York BasiC Books, 1980
Wattenberg. E , & Reinhardt, H Female-headed famlhes. Trends and
ImphcatlOns Soczal Work, 1979,24,460-467
WeiSS, R S MaTltal separatlon New York BaSIC Books, 1975.
WeiSS, R S GOing II alone New York BaSIC Books, 1979
Wllk,] AsseSSing Single parent needs Journal of Psychlatrlc Nursmg.
1979, 17(6), 21-22
Wolff, K The SOCIOlogy of Georg Simmel New York Free Press, 1950
Woolsey, S Pled piper and the child care debate Daedulus, 1977,
106(2), 127-145
Young,] The divorced Cathohc movement Journal ofDivorce. 1978,2.
83-97
Zeldltch, M. Cross-cultural analysIs of falDlly structure In H Chns-
tensen (Ed ), Handbook of marriage and the family Chicago Rand
McNally, 1964