Divorce Rates & Factors PDF

Divorce: Divorce Rates: - Almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce - 40% of first marriages end in divorce - 60% of second marriages - 74% of third marriages - average of first marriage: 8 years - average of second marriage: 7 years Demographic factors: - The first 4 years of marriage: marriage is...

Divorce: Divorce Rates: - Almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce - 40% of first marriages end in divorce - 60% of second marriages - 74% of third marriages - average of first marriage: 8 years - average of second marriage: 7 years Demographic factors: - The first 4 years of marriage: marriage is vulnerable to disruption, 1 in 3 of all divorce occur in the first 4 years, approximately 1 in 3 divorces take place in the next 5 years - 60% of divorce is ages 25 to 39 years old - wives file for divorce 2/3 of the time Divorce divide: - couples that are college graduates divorce 25% of the time - couples with less education divorce 50% of the time Sociocultural factors of divorce: 1. Individualism: if marriage doesn’t fulfill all my needs, then I don’t want to be married 2. Less traditional religious views on marriage 3. Less tolerance of poor marriage (ex: grandparents more likely to stay in unhappy marriage) 4. Women have an increased economic independence now 5. Divorce laws: No-fault divorce (unilateral), Don’t have to show cause or go to court Joint vs No Fault- Mexico and Divorce: - 1917: divorce was legal; however, mutual agreement was needed and if not, couples had to go to court - 2008: Mexico City was the first entity to approve unilateral divorce - Since then, 17/31 states approved - 26% increase in divorce Legal divorce - late countries: - Significant opposition from the Catholic Church - Italy: 1971 - Brazil: 1977 - Spain: 1981 - Argentina: 1987 - Ireland: 1997 - Chile: 2004 (last country in Americas, bill introduced in 1995) - Malta: 2011 Last country where divorce is still illegal- history: - Philippines (111 million people) - Prior to 1521, divorce was commonly practiced - Colonized by Spain in 1521: Ferdinand Magellan- Catholic Church - American colony in 1898 (Spanish/American War): 1917: divorce was legal only for adultery - 1950: Philippines was granted independence (1917 law revoked) - Currently illegal: 2018/2021: first bill ever passed in house, not senate- slow process, hopeful legal Philippines and Divorce: - divorce is legal for Muslim citizens (11%) - options for non-Muslims: 1) legal separation (but cannot remarry) 2) Church or civil annulment ($10,000 a year)- slow, psychologically painful, expensive, creates disputes not existed (bribes, money) - contradiction of religiosity and culture of male power/privilege: mistresses, children with other partners - consequence: weakened marriage (benefits from it), “millions” of illegitimate children (inheritance, legal rights) Why do people divorce: - affairs (1/3) - chronic conflict - life events: illness, job chances, children leave home - #1 reason: emotional distance- can’t resolve key differences How relationships break down 1. Lack of relationship development while dating: costs already exist, cohabitation- inertia effect, lack of commitment 2. Small differences and conflicts is greater than the positive behaviors and creates more distance 3. Emotional and sexual intimacy declines 4. Don’t keep up the 5:1 ratio 5. Couples lead parallel lives without connection 6. 4 horsemen of the apocalypse 7. Negative sentiment override The rise of the “silver divorce” - Divorce in later years is no longer rare - only demographic is increasing - reasons: longevity, emotional distance/lack of attachment, joint work parenting is complete, women’s financial autonomy - particularly true for boomers (age 58-76): first 10 years, 27% had broken up; after 30 years, more than 50% have divorced; after the 40 year mark, the rate is slowing down but some continue to divorce Is there hope? Gottman research: - predictor of divorce: criticism, defensiveness, contempt - antidote: complaint, accepting responsibility, appreciation Adjusting to Divorce: The Trouble with Averages: The Impact of Major Life Events and Acute Stress May Not Be What You Think (Mancini, 2013) - examined the effects of marriages, divorce, and bereavement on life satisfaction up to four years after the event - representative sample: more than 16,000 people - “our research confirms- in study after study- that people respond in surprisingly diverse ways to a wide variety of life events and acute stressors.” - why diversity?: impact of events on people are difficult to predict, siblings parents divorce (1 marries to change, 1 never married) - why variability?: personality differences, social and environmental supports, genetic vulnerabilities - “reliance on averages invents normative reactions that may not exist” (pg. 7) - impact of divorce on life satisfaction: decline- only about 10%, improved- only about 10% Divorced parents - impact marriage: - evidence of intergenerational patterns 1. If your parents are divorced: you are more likely to marry a partner whose parents are divorced 2. If you are in a couple where both partners parents divorced: you are more likely to divorce compared to couples with one or no partners parents divorced 3. Unmarried co-parents more likely to break up if parents were divorced Loss of fathers after divorce: - fathers less likely to be present in kids lives after divorce - legal custody granted to women in 83% of cases - loss of connection to father negatively impacts daughters: future education, physical health, future marriage is more likely to end in divorce Divorced parents - impact marriage: - theories: parents model negative behaviors- impact attitudes (conflict, lack commitment), parents don’t model positive behavior (accepting differences), genetics (minor) - intergenerational pattern declining over time: 70s- 2x likely to divorce, today- 1.2x - why is there a decrease?: less stigma- earlier stigma led to isolation and less skills; today parents divorce in less extreme situations- kids come from less troubled backgrounds which helps marital chances now Adjusting to divorce: - adjustment is easier when: shorter marriage (less than 5 years), no children, not many shared assets, women is under 30 and has been employed - adjustment is more difficult when: longer marriage, you have children, share many assets, share friends, families take sides, woman has not been employed in past 5 years, woman is over 40 Levinger’s model of deciding about divorce: - spouses assess their marriage in terms of: 1) barriers to divorce 2) rewards of the marriage 3) alternatives to marriage Barriers to divorce: - 3 main barriers (divorce is less likely): 1. Wife’s income is less than the percentage of family income 2. High church attendance 3. New child - barriers are not always bad - some couples are happier after working through their challenges Rewards of current marriage: - can we improve what we already have? - sometimes some relationships never improve - however, sometimes relationships get stronger over time: children get older, jobs improve, partner work at and repair relationship Alternatives: would I be happier: - divorce UK: less happy one year after separation; but in one year after the divorce, people were happier than while married - 12 year longitudinal study in the U.S.: 1) stable unhappy marriage, 2) divorce and remarry 3) divorce and single- Couples in group 2 had greater happiness, couples in group 3 had greater life satisfaction; “unhappily married couples who dissolve their low-quality marriages have greater odds of improving their well-being than those who remain in such unions” Marital separation: - can separation repair a relationship? - there is a chance, but the odds of it happening is more likely that it won’t - half end separation within one month “regret” - virtually no marriages were resumed after eight months of separation - 1/3 of the time, the result is continued marriage - take home: once separated, marriage is fragile- 2/3 will end in divorce The economic consequences of divorce: - standard of living declines in all parties - children living in poverty- all races - 4% married couples live in poverty - 22% mother-only single parent families live in poverty Custody and the courts: - 18th and 19th centuries: sole custody to fathers, viewed as the better financial provider - 1900-1960s: mother was granted custody and fathers visited on the weekends; didn’t work well- mom was overwhelmed and dad was discouraged - 1970s-today: best interest of the child statutes- 80% of cases end in joint legal custody (parents share responsibilities for making decisions) Custody arrangements: 1. Legal custody: - sole: rare, only one parent has rights and responsibilities- decisions - joint: most common; Cal. Fam. Code 3003: both parents share rights and responsibilities for health, education, welfare; communicate and cooperate 2. Physical custody: - sole: children lives with 1, visitation; mom: 42%, dad: 10% - joint: children lives with both parents; 44% How do courts make custody decisions: 1. Accept parental agreements 2. If parents cannot agree, judge decides - consider multiple factors: age of child, health of child, emotional ties between parents and child, ability of the parent to care for the child, family history of violence/substance use, child’s ties in school, home, community —------------ Impact of divorce of kids: The effects of divorce on kids: - 1 million children a year - Impact: lower academic achievement, increased behavioral difficulties, increased emotional distress - why: 1) exposure to prolonged conflict 2) instability (moving, custody, school) - is divorce better for kids?: yes if they’re in a high conflict homes Children who lose a parent to death: different outcomes?: - better adjustment than divorce - four reasons: 1. Less exposure to conflict 2. Better economic situation (life insurance, not splitting incomes) 3. More family and social support 4. Dating later (more time for kids to adjust) Common emotional reactions: - grade school: abandonment (they might stop loving me too), magical thinking (if I’m good, they’ll get back together), self-blame (ages 4-12) - teens: blame one parent, resentment towards both Challenges for college aged children: 1. Lost idea of home/belonging 2. anger/resentment (interrupt development) 3. Guilt (re-examining upbringing) 4. Financial stresses (less money for college) 5. Grief (holidays, family traditions) Guidelines for parents 1. Work out differences 2. Avoid conflict 3. No loyalty conflicts 4. Be consistent with visitation 5. Fathers need to stay involved (too often they drop out of child’s life) Arizona laws and Japanese modeling: - Arizona’s child custody law: abolishes the traditional idea of “visitation” and replaces it with a presumption of equal parenting time- Arizona judges start out presuming that a child will spend 50% of the time with mom and 50% of the time with dad unless there’s evidence that makes that arrangement inappropriate - the government of Japan is currently studying whether to update their child custody laws. Currently, the parent who doesn’t live with the child (most cases is the father) can meet with the child only once a month Is there any hope?: - children of divorce are at an increased risk of substance abuse and mental health issues - yes… kids can be resilient and most children don’t experience the high risks - what differentiates between the two groups?: quality of parenting! Arizona State University: New beginning program - results - new beginning program: helping parents strengthen their quality of parenting to help their kids be resilient after divorce - in person program: 1) evidence program improves co-parenting after divorce (RCT) 2) evidence also reduces conflict 3) benefits can last up to 15 years after participation - e-design program: 10 module, 5 hour asynchronous program; study of 131 parents and 102 adolescent offspring - does it work? E-Design results: - parents and children reported: 1. Significantly higher parent-child relationship quality 2. Discipline was more effective 3. Fewer parent conflicts 4. Better mental health of children - strongest findings yet about web-based program in this area Remarriage and Blended Families: Remarriage: - 1 in 4 marriages result in blended family - divorce and remarriage?: 75% of men remarry after divorce, 66% of women remarry after divorce - most remarried couples and stepfamilies are happy with relationships and lives - experience unique challenges - stigma from culture, religion, media Blended family defined: - a family that consists of two adults, the child or children that they have had together, and one or more children that they have had with previous partners - marriage where 1 or both partners have a child from previous relationship - simplest: first marriage, no kids - most complex: yours/mines/ours - lack of studies on racial/ethnic minorities: hispanic/black more likely to enter stepfamilies Benefits: - men- stability: less healthy single, greater chance of drinking, smoking, poor diet while single, less likely to go to the doctor - women- financial support Risks: - greater rate of divorce: 60% end in divorce, 67% if there’s kids involved, most likely in the first 5 years - why?: 1) divorce attitudes 2) presence of stepchildren Marital happiness, fairness, and conflict: - little difference in happiness between first and second marriage - remarriage: greater equity and fairness (house labor), Black lesbian couples have more traditional roles- biological parent has more childcare and house labor- linked authority, role of mother, child well-being - more tension and conflict- especially related to children 3 types of parenting: 1. The primary parent: kids under 10, most harmonious, nurture kids as their own 2. The other parent: kids 10-14, most common, most challenging, loyalty is difficult 3. The older friend: kids 15+, easier role for stepparent, friendship doesn’t threaten relationship with biological parent, first name basis Financial considerations: - where to live (whose house, sell other house?) - future finances (separate or joint?): joint - higher family satisfaction - impact on past finances: social security benefits? Loss?; alimony, loss?; pre-marital assets; plans for inheritance; past debts, money habits - regular meetings discuss finances 5 guidelines: 1. Adjust expectations- family adjustment can be long (2-4 years) 2. The remarried couple needs to establish their own relationship 3. Let the biological parent carry out discipline of children for 2 years or until they bond 4. Don’t replace a lost parents, let relationships develop gradually (friend, camp counselor) 5. Drop expectations of the need to love each other (children had no choice in remarriage) Choosing to be Childfree: Experiences of Women and Men: Prevalence and definitions: - estimates are 1 in 5 U.S. adults are childfree - childfree: adults who do not want children - childless: wanted children, unable to have them - not yet parents: planning to have children in the future - undecided: not yet chosen - ambivalent: couldn’t have a child, but don’t know if they wanted them Global attitudes towards having children: - the greater a countries income, the lower the countries birth rate - governments concerned about declining birth rates- make incentives to have children - doesn’t usually work - taiwan: 3 billion over the past decade, 6 months paid paternal leave (80% salary), cash benefits, tax breaks, childcare centers, hosts singles mixers (doesn’t work) - austria: 2.5 years maternity leave (negative impact on maternal health) - russia: $7,000 for families with 3+ kids - hungary: $30,000 loan for newlyweds- loan forgiven if they have 3+ kids - iran: policies to limit birth control and abortion Lowest total fertility rates worldwide: - 2.3 global average - 2.1 replacement level - 1.6 united states - Lowest globally: - 0.7 south korea - 0.7 hong kong - 1.0 singapore - 1.2 spain, china, italy - 1.3 japan, ukraine, canada - 1.4 norway, greece, portugal, russia - 1.5 hungary, germany, sweden - 1.6 denmark, uk, brazil, australia - 1.8 mexico, france, argentina - 2.0 india, nepal South korea: - plan to avoid population collapse: proposals include more flexible work schedules and better gender equality with education - key concerns: 1. Caring for aging population (83.9 years old is life expectancy) 2. Reductions in labor force 3. Extreme pay gap 4. Long work weeks 5. Education is expensive U.S. adults attitudes towards having children: - growing number of US adults choose not to have children - reasons 1. Access to birth control 2. Women’s increased financial autonomy and career interests 3. Money (kids are expensive: $20,000 a year, $375,000 ages 0-18) 4. Concerns about the world 5. Don’t want them 6. Can have fulfilling life without them (only 26% of US adults believe they need children to have a fulfilling life) Percent of childfree adults: michigan sample: - 1 in 5 (20%) michigan adults - within-group analysis - no differences: age (under/over 40), education, income - differences: sex (men more likely), race (white more likely), partnership status (always single), LGBTQ+ identification (more likely) When do people decide?: - the majority are early deciders (teens and twenties): 10-19 yo: 33%, 20-29 yo: 34% - some childfree adults may change their mind, but this is not the dominant path: current mean age- under 10 is 43 years old now, 10-19 is 45 now, 20-29 is 49 now Childfree by choice- pressures and criticism: - particularly felt by women - often criticized: selfish and unfeminine - source of pressure/criticism: societal expectations, tradition/religion, women and men Childfree women: - more likely to have a satisfying career - freedom to change jobs and pursue interests - most challenging is when they’re in their late 30-40s when peers are having children - can report shame around perception of being not nurturing- cultural impact in a pronatalist society (is there something wrong with me) Characteristics of childfree women: - higher education - higher income - higher IQ - more career opportunities - live in urban areas - less religious - less traditional gender roles Evolving opinions: - is having children very important to a successful marriage?: trending down - do women need the experience of motherhood to have a complete life?: trending down Advantages: - increased freedom - more money - less worry about living up to unrealistic expectation - opportunities for new connections with nonparents - just as happy as men and women with children Regret?: - studies don’t find that “you’ll regret not having kids in the future” - but cultural beliefs persist (parents view it as unfavorable) - parents are more warm with other parents (within-group bias) - “what if” moments are overly idyllic (ignore hard realities of parenting children) - personal doubt? Letter to future self Do women need to have children in order to be fulfilled? A system justification account of the motherhood norm - 49 countries, n=76,937 - motherhood norm (must have to be fulfilled) - higher happiness (small effect) - unrelated to life satisfaction - satisfaction with parenting role associated with countries inequality status - higher inequality, more subjective well being - in sum, given the small difference in happiness between mothers and nonmothers, coupled with the lack of differences in life satisfaction it is incorrect to say that women “must” have children in order to be fulfilled. At best, mothers report a slight boost in happiness at the population level compared to women without children Meaning-Making Among Intentionally Childless Women: - 30 intentionally childless women ages 27-61 - primarily reason for no kids: a sense of freedom - control of environment - importance of autonomy - economic security - negative outcomes: otherness in community, loss or difficulty in relationships with parenting women - stewardship and contributions: re-vision of mothering metaphor (ex: nurturing by being a nurse), global interconnectivity (mothering contribution to being more global, mothering energy to serving humanity and serving other people), alternative existential perspectives - decision to live childfree linked with high long-term satisfaction —----- Parenting - styles and models: Parenting: what is it?: - responsibility to meet: physical and emotional needs of a child (whether they’re biological or adopted) and its developmentally appropriate Parenting - global perspective: - historically: living with children, modeling adult roles - differs around the world: culture and tradition, gender norms - developing parts of the world: family goals intersect with economic needs - western countries: higher priority for education, emotional needs Parenting goals: - provide children the best opportunity to become: independent, productive, responsible, nurturing adults/society Child needs: - parents provide: food and shelter, healthcare, love, rules and expectations, discipline, mentoring, emotional support, socialization What makes parenting challenging: - 4 societal factors: 1. Conflicting work roles 2. Conflicting values/opinions 3. Sandwich generation 4. Geographic distance: immigration, separation from families; global economy, job location LGBTQ+ Parents: - less research, but growing - parenting practices similar to straight couples - children together through donor insemination, egg donation/surrogacy, adoption - children prior through heterosexual relationships - children have good outcomes: social, emotional, behavioral, academic Stress model of effective parenting: - perceived parental stress can lead to parental depression and household conflict - however, positive parenting practices with social support (benefits) leads to positive child outcomes Parenting styles: - authoritative: high expectations, high warmth, high parental monitoring; accessibility and emotional support; parents listen to children (consider their opinions); parents set final limits - permissive- emotional neglect: low warmth, low monitoring - permissive- indulgent: high warmth, low monitoring - permissive: non-demanding, non-controlling, lenient, non-punitive, lack of limits (no maturity demands) - authoritarian: low warmth, high monitoring; parental authority, strict obedience, inconsistent punishment, no child input Evidence - comparing outcomes: - authoritative: higher life satisfaction, higher self esteem, lower depression - authoritarian: lower life satisfaction, lower self esteem - permissive: some studies show no difference with authoritative (some cases, greater self-esteem); if fathers, greater well being on all assessments Emerging evidence- the power of authoritative parenting: - 10 countries in Southeastern Europe - largest cross-national study to date - results: - data from 10 countries show strong support that authoritative parenting results in greater life satisfaction of youth; effects of authoritative parenting and permissive parenting: pure authoritative parenting had a strong negative impact on life satisfaction in all 10 countries, pure permissive parenting had negative effects on life satisfaction in 9 countries Implications - deep dive: 1. Exposure to authoritative parenting in childhood leads to greater life satisfaction later in life 2. Effects of authoritarian and permissive parenting could be positive if combined with authoritative parenting - in other words, lack of authoritative parenting is the most important factor in lower life satisfaction of youth - cross cultural implications: ethnicity, social class, gender play a role; european sample; authoritative parenting has different impacts for european americans and african americans - key for parents: 1) children should be restricted by clear rules- to an extent they take part 2) be aware of child’s concerns and have oversight/involvement Developmentally Focused Parenting: Delayed parenting: - reasons and benefits: greater time to ‘become a couple’; greater security in work leads to more time with kids, greater emotional maturity - impact on parenting: less parenting stress, greater nurturing, less parental conflict - tradeoffs: lower rate of fertility, less energy, less generations a child may know Developmentally focused parenting: - parents combine strategy and flexibility - infants: feeding, protecting, bonding, play, language - school-aged: rules, discipline, social skills, small responsibilities - teens: larger responsibilities, limit setting, rule alternation with input, discipline, support, mentoring - adults: letting go, promote autonomy, guiding, supporting with advice, financial help The early years - parenting and attachment: - attachment: vital for child’s emotional development - john bowlby: father of attachment; the secure base; two keys: accessibility and responsiveness - harlow’s rhesus monkeys: The Harlow attachment theory demonstrated the importance of social contact with the mother and peers for the proper social development of infant monkeys, and the developmental impairment that results from social isolation. - ainsworth strange situation: The four types of attachment explored in Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiment are secure attachment, insecure-avoidant attachment, insecure-resistant attachment, and disorganized attachment. Adult attachment styles: - secure: positive thoughts about self, positive thoughts about partner; healthy boundaries; mutual trust and support; controlled conflict; resolution - anxious: negative thoughts about self, positive thoughts about partner; fear of abandonment; need for constant validation; dependent on partner for self-worth - dismissive-avoidant: positive thoughts about self, negative thoughts about partner; avoids intimacy and vulnerability; commitment issues; guarded and closed off heart - fearful avoidant: negative thoughts about self, negative thoughts about partner; fear of rejection; hard time trusting and relying on partner; low self esteem - can adult attachment change?: yes through secure relationships with other adults, safe therapeutic relationship Parenting and emotion regulation: - greater attachment related to greater emotion regulation: modulate occurrence, duration, intensity of: internal feeling states (positive and negative) - developmental skill essential for: successful relationship, academic success, mental health Child emotion regulation strategy: - study: situation elicits disappointment (child gets broken toy when expecting reward) 1. Shifting attention 2. Seeking comforting 3. Cognitive reframing (changing how situation is interpreted) - jointly strategies with parent: highly effective: 1. Internalize emotion regulation strategies of parent 2. Joint regulation, co-regulation Neurobiological circuitry and parenting: - evidence supports connection - parent warmth allows greater brain activity in areas of emotional regulation - parent criticism creates lower brain development in cognitive control networks - parental criticism from warm parent: less activation in negative brain circuitry; youth process criticism less personally when there’s a warm parent-child relationship; importance of some authoritative parenting Parenting an only child: - parents: greater educational expectations, more enjoyment parenting, more free time, better financial position - benefits for child: more intelligence and maturity, more leadership, higher life satisfaction (children and adults) - drawbacks for child: higher expectations (pressure to succeed), no sibling relationships (children and adult), no help caring for aging parents The transition to a second child: - the first transition compared to the second transition is more difficult because the structure of the family totally changes - a key task of parenting is letting go of the need to protect children from the pain of failure Parenting sub-types and impact: - snowplow: removes obstacles, over functions; impact: denies growth, poor problem solving, lack of self efficacy, increased anxiety - helicopter: over protective, controlling, rescue child in crisis; impact: less life skills, less confident, less likely to manage emotions and own behaviors - free range: hands off, allows kid to walk to school and take public transport; impact: independent, higher problem solving, resilience, but might lack protection, is it parenting disguised as neglect? - lighthouse: steady guide, safety without control, support but allows kids to manage challenges; impact: children learn from mistakes, greater problem solving, greater self efficacy Supervision and risk taking behavior: - correlation between parental supervision and adolescent risk taking - kids with increased parental supervision have healthier outcomes National longitudinal study of adolescent health: - adolescence is most stressful stage for most parents - 90,000 students grades 7-12 - primary finding: being connected with parents helps adolescents avoid high risk activities - doesn’t matter if it’s two-parent or one-parent households - what’s more important than the amount of time a parent spends at home is connection! - connection is 5 times as powerful as time - study underscores the importance of parents remaining intensely involved in the lives of teens- even when they think their influence is diminished Parenting young adult children: - shift to adult-to-adult relationships: less control, mentor/friend - if transition to adulthood is smooth: less conflict, closer relationships - if transition is difficult: more conflict, unresolved issues surface - parents typically help financially, housing; provide guidance and support with adulthood Children leave home: - empty nest - two paths: either strengthen marriage or results in divorce - two partners must renegotiate the relationship: discuss relationship, expand the marriage, engage in more joint activities, continue to invest in children, fulfill shared meaning —---- Parenting and Happiness: Children and marital satisfaction: - research consistently shows that marital satisfaction declines after the birth of a child Parenting and less marital satisfaction: - applies to different sex and same-sex couples - smallest drop: planned to have a child - biggest drop: sliders, disagreements, ambivalent (mixed feelings) - same-sex couple: heteronormative comments add stress (lesbian mothers- who’s the real mom? No dad?; gay fathers- crying baby: where is mom?) Impact on marital satisfaction: birth-2 years old: - decrease in marital satisfaction: less sleep, less time with partner, less sex; more stress, more fatigue, more conflicts - increase in marital satisfaction: new experiences, nurturing and protecting role, meaning creation Are parents unhappier?: - research and media: parents unhappier than non-parents - parental unhappiness is more complicated than what studies and media portray - typical question is: are parents happier than non-parents; too simple - instead, focus on: when, how, and why parenthood is associated with higher and lower well-being Bringing clarity to mixed feelings: - in the US parents are typically less happy than nonparents - “Happiness penalty” - but, 94% of US parents say it’s worth it to have kids Parenting and happiness: - study on 22 countries (2016): within country comparisons; norway and hungary: parents happier than non-parents; US parents most unhappy - key findings: 1. The negative effects of parenthood on happiness were entirely explained by the presence or absence of social policies allowing parents to better combine paid work with family obligations 2. The most important predictor of higher relative levels of happiness for parents was the presence of family policies making it less stressful and less costly to combine childrearing with paid work Parenting, happiness, and age: - a global perspective on happiness (2011): 200,000 respondents, 86 countries - parenthood and age: parents who are less than 30 are less happy than child-free peers, but once parents hit 40, parents are happier than non-parents - happiness and number of children: parents under 30- happiness decreases with each child; parents between 40-50- no impact; but after 50, each child brings more joy Women and happiness: age, number of kids, home or moved out - effect of children on the happiness of women aged 50-70: - 0 kids: 39% reporting being very happy - 1 kid: 32% happy with no kids at home, 26% happy with kids at home - 2 kids: 35% happy with no kids at home, 29% happy with kids at home - 3 kids: 36% happy with no kids at home, 30% happy with kids at home - 4 kids: 39% happy with no kids at home, 32% happy with kids at home - 5 kids: 35% happy with no kids at home, 29% happy with kids at home In defense of parenthood: - 3 studies - mothers have less marital satisfaction with more than 2 children - but, parents as a group have higher levels of meaning and fathers are significantly more happy than childless men - across all three studies, all parents reported higher levels of meaning than did non-parents In summary: parental factors: - happier parents: older at first birth, married, fathers, more socioeconomic status and social support, empty nesters - unhappier parents: younger, single, mothers, mismatch in temperament, small children/teens, older kids still at home - future research should address cultural and gender differences - For example, do mothers find parenting more rewarding in cultures where the father shares equally in the responsibilities of childrearing? Is parenting stressful?: - 2024 US surgeon general report: - high stress past month- 33% parents, 20% non-parents - stress is completely overwhelming most days: 48% parents, 26% non-parents - sources of stress: money, time demands, kids health and safety, technology, parental isolation - 1 in 4 parents said there have been times in the past year where they did not have enough money for basic needs - nearly 70% of parents say parenting is now more difficult than it was 20 years ago, with children’s use of technology and social media as the top two cited reasons - in 2023, 33% of parents reported high levels of stress in the past month compared to 20% of other adults Variables predicting well-being: parent and child: - parenthood and well-being - positive: purpose/meaning in life, human needs, positive emotions, social roles - negative: negative emotions, financial strain, sleep disturbance, strained partner relationships Parental well-being: do men and women differ? - 3 studies using sample of 18,000 participants - what is well being: 1. Life satisfaction 2. Frequent positive emotions 3. Infrequent negative emotions 4. Lower stress- major life events, day to day hassles, daily uplifts (counteracts) - fathers: happier than moms, more well-being than moms, more well-being in men without kids, more time spent playing and leisure with kids than moms - mothers: greater time spent with kids, more time disciplining, more time providing emotional support, more time of childcare, more housework - key finding: converging evidence that gender moderates association between parenthood and well-being - fathers: are happier than men without children and mothers, have less depression than mothers, have more positive emotions with kids, reports less hassles and more daily uplifts than moms Dual income and stay at home parents: Single and dual income families: - all different sex married couples: 75% dual income, 19% husband only working, 7% wife only working - different sex couples with kids under 18: 66% dual income (49% in 1970), 27% fathers only working (47% in 1970), 7% mothers only working (2% in 1970); stable between 1990-2000, dropped - financial impact: median income dual income families- $86,000; median income single income families- $48,000 Housework and gender: - equality: different sex couples fare worse than same sex couples - men in different sex couples are doing more but imbalance still exists regardless of employment status (second shift) - imbalances cause conflict- recent study showed it played a role in 25% of divorces - fixed in remarriage Do dual income couples create equal partnerships: - interviewed more than 100 working couples - couples wanted equality, but few had it - successful couples: 1. Acknowledged they were not fulfilled in current arrangement 2. Developed specific solutions and action plans to equitably divide responsibilities (better turn taking) 3. Relentless accountability - 50/50 marriage: both partners have equal opportunities to pursue ambitions of work and love 3 types of dual income families: 1. Dual career couples: - career vs shift/part time work: typically have full time jobs, more opportunity for advancement/promotion, longer-term commitment, bachelor or advanced degree typically required - desirable in college students (actual number is small however) - rewards: money, benefits, achievement - challenges: childcare, housework, illness, commutes - drawbacks: high time demand, less time for marriage, parenting, and personal interests 2. Part-time work: - 70% say childcare influenced decision - benefits: less work-family conflict, more sensitive and involved parenting - drawbacks: less job security, less money and benefits, less status and roads to promotion 3. Paid work at home - own business, work for a corporation - benefits: more time at home to balance work/family - drawbacks: more time at home to balance work/family, interruptions, errands, housework - exchange one set of challenges for another Stay at home parent: - a partner of a steadily employed partner who remained out of the labor force for 1 year - 11 million stay at home parents - despite fluctuations, rate of stay at home parenting is similar to what it was a quarter of a century ago: mothers- 28% in 1989 and 27% in 2016, all parents- 17% in 1989 and 18% in 2016, fathers- 4% in 1989 and 7% in 2016 - 3/4 stay at home moms, 1/4 of dads are home to care for their family - among all stay at home parents, those taking care of home/family are more likely to have a college degree The monetary value of a stay-at-home parent in 80 countries: - Los Angeles: 3,233 per month, 776,131 over 20 years Working and stay at home moms: - women at odds over which approach is best: feel ambivalence in self, judgment from other moms - among women who work full time: 20% say situation is ideal, 60% say part-time is ideal, 20% would prefer not working outcome of the home Staying at home- women: - who is most likely: younger, kids under 5, want flexibility and time with young children, view window of opportunity as brief and rare, women who want increased choices Staying at home- men: - 26% of men in same-sex couples - 7% of men in different sex couples: growing percent to care for children, 4% in 1989 to 24% in 2016, suggests changing gender roles - race/ethnicity stay home dads: 50% white, 18% black, 21% hispanic/latino, 7% asian - social and emotional challenges: US attitudes- some believe its not acceptable for wife to be the major wage earner; social groups- provide support and models of other men Reasons- stay at home fathers: 1. Parents don’t like the current childcare arrangement 2. Partner’s earning potential is greater 3. Dads want more involvement with children 4. Husband is more nurturing 5. Job dissatisfaction 6. Change in life- balance Stay at home fathers: - higher life and relationship satisfaction - support from partner and other family members- key to well-being - predictors of adjustment to stay at home father role: 1. Social support 2. High parenting self-efficacy 3. Low conformity to traditional masculine norms Stay at home fathers experience with stigma: - stigma: a negative reaction to their parenting arrangement or social exclusion - 45% of SAHF report negative reaction - 70% of the time it came from stay at home mothers: stigma is based on lack of familiarity with the role, religious beliefs, opposing attitudes about gender roles - most important finding: men who experienced stigma had lower levels of social support- weak social support linked to negative physical and psychological adjustment in stigmatized groups Staying at home- men: - feel like a rock star - not a lot of research on stay at home fathers - qualitative interviews: 26 men across US - Results: 1. The decision to stay home: planful, driven by variety of factors: high partner salaries, job dissatisfaction, desire to be stay at home parent (some were secretly glad to get laid off) 2. Development of affection and intimacy: child seeks comfort from father first 3. Reactions from other men: generally supportive (men in their 50s) 4. Pride in family work: child’s learning and progress (i helped with that)