Her main conclusions are that there’s not any such thing as a “great divorce”, which 75 percent of all divorces are out of “low-conflict” unions where parents should opt to stay together, and that divorce creates enduring, damaging consequences since it forces the kids to browse the different worlds of the parents.
For a psychologist who has worked with children and households for two decades, my reading of the book led me to conclude that Ms. Marquita’s study was rather flawed and that she seemed to selectively choose results to encourage her hypotheses while disregarding data that contested her main factors. Despite being rapidly ordained by the press as providing strong evidence that divorce is in fact bad for kids and that it produces a durable anguish in their own lives, I don’t feel the book really makes this type of circumstance. Actually, I feel the book shows there’s anything as a better divorce and that remaining together for the interest of the kids doesn’t lead to better results for the adult children of those households.
The writer’s opinion:
She blames this partially on the fantasy of the “great divorce” (“great” in this case meaning with small negative effect on the kids) as the foundation for all those 75 percent of divorced couples whose union is described as being “low conflict” (basically any divorce not according to a considerably violent situation). The writer says that parents in miserable, very low conflict marriages ought to have the resolve to stick it out, work harder on resolving their issues, or only delay divorce before the kids leave home. The latter is that the familiar request to “stay-together-for-the-sake-of-the-children. Ms. Marquardt asserts the fantasy of the great divorce is unethical to the kids and that it fails to love their own pain. However, I believe that making think a marriage is fine until the kids leave is a least equally dishonest.
Unless somebody can demonstrate that divorce is necessarily severely harmful to the majority of kids, that has the right to inform married adults that they don’t have an option but to remain in a miserable marriage? Ms. Marquardt seems to believe that she has the right to do this. So her information have to be persuasive. It’s time to have a detailed look.
Evaluation of this information:
Ms. Marquardt asserts that “We [kids of divorce] may seem fine to everybody else, but Speak to us about our inner lives and You’ll discover, just under the surface, a powerful Combination of confusion and loss which haunts [emphasis mine] us to the day. ” (p. 39)This very strong statement of the damaging effect of divorce, in my estimation, isn’t dependent on the information but about the author’s personal experience and the tales in the college students she interviewed at the first stage of the study (to make the questions to the questionnaire). She describes this latter as “deep and moving tales of depression, isolation, and anguish.
Such a negative opinion is particularly striking since the writer describes her present life in fairly glowing terms: a fantastic marriage and family and quite a rewarding career. She suggested this can be true for a number of the people she interviewed. 94. 9 percent of these adults from divorced households gave a favorable response in contrast to 97. 6 percent of these adults in intact families. Does this fail to make the case for a substantial gap, but it seems to indicate that the majority of the adults from divorced households in this study aren’t suffering to the substantial amount that the writer asserts.
It’s the matter of residing in two distinct worlds, with various principles and intricate borders, which the writer stresses as the origin of the majority of divorce’s damaging effect on kids. I am not minimizing the traumatic effect that divorce has on everybody involved but I’m likely to choose results from the huge variety of Marquardt’s information that doesn’t seem to support several the writer’s contentions relating to this situation.
Ms. Marquardt concludes that divorce creates an awareness of moral confusion from the kids as a result of absence of a unified parental advice (the consequence of living in two houses) in addition to the adverse effect divorce has on children’s spiritual growth and spiritual involvement. However, in reaction to this questionnaire thing, “I believe my comprehension of right and wrong is cloudy. In actuality, more than 95 percent of both teams indicated no ethical “cloudiness” whatsoever! Therefore, one central theory, that being from a divorced household interrupts ethical clarity, does not seem to be supported from the information.
Another facet of the feeling of being confused and lost that Ms. Marquardt asserts to be the consequence of growing up in a divorced household is the fact that it ends in a feeling of no dwelling as opposed to a feeling of two houses. , 93% replied that they either felt just like one parent’s home, or possibly both, felt just like home. So this theory of “no dwelling” is likewise not supported by the information.
A substantial proportion of these adults from divorced households ranked themselves as more spiritual than their dads (47 percent) and mothers (31. 4 percent). 1 percent of these adults explain God as affectionate (versus 82. 8 percent explain God as loving them unconditionally (versus 79. 7 percent from the whole group). Hence the information doesn’t support the concept that divorce ends in the kids becoming less spiritual adults.
Now comes the true stunner. In reaction to this announcement, “My spirituality has been bolstered by hardship in my entire life. ” 43. 7 percent of these adults from divorced households strongly concur! 5 percent), the concept is that almost three-fourths of adults whose parents divorced clarify their spirituality because having been bolstered! This information is so strong that the writer does report it from the text (p. 153) at a 1 sentence remark yet says nothing regarding the extraordinary consequences of the exceptional statement of religious resilience. Why? Where does this come from? Maybe this is a important element in understanding why the majority of the kids from divorced households turn out fine. I see this as an especially strong case of the writer’s anti-divorce prejudice.
Hence the writer’s personal data does not seem to support her decisions which adults from divorced families are mentally educated, morally dropped, less religious and less spiritual than adults from intact families.
These more favorable consequences around spirituality, faith, feeling known and having a house are extremely consistent with the study from Dr. Mavis Hetherington. She’s followed countless families of divorce, so many for as long as three years, occasionally re-evaluating the effect of divorce on kids and their parents. Data obtained at every stage of existence is significantly more persuasive than information acquired in a retrospective survey. Additionally, the study was broadly published in peer reviewed professional journals within a period of decades prior to the writer summarized her findings in a publication. Dr. Heatherington concludes that 75 percent of the kids from divorce don’t develop any significant emotional issues (compared to approximately 90 percent of their non-divorced bands). That is in stark contrast to Ms. Marquardt’s much more negative decisions but is in accordance with the positive outcomes of her own information that she chooses to dismiss.
Ultimately, I wish to address what in many ways is that the genuine core problem of the publication, that there isn’t any such thing as a “good” divorce also that it’s best for parents to remain married even when there’s conflict (low instead of high).
The data clearly demonstrates that children/adults are extremely negatively affected by high conflict divorces (scores are almost all much worse than any other group) which children/adults out of happy, intact unions have the greatest lives. I am sure most everybody understood that without reading the publication.
What this means very clearly is that what’s being done to educate parents how to divorce at a more child-sensitive manner is in fact valuable. Kids of those “Great Divorces” wind up in a far more favorable place, indicating all those books, workshops, and treatments that the author belittles as making a false dream that the “great divorce” could have real significance.
What does the data say about the writer’s main thesis that it’s better for parents that are in miserable, low-conflict unions to remain married instead of attempt to get a “Great Divorce”? Most significantly, on which I believe the two most crucial announcements, the results strongly imply a more favorable result for the “Great Divorce” group! 57. 1 percent of the adults out of this category describe themselves as “very happy” in comparison to 47. 8 percent by the miserable union, low battle group. Likewise, 62. 3 percent of these adults in the “Great Divorce” group describe themselves as “very Happy with life as complete. ” In comparison to 56. 2 percent by the miserable union, low battle group. At the face of only both of these things, how do the writer conclude that it’s better for miserable, very low battle couples, even after having tried their very best to solve their differences, to remain together rather than exercising a much healthier divorce?
I am not attempting to deny that there isn’t anything to be obtained out of low battle couples hoping to solve their problems and stay together. The major point here is that I don’t feel the writer has the information to make her case that if these miserable, very low battle couples decide to divorce they’re being selfish, placing their own desires ahead of the children’s wants, and devoting their kids to a lifetime of deep confusion, isolation, and anguish. This type of contemptuous attitude toward couples that decide to divorce isn’t disserved.