single mothers following separation

8/13/2019 Single Mothers following separation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/single-mothers-following-separation 1/10

Single Mothers following Separation and Divorce: Making It on Your Own

Author(s): Brenda Hayes JohnsonSource: Family Relations, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Single Parent Family (Jan., 1986), pp. 189-197Published by: National Council on Family RelationsNational Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/584299

Accessed: 02/12/2010 10:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/584299?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/584299?origin=JSTOR-pdf





Single Mothers Following Separation andDivorce: Making It on Your Own*

BRENDAHAYESJOHNSON**

Single parents play key roles in family stability and functioning after separationand divorce. Their well-being and their parenting skills interact to create a majorfac-tor in the adjustment of their children. This article identifies three workshop serieswhich address the developmental needs of single parents to form a new identityandmaster the adjustment process, to interact with their children in a positive parenting

role, and to form new relationships after divorce. Specific guidelines and materialsare discussed to facilitate the first of these programs, titled "MakingIt On YourOwn," designed to increase coping skills among women, who most frequently headsingle parent households.

Glick (1978, p. 53) indicated that the singleparent family created by the crisis of maritalseparation or divorce is expected to affect 1 ofevery 3 children born in 1977 who will subse-quently live "a significant length of time asmembers of a one parent family before they

reach the age of 18." Despite the lack ofevidence that divorce and single parent familystatus necessarily produce permanent disabil-ities for children (Blechman, 1982), the longperiod of family disequilibrium followingmarital separation is often marked by emo-tional and behavioral problems in children(Heatherington,Cox &Cox, 1977,1979a, 1979b;Kelly &Wallerstein, 1977; Wallerstein & Kelly,1974, 1975, 1976, 1980).The child's adjustmentis closely related to parentaladjustment. Fac-tors include general emotional unavailabilityofthe parent (Wallerstein, 1980), the ongoing

level of family conflict (Heatherington et al,

*This paper was originallypresented at the National Coun-cil on FamilyRelations Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Oc-tober, 1984. The author acknowledges the support of Familyand Youth Programs, Norristown, PA, and the Family LifeBureau Diocese of Philadelphia) or theirrole inco-sponsoringregularprogramofferings for single parents, which served asthe basis for the development of programcontent.

**BrendaHayes Johnson is a private consultant/trainer nthe Philadelphiaarea and is affiliated with Family and YouthPrograms, 565 Noble St., Norristown,PA, 19126, where she isDirectorof the Single Parent Project.

Key Words: coping, divorce adjustment, family strength,single parent families, stress.

(Family Relations, 1986, 35, 189-197.)

1979b; Hess & Camara, 1979), the custodyparent's ability to be warm and affectionate

(Hess & Camara, 1979), the parent's personaland social support system and home organiza-tion (Heatherington et al, 1977), parental

perception of financial well-being (Hodges,

Tierney & Buchsbaum, 1984) and the presenceof additional stressors (McLanahan, 1983).These factors have all been suggested to im-

pact on the child's adjustment when used as

measures of parental well-being.Interacting with these factors are the parent-

ing skills used by the parent to managebehavior. The "authoritative" parenting style(warmth, clear rules and verbal give and take)correlated with social competency in Santrockand Warshak's (1979) sample of mother cus-tody and father custody families. Consistencyof expectations, enforcement of limits and ra-

tional demands were also identified by Hether-ington, Cox and Cox (1977) as factors whichcontributed to a child's positive adjustment.

Of course, the use of such skills is often ab-sent in a parent experiencing great distressfollowing separation. Heatherington, Cox andCox (1977) speculated about the "coersivecycle" of dysfunctional parent-child relation-ships during transition. Poor parenting skillsamong anxious, depressed parents increasenoxious behavior among children. Such behav-ior on the part of children is causal in a parent'sincreased anxiety and depression, lack of feel-

ings of competence, and decreased self-esteem, claimed Heatherington. While someresearchers have recently written about factorsin a child's adjustment which are somewhat

January1986 FAMILYRELATIONS 189



unique from his parent's adjustment (Kurdek,Blisk & Siesky, 1981; Wallerstein, 1983), mostwould agree that a long, difficult or incompleteadjustment by a custody parent places achild-indeed, a family-at high risk for dys-functional interactions both within and outsidethe system. Therefore, services which increase

parental well-being and parent-child inter-actions can serve both prevention and interven-tion functions in the single parent family afterseparation/divorce.

Another area of concern involves the post-divorce period when single parents form newheterosexual relationships. Parents who even-tually regain a sense of well-being after divorcemay remarryand experience a decrease inwell-being when the satisfaction with maritalquali-ty is low in the second marriage Furstenberg &Spanier, 1984). Program offerings which ad-dress the fears and anxieties of new relation-

ships, as well as fostering realistic expecta-tions and skills for relationship formation,meet an increasing need in the divorced adultpopulation.

This article will focus on the procedures andmaterials used in "Making It On Your Own,"the first of three different 6 week workshopsdesigned to meet the needs of single parentsand to facilitate family stabilization. The threeworkshop series involve a developmental se-quence beginning with an emphasis on adultemotional well-being in "Making It On YourOwn." The second series, "Single Parenting,"

emphasizes parenting skills. "Forming NewRelationships" is the title of the third seriesand it is more appropriate for participantswhohave moved through the initial adjustmentprocess and have accepted, at least in part,their status as a single parent. It should benoted that the educational series are nowaugmented by an individual counseling pro-gram, special topic workshops (e.g., careerplanning),and adjustment groups forchildren.'

MakingIt On Your Own:Design Your Own Life

Basic Philosophy

This entire workshop assumes that in-dividuals can take an active as opposed to apassive role in divorce adjustment; they arepart of a process yet they can influence thedirection and the time span of that process.The model supports Kaslow's (1981) observa-tion of "the importance of disengagement andautonomous functioning in post-divorce ad-justment" (p. 675).The groups are not meant toreplace individual therapy but can be used asan adjunct to therapy. In addition to therecognition of the value of a support group ofindividuals who have experienced a similar lifecrisis, the group emphasizes goal setting,

'More information is available from the author upon request.

problem-solving and cognitive restructuring asthe tools for managing this transition. Themodel appears to vary from Granvold andWelch (1977), who advocate a similar cognitive-behavioral orientation, and from Weiss (1975)and Fisher (1981); the topic areas emphasizemore generic coping skills rather than lengthy

discussions of the issues unique to the earlystages of divorce. This approach allows forbroader participation by women in all phasesof the separation/divorce process.

Participants

The workshop is advertised by its title andspecified for separated and divorced women,rather than being titled "Divorce Recovery," toincrease participation by all women who have

experienced separation, whether 2 weeks or 10years before. It is this author's strong beliefthat having a mixed group with recently and

not so recently divorced women adds to thebenefit of the group. Women who are recentlyseparated gain strength and hope from thosewho have survived the initial traumatic year.

Similarly, those who still wish to make changesin their lives, though the divorce is behindthem, gain an appreciation for the progressthey have made. It is important to note thatoccasionally a participant who has beenseparated for a long period of time has neversuccessfully disengaged from the relationshipor made progress toward autonomy. Such indi-viduals should be referred for individual

therapy, since their adjustment involves adeeper rooted pattern of behavior and thinking.

This workshop has been limited to womenbut it is important for facilitators to make theirown decision about whether or not to restrictthe group to women. Many people have re-

ported the value of including men to decrease

the negative, stereotypic perceptions of men

following the break-up of a marriage. However,there are arguments, pro and con, for both ap-proaches and the following points have been

used by this writer to justify women's groups:(a) very few men register for such a group;

(b) many women have been completely depen-dent on men and can profit from beginning to

rely on other women for support and modelingof independence and control; (c) many women

have stated that they could not have been as

open and honest in the group if men had beenpresent; (d) no male staff members have been

interested in coleading the groups; and,(e) there is frequently a great deal of angertoward men expressed and, even with the mostskilled facilitator, can create a hostile, uncom-fortable experience for the one or two men who

register. This decision in no way negates the

value of mixed groups and the need for women

to deal with their angry generalizations. Allother program offerings are open to both menand women.

190 FAMILY RELATIONS January 1986



teristics which indicate a person is in recovery.

The categories are based on Weiss (1975) and

allow the group to open up and contribute,

note similarities and progress. Suggested

reading includes Weiss (1975), Chapter 4,

"Distress, Euphoria, and Other Emotional

Reactions to Loss of Attachment" and Fisher

(1981), Chapter 1, "The Rebuilding Blocks." An

outline is provided:

Reactions to Separation/Divorce

Separation Distress-Most intense dur-

ing the first 6 months. May continue with

great variations in intensity during

recovery. Some common symptoms to

include: in a haze-feeling out of touch;

denial; embarrassment; hopes or

thoughts of getting back together;

depressed; helpless; asking "why" over

and over; a 24 hour a day obsession; anx-ious; cannot eat or sleep or overeat; guilt

and/or blame; overwhelming sense of

failure; increased use of alcohol or drugs

for relief; thoughts of suicide; low self-

esteem; anger; loneliness (social and

emotional).

Euphoria-A new sense of freedom or

relief is sometimes experienced by peo-

ple who underwent separation distress

while still living together. Separation

distress sometimes alternates with

euphoria.

Recovery-Generally people are in re-covery for 2 to 4 years following separa-

tion. It begins when you know you will

live, but is marked by setbacks when

new stressors such as holidays, prob-

lems with children, ex-spouses remarry-

ing, dating experiences, and other

changes occur. The 24-hour a day obses-

sion becomes less constant, you begin

to act on your choices, and eventually

you become aware of growth, strength,

and a new identity.

Following the brainstorming and brief

presentation, group members are asked tobriefly describe their own situation (length of

separation, children, initiator, etc.) and to iden-

tify where they think they are in the adjustment

process. This is followed by goal setting and

positive statements, done in groups of two or

three if the group is larger than about eight par-

ticipants.Week 2 Self-esteem. A long-term decrease in

self-esteem was reported by Heatherington,

Cox and Cox (1977) among divorced mothers

with young children. The scores were still

below those of the married comparison group

at the 2 year point following divorce, which is

often 3 or 4 years after separation.

McLanahan's (1983) longitudinal survey

reported fewer psychological resources

(esteem and positive thinking) among the

female heads of households than among male

heads of households at all points in the study.

A brief presentation on self-esteem em-phasizes adult esteem as a gift to yourself, and

something you can begin to work to improve.

Virginia Satir's identification of the relation-

ship between esteem and communication is

discussed, and how people often marry people

who affirm one's self-esteem, whether high or

low. However, as marriage relationships

deteriorate, spouses often focus on their

mate's weaknesses or areas of vulnerability.

Even the highest levels of self-esteem are likely

to suffer. The most important issue for par-

ticipants to accept is the idea that they can

begin to shape their self-esteem, rather than

being victims. People are first asked to rate

their self-esteem at three points: (a) when they

first married, (b) at the point of separation, and

(c) now. While the typical pattern on a 10 point

scale might move from high to low to moder-ate, some people may have higher esteem now

than they did when they married. Those people

frequently initiated the divorce, feeling that

they no longer had anything in common with

their ex-spouse.

The following list of characteristics of a per-

son with high self-esteem are presented on the

board and a copy is given to each participant at

the end of the session. They are based on

Krantzler's (1974) description of the "creative

alternative":1. There is no need to put yourself or others

down. You truly feel that "I'm impor-tant-You're important." (e.g., when someone

tells you they like your dress, you can say

thank you, rather than telling them that you are

too fat to wear anything else).

2. You can accept the fact that other peoplehave limits, and therefore feel less personal af-

front when others disappoint you (e.g., you

begin to see your spouse's limitations, rather

than blaming yourself totally or questioning

how he could ever do such a thing to you).

3. You can accept yourself as a person with

likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses.

When you experience failure, you reassess,rather than feeling inadequate. You can ask for

help if you need it.

4. You can assume responsibility for con-

trolling your own life. You place less emphasis

on what has been done to you, and more em-

phasis on what you want now.

5. You can accept the uncertainties of

change and growth, realizing that there are no

guarantees of a perfect outcome. Plans which

do not result in the desired outcome can be

reassessed, rather than a person feeling

defeated.

6. It feels good to both give and receive care.

You can accept love, but you can also live if itis not always present. You can be "interdepen-

dent", rather than dependent or fiercely inde-

pendent.

192 FAMILYRELATIONS January 1986



7. You realize that life is not always as you

had hoped or planned. You work to change

what you can change, and to accept what you

can not change.

It is important to present these charac-

teristics with an emphasis on the idea that

everyone has aspects of self-esteem which can

be improved and, no matter how low your self-esteem has been, you can improve it. Discus-

sion involves identification by each person of

an aspect of self-esteem, based on the list,which might help them to define a goal and a

positive statement for the week.

In groups of two or three, have participants

identify and write down five strengths or

aspects of themselves which they feel good

about and two weaknesses or aspects of self

which they would like to change. Each woman

will first share their list in small groups and

then with the larger group. The childhood

recollection of phrases such as "don't brag; behumble" often interfere with a person's ability

to verbalize their strengths and participantsneed assurance that assessing strengths is

not analogous to bragging. The session closes

with each participant defining, writing down

and reporting a goal and a positive statementfor the upcoming week.

Week 3 Stress management. The purpose of

the stress management session is to help par-

ticipants identify their personal signs of

stress, the multiple sources of stress, and the

escalating effect of signs and sources of

stress. An emphasis on increasing one'sresistance to stress is made, since the two

final sessions focus on changing situations

and thinking, the two other general areas of

change required to decrease stress. The

following outline is completed through partici-

pant discussion:1. What happens to you, physically, when

you are under stress (e.g., headaches due to

muscle tension; stomach pain due to changesin digestive system; perspiration)? See

Charlesworth and Nathan (1982) for a more

complete description of physical changes.2. What changes in behavior occur when you

are under stress (e.g., irritable; sleepless; over-

eating; crying; withdrawal; drinking more)?

3. What changes in thinking occur for youwhen you are stressed (e.g., rumination; inabili-ty to concentrate; negative thinking about selfor others, such as "I'm worthless")?

4. What sources provide stress for you. Ex-plore the environmental sources (e.g., childrenfighting; money; job), the physical sources

(e.g., caffeine, smoking, poor diet, not enough

sleep, no exercise), and the cognitive sources.

Briefly review the irrational beliefs (Ellis, 1962)and provide concrete examples which they can

relate to.5. Note the accumulating, self-propelled

cycle of stress as signs of stress become

sources of stress. Someone who does not

sleep well and is irritable when under stress

(two different signs) will drive others away and

feel lonely and rejected. A sign of stress (ir-ritability) has become a source of stress (peo-

ple stay away), in addition to creating new

sources of stress (you feel lonely and rejected).6. Following each person's identification of

personal signs and sources of stress, identifythe methods for making a person more resis-tant to stress, more able to tolerate the

stresses which exist, by changing personalhealth habits. Explain that changing stressful

situations and changing negative thinking will

be covered during the last two sessions. If

possible, encourage selection of a modest (not

overwhelming) change in health habits as a

goal for the week. Some possible changes in-

clude: (a) eating more regularly or more nutri-

tiously or less, (b) decreasing nicotine, caf-

feine, alcohol or other drugs, (c) sleeping,

(d) exercising, (e) relaxing.7. Conclude the session with a deep muscle

relaxation exercise.It should be noted that Week 3 seems to be a

critical point for some participants who have

one of several reactions: (a) the relaxation ex-

ercise is very threatening, they are fearful of

relaxing, resist the relaxation exercise, and

then feel guilty; (b) they report that they have

hit rock bottom after 2 weeks of being "high"from previous sessions, and are discouraged

that the high didn't last; (c) they feel over-

whelmed by the multiple sources of stress in

their lives and become fearful of physical ill-ness or extreme emotional upset.

To counter the observed reactions, the

following steps are taken: (a) participants aretold in advance that they may find themselvesresisting relaxation and that it is normal for

someone who is trying to maintain controlunder emotional stress. If the group choosesto continue the relaxation exercise at the endof each future session, a resistant personmight find it more acceptable to be given per-mission to simply sit back, breathe slowly andthink of pleasant places. The result is obvious-ly often the same; (b) participants are ques-

tioned about their reactions to the third ses-

sion, and the "roller coaster" of highs and lowsafter divorce is reviewed and placed in perspec-tive, as a sign of recovery rather than regres-

sion; (c) the life event scale which relatedstressful events with physical illness (Holmesand Rahe, 1967) is no longer used. Stress isdefined as helpful in moving one toward actionand efforts are made to encourage discussionof positive benefits from stress.

Week 4 Relationship stereotypes and for-giving. This writer incorporated this session inresponse to the ongoing need participants had

to understand why their marriages had failed.They often placed complete blame on their

partner (or occasionally themselves), whichwas preventing movement toward autonomy.

January 1986 FAMILY RELATIONS 193



Dependency Most relationships begin with a certain amount of dependency, which feelsgood. How does it feel when both people become more dependent? What hap-

0, ? pens now if one person tries to move back or stand up straight? What does eachpartner feel? Conclusion: Relationships where one or both partners are heavilydependent are very fragile and potentially destroyed by the inevitable growthand change throughout life.

Smothering This relationship, where each partner is totally involved and dedicated to theother, is also typical in the early stages of a relationship. What happens if nospace is permitted between the two over time? When one person seeks to createspace, what does the other sometimes do? Conclusion: One partner eventuallyfeels trapped by the other's "'I can't live without you' " (Fisher, 1981, p. 143)

philosophy.Pedestal One person worships the other as an idealized, unrealistic image. How do they

communicate with each other? What does it feel like to be on a pedestal? What

happens if the person on the pedestal tires of their role? What happens if the

person on the pedestal notices someone they feel they can communicateithiWhat happens if the worshipper stops worshipping?

MasterlSlave One person is in total control and makes all the decisions while the otherfollows willingly. How do these people communicate? What happens if the slave

AA-9-N tries to break out of that role and become more independent?Boarding House These people are linked by a roof, a family and a commitment to stay together.

Relationships often evolve into this arrangement, where each is busy with their

own lives, and the relationship becomes barren. Love isnot

communicated;emotional needs are not met. What happens if one person notices someone who

J; thinks they are charming, witty or intelligent? Conclusion: This pattern evolvesin many households and creates a situation ripe for relationships whichthreaten a marriage.

Martyr The martyr chooses to do everything for others and to sacrifice for everyone.However, control by the martyr is what makes this arrangement unique. How do

you begin to feel toward another if they always give to you and never allow youto return the giving? (Guilt). When you feel guilty for too long, what emotionsemerge? (Anger). Yet how can you express anger at someone " . . . after all I'vedone for you"? We all have sometimes played the martyr. What are some ex-

amples? (This is often the traditional female role and discussion about suchbehavior must assure women that they were often trained to be the martyr.Motivating a martyr to change their behavior is frequently accomplished bypointing out the way such behavior is learned by one's child. Women are quick

to realize that they do not wish to have the children develop martyr relationshipsin their marriages.)Healthy Love What are the characteristics? How can we prevent each of the above

characteristics of relationships from dominating? What personal changes do

you wish to make to avoid a dysfunctional relationship? Are there certain

qualities in others which would alert you to a potentially dysfunctional relation-

ship?

Figure 1. Stereotypic Love Relationships (based upon Fisher, 1981 and Satir, 1967, 1972).

The description, role play and discussion of

stereotypic love relationships (Fisher, 1981)

based on Satir's (1972) body sculpting, has

helped many women to understand how rela-

tionships break down, and has allowed them to

move beyond the anger toward a new identity.

Each relationship is role played by the leader

and one willing participant (see Figure 1).

After the discussion of stereotypic relation-

ships and the identification and understanding

of what happened in their marriages, some par-

ticipants feel hopeless about the prospect of

ever forming a healthy relationship. Remind

participants that as people grow in self-esteem

and self-identity, there is less need to seek out

or become part of an unhealthy relationship.

Goals for the week might involve taking some

step to shift a dysfunctional friendship or fami-ly relationship toward a healthier relationship.

Week 5 and 6 Hopelessness and helpless-

ness-taking control. Participants are given

reading materials priorto week 5 to familiarizethem with the irrationalbeliefs (Ellis, 1962)andcognitive distortions (Burns, 1980) which formthe frameworkof cognitive therapy.The begin-

ning of session 5 involves self-disclosure ofthose dysfunctional beliefs which people iden-tify as common for themselves. Humor is animportant key to people's self-disclosure asthe group leader identifies beliefs which havecaused personal distress, and distress forothers. The message that these beliefs arecommon and not pathological is important.

The model is based on "'helplessnessdepressions'-embodied in passive peoplewho have negative cognitive sets about the ef-fects of their own actions, who becomedepressed upon the loss of an important

source of gratification" (Miller, Rosellini &Seligman, 1977, p. 106). The concept is thebasis and justification for the problem solving,cognitive/behavioral focus of the final two ses-

194 FAMILYRELATIONS January 1986



Depressed or Helpless+>Act

Controlvery upset t

Hopeless , ThnThink

Act on Alternatives ThinkMore Functionally

1 2 3 4Choices Current New

Thoughts ThoughtsPositive 1. 1Consequences 2. 2.

Negative 3 . 3.Consequences 4. 4.

5. 5.

Figure 2. Model for Cognitive/Behavioral Intervention.

sions. Depression is described as "reactive

depression . . . caused by environmental . . .events" (p. 104). While many respondents donot describe themselves as depressed, all canrelate to the sense of being very upset and attimes feeling isolated, withdrawn, unable to

act or to decide, feeling empty, uninterested,unmotivated, unable to cope, or giving up.These characteristics are associated with a

"lowered response initiative" (p. 111), in otherwords, not acting or doing in a situation wherealternatives are available. This lack of responseis coupled with a "negative cognitive set"(p. 112) which negates the role an individualplays in producing desired outcomes (i.e., "I

can't do it").The model in Figure 2 is presented for

discussion. The following points are made:1. To feel helpless is to feel that there are no

possible actions you can take to change asituation. What options are available as waysto act in a given situation?

2. To feel hopeless is to say "Ican't," " Thereis no prospect of a happy future," "I give up."Hopelessness involves thinking, and thinkingis controlled by the individual. Thinking re-quires changes (a) when you can indeed donothing about an unpleasant situation, (b) tomotivate you to act when alternatives areavailable.

3. As you begin to act in situations whereyou can act, rather than being immobolized,and think more positively in situations whereyou can not act, you begin to gain control. Feel-ings of being depressed or upset diminish.

Following a general discussion of the model,

a participant is encouraged to discuss a recentsituation which caused them to feel very upsetor depressed. As the participant talks, thegroup leader records "Current Thoughts." The

group is then encouraged to help the partici-pant to explore alternatives (behaviors) fordealing with the situation. Additional currentthoughts should be added to the list aspositive and negative consequences arediscussed. Be sure that all possible options arelisted, however, before consequences arediscussed. After an alternative is selected,thoughts which inhibit the selected action are

modified, and thoughts about one's ability tocope with the situation are created. Remindparticipantsthat there may be no perfect alter-native, but acting is better than feeling totallyhelpless. Whatplan exists if the selected alter-native fails to produce the desired result? SeeAppendix A for an example of the completedprocess.

The process is repeated several times sothat a number of participantscan receive inputfor their unique example. People are encour-aged to utilize the process at home during theweek and to returnwithexamples for the groupto assist with in the 6th week.

Group wrap-upand continuation. The groupis encouraged to identify a time when theywould like to get together informally and todiscuss possible continuation. Some groupshave opted to spend holiday time together, orinformal dinners or activities. Others havedecided to meet monthly, incorporating newmembers and having monthly discussiontopics. It is importantto rememberthat peopleare in great transition and may not need to re-main together indefinitely. Names, addressesand phone numbers are shared to promote con-tact. The final half-hour is spent encouraging

each participant to identify their personalgrowth during the group and the steps theywish to make to continue their growth.

January 1986 FAMILYRELATIONS 195



ProgramEvaluation

The current programformatand content hasbeen developed and implemented after 2 yearsof programmingwith a different model whichincluded the first 3 sessions but did notinclude the final 2 sessions with the

cognitive/behavioral/problem solving em-phasis. The earlier model included 4 sessionsplus 2-one month follow-ups, and focused lesson skill building. An analysis of the par-ticipants' subjective responses to the ques-tion, "What did you find personally valuableabout this series" produced two categories ofresponses, and a distinct difference inwomen's perceptions between the earlier pro-gram and the current model.

The first category of responses could be ex-pected from any support/discussion groupwith people sharing a unique life-stress ex-

perience. Typical statementsincluded, "get-

ting the support of others and realizingyou arenot alone" and "we all became good friendswith a common ground." These comments,while still sometimes made, were more typicaland inclusive when the program lacked thecognitive/behavioral/problemsolving sessions.

The secondary category of responses wasnonexistent in the earlier programformat, butis now prevalent among the subjective partici-pant reports. Some examples: "able to standon my own two feet;" "responsible for my ownchoices;" "I have more control over my per-sonal life. I've become more independent;" "I

started thinking about what I am going to dowith my life instead of thinking just of my hus-band and our relationship." These reportsseem to reflect a change in women's percep-tions of their own ability and responsibility fordirecting their lives. The "autonomous func-tioning" described by Kaslow (1981, p. 675)seems much clearer in the self-analysis ofwomen who have participatedin "MakingIt OnYour Own,"as it is described here. Futureworkwill include before and after measures whichcan more clearly support participant benefits.

SummaryThe well-being of the single parent after

divorce is a majorfactor in family stabilizationand the subsequent adjustment of the chil-dren. The focus of the first 6 week series forsingle parents focuses on skills which aid a

single parent to form a more positive conceptof themselves, to gain a perspective on thedissolution of their marriage,but to emphasizetheir ability to act and think in ways whichfoster personal well-being. The model is ap-propriate for use with women at all stages of

separation and divorce, since the emphasis is

on autonomy and control of oneself, ratherthan to focus entirely on the early phases ofseparation distress. Many existing modelshave been described as appropriatefor people

during the 1st year of separation and do notteach tools and skills necessary for continuedgrowth.

REFERENCES

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional dis-

orders. New York: International Universities Press.

Blechman, E. (1982). Are children with one parent at psycholog-

ical risk? A methodological review. Journal of Marriage and

Family, 44(1), 179-195.

Burns, D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy. NY:

Signet.

Charlesworth, E. A., & Nathan, R. G. (1982). Stress manage-

ment: A comprehensive guide to wellness. Houston:

Biobehavioral Pub.Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. NY: Lyle

Stuart.

Fisher, B. (1981). Rebuilding. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact

Pub. Co.

Furstenberg, F., & Spanier, G. (1984). Recycling the family:

Remarriage after divorce. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Glick, P. C. (1978). Social change and the American family. The

Social Welfare Forum, 1977. New York: National Conference

on Social Welfare. Columbia University Press.

Granvold, D., & Welch, G. (1977). Intervention for post-divorce

adjustment problems: The treatment seminar. Journal of

divorce, 1, 81-93.Heatherington, E. M., Cox, M., &Cox, R. (1977). The aftermath

of divorce. In J. Stevens and M. Mathews (Eds.), Mother-

Child, Father-Child Relations. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Heatherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979a). Play and social

interaction in children following divorce. Journal of SocialIssues, 35, 26-49.

Heatherington, E. M., Cox, M., &Cox, R. (1979b). Family inter-

action and the social, emotional and cognitive development

of children following divorce. In T. Brazelton and V. Vaughan

(Eds.), The family: Setting priorities (pp. 71-88). NY: Science

and Medicine Pub. Co.

Hess, R. D., & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family relation-

ships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce

for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 79-96.

Hodges, W. F., Tierney, C. W., & Buchsbaum, H. K. (1984). The

cumulative effect of stress on preschool children of di-

vorced and intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family,

46, 611-617.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment

rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11,

213-218.

Kaslow, F. W. Divorce and divorce therapy. (1981). In A. Gurmanand D. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy

(pp. 662-696). NY: BrunnerlMazel Inc.

Kelly, J., & Wallerstein, J. (1977). Brief interventions with chil-

dren in divorcing families. American Journal of Ortho-

psychiatry, 47, 23-39.

Kurdek, L., Blisk, D., & Siesky, A. (1981). Correlates of chil-

dren's long-term adjustment to their parents' divorce.

Developmental Psychology, 17, 565-579.

Kranzler, M. (1974). Creative divorce. NY: Evans.

McLanahan, S. S. (1983). Family structure and stress: A longi-

tudina comparison of two parent and female-headed

families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 347-357.

Miller, W. R., Rosellini, R. A., &Seligman, M. E. (1977). Learned

helplessness and depression. In J. Maser and Seligman

(Eds.), Psychopathology: Experimental models (pp.

104-130). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Santrock, J. W., & Warshak,R. A.

(1979).Father

custodyand

social development in boys and girls. Journal of Social

Issues, 35, 112-125.

Satir, V. (1967). Conjoint Family Therapy. Palo Alto, CA:

Science and Behavior Books.

196 FAMILY RELATIONS January 1986



Appendix A

Situation: Ralph left Jane 1 year ago. She was very depressed for six months but finally decided tomove on with her life. She was working, taking a college course, and beginning to form new friend-ships. Then she was told by her mother-in-law that Ralph was sorry he had ever left, was very lone-ly and depressed. Jane felt upset and confused about whether or not she should reach out to himand encourage him to come back.

AIterna ivesChoices Call him and see Call him but make it Iwill do nothing

how he's doing clear that he cannotcome back withoutextensive counseling.

Positive -he will assure -it might work -I can continueConsequence you he's fine to improve and

and you can feel good aboutcontinue without guilt my new life

Negative -he will be miserable -I might invest a lot -I will wonder ifConsequence and ask to come back of time and emotion, I should have

only to be left again tried again

Decision: Jane decided she was happy with the progress she had made and that numerous effortsto obtain counseling in the past had proven futile. Therefore, she decided to do nothing and tocontinue with her current lifestyle.

Thoughts

Current

1. Darn it, this whole thing was his deci-sion and now that I'm doing better, hewants to come back.

2. I don't know if I want to go through thatagain if he comes back and then leavesagain.

3. I'm afraid I'll feel guilty if I don't tryagain.

4. We've tried counseling and he always re-fused to participate.

New

1. I'm pleased with my progress.

2. I don't ever want to feel the way I did dur-

ing the first 6 months.

3. This was Ralph's decision and it makessense that he will sometimes regret hisdecision.

4. I have no evidence that his behaviorwould be any different than in the past.

5. I refuse to feel guilty for his choices.

January1986 FAMILYRELATIONS 197

single mothers following separation

Documents