Divorce

One good aspect that my method had was that it allowed me to collect very in depth data, people were able to open up to me as it was unstructured interviews, I did have a problem with this though, as I didn’t have prepared questions it was hard to compare my participants points of views afterwards and by talking so in depth about a sensitive subject like divorce things could get out of hand, one of my participants even began to cry as she became very emotional.

The location to do my interviews in were varied, some were good and some were bad, one of them I had to do in my room and privacy was hard to come by.

In my opinion my results are unreliable, but I believe that when talking to people about something as private as this, results will always be this as people feel awkward and don’t want a stranger, or somebody from outside of the family to know their business.

The participants I believe were the correct ones to interview and had enough experience and met with my criteria, the problem which I found though was that I hadn’t interviewed enough; I only interviewed one of each that I wanted.

I.e. ONE married couple, ONE cohabiting couple etc.

If I had interviewed more people my results would have been more representative, I hadn’t thought of this until after.

The sampling method I used I thought was appropriate; people knew that they could confide in me and no problems arose with this.

If I were to repeat this project I would defiantly change my method, I would do structured interviews as I believe that for my content and analysis it would be a lot easier to compare and that it is also possible to get in depth data this way. I would also interview more people.

Evaluation of findings

In relation of my first aim, to find out whether divorce on the increase is really seen as a negative aspect of today’s society I found that people do take divorce less seriously than before but they don’t give it less importance, I know this because nearly all of the couples I interviewed seemed slightly scared of divorce but would mostly consider it, I have found that, on contrary to my beliefs people don’t rush into marriages and just get divorced when they find that marriage isn’t what they expected, couples nowadays tend to cohabit first so that when they do get divorced they know it is the right thing to do, and the only way out.

They cohabit to test their relationship, in order to avoid divorce. Some couples do not marry because of the threat of divorce. I found that people who are more religious see divorce as a problem. I also found that people feel divorce can affect mental health, respondents stated that divorce is not good for your health.

The reasons given for the rise of divorce including the fact that marriages are now based of love rather than expectations and the changing role of women.

In relation to my second aim, to find out the main reason for more divorces I found that most people believe that it is due to women having more independence, less sexism. This was the one and only thing that all my participants had in common.

My findings were similar to previous studies in this area such as Robert Chester who found that nuclear families would never stop existing; he found that families would just change their forms. By having divorces this is what happens, children don’t just stop having one of their parents, they still have both, the way in which families tend to be perceived just changes, cohabiting couples are on the up and so is divorce.

People see divorce as something negative and positive at the same time, it affects you in both ways and people realise this, they also know that divorce can give them a second start in life when most of their hope is gone.

What was interesting about my project was that I was able to research on something that causes hundreds and thousands of people heartbreak and depression everyday but is also seen as normal, I learnt a lot from doing this project, I used to think that people were just careless and got married and divorced as if it doesn’t mean a thing, I’ve found that this is not the case, although more people are getting divorced it doesn’t mean that more people are getting married, people stand up for themselves more nowadays, and despite my previous beliefs people DO see divorce as a problem, but also as something positive. By doing this project I have learnt a lot.

Attachment and Divorce: FAMILY CONSEQUENCES Bowlby’s, Ainsworth’s, and Shaver’s research created the understanding that infant styles create a disposition for later behavioral traits. More current research has questioned the significance of how the disruption of the attachment structure (such as in divorce) can affect children’s behaviors throughout life.

The research on this topic is contradictory and somewhat inconclusive, with research asserting that either attachment style or external environment has been the main contributor to the behaviors seen in members of divorced families, while many sources stated that it is likely to be a combination of both influences. With either explanation, research concludes that children of divorced families have a disposition to these behaviors, but the end development of behavior and personality is in the hands of the individual and the external factors that are present. Abstract

The attachment theory that was developed by Harlow, Bowlby, and Ainsworth, which states that attachment is a key aspect to determining personality and behavior throughout an individual’s lifetime. Attachment can be defined as the strong bond that develops first between parent and child, and later in peer and romantic relationships (Bowlby, 1969). Research on divorce and separation of attachment figures has yielded conflicting results. It is often reported that children of divorce have trouble adapting to different stages of their lives because of their experience with broken or detached attachment bonds.

These children are said to have no accurate template for successful relationships to replicate in their lives. Other research provided results that children of divorce adapt to life’s situations and relationships within normal ranges when compared to their peers (Armistead, Forehand, Summers, & Tannenbaum, 1998). Taking this into account, these researchers looked to peer relations, socioeconomic status, general distress, or poor parenting skills to explain the appearance of troublesome behavior or poor grades.

The study of all aspects of divorce and attachment is important to how parents, psychologists, and teachers approach and understand children of divorced families in order to help them reach their full potential as adults. Overview of Attachment Theory The attachment theory has a basis in three theoretical approaches and was first related to primate and infant-mother studies. The three approaches include a psychoanalytic approach, the social learning approach, and the ethological theory of attachment (Ainsworth, 1969).

Childhood attachment styles are clearly based on the emotional bond between the parent and child, as opposed to a biological push to become attached. A study on adopted children shows that positively formed attachments heighten the chance for a well-adjusted life, regardless of the biological relation of the attachment figure (Juffer, Stams & van IJzendoorn, 2002). “Even in a biologically unrelated group of parents and their adopted children from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, early child-parent relationship characteristics played a significant role in shaping children’s adjustment in middle childhood” (Juffer et al. 2002, p. 814). Harlow (1958) experimented with infant rhesus monkeys by removing them from their mothers and offering them a choice between two surrogate mothers, one made of terrycloth, the other of wire. In the first group, the terrycloth mother provided no food while the wire mother did, in the form of an attached baby bottle containing milk. In the second group, the terrycloth mother provided food; the wire mother did not. The young monkeys clung to the terrycloth mother regardless it provided them with food, and that the other young monkeys chose the wire surrogate only when it provided food.

The monkeys in the terrycloth study fared better in many aspects of their lives compared to others who were provided with only a wire mother, and were more likely to be adjusted physically, psychologically, and socially compared to the monkeys raised by the wire mother. Harlow concluded from his research that the primates are better off in their lives when given more comfort, attention, and grooming when compared to those who were deprived of these elements (Harlow).

Harlow (1958) also noted that the infant monkeys formed a close bond, or attachment to their surrogate cloth mothers. These surrogate mothers were often used as a secure base when opportunities to venture and explore were presented. This was done in order to see how the infants adapted to the surroundings. These infants used their emotional bond to ensure that they would not be harmed when encountering new objects. Also, when a threatening stimulus was presented in this lab experiment, the monkeys retreated to the cloth mothers for safety.

This correlates with Ainsworth’s (1967) finding that infants in Uganda use their mothers as a secure base to explore, occasionally leaving their sights, but periodically returning to ensure themselves that they are still there. Bowlby (1969) also conducted research on attachment, recognizing the undeniable bond between infants and their primary care givers. In a variety of cultures that have been studied, the majority of children ranging in age from nine months to one year old have exhibited strong attachment behavior towards their primary care giver.

This trend continued until three to four years of age, where the attachment weakened slightly. Hopefully at this point, the child is secure enough to briefly venture from the mother, and begin to develop other interactions and attachments (Bowlby). The notion that attachment extends throughout the life of an individual is noted in sections of Ainsworth’s and Bowlby’s literature. Bowlby (1969) stated that over time, the attachment that infants have for their parents is subtly weakened.

The degree to which it is weakened depends on the temperament of the child, which in turn determines how readily new attachment bonds are sought out and formed. Bowlby also researched the effect that temporary loss of the mother had on human infants, and his findings were expanded upon by the development of the Strange Situation Procedure developed by Ainsworth. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) solidified Bowlby’s research on infants and developed three main attachment styles. These styles are based on Ainsworth’s (1978) studies of temporary loss of the main attachment figure within a controlled lab setting.

This research was called the Strange Situation Procedure. The results showcased the distinct attachment characteristics for each style. Avoidant infants focus their attention mainly on toys that are found around the research room, not directly on the mother. The children appear to be independent and confidant, but there is intentional avoidance of the mother figure occurring. Once the mother is removed, these infants become detached and avoid the substitute caretaker. When returning, the infant continues to avoid the parent (Ainsworth et al. , 1978).

Secure infants are genuinely social and explorative within the environment. They are friendly to the mother and caretaker, although can be wary of strangers. Secure infants show signs of anger and sadness when the mother is removed, but eventually adjust to the absence. These infants are generally excited upon the return of the mother (Ainsworth et al. , 1978). Lastly, the Anxious or Ambivalent pattern of behavior in infants shows signs of anxiety and hostility towards the parent. The Ambivalent infant is shows aggression toward the mother, but longs to be close to her at the same time.

This behavior occurs both before and after the parent returns to the room (Ainsworth et al. , 1978). Hazan and Shaver (1987) continued this line of research and adapted the original attachment styles to patterns of attachment behavior in adult romantic relationships. The same three attachment styles remain true for adjustment and behavior in adult relationships (Hazan, & Shaver). The securely attached infants matured into adults that were more likely to experience balanced relationships of a desirable duration. The Avoidant infants grew up to have a few short relationships, if any at all.

Ambivalent infants became adults who had frequent partners, but often to not allow themselves or their partner to establish the close bond that they would like to form. Separation From an Attachment Figure Spouse Marriage is a highly significant form of attachment bond that has negative consequences when broken. Bowlby realized and supported the notion that as we grow older, we form new attachments with multiple important figures throughout our lives (Bowlby, 1969). For infants, it is only natural to form attachments with the people who care for them most, in regards to their physiological and emotional needs.

As people mature, the old attachments are only severed after great strain, and new attachments are made along the way. New attachments can be friends, co-workers or romantic interests (Bowlby, 1969). The effects of divorce on the adults who are engulfed in the situation tend to be as stressful as those found in the children. Weiss’ (1976) work showed that the reaction of couples after divorce is similar to the core set of reactions of other examples where attachment is broken, including the reactions of children.

Kobak (1999) refered to the Weiss study and stateed that the availability of an attachment figure in relationships is important to the strength of the bond. When this availability is broken, much like an enhanced Strange Situation Procedure for adults, the security of one spouse or the other is threatened. Berman (1988) noticed from his study of divorced couples, that there is often a strong sense of longing for the estranged partner, and a mourning of the loss is experienced. He also noted that there is a seemingly illogical mix of anger, resentment, and lingering positive feelings for the estranged spouse.

Weiss (1976) explained this by stating; This persisting bond to the spouse resembles the attachment bond of children to parents described by Bowlby. Indeed it seems reasonable to surmise that the bond we observe to persist in unhappy marriages is an adult development of childhood attachment (p. 138). Although the distress caused by divorce is great for both partners, it is easier to see how adults cope with the broken attachment because of their life experiences, maturity, and alternate sources of support. In contrast, children rely mainly on few attachment figures and often lack the coping skills that adults have refined.

Children Children usually lose a degree of contact with one of their very few attachment figures when a divorce occurs. It is a confusing and stressful time for children, regardless of whether the divorce was amicable or not. Booth, Clarke-Stewart, McCartney, Owen, & Vandell (2000) refer to various national studies when they stated that poor school performance, low self-esteem, behavior problems, distress, and adjustment difficulties are associated with divorce. In adolescents from divorced families they noted more instances of delinquent behavior, early sex activity, and continued academic issues.

In contrast, there have also been comparable studies that detect no unusual behavior or emotional distress occurring from divorce (Armistead et al. , 1998). For example, one study involved extensive questionnaires and concluded that the average scores attained from the children were within normal ranges when compared to children of intact families (Armistead et al. ). There are many factors that may play into how children’s attachments are altered after a divorce, gender and age being the two most documented variables. Children’s adjustment and the factor of age.

The behavioral reaction of a child to divorce has been shown to correlate with the age group when the divorce or separation occurs. In a controversial study of divorced families, Blakeslee & Wallerstein (1989) stated that most children have the same initial feelings. “When their family breaks up, children feel vulnerable, for they fear that their lifeline is in danger of being cut” (p. 12). They then went on to discuss the age differences and how the stage at which divorce occurs can impact what behaviors may take place.

Blakeslee and Wallerstein (1989) observed, Little children often have difficulty falling asleep at bedtime or sleeping through the night. Older children may have trouble concentrating at school. Adolescents often act out and get into trouble. Men and women may become depressed or frenetic. Some throw themselves into sexual affairs or immerse themselves in work (p. xii). Booth et al. (2000) conducted wide sampling research and realized that the worst initial reactions and behaviors that occur close to the date of the divorce were by the youngest children.

In a follow-up study 10 years after the divorce, however, the youngest children were adjusting to their new environments and interactions better than siblings who were older at the time of the divorce. Children’s adjustment and the factor of sex. Gender difference between children in a divorce plays a very important role in how they adjust. This is true during the time of the divorce and has lasting effects in adult life. Multiple studies have agreed that boys and girls react differently to the reduced contact with a major attachment figure.

Boys seem to have an especially difficult time with divorce, causing them to have trouble at school, withdraw from social interactions, or start fights with peers (Blakeslee & Wallerstein, 1989). However, Amato (2001) wrote a follow up study to his earlier meta-analysis findings. In this earlier study, behavior traits were ranked in children with divorced parents and observed negative behaviors. The current study emphasizes that differences are not unique to either boys or girls. Amato and Keith (1991) found that the deficit in social adjustment associated with marital disruption was greater for boys than for girls.

In the 1990s, divorce was associated with greater conduct problems among boys than girls. But the more general conclusion–in the earlier meta-analysis as well as in the present one–is that most of the disadvantages associated with divorce are similar for boys and girls. These findings imply that the stress on the children is equal, although they may show it in differing ways. Amato’s (2001) follow up study also went to great lengths to show that current trends in gender differences are not as severe as they were once thought to be.

Children of Divorce: Outcomes Short-term outcomes for children from divorced families seem to be troubled, but the outcome becomes increasingly optimistic as the children age and mature (Blakeslee & Wallerstein, 1989). The individuals who were interviewed by Wallerstein (1989) showed a strong desire to fix what their parents could not within their own adult lives. They wanted to have stable families and relationships, although many viewed this dream as idealistic, not realistic. “They fear betrayal. They fear abandonment.

They fear loss. They draw an inescapable conclusion: Relationships have a high likelihood of being untrustworthy; betrayal and infidelity are probable” (Blakeslee & Wallerstein, p. 55). Regardless of the long term effects on these particular interviewees, Amato and Keith (1991) concluded after their own assessment that children of highly conflicted families who are not divorced fare worse over time than children with divorced parents. This shows that distance from an attachment figure may be better than living in a troubled environment.

Blakeslee and Wallerstein (1989) observed through their years of interviews with children of divorce an occurrence known as the Sleeper Effect. It is defined as, “a delayed reaction to an event that happened many years earlier” (Blakeslee & Wallerstein, p. 60). The Sleeper Effect is seen mostly in young women whose parents divorced while they were young children. As previously noted, boys are more likely to act out during the time of divorce, showing their aggression and anger at the situation (Amato and Keith, 1991). Girls on the other hand, seem to keep this frustration inside.

This pent up emotion is theorized to show its effects later in the lives of these girls (Blakeslee & Wallerstein). Its effects are described as, “particularly dangerous because it occurs at the crucial time when many young women make decisions that have long-term implications for their lives. Suddenly overcome by fears and anxieties, they begin to make connections between these feelings and their parents’ divorce” (Blakeslee & Wallerstein, p. 61). Most attachment and divorce literature claims attachment is an integral part of the outcomes seen in children from divorced families.

However, many of these sources also mention the presence of secondary factors such as income, mother’s employment status, or peer relationships. These factors can also play a key role in determining how a child deals with divorce. For example, Booth et al, (2000) summarized their results and said that during the early stages of life, it is perhaps most important that the available parent has good parenting skills. This, they say, is more important to the outcome of the child than the family structure, meaning that parenting practices have a greater effect on children than marital status.

They mention that lack of education, depression, low income, and inadequate support from the mother leads to poor adjustment and behavior in young children. Many of these factors can be brought on by a divorce, such as lack of support or attention for children, depression, and economic status. The fading stigma of divorce is another universal factor that has been observed to change the well being of these children. Contrary to the past, divorce is not viewed as a degrading occurrence, which once brought social exclusion, shame, and the feeling of failure to family members.

Similarly, the current volume has increased, and current divorces are not preceded by as much violence and anger as in the past (Amato, 2001). Conclusion The somewhat contrasting views provide a solid, yet inconclusive basis for our understanding of how divorce affects families. Different views have been discussed, including the attachment theory and the effects of family environments. The research has uncovered a wealth of knowledge about how adults and children deal with loss and feelings of abandonment and insecurity.

There were many common reactions to divorce that have been observed over these situations, including sadness, anger, insecurity, and lack of trust, which can lead to depression, conduct issues, or unrealistic relationship views. Regardless of these common findings, many children of divorce eventually learn to accept the past and look toward their futures. There are still many avenues that can be taken in the research techniques and literature surrounding divorce and children, but the detrimental findings of the 1970’s seem to have faded, along with (and possibly because of) the social stigmas that have been linked to divorce.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of attachment. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, attachment and dependency. Child Development, 40, 969-1025. Ainsworth, M. D. S. , Blehar, M. C. , Waters, E. , & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis.

Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370. Amato, P. R. , & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 53, 43-58. Armistead, L. , Forehand, R. , Summers, P. , & Tannenbaum, L. (1998). Parental divorce during early adolescence in Caucasian families: The role of family process variables in predicting the long-term consequences for early adult psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 327-336. Berman, W. H. (1988). The role of attachment in the post-divorce experience.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 496-503. Blakeslee, S. , & Wallerstein, J. S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women and children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Booth, C. , Clarke-Stewart, K. A. , McCartney, K. , Owen, M. T. , & Vandell, D. L. (2000). Effects of parental separation and divorce on very young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 304-326. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic. Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 573-585.

Hazan, C. , & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Juffer, F. , Stams, G. J. J. M. , & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2002). Maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment in middle childhood: The case of adopted children and their biologically unrelated parents. Developmental Psychology, 38, 806-821. Kobak, R. (1999). The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment relationships. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds. , Handbook of attachment (pp. 21-43). New York: Guilford. Nakonezny, P. A. , Shull, R. D. , & Rodgers, J. L. (1995). Divorce rate across the 50 states and its relation to income, education, and religiosity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 477-488. Waite, L. J. , & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Doubleday. Warner, R. L. , & Seccombe, K. (2003). Marriage and families: Relationships in social context. Toronto, Canada: Wadsworth. Weiss, R. S. (1976). The emotional impact of marital separation. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 135-145.

In the past 40 years there has been a dramatic change in the amounts of marriage and cohabitation, for example, 60% of first time marriages end in divorce, which means the amount of second marriages have increased because everyone always wants someone to hold onto in life and you can never be too old to find that someone. Firstly, when a male and female are married, there is important factors to consider. Traditionally it was important for the male to be the ‘Breadwinner’ in the family and bring in the income, and for the female to be a housewife and tend to the children’s needs as well as the household, cooking every meal and cleaning the house. It was important for the family to have a function in society.

But now tradition has been pushed aside and now women have careers, Sue Sharpe discovered this change in women’s views on life when she first visited a school in 1976 to see that the girls at the school only had visioned of being a housewife in the future, she then returned to the same school in 1994 to observe that all the girls had dreamed of having careers, this shows that women now having more of a role in society could prove a struggle for men not being the leader anymore.

Also in a marriage men and women moreover look for not just love, but friendship. If friendship is not found or one partner doesn’t open up to their lover, then a marriage can start to crumble. Plus divorce is also frowned upon by functionalists. Furthermore in the past 40 years there has been an increase in cohabitation (living together but not being married). There can be many reasons for this, from economical and not being able to afford a wedding seen as the average church wedding costs ? 15,000 or not being ready.

One of the most popular reasons is that couples want to in a sense ‘try out’ living with somebody before they spend massive amounts of money and vow to spend the rest of their lives with someone who they might not even like, this gives them a chance to back out of proceedings and find their soul mate. Moreover another reason that cohabitation is increasing is because of stability. Cohabitation is very rare cases lasts longer than ten years, therefore first marriages are more stable and cohabitation is generally safer for younger couples as they don’t have to rush into the rest of their lives.

Feminist’s note that women’s expectations of marriage have radically changed, compared with previous generations. In the 1990s, most divorce petitions were put forward by women. This may support Thornes and Collard’s (1979) view that women expect far more from marriage than men and, in particular, that they value friendship and emotional gratification more than then do. If husbands fail to love up to these expectations, women may feel the need to look elsewhere.

This would also support the fact that, on average, the number of divorce proceedings started by women is about 70%. In the past 40 years also, the standard of living has increased greatly, which means people are living longer, this includes; Scientific and medical advances, the welfare state, safer and healthier working conditions, higher accommodation standards, improved education and health awareness, better food and food technology e. g. microwaves and toasters, better hygiene and sanitation and improved medical care.

All these factors are huge reasons why people have started living longer, and with people living longer there is more of a chance of marriage in their long lived lifes and more than just one. . On the other hand there has been a decrease in family size, this is because of; More child-centeredness, increasing geographical mobility, improved and ease of access contraception, declining death and infant mortality rate, the welfare state, the changing role of women, compulsory education of children and the change of norms and values.

These are all elements in which influence the decline in average family size. Lastly, there has been an increase in marriage because of growing secularization, the changes on the views of religion meant that people from different countries have integrated from their foreign countries and settled in Britain, where they have found love, and for them it is more traditional for them to marry before living together. The basic development of cohabitation is that it is on the increase and has been for the last decade.

The proportion of non-married people cohabiting has risen sharply in the last 20 years from 11% of men and 13% of women in 1986 to 24% and 25% respectively. In 2007, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggested that cohabiting couples are the fastest growing family type in the UK. In fact, around 2. 2 million families are cohabiting couples with or without children. This family type has grown by 65% since 1997, and really, the numbers are likely to be higher than this because the ONS data did not include same-sex couples living together.

In addition, the ONS data suggested that a third of teenagers in 2007 were destined to cohabit rather than marry compared with one in ten of their grandparents. As we gathered that the general trend is on the increase, it’s good to know the reasons why. One of the first reasons, which I mentioned earlier on, is that people like to cohabit to “test the water. ” During this period, they will assess whether they (the couple) are compatible with each other and whether they will be able to live with each other before making any sort of commitments.

After all, cohabitation on average lasts for 5 years, which then 60% of cohabitees will then marry. Another reason for the said trend is that there are a significant number of people who live together whilst waiting for a divorce. For example, in 2005, 23% of cohabiting men were separated from a previous partner whilst 36% were divorced. So although a person may be married, they may have separated and moved into another house to live with a person they have met. They will then be counted as a cohabitee.

Throughout the 1900″s, the typical Australian family has had some dramatic changes. In fact, you could go as far as to say that, today, there is no typical family. The family has adapted so much to the public”s change in attitude towards families, or perhaps the public has adapted so much to the change in families, it is now virtually impossible to identify one family type as predominant. It is no longer unusual for there to be as many step families, single parent families, De Facto relationships, etcetera as there is.

Also the number of children in families has decreased, with some families even deciding not to have children. So, what has influenced these changes in society? Some occurrences through-out the 20th century that are identified as influences on society are the two World wars, the Depression, and the Women”s Liberation Movement. All of these had a major impact on society, changing everyone”s opinions, attitudes, and overall views on life.

The Nuclear family, previously the typical Australian family has slowly become less common, and even though, if there was still a typical family, this would probably still be it, this obvious decline in numbers is a great sign of the changes being discussed, and possibly a sign of what is to happen in the future. Maybe, in the 21st century, it will be more common to be in a step or single parent family, than a nuclear family. Something that has had an effect on these changes in society, is that of education. For approximately the first half of the century, not many people actually made it through school.

It was common for children to leave school early, as it could not be afforded and so they would get a job, and help support the family. However, the number of people deciding to stay in school, or at least receive a proper education, has kept increasing through-out the 2nd half of the century. Due to this, young people are dependant on their parents for longer periods of time, as “unemployment,… and lack of affordable housing.. ” (Getley, A. , 1996, 132) makes it harder for them while receiving an education. As already mentioned, family sizes have decreased.

Between 1900 and 1913 the average was 3-4, but today it is 2-3. The main causes of this being the introduction of many new contraceptive devices, and the Women”s liberation movement. Both of these worked together, as many women wanting to have a career before marrying, or having children, use contraception as a way of controlling when they have children, and how many they have. Earlier in the century such advanced forms of contraception that are available today, were not available then.

Also, more women are deciding that they do not want any children. It is predicted that 20 per cent of women born in the late 1960s will be childless. ” (Getley, A. , 1996, 124). In fact, the Women”s liberation movement has had one of the biggest impacts on the family. With the acceptance of women working, even when married, around the 1960″s, families economic status has improved greatly. “Single women made up to 20 per cent of the work force in 1901 but once they got married had to give up their jobs”(Gunstone, et. al. , 1992,). Also women were paid approximately half the amount males were, whereas, today there is a greater number of women employed, than men, with reasonably equal wages.

It is now common for both parents to work, where the reason for women leaving the work force after marriage, previously, was to do the housework, and look after the children. Due to this, I think it is fair to say that the majority of Australian families are financially comfortable. Also, welfare assistance was introduced around 1908, and has kept improving since, with more provided for a larger variety of people in need. This is one factor in the increase of divorce, and single parent families.

Previously, many women would have been scared to get a divorce, as they had had little or no experience in the work force, and virtually no means of income, and many single mothers would give their child up for adoption, as they had no way of supporting it, and it was also considered socially unacceptable. But with the introduction, and improvement of welfare for the unemployed, and single parents, a lot more people were able to manage on their own. Single mothers could afford to keep their children, and women were able to divorce their husband, confident that they would be all right financially, until able to find a job.

As a result, divorce rates started to climb, and society began to accept divorce. A factor contributing to women joining the work force is the technological improvements over the years. Between 1919 and 1928, electricity saw the introduction of such ” labour saving appliances such as electric irons, refrigerators, electric stoves, vacuum cleaners, heaters and electric washing machines. ” (Gunstone, et. al. , 1992,). These cut the time taken to do housework dramatically, and with the introduction of more and more appliances that are even more efficient, women are left with time to handle a paid job, as well as doing most of the housework.

Also, since the women”s liberation movement, that started in 1969, household chores have been shared around a lot more. However, some of these technological advancements have caused people to lose their jobs, as a machine can take over their position. The two world wars have had quite a large impact on families as well. During the wars, women took over the jobs of the men who had gone to fight for their country, but when the wars were over, many employers were not willing to let their female employers go, as they were cheaper, and often more willing to work.

Also after the wars, especially after the second world war, industry was short of workers, so immigration was encouraged by the government, and ” Between 1947 to 1969 two million immigrants arrived bringing with them new cultures, dress, language, habits, and extended families. ” (Gunstone et. al. , 1991,). This was another great influence on Australian families, as it brought many different types of families, probably the dominant one being the extended family. Also, these new cultures and religions have helped make the multi cultural family that is quite predominant, and accepted in Australia.

Reasons being there has been an increase in divorce over the past 30 years. Also, the growing proportion of household that are composed of 1 person.Allen & crow- identified 2 key points for single parent families. -increase in divorce -significant rise in the number of never married women. Beanpole families are long and thin. These are multi-generational families where there is more intergenerational contact (grandparents and grandchildren) than intergenerational contact (cousins). Brannon- sees them as being like a beanpole. Reason for less intergenerational ties. Gig divorce rates causing breakdown of contact between extended families – falling fertility rates couples having less children, so there will be fewer relationships. Reason for more intergenerational ties. -grandparents live longer provide extra care e. G. (babysitting). Grungy & Henrietta- uses the concept of ‘sandwich generation’ to refer to women aged between 55 and 69 who offer assistance between their needy parents and their own children. Research shows a growing number of women will be in this position. An extended family contains kin beyond the family.

This could be through vertical extensions with additional family members from a 3rd generation (grandparents) or horizontal extensions (wife’s sister). Villains- showed how working class peoples live that lived in east London was still dominated by the values and traditions of extended kin.  McConnell- used survey findings and discovered that in the 1 ass’s contact with relatives was still frequent. Extended family was an important source of support, for practical support such as helping with jobs. E. G. Times of illness and financial tasks. A reconstituted family is when families merge together and form a new Emily.

For example a couple with children split up, the children remain with the mother who forms a new family with a new partner and who also has children. National statistics 2004, an estimated 10% of all families were reconstituted. 1) Smart – researched children experiencing co-parenting, found that children value having both parents in their lives. By moving from houses as a routine since young age. Some religious people are more likely to have children living with them than others. Religion can also influence the way that children are socialized in families.

Change of places can be for a good or bad reason, but in my case was for the best for our family. Most couples, when thinking about divorcing are worried about their children, because everyone knows that divorce have some effects in children’s. In my opinion divorce is about loss and change. When my parents divorced it was hard for my younger brother and l. But was a change for the best of everyone. We moved to Hidalgo. Around this change of place, as result of my parents’ divorce, everything has changed, a new place to live, a new school and we had to grow up emotionally faster.

My life as many peoples had good and difficult times, but I have learned about life struggles. I was sixteen years old when my parents divorced. One night, my brother was in his room, and I was in the kitchen. Our parents told us to come and sit down in the living room. They had to told us something. We all were sit in the room, my Mom said ” your Dad and I “, my Dad interrupted her, ” are getting divorce”. We were in shock. The next day my Mom told me that we had to move. She decided to come here, because we can get a better education here.

We came like three times in a onto for shopping, and, to visit my aunts. But it was not the same. We had lived all of our lives in Mexico, so it was a huge change for us. At the time, when we came from Mexico, we were a little family: my Mom, my little Brother and l. It was hard because we did not have a stable place to live, we stayed with our aunt while my Mom found a place to live. Every day my Mom was out looking for an apartment or house to rent. This experience was completely new for us, we had our own house In Mexico, but my parents decided to sale the house, when they divorced.

After a peoples of months; finally, my Mom found an apartment of two rooms. The first couple of months were the most difficult for us. We got in a new school, without knowing English. My brother and l, took SSL classes to help us to master the language. Every day when I came back from school to our new apartment which had no furniture. At that time It was only my Mom working to pay the bills without any help from my Dad, so we did not had too much In our little apartment , only the basics. As many teenagers we wanted everything. My brother was fourteen years old, so he cannot work at the time.

I was sixteen years, so I decided to look for a Job to be able to buy my personal stuffs; I got a Job in an import and export agency as secretary. After six months, my little family was more stable in all terms, but my Mom got some eye problems, so she was obligated stop working. As the oldest in my little family I had to change my part time Job for a full time Job to support them, at this point, when I changed the house obligations with my Mom, I stopped to see my family that little. My Mom said “sorry for give you this responsibility at this age” I felt myself onto a tornado, this experience was totally new.

I learned to never give up at any change. I had to grow up more quickly, be mature to distinguish the good from the bad. Sometimes, I felt sad, because I want to party with my friends from school, but I had to work a full time Job on weekends, pay bills, drive my Mom to her appointments not give up in his studies. After all, in my Junior year I noticed that if I had finish with my credits I will have the chance to leave early instead of pm in my senior year, it was like a little motivation for me to get better in school and never give up, as my mom said ” hard work always pays off’.

Finally, I went to my senior year, I did all my credits, so I change my schedule to have more time. I get experience in import/export and brokers in my first Job, so I applied in a new agency as broker consultant, I get the Job and a raise too. Through, this years was a lot of stress for me have two Jobs, school and the responsibility of support my little family, at the time I was too busy thinking about my new responsibilities that I did not remember about my parents’ divorce and the change of place. I accepted the changes.

And now I had done with my high school, and still in college with new opportunities to face. Around this change I had to work for my family and my goals, everything was new, no body say, it was easy changing places, but my family did it. We changed of place for a better life, not for the reason we wanted but no matter if are good or bad the reason, the importance is to pick the good from the bad. Instead, I am an independent women, and I am making my Mom proud of me. From this change I realized that no matter how bad something seems you will always like the results at the end.

If my 21 year old child or my 18 year old best friend were to ask me how they know they are married for marriage, I would not know what to say. I would probably talk about having the “right age” which to some can be early, but to others it can be a long time. I would explain the consequences of marrying early such as divorce. I would explain that marriage is not a game and that it should be taken seriously as it is a lifelong commitment, sure there are times where people go through divorce but you eve to live with that person every day.

That gets me into my next point: the right spouse. If you are to marry, it should be with the person you are most comfortable with. This person should make you feel good when you are together. They should entertain you and put a smile on your face when you most need it. The person should make you feel like you are around your best friend whom you can confess your secrets and lend you a helping. The other person should help build you up and help you reach your personal goals.

You should not feel like you are tied down to someone and that they are baggage. Another thing you should consider is If you want to settle down. To my child I would agree with their decision on getting married because they are older and have somewhat of a plan for their future, and are wiser in making their decision. As for my 18 year old friend, I would give her the advice to maybe wait a little longer. They are young and should go out into the world and explore all the different things you can do as a single person.

I would also tell my best friend that they are younger and so their decisions are not set In stone. I would give them both this statement: “Are you ready to settle down”. Marriage will become your priority and you will not have time for many things Like going out with friends especially if you plan to bring children Into your home. My last advice for them would be to sit down and think If they see themselves settles with a family and giving up their life of leisure that they have now.