| Any
member of the American Academy of Experts in
Traumatic Stress would concur that trauma may
be defined broadly to include not only physical
stress, such as combat involvement, auto accidents,
natural disaster, torture, but also vicarious
sources of trauma, such as observing others
being traumatized, as in witnessing a major
accident. These are the types of trauma that
we most often consider when discussing the iatrogenic
effects of overwhelming experiences. What has
been largely ignored in the literature is an
explicit consideration of divorce as traumatic.
Yet the psychological ramifications of the divorce
process are considerable, and one cannot overlook
the potential traumatizing effects of divorce
on the children involved.
First, let's reconsider how
to define trauma. There are some key elements.
First, it is usually an uncontrollable event.
The nature of the event is beyond the scope
of ordinary human experience; that is, the event
is a rare or infrequent occurrence. In some
instances, the event may not be rare, but is
nonetheless beyond the scope of human experience,
as noted in a review two issues ago of a book
which described how refugee camp survivors experience
trauma routinely. Moreover, trauma is usually
unpredictable. Further, in an effort to process
the event, the person is changed.
These are among the defining
aspects of trauma, and several theorists have
suggested ways in which we process this information.
For example, several issues ago, I indicated
that one may consider the etiology of Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) from a behavioral perspective
using the framework offered by Lang (1977) and
Foa and Kozak (1986). These theories are equally
useful for all classifications of traumatic
events. Briefly, these theories suggest that
in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event,
an individual copes with the environment by
purposely "forgetting" the material,
and slowly re-introduces the information when
a state of equilibrium is established (Lang,
1977). Further, since re-introducing the material
is often disquieting, there are some individuals
who are at greater risk for developing a traumatic
reaction (Jones & Barlow, 1990). Risk factors
include biological elements and elevated levels
of anxiety sensitivity (Reiss, 1991; Taylor,
1995), a psychological condition in which changes
in bodily functions are perceived as potentially
harmful and items present in the environment
are then the source of avoidance. The links
to trauma here are the situations in which the
traumatic information is re-introduced (as in
Lang's theory); then those situations are likely
to be avoided in the future when one also has
elevated levels of anxiety sensitivity. Foa
and Kozak (1986) expanded Lang's theory to include
mechanisms at work during treatment, and suggested
that fear structures, such as those present
in anxiety states following trauma, are hierarchically
arranged.
Perhaps it would be instructive
to provide an example which illustrates our
model. Consider the situation in which there
is an only child who is under the (false) impression
that her parents are getting along well together.
In fact, she has believed this to be the case
for as long as she was capable of being aware
of interpersonal interactions. Suddenly one
day she is informed that her parents are going
to be divorced. Then, once the situation is
out in the open, the parents feel unburdened
of maintaining the charade of being agreeable
and begin fighting in their daughter¹s
presence. This would fit the description of
trauma, and one would not be surprised if this
child experienced symptoms of stress. First,
the incident was sudden and not predictable.
Second, other incongruent stressors followed
- the parents fighting. In this scenario, the
professionals likely to see this child are not
psychologists but law guardians and school guidance
counselors. These people are also in a prime
position for preventative interventions, details
of which are offered shortly.
In light of this background
definition and illustrative example, there are
other specific features that make the trauma
of divorce unique. Specifically, there are several
issues to be considered from developmental psychology
which interface with the divorce process. First,
we will consider links to the definition. For
the children (and in some instances, the adults),
the process is beyond their control. Further,
most would agree that it is not an ordinary
process, but one which is atypical. The whole
procedure may take months or even two to three
years to complete. For example, a recent custody
evaluation for which I was consulted had been
in progress for two and a half years, with all
members of the family residing in the same home.
The more appropriate analogy here would be to
compare this situation to one with ongoing trauma.
The divorce process is unpredictable. This is
true from the beginning of litigation‹when children
often have little understanding of what is occurring,
and changes happen rapidly and episodically‹to
the final decision, after several court dates
where the whole procedure is expected to end,
it finally terminates, and most involved are
surprised. Finally, the people involved are
changed as a result of the process. This is
true of the divorce process, where later adult
development is usually strongly affected by
divorce processes during childhood. In addition
to these issues that are directly related to
the divorce process in children, there are aspects
to consider as they relate to developmental
factors in the litigation process.
Attachment Problems
According to Ainsworth, et
al. (1978) and others who have followed (i.e.,
Fonagy et al., 1996; Main, 1996), children develop
what are referred to as attachment styles that
are predictive of later psychopathological states.
Essentially, attachment styles are broadly defined
as falling into three patterns: secure, anxious
or insecure, and avoidant. Each attachment style
may be demonstrated in relation to the child's
interaction with a parent or caregiver. Each
style is best illustrated by an example. Imagine
a child is in the supermarket with a parent.
Securely attached children may wander a finite
distance away from the caregiver, usually within
visual range, without experiencing anxiety or
discomfort. Should that distance be too far,
however, the child generally attempts to find
the parent. Anxious or insecurely attached children
may not wander away from the parent, and the
environment may be perceived as hostile, even
if the distance from the caregiver is within
visual range. By contrast, the avoidant child
may wander from the parent and experience no
concern whatsoever about distance.
These attachment styles have
been found to be predictive of later difficulties
in interpersonal relations. For example, Allen,
Hauser, and Borman-Spurrell (1996) found that
children identified as avoidant or insecure
in childhood experience interpersonal difficulties
in adolescence. Securely attached children perform
best with interpersonal relations. This analysis
has some implications for the divorce process.
Since attachment is a developmental process,
this implies that caregivers have some input
into the manner in which children develop these
styles. For example, inconsistent parental attention,
either in the form of discipline, rewards, or
availability, has been shown to be related to
the development of attachment difficulties (Fonagy
et al., 1996). Contrariwise, secure attachment
has been found to act as a protective factor
from later psychopathology (Fonagy, et al.,
1996).
Divorce is a time of tremendous
upheaval in families. Given this disruption,
should the divorce process occur at a point
where the child's attachment style is not fully
developed, it stands to reason that the likelihood
of secure attachment developing is reduced.
The process whereby this may be problematic
is illustrated in figure 2.
In addition to the formative
aspects, attachment styles change over time.
Let's consider the example given before. Here,
the young girl believes her parents got along
well and is likely to be a securely attached
child. However, one could imagine a change in
demeanor after learning that her parents were
getting divorced. In fact, a shift in attachment
is expected‹in this case, insecure attachment
is most likely to result. The child is jolted
from her false belief that her parents are not
a distressed couple (and that therefore she
has nothing with which to be concerned). The
sudden and unpredicted information to the contrary
would shake her faith in the likelihood of a
positive outcome, despite reassurances. Contingencies
and other environmental issues
Long the stronghold of behavioral
theorists, the environmental contingencies play
a pivotal role in the development of normal
or abnormal adjustment. In particular, reinforcement
history is a large contributor to the manner
in which one copes with later problems (Skinner,
1953). Sadly, reinforcement history has either
been ignored (Salzinger, 1996), improperly examined
as something else (such as learned helplessness,
Salzinger, 1994), or seen as unmeasurable phenomena
(as in the case of constructs explicated in
psychodynamic theory). If we use learning history
as the basis of discussion, Skinner (1953) made
it clear that consistent administration of contingencies
(rewards, punishers) was the best method for
maintaining normal functioning. During times
of divorce, it has been well documented that
the environment becomes anything but consistent
(Ackerman, 1995), and may even be disruptive
(Ackerman, 1995; Bricklin, 1995). For example,
since it is in the best interests of the child
that both parents work together in providing
rewards and discipline, during divorce this
process of cooperation frequently breaks down.
Therefore, in the absence of consistent environmental
contingencies, later problems in adjustment
become more likely.
Again, in order to bring this
into clearer focus, let's consider the young
girl whose parents are getting divorced. The
contingencies which were previously operating
suggest that this child received frequent positive
reinforcement both directly from her parents
and indirectly by observing them behaving in
an agreeable fashion. However, once it was announced
that a divorce would soon take place, she probably
did not receive the same level of reinforcement
as previously, and her observations of her parents
together were aversive instead of positive.
Now, as well as being traumatized, this little
girl was also likely to be depressed (Costello,
1978).
The Divorce Process
At this point, it appears well
established that we may properly conceptualize
divorce as being a form of trauma (uncontrollable,
unusual and perhaps persistent, and resulting
in long term behavioral change) with special
implications for children (depending on attachment
style and consistency of environmental contingencies).
What are the specific aspects of divorce that
create the trauma? And further, what may be
done to alleviate or minimize the impact? Finally,
what palliative measures may be taken when trauma
has been clearly induced as a function of divorce?
The balance of this paper is devoted to attempting
to provide some working answers to these questions.
Specific features of divorce that lead to trauma
In divorce proceedings, the
most difficult aspect for children (as well
as parents) to overcome is the issue of which
parent is going to maintain custody. This thorny
issue is the single area where mental health
professionals (often psychologists) are called
upon for expert testimony. The scenarios which
lead to the intervention of a psychologist are
multi-faceted, but most common is the situation
in which the parents cannot agree upon custody
determination. Usually, each parent wants to
retain sole custody of the child(ren), with
the other getting some level of visitation privileges.
However, in some instances, parents may agree
to some aspects of custody, but pre-existing
conditions (such as mental illness) preclude
immediate determination of custody. Here again,
psychologists are called upon to test the relevant
parties for competence and some determination
is then made by the courts for custody and visitation
arrangements.
It is at this point that one
may view the effects of the divorce process
in bold relief. Usually by the time all parties
agree to engage in a custody evaluation, the
divorce process has been well established and
the negative effects have taken hold. Since
the parents are not in agreement about either
custody outright, or some idiosyncratic aspects
of custody/visitation, then it is safe to assume
that the participants are in conflict about
most other aspects, and are not likely to readily
agree to terms such as who pays what percentage
to the evaluator; which psychologist should
conduct the evaluation; and scheduling of appointments.
Essentially, the conflict that goes into scheduling
meetings with professionals only serves to exacerbate
an already established dysfunctional process
that is not well understood by the children
involved.
Suppose that the girl described
so far is informed about her parents' divorce
at age seven. Further, the child is informed
that she is going to live with only one of these
parents and is asked to provide some preference.
This may be further defined as traumatic. It
is uncontrollable (the child may feel hopeless
or helpless; authority figures are clearly requesting
a choice be made, when either choice may result
in aversive consequences), unusual (generally
children may express preferences for both parents
simultaneously), and unpredictable (a child
may be posed this question for the first time
in the law guardian¹s office, not in the
confines of a mental health practitioner¹s
office). Therefore, by the time the child reaches
the psychologist, it is too late. The damage
is done and what remains is an attempt to remedy
the traumatic sequelae. It would be useful to
know how this process may be shunted off before
excessive damage is incurred. This, in fact,
is consistent with the position adopted in the
American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress:
a multidisciplinary approach is necessary, and
further, some professionals known for dealing
with particular aspects of trauma are not in
the best position to prevent its onset.
Further traumatizing is the
process itself. At early stages of development,
children become aware that events surrounding
the custody decision are intended to determine
with whom the child is going to reside. Common
reactions children have in the aftermath of
custody decisions (with or without the evaluation
of a professional) are guilt for the parent
who did not gain custody (Franke, 1983). This
is the reaction of "If I had been a better
child, my parents would still live together."
Although Franke (1983) suggests that this reaction
is most common in early school-age children,
it has been observed across the age range (Gottman
& Fainsilber-Katz, 1989). Other emotional
stages have been proposed by Franke (1983) such
as ages where sadness, anger, false maturity,
and denial predominate. However, researchers
have found support for each of these states
at all age ranges (Barber & Eccles, 1992;
Forehand et al., 1991; Shybunko, 1989). Finally,
regardless of attachment style, level of conflict
between parents, and consistency of environment,
Hetherington (1979) indicates that it is unusual
for children to experience divorce without some
degree of adjustment difficulties.
If it is the case that adjustment
problems are normative, then the issue facing
other disciplines is how to prevent these reactions
from remaining or worsening, resulting in long-term
adjustment problems. Some practical guidelines
may be offered that are not unlike those suggested
to those initiating custody evaluations. First,
provide a clear rationale for what is happening.
Since traumatic events are by definition poorly
processed, this assists in the integration of
distressing information. Provide the information
in a structured manner. In other words, do not
"wing it." It is important to be well-prepared
for questions which may arise during the information-dispensing
period, since this further aids in the processing
of information. Finally, indicate alternatives.
This provides a sense of control that can mitigate
the otherwise traumatic effects of the divorce
process.
Minimizing the Impact
At this point it is clear that
children involved in custody litigation are
caught in the middle. If the parties involved
are genuinely working in the best interests
of their children, then law guardians and individual
legal counselors are in an excellent position
to provide guidance to the parents about how
to minimize the impact of the proceedings. Ackerman
(1995) notes that often a child who is conflicted
(e.g., wanting to be with both parents, feeling
one parent is pressuring him or her) adjusts
to the process more poorly. Therefore, parents
may be guarded against establishing an arrangement
where one parent tries to exercise undue influence
over the child regarding decisions about the
other parent.
At this point, it seems that
the manner in which a law guardian or individual
law counselor handles a case is of paramount
importance. It is important to note that at
this time, the professional who may render an
evaluation has not been even contacted! In the
absence of any direct mental health services,
the lawyer in contact with the family is really
the best person to prevent the worsening of
trauma to the children. Although only case examples,
two recent custody evaluations I was involved
in illustrate this point well. In one case,
the law guardian was knowledgeable about the
psychological effects of divorce, and was able
to provide an environment where information
was dispensed gradually and in a meaningful
way. Further, he encouraged the parties to maintain,
to the best of their abilities, normal parenting
styles during the process. There were two children
involved in the process and although they were
clearly struggling with the divorce process,
their adjustment could be referred to as adequate.
By contrast, another law guardian I worked with
had little knowledge of the psychological impact
and did not advise his clients accordingly;
when the three children were being evaluated,
they were experiencing considerable distress.
Further, the case was considered onerous by
this lawyer, whereas in the first case the lawyer
perceived the case fairly positively. So the
manner in which it is handled may also reduce
stress in handling the case.
Repairing the Damage
Invariably, a number of children
experience long-term negative consequences from
the divorce process. As the proceedings draw
to a close, one may observe "phantom recovery":
the child appears to be settling down and ostensibly
seems adjusted. This may not actually be the
case. In keeping with our theory (illustrated
earlier by Lang, 1977), following the termination
of a traumatic event, there is often a period
of relative adjustment and calm. This, however,
lays the groundwork for later difficulties where
the fear structures are forming and becoming
entrenched. When attempts at processing the
fear structures follow, traumatic reactions
reliably occur. In order that we may circumvent
these problems, it is important for children
to discuss their concerns following the divorce
in an environment that facilitates exposure
in a fashion that is not traumatizing. For example,
if the child were to discuss the features of
the divorce that were difficult, then it would
become less likely that future difficulties
would arise since the fear structure has been
weakened by repetition, which allows for processing
of the information. Hetherington (1979) suggests
that interventions are generally indicated for
children following a divorce, since it is expected
that they will experience difficulties. The
mental health worker's job at this point is
not to pathologize the difficulties, but to
assist in the adjustment process in order to
prevent psychopathology.
Divorce is a complex event
that is most difficult for children in later
adjustment. This paper was intended to provide
an overview of what factors influence adjustment
difficulties in the divorce process and how
the variety of professionals involved in such
cases may best reduce the harmful impact of
divorce. Characterized as traumatic, divorce
reactions apparently follow the same course
as other traumatizing events. By relying on
a network of professionals such as members of
AAETS, the divorce process can be made a less
traumatizing event for all parties involved.
References
Ackerman, M.J. (1995). Clinician¹s
guide to child custody evaluations. NY: Wiley.
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.
Allen, J.P., Hauser, S.T.,
& Borman-Spurrell, E. (1996). Attachment
theory as a framework for understanding sequelae
of severe adolescent psychopathology: An 11-year
follow-up study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 64, 254-263.
Barber, B.L. & Eccles,
J.S. (1992). Long term influence of divorce
in single parenting and adolescent families
and work related values, behaviors, and aspirations.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 108-126.
Bricklin, B. (1995). The custody
evaluation handbook: Research-based solutions
and applications. NY: Brunner-Mazel.
Costello, C.G. (1978). A critical
review of Seligman¹s laboratory experiments
on learned helplessness and depression in humans.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 21-31.
Foa, E.B. & Kozak, M. (1986).
Emotional processing of fear: Exposure to corrective
information. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 20-35.
Fonagy, P., Leigh, T., Steele, M., Steele, H.,
Kennedy, R., Mattoon, G., Target, M., &
Gerber, A. (1996). The relation of attachment
status, psychiatric classification, and response
to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 64, 22-31.
Forehand, R., Wierson, M.,
McCombs, A., Thomas, R., Fauber, L.A., Kempton,
T., & Long, N. (1991). A short-term longitudinal
examination of young adolescent functioning
following divorce: The role of family factors.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 97-111.
Franke, L. (1983). Growing
up divorced. NY: Linden Press/Simon & Schuster.
Gottman, J.M. & Fainsilber-Katz,
L. (1989). Effects of marital discord on young
children's peer interaction and health. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 373-381.
Hetherington, E.M. (1979).
Divorce: A child's perspective. American Psychologist,
34, 851-858.
Jones, J.C. & Barlow, D.H.
(1990). The etiology of posttraumatic stress
disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 299-328.
Lang, P.J. (1977). Imagery
in therapy: An information processing analysis
of fear. Behavior Therapy, 8, 862-886.
Main, M. (1996). Introduction
to the special series on attachment and psychopathology.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
64, 1-3.
Reiss, S. (1991). Expectancy
model of fear, anxiety, and panic. Clinical
Psychology Review, 11, 141-153.
Salzinger, K. (1994). Measurement
of reinforcement history: A neglected area in
psychology. Master psychologist invited paper
at the annual meeting of the Association for
Behavior Analysis. Washington, DC.
Salzinger, K. (1996). Reinforcement
history: A concept underutilized in behavior
analysts. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 27, 199-207.
Shybunko, D.E. (1989). Effects
of post-divorce relationship on child development.
In Children of divorce: Developmental and clinical
issues (pp. 299-313). NY: Haworth Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science
and human behavior. NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.
Taylor, S. (1995). Issues in
the conceptualization and measurement of anxiety
sensitivity. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 9,
163-174.
©1997 by
The American Academy of Experts in Traumatic
Stress, Inc.
|
