| 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. |
