BIACK AND WHITE SINGIE PARENTS' ATTITUDES ♦toward traditional family REIATIONS By P. RHONNE SANDERSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1980 Copyright 1980 P. Rhonne Sanderson This dissertation is dedicated to Mrs. idella J. Sanderson, ray mother; Mr. Watts Sanderson, Sr., my deceased father; Mr. and Mrs. Watts Sanderson, Jr., my brother and sister-in-law; Nancy Grace and Watts Sanderson, III, my niece and nephew; Ms. Nancy Jones, my very special aunt; Ms. Paula james, a very special person in my life; numerous other family members and friends; and last, but not least, God. ACKNOWIUDGEME NT S I would like to acknowledge Drs . Roderick McDavis, Joseph Wittmer, and Afesa Bell-Nathanial for their support and encouragement as my doctoral committee throughout the writing of this dissertation. Special acknowledgement is given to my chairperson. Dr. McDavis, who worked most closely with me on this project. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Johnnie Ruth Clarke for her encouragement and faith that she had in my ability to complete the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. I would like to furthermore acknowledge and thank numerous friends, relatives, and acquaintances especially my mother and my Aunt Nancy who constantly encouraged and motivated me as wall as my sister-in-law who was very instrumental in the completion of this project. Special acknowledgement and thanks go to the single parents who participated in this study and especially to Mr. George Franklin, the President of Tampa's Parents Without Partners Organization. Without these individuals, this project would have been impossible to conduct and complete. TAB IE OF CONTENTS Pa^e ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES ^^^ ABSTRACT ^j_^j_ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Need for Study 7 Purpose of Study 9 Significance of Study 10 Definition of Terms 10 Organization of Study 11 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13 Types of Single Parent Families. . . 14 Black and White Single Parent Families 16 Congenitally Developed Single parent Families 19 Temporarily Displaced Single Parent Families 24 The Permanently Displaced Single Parent Family 32 Unique Problems Encountered by Single Parents 35 III METHODOLOGY 39 Hypotheses 40 Population and Sample 40 Instrument 43 Procedures 45 Analysis of Data 47 V TABIE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 49 Results 49 Discussion of the Results 50 V IMPLICATIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDA- TIONS 66 Implications 65 Summary 69 Recommendations 71 APPENDICES APPENDIX A — TRADITIONAL FAMILY IDEOLOGY SCAIE 75 APPENDIX B — QUESTIONNAIRE 7 9 APPENDIX C — T-TESTS FOR TFIS ITEMS BY RACE. . 84 APPENDIX D — T-TESTS FOR TFIS ITEMS BY SINGLE PARENT STATUS 86 APPENDIX E — ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ITEMS OF THE TFIS BY INCOME 88 APPENDIX F — T-TESTS FOR TFIS ITEMS BY SEX . . 92 APPENDIX G--ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TFIS ITEMS BY EDUCATION 94 APPENDIX H — ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TFIS ITEMS BY AGE 98 APPENDIX I- -PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF BLACK FEMALE -HEADED HOUSE- HOLDS BY VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME 102 APPENDIX J — PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF WHITE FEMALE-HEADED HOUSE- HOLDS BY VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME 104 REFERENCES 105 vi LIST OF TABIES Table Page 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Total Sample (N = 100) 51 2 T-Tests for the TFIS Subscales by Race 52 3 T-Tests for the TFIS Subscales by Single Parent Status 54 4 Analysis of Variance of the TFIS Subscales by Socioeconomic Status .... 55 5 T-Tests for the TFIS Subscales by Sex 57 6 Analysis of Variance of the TFIS Subscales by Education 58 7 Analysis of Variance of the TFIS Subscales by Age. 59 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BLACK AND WHITE SINGLE PARENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD TRADITIONAL FAMILY RELATIONS By P. Rhonne Sanderson August 1980 Chairman: Dr. Roderick McDavis Major Department: Counselor Education The basic purpose of this study was to determine if black and white single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS) . And, further, this study determined if temporarily displaced and congenital single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. Paucity, inconsistency, and lack of depth in the research/counseling literature are three salient reasons this study was needed. A need to have accurate, baseline data on the single parent clientele is pressing for coun- selors who are coming into greater contact with single parent families because of the increase in single parents. Counselor educators and counselor education programs also are in need of greater, more accurate information on the population. This study provides some of that needed in- formation. The hypotheses examined in this study are; (1) There is no difference between the attitudes of black and white single parents toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS). (2) There is no difference between the attitudes of congenital and temporarily displaced single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. (3) There is no difference among the attitudes of socioeconomically different single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. (4) There is no difference between the attitudes of male and female single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. (5) There is no difference among the attitudes of educationally different single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. (6) There is no difference among the attitudes of age differentiated single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. The sample consisted of 60 individuals from Hillsborough County and 40 individuals from Alachua County to give a total N of 100. Participants from Hillsborough County resided in Tampa, Florida, whereas participants from Alachua County resided in Gainesville, Florida. For each single parent category (i.e., black, white, temporarily displaced, and congenital), 25 participants were used. The hypotheses that were rejected at the p < .05 level of significance are: There is no difference between black and white single parents' attitudes toward family relations as measured by the TFIS and there is no difference between male and female single parents' attitudes toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. The other hypotheses were accepted. The recommendations for this study are that the sample size be increased and that multivariant analysis of the data be used. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the April 22, 1979, issue of Parade magazine, Paul Click and Arthur Norton, both Census Bureau analysts, pre- dicted that 45 per cent of all American infants born in 1978 will be destined to live with one parent during some part of their lives before reaching age 18 ("One-Parent Families," 1979) . AS a matter of fact, between 1970 and 1979, there was a 40 per cent increase in the population of children under 18 years of age that lived with a single adult despite the fact that there was a 10 per cent decline in that population. Families not maintained by a married couple increased by 50 per cent in the last decade. Male headed single parent families increased by one-third and those families headed by females increased by one-half (Young adults now wait longer to marry, 1980) . In 1978, according to the U. S. Bureau of the Census (1979), 10.7 per cent of white families were headed by a single female and 28.4 per cent of black families were headed by a single female parent. One factor influencing the increased number of single parent families is the fact that many of these families still result from out of wedlock births. With the advent of highly- effective birth control methods and safer abortion tech- niques, it can be argued that birth of out of wedlock chil- dren is a choice. The liberation movement seems to be another motivating factor in both the increased number of single parent families and who actually raises the children within these families. The rise in the divorce rate has also added significantly to the increase in single parenthood. Accord- ing to Krantzler (1973), the national average for the divorce rate in America is 33.3 per cent and rapidly advancing toward a 50 per cent divorce rate. The per cent of males 18 years old or older that divorced in 1978 alone was 4.7 per cent and females that divorced of the same age category in 1978 was 6.6 per cent (U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1979). Single parent families share many of the problems of two-parent families as well as problems unique to themselves. The unique problems of single parents, or areas that poten- tial counseling might be warranted, are solitary decision making, adaptation to dual parental roles, loneliness, lack of relief from parenting responsibilities, and logistics of peripheral parent visitation. Solitary decision making may be seen as something positive provided the decision was well thought through, insightful, and resulted in a self-fulfilling, expectant, "correct" conclusion. Blood and Wolf (1959), in their study of differences in blue-collar marriages of blacks and whites, found that major family decisions were made by females among black families. Possibly due to the decision-making role that these females often take on, black wives are more self- reliant in coping with their o.>;n emotional problems as well as problems affecting the family as a whole. The burden of such decision making, on the other hand, can be over- whelming. Lack of knowledge and/or insight into a particular area, being too careful, cautious, or conven- tional in decision making, having a phobia about making the "right" decision, and not having another adult to lend support in both making the decision and facing the conse- sequences of such decisions add to the cumbersomeness of decision making. One way that black families seem to counteract some of the pressures of solitary decision making is via utilization of extended kinship. In Hays and Mindel's study of extended kinship relations in black and white families, they found that black families received more child care help from extended kin than did white families (Hays & Mindel, 1973) . Availability of child care assistance from extended family members helped lessen pressures on black parents in deciding if they could receive child care services provided these parents wanted to seek employment. This child care assis- tance also lessened pressures about child rearing and disciplinary decisions. Problems encountered by single parents in regard to the dual parental role center around male parents' per- ceived inability to provide positive affect (care, concern, tactile, emotional support, and stability) and female parents' perceived inability to provide discipline (firm- ness, authority, follow-through). Though most single parents perceived themselves as being deficient in their disciplinary skills. Savage, Adair, and Friedman (1978) noted that none of the black male single parents reported using corporal punishment on their children. Yet black female single parents , whose husbands were incarcerated, reported using corporal punishment and revoking their childrens ' rights as disciplinary measures (Savage, Adair, & Friedman, 1978) . Loneliness is a problem area for many single parents especially those single parents resulting from permanent or temporary displacement of the other parent (Schlesinger, 1971) . In counteracting the loneliness often encountered by single parents, both nuclear families (Savage et al., 1978) and extended families (Hays & Mindell, 1973) tend to become more cohesive. Regardless of how the single parent became a single parent, the dysfunctional ways in which loneliness is counteracted in the parent-child relationship are either overinvolvement or little or no involvement with the child. This could possibly escalate into resentment and culminate into abuse of the child. Lack of relief from parenting responsibilities can foster resentment of the child once again due to the denial of self- gratifying activities by the parent. This resentment may manifest itself in abusive or martyr type behavior of the parents . Another problem frequently encountered by the single parent is that of visitation. The logistics of the peri- pheral parent visitations concerns itself with the time, duration, and place of visitation (Dresen, , 1976) . An additional problem encountered with the visitation of the peripheral parent is the child's conjuring up parental reconciliation. Often times when a child sees his parents together, even if it is for purposes of working out the the payments for child support, the child begins to fan- tasize the intack family of old. It is not unusual for a child to purposefully act in a socially inappropriate manner (creating a crisis) so as to bring parents back together even if it is for a temporary period of time. In addition to the shared problems of single parent families, there are also some common characteristics that clearly delineate them from two parent families. Being matriarchal, indigent , and non-adaptive in crisis situations are three basic commonalities or characteristics of single parent families (Schlesinger , 1966) , Since 90 per cent of single parent families are headed by females, it seems that society traditionally assumes that the female would be the better parent to raise the child. Because of lower paying jobs being offered to women and lack of enforcement of child support laws by the judicial system, matriachal single parent families' incomes are approximately half the annual incomes of patriachal single parent families (Ogg, 1976) . Though most female headed single parent families' in- comes are less than male head single parent families' in- comes, Bould (1977) noted in her study that white females, no matter what their level of education or training, were less willing to supplement their incomes by employment than black females provided they felt sources of income by- right (i.e., child support payments, alimony, social security, etc.) were adequate. See Appendices I and J for the proportion of total income for black and white female headed households by various sources of income. Inability to be more adaptive to crisis situations that arise within a family may be attributed to the fact that only one adult is trying to resolve the conflicts and thus has only one view or resolution to the problem. This re- sultantly places the burden of making the "correct" de- cision on one person, all of the time. Need for Studv Savage, Adair, and Friedman (1978) stated that research results are inconsistent and controversial with reference to how black children are affected when reared in single parent families. Though this study did not examine the results of black children being raised by single parents, it did examine and compare the attitudes of black and white single parents toward traditional family relations. The study that Savage et al. conducted investigated attitudes toward parents, family cohesion, disciplinary strategies, income maintenance, involvement of relatives in family 8 functioning, role structure in the family unit, and per- sonal variables of self-concept and academic achievement. This study examined black and white single parents attitudes toward parent-child relationships, husband-wife roles, general male-female relationships, and general aims and values. Single parent groups examined in Savage et al.'s study were parent-incarcerated, widowed, divorced, separated, and male-haaded. This study examined black, white, congeni- tal, and temporarily displaced (i.e. parent-incarcerated, divorced, and separated) single parent groups. Savage et al . point out that most studies fail to consider the effects of relevant intervening variables such as race, community attitudes, socioeconomic status, and support of black parent families. This study addressed socioeconomic status, age, sex, and education of the respective single parent groups . Paucity, inconsistency, and lack of depth in the research/counseling literature are three salient reasons a study of this type was needed. A need to have accurate, baseline data on the single parent clientele is pressing for counselors who are coming in greater contact with single parent families because of the increase in their population. Counselor educators and counselor education programs also 9 are in need of greater, more accurate information on this population. This study may provide counselors and counselor educators with this type of information. Purpose of Study The basic purpose of this study was to determine if black and white single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS) . And, further, this study determined if temporarily displaced and congenital single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. The attitudes examined were atti- tudes toward parent-child relationships, husband-wife roles and relationships, general male-female relationships and concepts of masculinity and femininity and finally general values and aims. This study answered the following question: Do white and black single parents differ in their attitudes toward traditional family relations and furthermore, do these single parents' attitudes differ as their sex, age, educa- tion, and socioeconomic status varied? 10 Significance of Study The data collected fro.n this study could be used as baseline criteria for examining attitudes tov^/ard tradi- tional family relations of black, white, temporarily dis- placed and congenital single parents. This baseline data could help counselors to diagnose deviant and/or possibly dysfunctional attitudes of these single parent groups as it relates to family cooperativeness and functioning. Once counselors use these baseline data to diagnose or evaluate the attitudes of their single parent clientele, then these professionals could begin to develop counseling strategies that would directly and effectively help their clients. Counselor education programs could use data resulting from this study in developing and teaching a course on counseling single parents. Finally, counselors could use data collected from this study to conduct further research on the attitudes of single parents toward traditional family relations or their attitudes affecting some other aspect of their lives or the lives of their families. Definition of Terms Temporarily displaced single parent family — a family that results from the incarceration of one parent, the 11 separation of one spouse due to military call of duty, the desertion of the family by one parent, or the divorce of parents . Congenital single parent family — a family that re- sults from the birth of a child out of wedlock. Intact family--a family where both parents live to- gether in the same household. Peripheral parent — a parent who is either physically or emotionally removed from the family. Enm3shment--emotional/developmental overcompensation or overinvolvement by one family member with another (or other) family members and/ or vice-versa. Martyr- -over involved individual who feels slighted when his efforts of involvement are not recognized or validated. Disengagement- -lack of emotional/developmental in- volvement by one family member with another (or other) family members and/or vice-versa. Organization of Study The remainder of the study consists of four chapters plus appendices. Chapter II includes the review of the literature on the typBS of single parent families, problems 12 commonalities, advantages, and resources for single parent families. Methods and procedures of the study are dis- cussed in Chapter III. Chapter IV presents the research findings and a discussion of the results. A summary is included in Chapter V as well as recommendations for future studies of this nature. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE "The illusion persists that the nuclear family is 'normal' even though just 35 per cent of the nation's popu- lation live in nuclear families" (Griffin, 1973, p. 41). In 1975, one out of six children, approximately 17 per cent of all children in the United States, 18 years old or younger, lived in a household headed by one parent (Ogg, 1975) . Paul Click and Arthur Norton (both Census Bureau analysts) in the April 22, 1979 issue of parade magazine, predicted that 45 per cent of all American infants born in 1978, approxi- mately 18 million children in the United States, will be living with one parent, a 100 per cent rise since 1950 ("One-parent Families," 1979). This chapter will address the types of single parent families and common characteristics thereof, black and white single parent families, the permanently displaced single parent family, the congenitally developed single parent family, the temporarily displaced single parent family, and finally, the unique problems encountered by 13 14 single parents, how they are counteracting these problems at present, and how they may be helped to counteract such problems in the future. Types of Single Parent Families Single parent families may be categorized as follows: permanently displaced, temporarily displaced, congenitally developed, and adoptive. The permanently displaced single parent family results from the death of one spouse. The temporarily displaced single parent family results from incarceration, separation due to military duty, desertion or divorce of one parent from another parent. The congeni- tally developed single parent family results from the birth of a child out of wedlock. The adoptive single parent family results from the adoption of a child by an uamarried adult or adults . The most common characteristic of single parent families is that they are headed by mothers and therefore tend to lack adequate financial compensation. Schlesinger (1956) reported, for example, that 90 per cent of single parent families were headed by females. Ogg (1976) reported that the 1975 U. S. Census data indicated the average annual salary of the matriarchal family was $5,844 as compared to the $14,816 average annual salary of patriarchal family . 15 Additionally, single parent families tend to lack flexi- bility in adapting to various crises. Two parent families can shift the responsibilities of physical, emotional, and social needs of the entire family between the parents. The single parent has those responsibilities to support alone (Glasser & Navarre, 1965). It seems that parent- child relationships of single parent families are closer perhaps due to the family working closely together and members of this type of family resultantly feeling more needed. Children of single parent families mature faster and concurrently learn to take responsibility for them- selves; this may better prepare them for life and marriage ("Rising problems of 'single parents,'" 1973). The affect encountered by the single parent is quite varied. It is not unusual for the single parent to feel grief over loss of an individual or relationship, to feel angry at individuals or events, to feel lonely, to feel guilty over what has happened to their children and others (relatives, innocent by-standers) . When society labels the single parent family "disorganized," "unstable," or "broken" this helps to perpetrate the stereotype that there is something inherently wrong with or different about them. Because these labels and attitudes are often adopted by 16 society in viewing the single parent family, such emotional responses as mentioned previously will continue to be con- jured up within single parents. Societal attitudes and re- sultant behaviors toward single parent families can be quite confining and harmful to otherwise fully functional members of society (Burgess, 1970), Black and White Single Parent Families Numerous studies both comparing and contrasting black and white marriages, families (intact and single parent), and resultant progeny have concluded various results. in their study examining differences in black and white blue- collar marriages. Blood and Wolfe concluded that in major family decisions for black families, wives had greater in- fluences; that the division of labor was less shared and flexible for black wives; that there was a higher proportion of black wives holding jobs; that black wives were more self-reliant in coping with their own emotional problems; that black husbands were less open to communicating with their wives; and that black husbands were less involved in domestic duties than their white counterparts (Blood & Wolfe, 1969). In Bould's study addressing sources of income of 17 black and white female-headed families, black female single parents tend to rely more heavily upon socially instituted sources of income (e.g., social security, AFDC , unemployment, etc.) than do white female single parents (see Appendices I and J) . in this study, Bould (1977) concludes that white female single parents are less willing to seek employment, no matter what their level of education or training is, pro- vided they have adequate incomes via other means. Though there is not a great difference in the input of other family members' incomes as one of the sources of total family income for black female-headed families (9.6 par cent for blacks as opposed to 8.2 per cent for whites), this small discrepancy is yet indicative of black single parents' greater dependency on immediate and extended family members than are white single parents. in Hays and Mindel's study of extended kinship relations in black and white families, they conclude that the number and type of relations who live in black households are more diversified than those living in white households; that interaction with extended kin is more prevalent and perceived to be more important among blacks as opposed to whites; and finally, that black families received more help from their extended kin in child care than did whites (Hays & Mindel, 1973) . 18 In a 1978 study on community-social variables related to black parent-absent families, Savage, Adair, and Friedman ascertained several conclusions in their examina- tion of parent-incarcerated, widowed, divorced, separated, and male-headed black single parents. Their conclusions were the following: (1) Nuclear family cohesiveness among all parent absent groups was either very good or good. (2) Ratings for relationships with in-laws ranged from neutral to very poor. (3) Less time was spent with the chil- dren of separated parents than any other single parent group. While visiting friends, divorced pareats tended not to include their children on such visits. (4) Corporal punishment of children was not reported by male single parents. Female single parents whose spouses were incarcerated did report use of corporal punishment and taking away of childrens ' rights as disciplinary measures. (5) Male-headed families were more positive about schools their children attended as opposed to female-headed single parent families. (6) Separated and parent-incarcerated single parents tended to consult with the community health clinic about health problems whereas the other parent-absent groups studied consulted the family doctor on these issues. (7) Of the single parent groups examined, the 19 incarcerated parent single parent family rfas in less con- tact with the legal system. (8) Twice as many women whose husbands were incarcerated never voted in an election as opposed to other single parent groups. (9) Divorcees had the highest level of education; the incarcerated and separated female parents said recreational facilities were not avail- able; divorced, widowed, and male-headed single parents re- ported just the opposite (Savage et al., 1978). Congenitally Developed Single Parent Families Historically speaking, the families that produced illegitimate progeny have suffered both formal and informal ostracism of society. Within the earlier part of the 16th century in England, there was the coining of the Latin phrase filius mullus (child of nobody) in reference to the illegitimate child. Pinchbeck (1954) said of that phrase and societal attitude toward the out of wedlock child that "... the illegitimate became a stranger in law to father, mother and all other natural relatives, and at common law had no right to look to them for custody, maintenance or education" (p. 315) . Within the same cen- tury, however. Parliament implemented the Poor Law Act of 20 1576 which changed the status of the illegitimate from filius nullus to filius populi (child of the community). The parishes in England took over the financial burden of maintaining these children. This law empowered the justices to order payments by the parents toward the parishes. Other more overt forms of social ostracism for illegitimacy consisted of a year's imprisonment within the House of Correction, the wearing of a special badge, and public whipping of mothers of illegitimate children. With the guilt, ostracism, and stimatization accompanying illegiti- macy, there became a substantial increase in compelled con- cealment, abortion, desertion, infanticide and babyfarming (Pinchbeck, 1954) . Demands of equality before the law for all children seem to invariably meet with resistance to equal treatment of the out of wedlock child that culminated from the phobia of increased illicit relationships and a rise in the illegitimate birth-rate. Consequently, this might result in the destruction or at least negatively affect the insti- tution of marriage. It was not until 1915 that the passing of the Castberg Laws in Norway openly challenged the legal stigma attached to the out of wedlock child. In 1917, Sweden adopted similar laws, as did Finland in 1922, and Denmark in 1937. With the development of these laws, one can see 21 . . . the first complete recognition of the inherent right of the child (the illegitiinate child i.e.) to maintenance, education and inheritance . . . and of the State's responsibility for ascertain- ing parentage and for the illegitimate child. (Pinchbeck, 1954, p. 318) As to the rationale of unwad mothers to keep or surrender their babies, a 1954 study conducted by Meyer, Jones, and Borgatta examined these various decision making factors: religion, non-Catholic ; education, attended college; marital status of putative father^ single ; age ^ under 18; employmant status, in school; financial status, family supported; socioeconomic status, white collar, proprietary or professional class. The study established that combinations of the first four variables (religion, education, marital status of putative father, and age) were the most accurate predictors of unwed mothers' decisions to surrender their children for adoption. For example: The white girl with two or more of these positive items present in her background is likely to surrender her baby (rp^j^ = ,53) . If one or none of these positive items is present, the girl is likely to keep her baby. (Meyer et al,, 1956, p. 105) This study established other characteristic differences that tended to influence whether or not the illegitimate child is kept. There was a higher proportion of black 22 women who kept their children possibly due to cultural tolerance and acceptance of such and/or because these women felt that it would be particularly difficult for their children to be adopted. Another factor this study exposed was that the higher the social class, the more likely the child would be put up for adoption. It seems that as time has passed on, society has be- come more tolerant toward single parents and their families. In light of the fact that since 1965 the number of single parent families has increased approximately three times as fast as two parent families, it has become incumbent upon society to be more accepting of single parents and their families ("Rising problems of 'single parents,'" 1973). In getting a more contemporary and broader perspective as to the rationale of single parents keeping their children as opposed to aborting them or putting them up for adoption, Friedman (1975) suggests several reasons for these parents reluctance to relinquish their children. One reason is a desire on the mother's part to keep her child. in not sur- rendering the child, the mother hopes to prove to her parents that she does not have to, i.e., that her parents feel it is a better choice to give the baby up for adoption because of perceived greater financial and emotional security for the 23 child. Another influence on unwed mothers keeping their children may be due to "... changing societal values, changing life-styles, and youth asserting itself" (Friedman, 1975, p. 322) . Raising the child by herself may give the mother a feeling of accanplishment, a feeling of heightened self-worth. The child would tend to depend upon her and not desert h.3r as another adult could and frequently does. For the young unwed mother, the baby could be her ticket to independence and freedom. It may allow her to move into her own apartment, choose her own circle of friends, make her own decisions. The child may be seen by some mothers as a panacea. The child helps slow her down, confines and controls her flightiness. The child helps alleviate lone- liness. The child relieves boredom and depression. The child will give the parent a feeling of worth because of the dependence fostered by the parent. Frequently, the unwed mother keeps the child to prove to her mother that she's a better mother. Finally, unwed mothers keep their children as a bartering tool or as leverage to entice the putative father. The child in this case being perhaps the only emotional tie between the parents (Friedman, 1975) . Traditionally, there has been much stigma attached to the out of wedlock mother and her family. One lady in 24 Denver, Colorado, is out to change this stigma by adver- tising for a mate for the explicit purpose of producing a child. Her advertisement read; Single professional woman, 34, interested in meeting intelligent, healthy male for purpose of becoming pregnant. No financial obligations, although open to discussing relationship if desired. ("Would be mother," 1979, p. 2-d) As a result of this advertisement, this woman, within two weeks, had more than 200 men respond. Of these, 85 per cent of them were genuinely curious or serious. Though adoption was a viable choice to fulfill this woman's need to parent a child, she felt adoption agencies let single parents adopt older than pre-school age children whose personalities have been formed. Temporarily Displaced Single Parent Families The parents in temporarily displaced single parent families that result from military induced separation have some very particular coping repertoires concerning their familial situation. One study conducted on 47 families of servicemen missing in action in the Vietnam conflict revealed the following six coping behavior patterns of wives: (1) seeking resolution and expressing feelings; 25 (2) maintaining family integrity; (3) establishing autonomy and maintaining family ties; (4) reducing anxiety; (5) establishing independence through self-development ; and (5) maintaining the past and dependence on religion (McCubbin, Dahl, Lester, Benson, &. Robertson, 1976). Con- clusions drawn by this study were; That there is a wide range of coping patterns which may be considered func- tional and adaptive; that the majority of coping patterns are considered highly functional in that they are specifically aimed at strengthening the individual's resources to combat stress and harm; that these patterns are a function of the hus- band's and wife's background, history of the family and the stresses of separation. (McCubbin et al., 1976, p. 470) The single parent family resulting from the desertion of one parent has some unique concerns. The deserted parent should point out to their child that though this child has inherited some physical features and mannerisms of the absent parent, the child is still autonomously unique. It should also be pointed out that the absent parent had both good and bad attributes (i.e., parent not completely good or bad). The actual revelation of the desertion of the family should be gradually divulged by the remaining parent. One special type of desertion is piecemeal de- sertion. This type of desertion has no semblance of 26 permanency and tends to be incessantly emotionally deplet- ing for both the sustained parent and child (Ogg, 1976) . There are several factors contributing to the divorce of parents . Some of these factors are young age at marriage, considerable age differential between mates, ur- ban residence, unskilled occupation, non-religious wedding, remarriage and particularly premarital pregnancy (Christen- sen & Meissner, 1953) . In a study conducted by Christensen and Meissner (1953) , they observed that an inordinate proportion of divorces are associated with premarital pregnancy. Within the premarital pregnancy sample the highest number resulting in divorce were those who shortly after marriage gave birth to a child. Within the post-marital group the highest rate of divorces resulted shortly after conception. The lowest rate of divorces resulted when conception was delayed several months subsequent to the wedding. Not only do premarital pregnant couples get divorced at a higher rate than other couples but the divorce occurs in a shorter period of time after marriage. Though premarital pregnancy seems to contribute to the number and speed of divorce, such factors as religious solidification and participation, concurrent sexual attitudes, good parental relations, and the development of an early and strong love 27 contribute to the longevity of the marriage (Christensen Sc Rubinstein, 1956) . Divorce tends to affect adults by giving them a re- surgence of energy. With this new energy, the divorcee often channels it into the job which consequently ""ky- rockets her career. The "surplus" energy is also channeled into such activities as sports, volunteer work or other activities requiring high energy consumption (Scott, 1979). The relationship between the sustaining adult and child changes as the parents divorce. Sometimes the child is viewed as a peer to the parent or may even become a parent to the parent. if the latter results, then the child be- gins to set the rules within the family (Angelo, 1979) . Due to society's sex bias against male parents' cus- today of the children resulting from divorce, men have phobias about losing relationships with their children, losing status within their family, being criticized by their ex-spouses, being rejected by their children, and losing structural and continual roots of family life (Keshet & Rosenthal, 1978) . Sources of conflict that are constantly encountered by the male divorcee pertaining to childrearing are scheduling and child care agreements (i.e., who will pick up the child and when), extending 28 the child's visit or custody with the male parent, planning vacations, and gaining child custody on holidays (Christmas, Easter, and Th nksgiving) and special events (family re- unions, weddings, and birthdays). Another source of pain for the male divorcee results from the anxiety, sadness, and resentment conjured up in him when he returns to his old home to pick up his child (Keshet & Rosenthal, 1978) . In response to some of these conflicts ensued by divorced fathers as a result of child custody being favored toward women by the legal system (93 per cent of the time women are awarded child custody) , a divorce rights group has been formed in Los Angeles, California. The group, called Fathers De- manding Equal Justice, is actively seeking equality under the law in regard to child custody being awarded to male parents (McMillan, 1979) . The stigmatization and subsequent problems encountered by the female divorcee are more blatant in society than those encountered by her male counterpart. The basis of this stigma toward women results from the assumption that they could not keep their men. Such social institutions as schools and courts look upon the child from a "broken" home as probably being a disciplinary problem, being confused about sex roles and being more prone to get into trouble. 29 Some authorities on delinquency report that the rising tide of single parent families helps account for the in- crease in juvenile court cases. Their argument is : Children of broken hoaies, boiling with anger and resentment over the loss of a parent, usually a father, thus leaving them out a father's guidance and direction, can succumb to antisocial behaviors such as bullying, truancy, vandalism and worse. ("Rising problems of 'single parents,'" 1973, p. 34) Economically speaking, the female divorcee faces a mammouth problem. Goode's (1948) research determined that 8 par cent of wives had belosv $40 per week income before divorce, whereas after divorce, this percentage of wives rose to 22 par cent. Thirty-three per cent of wives in this same study had a $60 weekly income previous to divorce; subsequent to divorce, however, the percentage dropped to 20 par cent. Even though women receive higher salaries today than they did in 1948 as Goode reported, the female divorcee still receives little more than half the annual income of her male counterpart. The reason for such statistics is that wo.Tien have less job training and if training is afforded it focuses upon low income, insecure positions. Ferris (1971) points out that women (usually non-employed wives) make up 84 per cent of persons with no income. Those 30 wives who do work, however, only contributed to 27 per cent of the total family income in 1970 (Waldman & Grover, 1971) . Though it seems that a logical and necessary solution to this problem would be for women to seek financially reward- ing employment, society actively discriminates against them by such blatant means as offering them a lower salary for the same amount and type of work. The median earnings of full-time, annual employment for women were 55 per cent less than that of men's earnings. Moreover, 60 per cent of women earned less than f.5,000 for full-time employment whereas only 20 per cent of men earned such a salary. On the other hand, only 3 per cent of women earned salaries over $10,000 annually while 28 per cent of men did so (U. S. Women's Bureau, 1971). In order to compensate for the females' reduced income earning ability, ex-husbands in the United States are, theoretically speaking, paying 35 to 40 per cent and sometimes as much as 75 per cent of their incomes in alimony and child support. As a result, approximately 90 per cent eventually default ("Rising problems of 'single parents,'" 1973). Women are reluctant to have legal action initiated which could, and often does, lead to incarceration of the delinquent or negligent ex-husband. Some money is better than no money at all. 31 Not only are divorced women, or women as a whole, discriminated against in the financial realm, but they too are believed to be powerless by society. Society per- petrates this belief by such acts as banks denying mortgages or other loans to divorced women, landlords refusal to rent to families without adult males, and credit granting insti- tutions refusing to give credit to divorced women (Brand- wein. Brown, & Fox, 1974) . Part of the contributing influences toward the woman's lack of authority eminates from her deficiency in training and ability to act in an authoritarian role. Other ways in which society discriminates against the female divorcee and her child were made obvious in a study by Marsden (1969) . He found that neighbors would not allow their children to play with those children of divorced mothers and that college admissions policies dis- criminated against such children. Children were adversely affected by their mothers' divorces according to the sam- ple surveyed. Twenty per cent of that sample of children were ashamed about their parents' divorces and 10 per cent openly lied about the absent parents' whereabouts. Marsden (1969) further discovered a stratification of female-headed families which indicated that widows rated themselves 32 highest and they rated unwed mothers the lowest among female single parents. Being a divorced female parent is positive in that interpersonal support is often received by friends and relatives, especially the mother's family. Goode (1948) noted that 50 per cent of the divorcees his study examined kept their old friends and the new friends made were of a satisfactory nature. Marsden (1969) found that the impact of spouse absence was buffered by a relative, friend, neigh- bor, or boyfriend in 33 per cent of the female divorcees sampled. According to Gebhard (1971), female divorcees reported that their sexual experiences were more gratifying than the sexual experiences reported by wives. The Permanently Displaced Single Parent Family The permanently displaced or widowed single parent family is accepted and is reached out to by society's helping hand as opposed to other types of single parent families. Compared to the divorces for example, the widow has both social support and a well defined role to play. Basically, she can mourn publicly. Friends and relatives 33 need not be reluctant to support her due to that being the "right" thing to do (Schlessinger , 1971) . Although widov^hood is the most socially acceptable and supported single parent family phenoiienon, it presents serious problems of mental health and personal adjustment to the widow. Berardo (1958) says that "Empirical research has consistently demonstrated that the widov/ed typically have higher death rates, a greater incidence of mental disorders, and a higher suicide rate than their married counterparts" (p. 195). Society accepts the widow and looks upon her as the poor unfortunate mother left alone to raise her child. This pity often times leads to apathy, despair, and isolation (Schlesinger , 1956). Although the widowed or permanently displaced single parent family seems to be less stigmatized than other single parent families, the widow also faces some societal ostracism: . . . widowhood tends to impoverish social life. A widow can take little pleasure in entertainment, feels awkward with her old friends, loses the only strong tie with her husband's family, and has moods in which her lonely struggle to master grief, her apathy and repudiation of consolation isolate her even from her own family. (Schlesinger, 1971, p. 27) 34 When asked what were some of the difficulties faced by parents upon the death of the spouse, a frequent response was loneliness. Difficulties pertaining to childrearing centered around sex education instruction (for both widow and widower), purchasing clothing for girls by wido'vers, feelings of disciplinarian leniency by wido-vs , and just sharing the responsibility of planning activities for the children (Schlesinger , 1971). One coTunon area of great concern among widows and widowers was preoccupation about financial stability. This was of particular concern to widows because of lack of employable skills or possession of antiquated skills of employability . In response to the need of capital to train for a job or prepare for employment interviews, Texan businessman Bill Walker has implemented the Special Or- ganizational Services (SOS) . This organization virtually takes over the financial battle to get money that is right- fully the widow's upon the death of her spouse. SOS reviews insurance policies, other records, contacts different agencies and co.-npanies as wall as fills out various business forms. The widow is usually in such emotional upheaval that these concerns of financial compensation are not looked into but could serve a very important function in her and h3X family's survival (Deindorfer, 1979). 35 Unique Problems Encountered by Single Parents Specific tasks, unique problems, and responsibilities faced by the single parent are making solitary ecisions, trying to be both mother and father, not sharing daily events with another adult, having little or no break from the children, determining who to visit (i.e., which family to visit) on holidays and special events, and intrapsychic conflicts (Dresen, 1976) . The single parent copes with these stereotypes, unique problems, and responsibilities by overcompensating toward the child and/or by denying ones personal identity (Dresen, 1976) . Either way, however, makes the single parent feel depressed (lowered self-con- cept) and possibly resentful. The wrath of this resentment is received by the most accessible person to that parent, the child. Overcompensation manifests itself in providing ex- cessive goods and services like purchasing new toys and treats as well as catering to the child's whims and desires. Overcompensation by the single parent tends to be contrary to his disciplinarian self-concept. Society's expectation of the single parent being a weak disciplinarian is there- fore fulfilled which consequently could lead that parent into 36 depression. Denial of personal identity is reflected in the attitude of "my children come first" (all of the time) . Time for any other interpersonal relationships or just time to be alone becomes negligible. These parents put so much time and energy in the parent-child relationship that they have an exceptionally difficult time in separating themselves once the empty nest cycle evolves. Individuation of parent and child becomes a problem. The dependency fostered within such a relationship adds to feelings of obligation on the parent and if such feelings are not felt or expressed by this child then friction in the form of resentment may result. Denial of personal identity also may develop a martrydora atti- tude by these dedicated parents especially as the children are beginning to move into their own independence. There may be the feeling of "look at all I've done for you" and an implied statement of obligation projected by the parent. In trying to cope with the attitudes and limitations of society toward single parents and their families the following resources are presently available to them: friends, social agencies that provide affordable counsel- ing for the adjustment to their new role, and self-help groups (Dresen, 1976) . Self-help groups available to single parents and their families are; Parents Without 37 Partners, the YMCA, Big Brothers and Sisters, Boy and Girl Scouts of America, Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC) , Social Security, Public Housing, and Child Care Scholar- ships (Ogg, 1976). Outside of these available resources, other gestures by society could help in the role adjustment encountered by the single parent. For example, increased psychiatric care on a sliding fee scale could be created or expanded for the single parent. Increased quality day service for children could be implemented so that single parents may be free to train for or actively seek and hold a job (Bould, 1977) . Two parent families could begin to invite single parent families to share in social activities. The community could be more responsive to the developmental family problems encountered by these families routinely and begin to enact such counteractive measures as, services to find adequate yet affordable housing, volunteer transportation for medical care, grocery shopping, informing and encouraging mothers to use programs like Head Start, and helping to maintain their homes by volunteering to repair them (Burgess, 1970). The community also could provide child care facilities in publicly frequented places (i.e., airports, shopping centers, theatres). Transportation of children to and 1 38 from day care centers could be provided. Single-parenthood classes could be created (Orthner, Brown, &. Ferguson, 1976) . A social insurance to cover the risk of break-up could cer- tainly aid single parents' financial plight upon the loss of a spouse (Boald, 1977) . Though there are common areas of strife encountered by all types of single parent families, different types of families also have unique problems and concerns. These problems and concerns are influenced by the attitudes of society but most especially by tha attitudes single parents have aboat themselves. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY One purpose of this study was to determine if black and white single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations. a second purpose was to determine if temporarily displaced and congenital single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations. The study determined whether there were differences in the attitudes of these single parents in the following areas; parent-child relationships, husband-wife roles and relation- ships, general male /female relationships, and general aims and values. The Traditional Family Ideology Scale was administered to single parents who were members of both Gainesville and Tampa Parents Without Partners Organiza- tion as well as single parents that were clients of the social workers of the West Tampa Neighborhood Service Center . 39 40 Hypotheses 1. There is no difference between the attitudes of black and white single parents toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS) . 2. There is no difference between the attitudes of congenital and temporarily displaced single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. 3. There is no difference among the attitudes of socioeconomically different single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. 4. There is no difference between the attitudes of male and female single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. 5. There is no difference among the attitudes of educationally different single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. 6. There is no difference among the attitudes of age differentiated single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. Population and Sample The population that was investigated had been single parents for at least three months and had at least one child staying within their household for at least three months. The population consisted of Florida residents living in Hillsborough and Alachua counties. The 1970 Census estimated the single parent population of the state of Florida to have been 17 per cent male, 83 per cent 41 female, 69 per cent white, 31 per cent black and other. The Bureau's classification of incomes ranged from less than $l,000/year to $25,000 or more per year. The range of years of education was from no school to five years or more of college with the median being 12.1 years (U. S. Bureau of the Census; General Social and Economic Characteristics, 1972) . These are the most recent statistics available on the single parent population of the state of Florida. The greater portion of the single parent population in Alachua County live in the city of Gainesville. Fifty-three per cent of the single parent population are white and 47 per cent are black and/or other. The income range is $1,825 to $8,377/year for males with a median income of $5,563/year. For females, the income range is $3,093 to $3,330/year with a median income of $3,32 5/year. The range of education is from no school to four years or more college years with the median for females being 12.3 years and 12.1 years for males (u. S. Bureau of the Census; General Social and Economic Characteristics, 1972). The city of Tampa is home for the majority of the Hillsborough County single parent population. Sixty-five per cent of the single parent population are white and 35 per cent are black and/or other. The income range are $2,823 42 to $9,384/year for males with a median income of $6,475/ year. For females, the income range is $3,093 to $3,287/ year with a median income of $3,270/year. The range of education is from no school to four or more college years with the median for females being 11.9 years and 12.1 years for males (u. S. Bureau of the Census; General Social and Economic Characteristics, 1972), The sample for this study included an N of 100. Sixty individuals were selected from Alachua County and 40 from Hillsborough County. Of these 100 individuals being studied, 25 participants came from each single parent group, i.e., 25 black, 25 white, 25 temporarily displaced, and 25 con- genital single parents. Having 25 participants from each single parent group insured that each group was equally represented. Lists of all members of both the Tampa Parents Without Partners Organization (PWP) and the Gainesville PWP as well as a list of all the West Tampa Neighborhood Service Center's social workers' single parent clientele were sent to the researcher by the liason persons of these organiza- tions. These liason persons categorized each name listed by placing TD for temporarily displaced, C for congenital, B for black, and W for white next to each name. They de- termined how to categorize these individuals by noting 43 whether these persons matched the definitions of these types of single parents which were sent to them by the researcher. When each was numbered and categorized, the designated number of individuals for each stratum (i.e., 25 names) was randomly drawn by the researcher. The reason for having a black/white dichotomy is that these are the largest racial groups. The largest groups of sin- gle parents are temporarily displaced and congenital sin- gle parents. According to the 1970 Census Bureau, 69 per cent of the entire single parent population of the state of Florida were temporarily displaced single parents and 6 per cent of the Florida single parent population were congenital single parents (U. S. Bureau of the Census; 1970 Detailed Characteristics, 1972). Instrument The Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS) purports to measure attitudes toward: (1) husband and wife relation- ships and roles, (2) parent-child relationships, (3) general values and aims, (4) general male-female relationships and concepts of femininity and masculinity. The statements 44 that measure attitudes in these areas are in Appendix C. Though the scale is multi-dimensional in its measure of attitudes on these various issues, a total score is computed which gives a measure of "democratic" attitudes toward family relations. The scores range from 40 to 280. The lower the score the more democratic the attitude toward family relations. For convenience, the total score on the instrument is divided by 40 and then multiplied by 10. This results in the score range being converted from 40 through 280 to 10 through 70. The longer form of the TFIS that was used in this study is found in Appendix D. In developing the longer form of the TFIS, a sample (N = 109) of adult students in evening psychology classes at Cleveland College, Ohio was used. The sample consisted of 61 men and 42 women who were relatively heterogenous in age, religion, occupation, and marital status. Occupational groupings consisted of skilled workers, laborers, pro- fessionals, businessmen, clerical workers, and housewives. Ages ranged from 20 to 40 with the mode being mid-twenties. Low scores were expected by this group because participants' interests were in education and particularly psychology. The mean TFIS (converted) score was 33.3. The standard 45 deviation was 7.8 with individual scores ranging from 16 to 50. The participants respond to each statement by placing a digit ranging from +3 to -3 in the left hand margin according to the following scale: +3, strongly agree; +2, mildly agree; +1, agree; -1, disagree; -2, mildly disagree; -3, strongly disagree. The responses are scored for "democratic" items by -3 being given a score of 7; -2, a score of 6; -1, a score of 5; +1, a score of 3; +2, a score of 2; and +3, a score of 1. If a participant does not respond to an item, that item is designated a score of 4. "Autocratic" items are scored just the opposite. The longer form of the TFIS has a split-half reliability of .84 when corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula. The validity of the longer form of the TFIS was evaluated by comparing religious groups "known" to differ in family ideology and by correlating TFIS scores with scores on the California Ethnocentrism and Authoritarianism scales. The correlations were .55 and .73, respectively. Procedures After the names for each category were drawn and listed by the researcher, those lists were sent to the liason 46 persons with the appropriate number of Traditional Family Ideology Scales (TFIS) as well as a stamped, self -addressed envelops. The liason parsons distributed the TFIS's to tha selected subjects. For those individual participants who had a reading problem, the TFIS was read to them by the liason parson (s) administering the instrument. The liason person (s) determined whether these individuals had such a problem. The participants were asked to look over the TFIS for a few minutes to determine if there was anything they did not understand. If the liason person detected that there was a reading problem, then oral administration of the in- strument was conducted. The scales were collected one week subsequent to their distribution by the liason person, placed in the collection envelope, and mailed to the re- searcher. Had there not been enough persons willing to, or for some other reason could not complete the TFIS, addi- tional people were chosen by the researcher via random se- lection from the original lists sent by the liason persons. These individuals were placed on an alternate list. This alternate list accompanied the original participant selec- tion lists that were sent by the various liason persons. The liason parsons would refer to this alternate list if additional participants had been needed. 47 Though a participant could only be white or black, that same participant could, in addition, be either a con- genital or temporarily displaced single parent. So that equal representation for each category was adhered to, the returned surveys were coded W-TD for white and temporarily displaced, W-C for white and congenital, b-TD for black and temporarily displaced, or B-C for black and congenital. Once the surveys were coded, they were separated into two stacks and given numbers. One stack for blacks and one stack for whites. Through a random selection procedure, 25 whites and then 25 blacks were initially selected. The remaining surveys were then separated into two stacks representing temporarily displaced and congenital single parents; the same random selection procedure was enacted to select 25 for each of these categories. Analysis of Data A mean score was tabulated by summing individual response scores and dividing that sum by the total number of statements on the TFIS (i.e., N = 40), A t-test was conducted for each of the following dichotomies; black vs. white, congenital vs. temporarily displaced, and male vs. female single parents. A one-way analysis of variance 48 (ANOVA) was conducted on socioeconomic, educational, and age categories of the participants. The alpha level was p < .05. If, on any of the ANOVA ' s , there was a statis- tically significant finding, then a pairwise comparison was conducted to determine just how significant that find- ing or conclusion was. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results The purpose of this study was to determine if black and white single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS) . A secondary purpose was to determine if temporarily displaced and congenital single parents differed in their attitudes toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. The variables of age, sex, educa- tion, and socioeconomic status of participants were investi- gated to determine if these factors influenced differences in attitudes toward traditional family relations. For each single parent group, subscales of the TFIS were examined. These subscales are Parent-child relationships, male/ female relationships, husband-wife relationships, and general aims and values. In addition to the four subscales incorporated in the TFIS, another subscale was developed for the entire group means and standard deviations of each single parent group. 49 50 The participants examined ware all single parents for at least three months and had one or more children living within their households for at least the same amount of time (i.e., three months). The total N examined was loO Florida residents of which 40 lived in Alachua County and 60 lived in Hillsborough County. Demographic characteristics for the total sample are in Table 1. This study examined six hypotheses. The level of significance was p < .05 for the hypotheses. The data collected on the variables race, single parent status, and sex were analyzed by t-tests. The data collected on the variables socioeconomic status, education, and age were analyzed by one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA's). Hypothesis One; There is no difference between the attitudes of black and white single parents toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFISl. In Table 2, subscale 5 shows that at the .05 level of significance there is a difference in overall scores of black and white single parents' attitudes toward family relations. Therefore, hypothesis one is rejected. Specific items of the TFIS that black and white single parents significantly differed upon are shown in Appendix C. 51 Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Total Sample (N = 100) Sample % N Total 49 49.0 51 51.0 16 16.0 84 84.0 27 27.0 73 73.0 5 5.0 28 28.0 40 40.0 21 21.0 5 5.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 4 4.0 35 35.0 42 42.0 19 19.0 3 3.0 14 14.0 34 34.0 20 20.0 17 17.0 12 12.0 0 0.0 Race Black White Sex Male Female Single Parent Status Congenital Temporarily Displaced Socioeconomic Status Less than $1,000 per year $1,000 - $6,999 $7,000 - $12,999 $13,000 - $18,999 $19,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $30,999 Over $31,000 Education Not completed high school Completed high school Completed 1 to 4 years of college Completed more than 4 years of college 15 - 20 21 - 26 27 - 32 33 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 62 63 or older 52 Table 2 T-Tests for the TFIS Subscales by Race Blacks Whites (N = 49) (N = 51) Subscales X SD X SD t 1 56.87 12.46 55.84 14.08 0.39 Parent-Child Relationship 2 26.24 8,86 21.21 7.67 3.04** Husband-Wife Relationship 3 40.12 15.74 32.92 15.76 2.28* Male/Female Relationship 4 17.02 4.07 15.58 5.33 1.50 General Aims and Values 5 140.26 34.77 125.56 37.02 2.04* Total G.P. Results * £ < .05 ** £ < .01 53 Hypothesis Two; There is no difference between the attitudes of congenital and temporarily displaced single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. In Table 3, subscale 5 indicates that at the .05 level of significance there is no difference in overall scores of congenital and temporarily displaced single parents' atti- tudes toward family relations. Therefore, hypothesis two is accepted. Appendix D does show, however, that these two types of single parents differed significantly on particu- lar TFIS items. Hypothesis Three; There is no difference among the attitudes of socioeconomically different single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. Subscale 5 in Table 4 indicates that at the .05 significance level there is no difference in overall scores of socioeconomically different single parents' attitudes toward family relations. Therefore, hypothesis three is accepted. Item analysis of the TFIS for socioeconomically different single parents in- dicates no significant differences in scores on specific items. This corroborates the results indicated in Appendix E . Hypothesis Four; There is no difference between the attitudes of male and female single parents toward family 54 Table 3 T-Tests for the TFIS Subscales by Single Parent Status Congenital Temporarily Displaced _ (N = 27) _ (N = 73) Subscales X SD X SD t 1 54.25 11.55 57.12 13.83 -0.96 Parent-Child Relationship 2 24.03 9.51 23.54 8.23 0.25 Husband-Wife Relationship 3 36.37 16.43 36.47 16.07 -0.03 Male/Female Relationship 4 16.81 4.27 16.09 4.97 0.66 General Aims and Values 5 131.48 33.82 133.24 37.67 -0.21 Total G.P. Results 55 Table 4 Analysis of Variance of the TFIS Subscales by Socioeconomic Status Source of Subscales Variance SS df MS 1 Between Groups 168 .78 5 33 .75 Within Groups 17 ,237 .93 94 183 .38 0 .18 Parent-Child Relationship 2 Between Groups 344 .34 5 68 .86 Within Groups 7 ,003 .40 94 74 .50 0 .92 Husband-Wife Relationship 3 Between Groups 851 89 5 170 .37 Within Groups 24 768 .75 94 263 49 0 .64 Male/Female Relationship 4 Between Groups 14 5 50 5 29 10 Within Groups 2, 125. 09 94 22 60 1 28 General Aims and Values 5 Between Groups 3; 323. 76 5 664. 75 Within Groups 128, 673. 93 94 1,368. 87 0. 48 Total G.P. Results 56 relations as measured by the TFIS. Subscale 5, in Table 5, indicates that at the .05 level of significance there is a difference in overall scores of male and female single parents' attitudes toward family relations. Therefore, hypothesis four is rejected. Specific items of the TFIS that male and female single parents significantly differed on are presented in Appendix F. Hypothesis Five; There is no difference among the attitudes of educationally different single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. In Table 5, sub- scale 5 shows there is no difference in the overall scores of educationall different single parents at the .05 level of significance. Therefore, hypothesis five is accepted. Appendix G, however, indicates that scores on particular TFIS items differed significantly. Hypothesis Six; There is no difference among the atti- tudes of age differentiated single parents toward family relations as measured by the TFIS. In Table 7, subscale 5 indicates no difference at the .05 level of significance in overall scores on the TFIS for age differentiated single parents. Appendix H shows one specific item of the TFIS that is significantly different. 57 Table 5 T-Tests for the TFIS Subscales by Sex Mal_e (N = 16) _Female (N = 84) Subscales X SD X SD t 1 65.31 9.59 54.64 13.21 3.07** Parent-Child Relationship 2 28.87 9.43 22.69 8.14 2.72* Husband-Wife Relationship 3 46.56 15.82 34.52 15.49 2.84* Male /Female Relationship 4 17.62 5.47 16.03 4.64 1.22 General Aims and Values 5 158.37 34.34 127.89 35.02 3.20** Total G.P. Results *p < .05 **p < .01 58 Table 6 Analysis of Variance of the TFIS Subscales by Education Source of Subscales Variance SS df MS F 1 Between Groups 389 .75 3 129.91 Within Groups 17 ,016 .95 96 177.26 0.73 Parent-Child Relationship 2 Between Groups 243 .26 3 81.08 Within Groups 7 , 104 .48 96 74.00 1.09 Husband-Wife Relationship 3 Between Groups 505 .55 3 6.69 Within Groups 25 115 .09 96 23.44 0.54 Male /Female Relationship 4 Between Groups 20 07 3 6.69 Within Groups 2, 250 50 96 23.44 0.28 General Aims and Values 5 Between Groups 3, 648. 04 3 1,216.01 Within Groups 128, 349. 49 95 1,336.97 0.91 Total G.P. Results 59 Table 7 Analysis of Variance of the TFIS Subscales by Age Source of Subscales Variance SS df MS F 1 Between Groups 1,377.55 5 275.51 Within Groups 16,029.15 94 170.52 1.61 Parent-Child Relationship Between Groups 240.70 5 48.14 Within Groups 7,107.05 94 75.60 0.63 Husband-Wife Relationship Between Groups 686.56 5 137.31 Within Groups 24,934.10 94 265.25 0.51 Male /Female Relationship 4 Between Groups 101.43 5 20.28 Within Groups 2,169.15 94 23.07 0.87 General Aims and Values 5 Between Groups 5,933.28 5 1,186.65 Within Groups 126,064.36 94 1,341.11 0.88 Total G.P. Results 60 Discussion of the Results As reported in Table 2, black single parents scored higher than did white single parents on subscales 2 and 3 which suggests that black single parents have a more demo- cratic attitude toward husband-wife and male/female relation- ships than do white single parents. Having a more democratic attitude means having a willingness to share the respon- sibilities of a relationship, i.e., establishing an egala- tarian relationship. It is difficult to assess whether the differences between blacks and whites on these subscales is indicative of how these relationships (egalatarian roles) exist or how blacks would like for them to exist. Perhaps blacks are more traditional in their roles and expectations than whites because of a need to fight the matriarchal family image that seems to permeate society and the literature Table 5 reports significant differences in scores between male and female single parents on subscales 1, 2, and 3. These results suggest that male single parents have a more democratic attitude toward parent-child, male/female, and husband-wife relationships. Perhaps inclinations toward an egalatarian relationship with females are more prevalent in male single parents. The results reported in Appendix F 61 suggest furthermore, that males would like to have a more equal relationship with females. Consequently, resultant of the women's liberation movement, which is often counter to traditional female roles and relationships, this desire by males to be in an equal relationship with females is quite a feasible explanation. Furthermore, male single parents seem quite desirous of more structure and def initiveness in their roles and relationships with females. No other significant differences in scores on the TFIS subscales were found. Therefore, it appears that differences exist in democratic or autocratic attitudes of socioeconomically different, educationally different, age differentiated, and congenital or temporarily displaced single parents. Results reported in Appendix C indicate the items where black and white single parents differed significantly. Blacks tended to agree more strongly on statements 6, 13, 18, and 22 which is indicative of agreement with "tradi- tional" male/female, husband-wife roles and relationships. This may suggest a desire by both black males and females to have a united, strong egalatarian male/female personal and/or professional relationship. Blacks tended to agree more strongly than whites on statements 16 and 27 which is indicative of certain desirable attributes for males. 62 Greater agreement by blacks on statement 8 seems to be con- trary to the more traditional roles/expectations that they adhered to in agreement with items 13, 18, and 22. The right to sexual freedom for women may, on the other hand, balance the male/female relationship by giving women greater control and freedom of choice in interpersonal relationships with a male. Stronger agreement by blacks with statement 7 indicates a traditional attitude toward disciplining children. Item 3's stronger agreement by blacks seems indicative of blacks' expectant attitude of older children becoming autonomous and responsible for themselves as they move into and through adolescence. This may suggest that the adolescence maturing process for blacks is more expedient than for whites. Results reported in Appendix F indicate the items that male and female single parents differed on significantly. A more traditional, conservative view of raising children seems to be indicated by males' stronger agreement with items 14, 20, 29, and 32. Stronger agreement with statements 5, 6, 18, and 4 of males than females indicate that males lean toward a more traditional marital relationship with well defined roles for husbands and wives. A source of friction for single parents wanting to remarry could result from males and females having differed significantly on what their roles should be 63 within a marital relationship and how they should rear their children. Agreement with items 1, 9, 19, 35, and 37 by males reflects males' attitudes toward expectant female roles. These items are indicative of negative female roles or attributes. On the other hand, males agreed more strongly than females on item 39 which is indicative of their recognition of females being treated unfairly. Males' attitudes toward traditional marital relation- ships may be a reflection of their feelings of lack of con- trol in this role changing society. Agreement to statements that view women in a negative perspective further supports this premise and also may be indicative of the males' desire to get back at women in hopes of lessening the rejection complex often accompanied by divorce or separation. Appendix D reports items on which congenital and tem- porarily displaced single parents differed significantly. Stronger agreement by congenital single parents on items 20 and 40 of the TFIS indicates that the behavior of a child and sexual behavior or problems of adults are a reflection of parental upbringing. This may suggest an unwillingness by congenital single parents to take responsibility of their own behavior, on one hand, yet, on the other hand, it may suggest closer scrutiny of the way their children are raised. 64 A strong sense of family cohesiveness by congenital single parents is indicated by their stronger agreement on item 21. The ostracism often accompanied with the birth of extra- marital children tends to influence these families to establish a strong, united image. Scores reported in Appendix G indicate the items on which educationally different single parents differed significantly. Group 2 (completed high school) agreed with item 2 more strongly than Group 4 (completed more than 4 years of college) . Group 3 (completed 1 to 4 years of col- lege) agreed more strongly on the same item than Group 2. Those individuals who have completed 1 to 4 years of college and those who have completed high school may feel they can get a job more easily than those with less than high school or greater than 4 years of college. Consequently, these individuals may look down on less employable persons. On statement 9, Group 1 (not completed high school) agreed more strongly than Group 4 on this item. Group 3 agreed more strongly on this item than Groups 1 and 2. Individuals in greater agreement with this item tend to view women through a narrow, negative perspective. Perhaps Group 3 feels most competitive with women both in school and in the job market which could be an explanation for viewing women through a negative perspective. 65 Appendix H reports the items on which age differentiated single parents differed significantly. Agreement with state- ment 14 indicates that an individual believes children should conform to their parents' ideas. Individuals that fell in the age category of 51 - 62 agreed more strongly with this statement than did individuals within the 33 - 40 age cate- gory. This may be indicative of lack of flexibility in allowing children to think and act autonomously of their parents. Often times, lack of flexibility or rigidity in ideology accompanies increased age. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Implications This study provides baseline data on the attitudes of black, white, male, female, congenital, temporarily dis- placed, educationally different, age different, and socio- economically different single parents toward traditional family relations. Means and standard deviations on the Traditional Family Ideology Scale (TFIS) for these different types of single parent groups are reported. in addition to baseline data being reported on these single parent groups, the study also reported the same kind of data on these single parent groups' attitudes toward parent-child relationships, male/female relationships, and general aims and values. Data determining differences between/among different single parent groups, i.e., black/white, male/ female, congenital/temporarily displaced, socioeconomically different, educationally different, and age different single parents, are reported. Finally, comparative data on these 66 67 particular single parent groups are reported for specific items of the TFIS. The results that blacks scored higher than whites and that males scored higher than females on the TFIS suggest that black and male single parents have a more democratic attitude toward family relations. This could be indicative of modern times in that males and blacks may be moving toward shared parental responsibilities where females and whites are moving toward greater individuation and autonomy, per- haps focusing more on careers than families. This informa- tion may give counselors insight into understanding differ- ences in black and white single parents. This information may have implications for dual career counseling if re- marriage is being considered by such parents. Such informa- tion could also be used in premarital, marital, postmarital, family, and stepfamily therapy. Information obtained from the four subscales of the TFIS indicates that black single parents have a more demo- cratic attitude toward husband-wife and male/female relation- ships than do white single parents. This might suggest to a counselor that black single parents are feeling "idealis- tically" that shared couple responsibilities are desirable. Male single parents have a more democratic attitude toward 68 the same relationships as well as toward parent-child relationships. This corroborates the implications of the data between black and male single parents and even further- more amplifies the desire of males to share parenting re- sponsibilities with females. Such a desire among single parents as a whole is not unusual, in that loneliness and dual parental roles and responsibilities are problems com- monly encountered by these individuals. The specific information on particular items of the TFIS tend to corroborate the evidence and information re- ceived from the different single parent groups for composite TFIS scores as well as subscale scores. Some of the specific item scores, however, seem somewhat contradictory to the general direction a particular group may have been follow- ing. This might suggest closer scrutiny of item scores by counselors in hopes of making clients aware of contradictions which may be a source of some anxiety or frustration. The information produced by this study also could help counselors by having them use the TFIS as a diagnostic tool in individual, Premarital, postmarital, stepfamily, and family therapy. The TFIS could also act as a premarital screening device for single parents considering marriage. 69 Counselor educators could use this information in teaching a course or section of a course in the counseling needs of single parents. The professors are provided ob- jective, scientific data on the attitudes of different types of single parents in relation to parent-child relationships, husband-wife relationships, male/female relationships, and general aims and values. Data from this study may prove particularly useful in a course in family therapy, especially as this course addresses issues of single parent families and reconstituted or blended families. A marital counseling course could benefit from the data in this study as it alludes to issues of remarriage, especially remarriage of single parents. Summary This study examined black and white, congenital and temporarily displaced, male and female, socioeconomically different, educationally different, and age differentiated single parents' attitudes toward family relations. The purpose was to see if these single parent groups' attitudes differed. Differences in the attitudes of these single parent 70 groups toward parent-child, husband-wife, male/female relationships, and general aims and values also were examined . In Chapter I of this study, the problem was stated. The need, purpose, significance of the study, as well as definition of the terms also were presented. The types of single parent families, i.e., black, white, congenital, temporarily displaced, and permanently displaced, were dis- cussed in Chapter II. Unique problems encountered by single parents also were examined in this chapter. Hypo- theses, population and sample, instrument, procedures, and the analyses of data used in this study were discussed in Chapter III. In Chapter IV, the results and a discussion of these results were presented. The results of the study indicate that black and white single parents as well as male and female single parents differed significantly in their atti- tudes toward family relations as measured by the Traditional Family Ideology Scale. Black and male single parents tended to have more democratic attitudes toward family relations than white and female single parents, respectively. Black single parents had more democratic attitudes toward husband- ife and male/female relationships than white single parents. w 71 Male single parents had more democratic attitudes toward parent-child, husband-wife, and male/female relationships than female single parents. Recommendations If this study vvere replicated, confirmation of com- posite, subscale, and item scores of the TFIS for the different types of single parents examined could be estab- lished. In addition to confirmation of this study's re- sults, there would be a greater probability of discovering significantly different scores on other items and subscales as well. Because this study had an N of 100, some single parent categories had no participants which meant that it was not possible to measure or compare the attitudes of these single parents. Replicating the study would help insure that representation of all single parent categories exist . Several studies examining the attitudes of participants toward family relations could eminate from this study. Examples of such studies are; a study involving a com- bination of variables already examined; expanding the pre- sent study to include permanently displaced and adoptive single parents; comparing presently married individuals to 72 single parents; comparing stepparents to single parents; comparing single adults to single parents; comparing single parents of different ethnic groups; comparing single parents from different parts of the state of Florida; comparing single parents from different sections of the United States; and comparing single parents from different nations. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRADITIONAL FAMILY IDEOLOGY SCALE Appendix A categorized Statements of the Longer Form of the Traditional Family Ideology Scale: A . Parent-child relationships A child should not be allowed to talk back to his parents, or else he will lose respect for th'^m. There is a lot of evidence such as the Kinsey Report which shows us we have to crack down harder on young people to save our moral standards. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respsct for his parents . A well-raised child is one who doesn't have to be told twice to do something. A woman whose children are messy or rowdy has failed in her duties as a mother. It isn't healthy for a child to like to be alone, and he should be discouraged from playing by himself. If children are told too much about sex, they are likely to go too far in experimenting with it. A child who is unusual in any way should be encouraged to be more like other children. The saying "Mother knows best" still has more than a grain of truth. Whatever some educators may say, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" still holds, even in these modern times It helps the child in the long run if he is made to conform to his parents' ideas. A teenagar should be allowed to decide most things for himself. 75 76 In making family decisions, parents ought to take the opinions of children into account. It is important to teach the child as early as possible the manners and morals of his society. A lot of the sex problems of married couples arise because their parents have been too strict with them about sex. Husband and wife roles and relationships Women who want to remove the word obey from the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a wife. Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large the husband ought to have the main say-so in family matters. A man who doesn't provide well for his family ought to consider himself pretty much a failure as husband and father . Faithlessness is the worst fault a husband could have. In choosing a husband, a woman will do well to put ambition at the top of her list of desirable qualities. A wife does better to vote the way her husband does, because he probably knows more about such things. It is a reflection on a husband's manhood if his wife works . Women should take an active interest in politics and community problems as well as in their families. General male-female relationships A man can scarcely maintain respect for his fiancee if they have sexual relations before they are married. It goes against nature to place vvomen in positions of authority over men. 77 It is a woman's job more than a man's to uphold our moral code, especially in sexual matters. The unmarried mother is morally a greater failure than the unmarried father. The most important qualities of a real man are strength of will and determined ambition. Women can be too bright for their own good. Women have as much right as men to so// wild oats. Petting is something a nice girl wouldn't want to do. Almost any woman is better off in the home than in a job or profession. Women think less clearly than men and are more emotional . It doesn't seem quite right for a man to be a visionary; dreaming should be left to women. Even today women live under unfair restrictions that ought to be done away with. It's a pretty feeble sort of man who can't get ahead in the wor Id . D . General values and aims The family is a sacred institution, divinely ordained. One of the worst problems in our society today is "free love," because it mars the true value of sex relations . It is only natural and right for each person to think that his family is better than any other. A marriage should not be made unless the couple plans to have children. APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Appendix B Check the statements below that apply to you: ( ) I have been a single parent for at least three months ( ) I do have or have had at least one child within ray household for at least three months I am: ( ) black ( ) male ( ) white { ) female ( ) a single parent as a result of having a child and not being married ( ) a single parent as a result of my spouse and I not being together I earn (per year) : { ) Less than $1,000 ( ) $1,000 - $6,999 ( ) $7,000 - $12,999 ( ) $13,000 - $18,999 ( ) $19,000 - $24,999 ( ) $25,000 - $30,999 ( ) Over $31,000 :^ducationally , I have (check the highest level of education completed) . ( ) not completed high school ( ) completed high school ( ) completed 1 to 4 years of college ( ) completed more than 4 years of college My age is: Directions : Mark each statement in the left margin accord- ing to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write in +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case. + 1: +2: + 3: ( ) I agree a little I agree pretty much I agree very much -1 -2 -2 I disagree a little I disagree pretty much I disagree vary much Almost any woman is better off in the home than in a job or profession. ( ) It's a pretty feeble sort of man who can't get ahead in the world. 79 +1 +2 +3 I agree a little -1 I agree pretty much -2 I agree very much -3 80 I disagree a little I disagree pretty much I disagree very much ) 3, A teenager should be allowed to decide m^st things for himself. ) 4. A marriage should not be made unless the couple plan to have children. ) 5. A wife does better to vote the way her husband does, because he probably knows more about such things. ) 6. It is a reflection on a husband's manhood if his wife works . ) 7. Whatever some educators may say, "Spare the rod and spoil th3 child" still holds, even in these modern times . ) 8. Women have as much right as men to sow wild oats. ) 9. Women think less clearly than men and are more emotional . ) 10. Faithlessness is the worst fault a husband could have . ) 11. It isn't healthy for a child to like to be alone, and he should be discouraged from playing by him- self. ) 12. Petting is something a nice girl wouldn't want to do. ) 13. Some equality in marriage is a good thing, but by and large the husband ought to have the main say-so in family matters. ) 14. It helps the child in the long run if he is made to conform to his parents ' ideas . ) 15. If children are told too much about sex, they are likely to go too far in experimenting with it. +1: I agree a little -1 +2; I agree pretty much -2 +3: I agree very much -3 81 I disagree a little I disagree pretty much I disagree very much ( ) 15. The most important qualities of a real man are strength of will and determined amibition. ( ) 17. In making family decisions, parents ought to take the opinions of children into account. ( ) 18. Women who want to remove the word obey froiti the marriage service don't understand what it means to be a wife . ( ) 19. It doesn't seem quite right for a man to be a visionary; dreaming should be left to women. ( ) 20. A well-raised child is one who doesn't have to be told twice to do something. ( ) 21. It is only natural and right for each person to think that his family is better than any other. ( ) 22. It is woman's job more than a man's to uphold our moral code, especially in sexual matters. ( ) 23. A man who doesn't provide well for his family ought to consider himself pretty much a failure as hus- band and father. ( ) 24. A child should not be allowed to talk back to his parents, or else he will lose respect for them. ( ) 25. There is a lot of evidence such as the Kinsey Re- port which shows us we have to crack down harder on young people to save our moral standards . ( ) 26. Women should take an active interest in politics and community problems as well as in their families . ( ) 27. In choosing a hjsband, a woman will do well to pat ambition at the top of her list of desirable qualities . 82 + 1: +2: +3: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I agree a little I agree pretty much I agree very much -1 -2 -3 I disagree a little I disagree pretty much I disagree very much 28. One of the worst problems in our society today is "free love," because it mars the true value of sex relations. 29. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 30. A man can scarcely maintain respect for his fiancee if they have sexual relations before they are married. 31. The family is a sacred institution, divinely ordained . 32. A woman whose children are messy or rowdy has failed in her daties as a mother. 33. It goes against nature to place women in posi- tions of authority over men. 34. A child who is unusual in any way should be encouraged to be more like other children. 35. The unmarried mother is morally a greater failure than the unmarried father . 36. The saying "Mother knows best" still has more than a grain of truth. ( ) 37. Women can be too bright for their own good. ( ) 38. It is important to teach the child as early as possible the manners and morals of his society. ( ) 39. Even today women live under unfair restrictions that ought to be done away with. ( ) 40. A lot of the sex problems of married couples arise because their parents have been too strict with them about sex. APPENDIX C T-TESTS FOR TFIS ITEMS BY RACE Appendix C T-Tests for TFIS Items by Race Item Black (N=49) Number X SD 1 2.79 2.17 2 3.73 2.28 3 3.16 1.88 4 2.02 1.71 5 1.83 1.66 6 2.26 1.97 7 5.20 2.30 8 3.55 2.51 9 2.91 2.29 10 3.75 2.52 11 3.44 2.26 12 3.18 2.41 13 3.89 2.39 14 3.48 2.27 15 2.57 1.91 16 5.14 1.96 17 2.12 1.77 18 4.04 2.55 19 1.97 1.71 20 3.55 2.46 21 5.16 2.12 22 4.02 2.52 23 3.89 2,34 24 5.12 2.09 25 4.02 2.19 26 1.91 1.55 27 4.63 2.29 28 3.85 2.52 29 4.65 2.65 30 2.75 2.34 31 5.97 1.83 32 3.28 2.13 33 2.81 2.24 34 2.10 1.59 35 2.08 1.99 36 5.12 1.78 37 2.89 2.30 38 6.48 1.17 39 2.24 1.93 40 2.53 2.14 White (N=51) X SD t 2.33 1.89 1.13 3.88 2.18 -0.33 4.07 2.09 -2.29* 2.05 1.88 -0.11 1.33 0.93 1.88 1.33 0.73 3.15** 4.11 2.35 2.33* 2.41 1.99 2.52* 2.72 2.09 0.44 3.45 2.37 0.62 3.47 2.36 -0.05 2.25 1.78 2.19* 2.94 2.28 2.05* 3.37 2.27 0.26 2.29 1.94 0.72 3.41 2.22 4.12** 1.96 1.23 0.53 2.78 2.32 2.57* 1.84 1.40 0.44 3.94 2.23 -0.83 4.50 2.31 1.47 2.62 2.28 2.90* 3.68 2.14 0.47 5.29 1.94 -0.42 3.80 1.83 0-54 2.01 1.43 -0.34 3.66 2.15 2.17* 3.84 2.14 0.03 3.92 2.21 1.50 2.17 1.93 1.35 5.17 2.28 1.93 3.13 2.13 0.35 2.33 2.09 1.11 2.27 1.67 -0.53 1.98 1.73 0.27 5.09 1.65 0.07 2.66 2.19 0.51 5.98 1.84 1.64 2.27 1.74 -0.08 3.09 2.27 -1.28 *^p < .05 84 APPENDIX D T-TESTS FOR TFIS ITEMS BY SINGLE PARENT STATUS APPENDIX D T-Tests for TFIS Items by Single Parent Status Item Congenital(N=27) Temporarily Displ aced (N= ^73) Number X SD X SD t 1 2.48 2.02 2.58 2.06 -0.23 2 3.66 2.18 3.86 2.25 -0.39 3 3.70 2.12 3.60 2.01 0.22 4 2.29 2.18 1.94 1.63 0.87 5 1.81 1.71 1.49 1.20 1.05 6 2.14 1.97 1.65 1.34 1.42 7 4.92 2.28 4.54 2.42 0.70 8 2.92 2.38 2.98 2.31 -0.11 9 2.81 2.51 2.82 2.07 -0.01 10 3.51 2.56 3.63 2.41 -0.20 11 3.29 2.16 3.52 2.36 -0.43 12 2.51 2.11 2.78 2.18 -0.54 13 3.77 2.47 3.27 2.34 0.94 14 3.29 2.35 3.47 2.24 -0.36 15 2.59 1.94 2.36 1.92 0.51 16 4.70 2.03 4.09 2.33 1.19 17 2.37 2.11 1.91 1.22 1.33 18 3.07 2.48 3.52 2.52 -0.79 19 1.88 1.52 1.91 1.57 -0.08 20 2.66 2.33 4.15 2.23 -2.91** 21 4.49 1.92 4.54 2.29 2.11* 22 3.74 2.58 3.15 2.45 1.05 23 3.25 2.37 3.98 2.17 -1.45 24 5.07 2.01 5.26 2.02 -0.41 25 3.66 1.98 4.00 2.02 -0.73 26 1.88 1.21 2.00 1.58 -0.33 27 4.55 2.37 3.98 2.22 1.12 28 3.25 2.41 4.06 2.27 -1.55 29 4.07 2.65 4.35 2.39 -0.51 30 2.33 2.16 2.50 2.16 -0.36 31 5.66 2.25 5.53 2.06 0.28 32 2.96 2.08 3.30 2.14 -0.71 33 2.59 2.39 2.56 2.10 0.06 34 2.25 1.89 2.16 1.56 0.26 35 2.11 2.06 2.00 1.79 0.26 36 5.07 1.66 5.12 1.74 -0.13 37 2.92 2.33 2.72 2.21 0.39 38 6.40 1.33 6.16 1.65 0.69 39 1.66 1.77 2.47 1.98 -2.00 40 1.88 1.80 3.16 2.26 -2.63* 'P <.05; **p <.01 86 APPENDIX E ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF ITEMS OF THE TFIS BY INCOME Appendix E Analysis of Variance of Items of THE TFIS BY INCOME Item Source of Number Variance SS df MS 5 94 4.00 1.80 5 94 4.78 1.67 5 94 4.22 0.68 5 94 3.31 0.35 5 94 1.83 1.06 5 94 2.42 0.68 5 94 5.61 1.17 5 94 5.46 0.76 5 94 4.66 1.46 10 Between Groups 33.35 5 94 5.92 1.12 11 Between Groups 11.45 5 94 5.46 0.42 12 Between Groups 5.98 5 94 4.83 0.24 13 Between Groups 15.44 5 94 5.77 0.53 Between Groups 36 .16 Within Groups 376 .46 Between Groups 40 .06 Within Groups 449 .32 Between Groups 14 .46 Within Groups 3 96 .84 Between Groups 6 .09 Within Groups 311 .74 Between Groups 9 .81 Within Groups 172 .54 Between Groups 8 .32 Within Groups 228 .26 Between Groups 32 87 Within Groups 527 86 Between Groups 20 88 Within Groups 514 02 Between Groups 34. 14 Within Groups 438. 61 Between Groups 33. 35 Within Groups 556. 64 Between Groups 11. 45 Within Groups 513. 38 Between Groups 5. 98 Within Groups 454. 60 Between Groups 15. 44 Within Groups 542. 74 7 .23 4 .00 8 .01 4 .78 2 .89 4 .22 1 .21 3 .31 1 .96 1 .83 1 .66 2 .42 6 57 5 61 4 17 5 46 6. 82 4. 66 6. 67 5. 92 2. 29 5. 46 1. 19 4. 83 3. 08 5. 77 89 Appendix E (Continued) Item Source of Number Variance SS df MS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Between Groups 23 .12 5 Within Groups 483 .38 94 Between Groups 4 .47 5 Within Groups 362 .03 94 Between Groups 23 .55 5 Within Groups 483 .68 94 Between Groups 17 .00 5 Within Groups 210 .83 94 Between Groups 36 .75 5 Within Groups 587 .24 94 Between Groups 18 .31 5 Within Groups 221 .86 94 Between Groups 10 25 5 Within Groups 534 49 94 Between Groups 26 05 5 Within Groups 470 05 94 Between Groups 22. 15 5 Within Groups 593. 23 94 Between Groups 21. 25 5 Within Groups 475. 33 94 Between Groups 37. 43 5 Within Groups 363. 15 94 Between Groups 17. 61 5 Within Groups 382. 57 94 Between Groups 10. 51 5 Within Groups 208. 39 94 4 .62 5 .14 0 .89 3 .55 4 .71 5 .14 3 .40 2 .24 7 .35 6 .24 3 .66 2 .36 2 05 5 68 5 21 5. 00 4. 43 6. 31 4. 25 5. 05 7. 45 3. 86 3. 52 4. 07 2. 10 2. 21 0.90 0.23 0.91 1.51 1.17 1.55 0.36 1.04 0.70 0.84 1.93 0.86 0.94 90 Appendix E (Continued) Item Source of Number Variance ^ss df MS 27 Between Groups Within Groups 492.80 94 5.24 0.5J 28 Between Groups Within Groups 503.62 94 5.35 1.23 29 Between Groups Within Groups 589.11 94 6.26 0.28 30 Between Groups Within Groups 453.04 94 4.81 0.24 31 Between Groups Within Groups 423.12 94 4.50 0.68 32 Between Groups Within Groups 441.26 94 4.69 0.22 33 Between Groups Within Groups 452.72 94 4.81 0.57 15.23 5 492.80 94 33.12 5 503.62 94 9.04 5 589.11 94 5.79 5 453.04 94 15.38 5 423.12 94 5.32 5 441.26 94 13.78 5 452.72 94 14.21 5 249.17 94 20.27 5 322.63 94 18.97 5 270.81 94 32.35 5 464.80 94 7.37 5 236.33 94 3.61 5 329.62 94 17.87 5 408.88 94 34 Between Groups Within Groups 249.17 94 2.65 1.07 35 Between Groups Within Groups 322.63 94 3.43 1.18 36 Between Groups Within Groups 270.81 94 2.88 1.31 37 Between Groups Within Groups 464.80 94 4.94 1.30 38 Between Groups Within Groups 236.33 94 2.51 0.5{ 39 Between Groups Within Groups 329.62 94 3.50 0.20 40 Between Groups Within Groups 408.88 94 4,98 0.71 3 .04 5 .24 6 .62 5 .35 1 .80 6 .26 1 .15 4 .81 3 .07 4 .50 1 .06 4 .69 2 .75 4 .81 2 84 2 65 4 05 3. 43 3. 75 2. 88 6. 47 4. 94 1. 47 2. 51 0. 72 3. 50 3. 57 4. 98 APPENDIX F T-TESTS FOR TFIS ITEMS BY SEX Appendix F T-Tests for TFIS Items by Sex Item Male (N=16) Number X SD 1 3.75 2.04 2 4.50 2.47 3 4.18 2.10 4 3.62 2.44 5 2.62 2.21 6 2.50 1.93 7 4.43 2.52 8 3.37 2.12 9 4.12 2.27 10 3.18 2.22 11 4.31 2.08 12 3.00 1.96 13 4.50 2.39 14 4.43 2.09 15 3.50 2.19 16 4.12 2.30 17 2.31 1.44 18 4.87 2.27 19 2.87 2.12 20 5.43 1.59 21 4.68 2.46 22 3.43 2.25 23 4.81 2.34 24 5.87 1.45 25 3.62 2.15 26 2.50 1.93 27 3.87 2.41 28 4.31 2.21 29 5.87 1.78 30 3.06 2.43 31 5.00 2.33 32 4.31 2.15 33 3.50 2.36 34 2.43 1.26 35 3.06 2.29 36 5.18 1.90 37 4.25 2.32 38 6.56 0.62 39 3.50 2.16 40 2.81 2.82 Female (N=84) X SD 2.33 1.97 2.62* 3.67 2.16 1.36 3.52 2.02 1.20 1.73 1.47 4.17** 1.38 1.02 3.55** 1.65 1.43 2.04* 4.69 2.36 -0.39 2.89 2.36 0.82 2.57 2.09 2.69* 3.67 2.48 -0.74 3.29 2.31 1.63 2.65 2.19 0.58 3.20 2.32 2.03 3.23 2.53 1.97 2.22 1.81 2.49* 4.28 2.26 -0.26 1.98 1.53 0.78 3.11 2.46 2.64** 1.72 1.36 2.80* 3.42 2.33 3.29** 4.85 2.20 -0.28 3.28 2.54 0.22 3.59 2.17 2.02 5.08 2.08 1.45 3.96 1.99 -0.62 1.86 1.37 1.57 4.19 2.24 -0.51 3.76 2.35 0.87 3.97 2.45 2.94** 2.34 2.09 1.22 5.57 2.05 -1.18 3.00 2.06 2.31* 2.39 2.10 1.89 2.14 1.69 0.65 1.83 1.71 2.48* 5.09 1.58 0.20 2.50 2.12 2.97** 5.16 1.58 0.92 2.02 7.67 3.07** 1.90 2.28 -0.01 •p < .05; **p < .01 92 APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TFIS ITEMS BY EDUCATION Appendix G Analysis of Variance of TFIS Items by Education Item Source of Number Variaoce 1 Between Groups Within Groups 2 Between Groups Within Groups 3 Between Groups Within Groups 4 Between Groups Within Groups 5 Between Groups Within Groups 6 Between Groups Within Groups 7 Between Groups Within Groups 8 Between Groups Within Groups 9 Between Groups Within Groups 10 Between Groups Within Groups 11 Between Groups Within Groups 12 Between Groups Within Groups 13 Between Groups Within Groups ss df MS F 29.02 3 9.67 383.61 96 3.99 2.42 66.35 3 22.11 423.03 96 4.40 5.01'* 15.90 3 5.30 395.40 96 4.11 1.28 5.68 3 1.89 312.15 96 3.25 0.58 5.41 3 1.80 176.94 96 1.84 0.98 4.06 3 1.35 232.52 96 2.42 0.56 17.34 3 5.78 543.40 96 5.66 1.02 1.01 3 0.33 533.89 96 5.56 0.06 41.01 3 13.67 431.74 96 4.49 3.04* 33.66 3 11.22 556.33 96 5.79 1.93 5.72 3 1.90 519.11 96 5.40 0.35 21.24 3 7.08 439.33 96 4.57 1.54 13.14 3 4.38 545.03 96 5.67 0.77 94 Appendix G (Continued) 95 Item Source of Number Variance SS df MS 14 Between Groups Within Groups 488.47 96 5.08 1.18 15 Between Groups Within Groups 346.98 96 3.61 1.80 15 Between Groups Within Groups 478.21 96 4.98 1.94 17 Between Groups Within Groups 224.44 95 2.33 0.48 18 Between Groups Within Groups 620.18 96 6.46 0.19 19 Between Groups Within Groups 234.32 96 2.44 0.80 20 Between Groups Within Groups 512.87 96 5.34 1.98 18.03 3 6.01 488.47 96 5.08 19.52 3 6.50 346.98 96 3.61 29.02 3 9.67 478.21 96 4.98 3.38 3 1.13 224.44 95 2.33 3.81 3 1.27 620.18 96 6.46 5.86 3 1.95 234.32 96 2.44 31.86 3 10.62 512.87 96 5.34 15.22 3 5.07 480.88 96 5.00 2 9.83 3 9.94 585.55 96 6.09 6.24 3 2.08 490.34 96 5.10 17.01 3 5.67 383.57 96 3.99 39.71 3 13.23 360.47 96 3.75 2.17 3 0.72 216.73 96 2.25 14.73 3 4.91 493.30 96 5.13 21 Between Groups Within Groups 480,88 96 5.00 1.01 22 Between Groups Within Groups 585.55 96 6.09 1.63 23 Between Groups Within Groups 490.34 96 5.10 0.40 24 Between Groups Within Groups 383.57 96 3.99 1.41 25 Between Groups Within Groups 360.47 96 3.75 3.52 26 Between Groups Within Groups 216.73 96 2.25 0.32 27 Between Groups Within Groups 493.30 96 5.13 0.95 96 Appendix G (Continued) Item Source of Number variance SS df MS F 28 Between Groups 28.96 3 9.65 Within Groups 507.78 96 5.28 1.85 29 Between Groups 11.60 3 3.86 Within Groups 586.55 96 6.10 0.63 30 Between Groups 7.64 3 2.54 Within Groups 451.18 96 4.69 0.54 31 Between Groups 18.11 3 6.03 Within Groups 420.39 96 4.37 1.37 32 Between Groups 30.34 3 10.11 Within Groups 416.24 96 4.33 2.33 33 Between Groups 10.08 3 3.36 Within Groups 456.42 96 4.75 0.70 34 Between Groups 9.16 3 3.05 Within Groups 254.22 96 2.64 1.15 35 Between Groups 2.28 3 0.76 Within Groups 340.62 96 3.54 0.21 36 Between Groups 7.08 3 2.36 Within Groups 282.70 96 2.94 0.80 37 Between Groups 8.54 3 2.84 Within Groups 488.51 96 5.08 0.56 38 Between Groups 3.96 3 1.32 Within Groups 239.74 96 2.49 0.52 39 Between Groups 2.99 3 0.99 Within Groups 330.24 96 3.44 0.29 40 Between Groups 6.83 3 2.27 Within Groups 479.92 96 4.99 0.45 *p < .05 **P < .01 APPENDIX H ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TFIS ITEMS BY AGE Appendix H Analysis of Variance of TFIS Items by Age Item Source of Number Variance SS df MS 1 Between Groups Within Groups 408.17 94 4.34 0.20 2 Between Groups Within Groups 480.26 94 5.10 0.35 3 Between Groups Within Groups 399.77 94 4.25 0.54 4 Between Groups Within Groups 309.62 94 3.29 0.49 5 Between Groups Within Groups 172.62 94 1.83 1.06 6 Between Groups Within Groups 225.99 94 2.40 0.88 7 Between Groups Within Groups 497.33 94 5.29 2.39 8 Between Groups Within Groups 524.69 94 5.58 0.36 9 Between Groups Within Groups 462.51 94 4.92 0.41 10 Between Groups Within Groups 568.73 94 6,05 0.70 11 Between Groups Within Groups 519.03 94 5.52 0.21 12 Between Groups Within Groups 433.79 94 4.61 1.16 13 Between Groups Within Groups 532.35 94 5.66 0.91 98 4.46 5 0.89 408.17 94 4.34 9.12 5 1.82 480.26 94 5.10 11.53 5 2.30 399.77 94 4.25 8.21 5 1.64 309.62 94 3.29 9.73 5 1,94 172.62 94 1.83 10.59 5 2.11 225.99 94 2.40 63.41 5 12,68 497.33 94 5.29 10.21 5 2.04 524.69 94 5.58 10.24 5 2.04 462.51 94 4.92 21.26 5 4.25 568.73 94 6.05 5.80 5 1.16 519.03 94 5.52 26.79 5 5.35 433.79 94 4.61 25,83 5 5.15 532.35 94 5.66 Appendix H (Continued) 99 Item Source of Number Variance SS df MS 14 Between Groups Within Groups 448.28 94 4.76 2.44* 15 Between Groups Within Groups 360,26 94 3.83 0.36 16 Between Groups Within Groups 447.78 94 4.76 2.49 17 Between Groups Within Groups 222.76 94 2.36 0.42 18 Between Groups Within Groups 609.56 94 6.48 0.44 19 Between Groups Within Groups 235.58 94 2,50 0.36 20 Between Groups Within Groups 497.89 94 5.29 1.76 58.22 5 11,64 448.28 94 4.76 6.24 5 1.24 360.26 94 3.83 59.45 5 11.89 447.78 94 4.76 5.07 5 1,01 222.76 94 2.36 14.43 5 2.88 609.56 94 6.48 4.60 5 0.92 235.58 94 2,50 46.85 5 9.37 497.89 94 5.29 27.22 5 5.44 468.88 94 4.98 23.69 5 4.73 591.69 94 6.29 10.56 5 2.11 486.02 94 5.17 27.29 5 5.45 373.29 94 3.97 33.76 5 6.75 366.42 94 3,89 1.85 5 0.37 217.05 94 2.30 25.82 5 5.16 482,21 94 5.13 21 Between Groups Within Grojps 468.88 94 4.98 1.09 22 Between Groups Within Groups 591.69 94 6.29 0.75 23 Between Groups Within Groups 486.02 94 5.17 0.40 24 Between Groups Within Groups 373.29 94 3.97 1.37 25 Between Groups Within Groups 366.42 94 3,89 1.73 26 Between Groups Within Groups 217.05 94 2.30 0.16 27 Between Groups Within Groups 482.21 94 5.13 1.00 100 Appendix H (Continued) Item Source of Number Variance SS df MS 28 Between Groups Within Groups 505.75 94 5.39 1.11 29 Between Groups Within Groups 580.91 94 6.17 0.55 30 Between Groups Within Groups 426.63 94 4.53 1.41 31 Between Groups Within Groups 426.37 94 4.53 0.53 32 Between Groups Within Groups 427.04 94 4.54 0.85 33 Between Groups Within Groups 439.54 94 4.67 1.15 34 Between Groups Within Groups 260.55 94 2.77 0.20 3 5 Between Groups Within Groups 325.50 94 3.46 1.00 36 Between Groups Within Groups 283.33 94 3.01 0.42 37 Between Groups Within Groups 476.22 94 5.06 0.82 38 Between Groups Within Groups 217.34 94 2.31 2,2) 39 Between Groups Within Groups 289.70 94 3.08 2.82 40 Between Groups Within Groups 421. 13 94 4.48 2.92 ^p < .05 29.99 5 5.99 505.75 94 5.39 17.24 5 3.44 580.91 94 6.17 32.20 5 6.44 426.63 94 4.53 12.13 5 2.42 426.37 94 4.53 19.54 5 3.90 427.04 94 4.54 26.96 5 5.39 439.54 94 4.67 2.83 5 0.56 260.55 94 2,77 17.40 5 3.48 325.50 94 3.46 6.45 5 1.29 283.33 94 3.01 20.43 5 4.18 476.22 94 5.06 26.36 5 5.27 217.34 94 2.31 43.53 5 8.70 289.70 94 3.08 65.62 5 13.12 421.13 94 4.48 APPENDIX I PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF BIACK FEMALE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF BLACK FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME ■BUSINESS INCOME- 1.1% ■DIVIDENDS AND RENT-. 7% SOCIAL SECURITY, PENSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT a workman's COMPENSATION-6.9% WAGES, SALARY, AND BUSINESS INCOME-OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS-9.6% OTHER SOURCES -3.7% PUBLIC ASSISTANCE-OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS-I.7% Income as reported in the 1969 National Longitudinal Survey for income received in 1968. Percentages of the total in- coTie are based upon weighted population estimates (Bould, 1977, p. 343) . 102 APPENDIX J PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF WHITE FEMAIE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME PROPORTION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF WHITE FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME ■BUSINESS INC0ME-2.57o -DIVIDENDS AND RENT-2.1% SOCIAL SECURITY, PENSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT a workman's compen SATION-5% SOCIAL SECURITY, PENSIONS, UNEMPLOYMENT a WORKMAN'S COMPEN- SATION-OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS 7.7 % PUBLIC ASSISTANCE- OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS-. 5% MEANS-TESTED INCOME- AFDC-72% FOOD STAMPS- .4% Income as reported in the 1969 National Longitudinal Survey for income received in 1968, Percentages of the total are based upon weighted population estimates (Bould, 1977, p. 344). 104 REFERENCES Angelo, M. Divorce can disrupt and damage a child's views. Tampa Tribune, May 197 9, pp. 1D-2D. Berardo, F. Widowhood status in the United States. Family Coordinator, 1968, 1_7, pp. 191-203. Blood, R., Jr., & Wolfe, D. Negro-white differences in blue- collar marriages in a northern metropolis. Social Forces, 1969, £8(1), pp. 59-64. Bould, S. Female-headed families: Personal fate control and the provider role. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1977, 2i(2)/ PP- 339-349. Brandwein, R., Brown, C, & Fox, E. Women and children last: The social situation of divorced mothers and their families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1974, 36^. pp. 498-514. Burgess, J. The single-parent family: A social and sociologi- cal problem. Family Coordinator, 1970, 1^, pp. 137-144. Christensen, H., & Meissner, H. Studies in child spacing: Premarital pregnancy as a factor in divorce. American Sociological Review, 1953, 1_8, pp. 641-644. Christensen, H., & Rubinstein, B. Premarital pregnancy and divorce: A follow-up study by the interview method. Marriage and Family Living, 1956, 1^, pp. 114-123. Deindorfer, R. Lending a fiscal hand to the bereaved. Parade, April 22, 1979, pp. 10-11. Dresen, S. Adjusting to single parenting. American Journal of Nursing, 1976, 2°' PP- 1286-1289. Ferris, A. I^ndicators of trends in the status of American women. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1971. 105 106 Friedman, H. Why are they keeping their babies? Social Work, 1975, 2_0, pp. 322-323. Gebhard, p. Post marital coitus among wido^rs and divorcees. In P. Bohannan (Ed.), Divorce and after. Garden City: Doubleday Anchor, 1971. Glasser, P., & Havarre, E. Structural problems of the one-parent family. Journal of Social issues, 1965, 21, pp. 98-109. Goode , W. After divorce. New York; The Free Press, 1948. Griffin, S. Confessions of a single ^-nothsr. Ramparts, 1973, 11, pp. 41-44. Hays, W., & Mindel, C, Extended kinship relations in black and white families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1973, 3^(1), pp. 51-57. Keshet, H. , & Rosenthal, K. Fathering after marital separa- tion. Social Work, 1978, 23_, pp. 11-18. Krantzler, M. Creative divorce. New York: Signet, 197 5. Levinson, D., & Huffman, P. Traditional family ideology and its relation to personality. Journal of Personality, 1955, 2J_, pp. 251-273. Marsden, D. Mothers alone; Poverty and the father less family. London: The Penguin Press, 1969. McCubbin, H., Dahl, B., Lester, G., Benson, D., & Robertson, M. Coping repertoires of families adapting to pro- longed war-induced separations. journal of Marriage and Family, 1976, 38, pp. 461-471. McKillan, P. Men are examining traditional roles. Tampa Tribune, January, 1979, pp. 4-G. Meyer, H., Jones, W., & Borgatta, E. The decision by un- married mothers to keep or surrender their babies. Social work, 1956, 1, pp. 103-109. 107 Ogg, E. One-parent families. New York; Public Affairs Committee Inc., 1976. One-parent families. Parade , April 22, 1979, p. 4. Orthner, D., Brown, T., & Ferguson, D. Single-parent fatherhood: An emerging family life style. The Family Coordinator, 1976, 25_, pp. 429-437. Pinchbeck, I. Social attitudes to the problem of illegiti- macy. British Journal of Sociology, 1954, _5, pp. 309- 323. Rising problems of "single parents." U.S. News, 1973, 75, pp. 32-35. Savage, j., Jr., Adair, A., & Friedman, P. Community-social variables related to black parent-absent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1978, 4_0 (4) , pp. 779-785. Schlesinger, B. One-parent family: An overview. Family Coordinator, 1965, _15, pp. 133-138. Schlesinger, B. The widowed as a one-parent family unit. Social Science, 1971, 46, pp. 26-32. Scott, N. Newly divorced? Don't put all that energy into your career. Tampa Tribune, March 1979, pp. 2-D. Shaw, M., & McWright, J. Scales for the measurement of attitudes . New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967. U.S. Bureau of the Census, census of population: 1970 detailed characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. U.S. Bureau of the Census, census of population: 1970 general social and economic characteristics. Washing- ton, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1972. U.S. Bureau of the Census, statistical abstract of the U.S.: 1979 (100th ed.). Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, 1979. 108 U. S, women's Bureau. Underutilization of women workers (rev. ed,). Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor, 1971. Waldman, W. , & Grover, K. Children of women in the labor force. Monthly Labor Review, 1971, _94, pp. 19-25. Would-be mother seeking man. Tampa Tribune, April 1979, pp . 2 -D . Young adults now wait longer to marry. Guidepost, May 1, 1980, p. 15. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH P. Rhonne Sanderson was the second and younger of two sons born to Mr. and Mrs. Watts Sanderson, Sr. He was born on January 22, 1953, in Tampa, Florida. He attended public school until fifth grade when he trans- ferred to St. Peter Claver catholic School. He attended Jesuit High School where he graduated with his high school diploma in 1970. For the next five years he attended the University of South Florida, Making the Dean's List several terms in his junior and senior years, he graduated in 1974 with a B.A. degree in health and physical education. In 1975, he completed his Master of Arts degree in guidance counseling from the University of South Florida. From 1975 to 1977, he worked as a community college counselor in Tampa at Hillsborough Community College. In 1977, he was admitted and began his Doctor of Philosophy degree in counselor education at the University of Florida. He is a member of Kappa Delta Pi Honor Society and is a past member and president of the Black Graduate Student Organization at the University of Florida. 109 I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Rdderick j. McD&vis, Chairman Associate Professor of Counselor Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor of Counselor Education / I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. W> IimH Afesa Bell-Nathaniel Associate Professor of Psychology This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Counselor Education in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1980 Dean, Graduate School UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08553 1423