7.3 Psychosocial Development in Middle to Late Childhood

What is emotional and social development like during middle childhood?

Children in middle childhood are starting to make friends in more sophisticated ways. They are choosing friends for specific characteristics, including shared interests, a sense of humor, and being good people. That is quite a departure from the earlier days of playing with the people in your group just because they were there. Children in middle childhood are starting to realize that friendships have benefits and sometimes difficulties. In this section, we’ll examine some aspects of these relationships.

Learning Objectives

• Examine Erikson’s stage of industry vs. inferiority as it relates to middle childhood
• Describe Kohlberg’s theory on pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional moral development.
• Describe the importance of peer relationships to middle childhood
• Describe different parenting styles and family tasks
• Examine short-term and long-term consequences of divorce on children
• Describe issues regarding sexual abuse and children

Psychodynamic and Psychosocial Theories of Middle Childhood

Now, let’s turn our attention to concerns related to social development, self-concept, friendships, and family life. During middle childhood, children are likely to show more independence from their parents and family, think more about the future, understand more about their place in the world, pay more attention to friendships, and want to be accepted by their peers.

Freud’s Psychosexual Development: The Latency Stage

Table 1. Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development
Stage	Age (years)	Erogenous Zone	Major Conflict	Adult Fixation Example
Oral	0–1	Mouth	Weaning off breast or bottle	Smoking, overeating
Anal	1–3	Anus	Toilet training	Neatness, messiness
Phallic	3–6	Genitals	Oedipus/Electra complex	Vanity, overambition
Latency	6–12	None	None	None
Genital	12+	Genitals	None	None

Remember that Freud’s theory of psychosexual development suggests that children develop their personality through a series of psychosexual stages. In each stage, the erogenous zone is the source of the libidinal energy. So far we have seen the oral stage (ages birth – 18 months), the anal stage (ages 18 months – 3 years), and the phallic stage (ages 3 years – 6 years).

During middle childhood (6-11), the child enters the latency stage, focusing their attention outside the family and toward friendships. Freud’s fourth stage of psychosexual development is the latency stage. This stage begins around age 6 and lasts until puberty. The biological drives are temporarily quieted (latent), and the child can direct attention to a larger world of friends. If the child is able to make friends, they will gain a sense of confidence. If not, the child may continue to be a loner or shy away from others, even as an adult.

In the latency stage, children are actually doing very little psychosexual development, according to Freud. Where pleasure and development occur through erogenous zones in the first 3 stages, in the latency stage, all pleasure from erogenous zones is repressed. In other words, it is latent—hence the stage’s name. Freud believed that in the latency stage, all development and stimulation come from secondary sources since the erogenous forces are repressed. These secondary sources can include education, forming various social relationships, and hobbies.

Erikson’s Psychosocial Development: Industry vs. Inferiority

Table 2 Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages of Development
Stage	Age (years)	Developmental Task	Description
1	0–1	Trust vs. mistrust	Trust (or mistrust) that basic needs, such as nourishment and affection, will be met
2	1–3	Autonomy vs. shame/doubt	Develop a sense of independence in many tasks
3	3–6	Initiative vs. guilt	Take initiative on some activities—may develop guilt when unsuccessful or boundaries overstepped
4	7–11	Industry vs. inferiority	Develop self-confidence in abilities when competent or a sense of inferiority when not
5	12–18	Identity vs. confusion	Experiment with and develop identity and roles
6	19–29	Intimacy vs. isolation	Establish intimacy and relationships with others
7	30–64	Generativity vs. stagnation	Contribute to society and be part of a family
8	65–	Integrity vs. despair	Assess and make sense of life and the meaning of contributions

As we have seen in previous modules, Erikson believes that children’s greatest source of personality development comes from their social relationships. So far, we have seen three psychosocial stages: trust versus mistrust (ages birth—18 months), autonomy versus shame and doubt (ages 18 months—3 years), and initiative versus guilt (ages 3 years—around 6 years).

During the elementary school stage (ages 7–12), children face the task of industry vs. inferiority. Children begin to compare themselves with their peers to see how they measure up, which is called social comparison. They build competence. They either develop a sense of pride and accomplishment in their schoolwork, sports, social activities, and family life, or they feel inferior and inadequate because they feel that they don’t measure up. If children do not learn to get along with others or have negative experiences at home or with peers, an inferiority complex might develop into adolescence and adulthood.

According to Erikson, middle childhood children are very busy or industrious. They are constantly doing, planning, playing, getting together with friends, and achieving. This is a very active time and a time when they are gaining a sense of how they measure up when compared with friends. Erikson believed that if these industrious children view themselves as successful in their endeavors, they will get a sense of competence for future challenges. If, instead, a child feels that they are not measuring up to their peers, feelings of inferiority and self-doubt will develop. These feelings of inferiority can, according to Erikson, lead to an inferiority complex that lasts into adulthood.

To help children have a successful resolution in this stage, they should be encouraged to explore their abilities. They should be given authentic feedback as well. Failure is not necessarily a horrible thing, according to Erikson. Indeed, failure is a type of feedback that may help a child form a sense of modesty. A balance of competence and modesty is ideal for creating a sense of competence in the child.

Self-Understanding

Self-concept refers to beliefs about general personal identity (Seifert, 2011). These beliefs include personal attributes, such as one’s age, physical characteristics, behaviors, and competencies. Children in middle and late childhood have a more realistic sense of self than do children in early childhood, and they better understand their strengths and weaknesses. This can be attributed to greater experience in comparing their own performance with that of others and to greater cognitive flexibility. Children in middle and late childhood are also able to include other people’s appraisals of them in their self-concept, including parents, teachers, peers, culture, and media. Internalizing others’ appraisals and creating social comparisons affect children’s self-esteem, which is defined as an overall evaluation of one’s identity. Children can have individual assessments of how well they perform a variety of activities and also develop an overall global self-assessment. If there is a discrepancy between how children view themselves and what they consider as their ideal selves, their self-esteem can be negatively affected.

Another important development in self-understanding is self-efficacy, which is the belief that you are capable of carrying out a specific task or of reaching a specific goal (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986). Large discrepancies between self-efficacy and ability can create motivational problems for the individual (Seifert, 2011). If students believe that they can solve mathematical problems, then they are more likely to attempt the mathematics homework that the teacher assigns. Unfortunately, the converse is also true. Students who believe that they are incapable of accurately completing math assignments are less likely to attempt their math homework regardless of their actual ability in math. Since self-efficacy is self-constructed, it is possible for students to miscalculate or misperceive their true skills, and these misperceptions can have complex effects on students’ motivations. It is possible to have either too much or too little self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1997) the optimum level seems to be either at, or slightly above, true ability.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people decide what is right and wrong. Just as Piaget believed that children’s cognitive development follows specific patterns, Kohlberg (1984) argued that we learn our moral values through active thinking and reasoning and that moral development follows a series of stages. Kohlberg’s six stages are generally organized into three levels of moral reasons. To study moral development, Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to children, teenagers, and adults, such as the following:

Watch It: The Heinz Dilemma

The Heinz dilemma is a frequently used example to help us understand Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. It is described in the following video:

 

From a theoretical point of view, it is not important what the participant thinks Heinz should do. Kohlberg’s theory holds that the justification the participant offers is what is significant: the form of their response. Below are some of the many examples of possible arguments that belong to the six stages:

• Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal the medicine because he will consequently be put in prison which will mean he is a bad person. OR Heinz should steal the medicine because it is only worth $200 and not how much the druggist wanted for it; Heinz had even offered to pay for it and was not stealing anything else.
• Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal the medicine because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will have to serve a prison sentence. OR Heinz should not steal the medicine because prison is an awful place, and he would more likely languish in a jail cell than over his wife’s death.
• Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal the medicine because his wife expects it; he wants to be a good husband. OR Heinz should not steal the drug because stealing is bad and he is not a criminal; he has tried to do everything he can without breaking the law, you cannot blame him.
• Stage four (law and order): Heinz should not steal the medicine because the law prohibits stealing, making it illegal. OR Heinz should steal the drug for his wife but also take the prescribed punishment for the crime and pay the druggist what he is owed. Criminals cannot just run around without regard for the law; actions have consequences.
• Stage five (social contract orientation): Heinz should steal the medicine because everyone has a right to choose life, regardless of the law. OR Heinz should not steal the medicine because the scientist has a right to fair compensation. Even if his wife is sick, it does not make his actions right.
• Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinz should steal the medicine, because saving a human life is a more fundamental value than the property rights of another person. OR Heinz should not steal the medicine because others may need the medicine just as badly, and their lives are equally significant.

Level 1: Pre-Conventional Moral Development

Pre-conventional development covers stages one and two in Kohlberg’s theory. In stage one, the focus is on the direct consequences of their actions. Their main concerns are avoiding punishment and being obedient. In stage two, the focus is more on “What’s in it for me?” A stage two mentality is self-interest-driven.

In stage one of this level, moral reasoning is based on concepts of punishment. A child believes that if the consequence of an action is punishment, then the action is wrong. The youngest subjects seemed to answer based on what would happen to the man as a result of the act.

In the second stage, children base their thinking on self-interest and reward. “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” The youngest children seemed to answer based on what would happen to the man because of the act. For example, they might say the man should not break into the pharmacy because the pharmacist might find him and hurt him. Or they might say that the man should break in and steal the drug, and his wife will give him a big kiss. Right or wrong, both decisions were based on what would physically happen to the man because of the act. This is a self-centered approach to moral decision-making. Kohlberg called this most superficial understanding of right and wrong pre-conventional morality. 

Preconventional morality focuses on self-interest. Punishment is avoided, and rewards are sought. Adults can also fall into these stages, particularly when they are under pressure.

Level 2: Conventional Moral Development

Those tested who based their answers on authority, that is, on what other people would think of the man as a result of his act, were placed in Level Two. For instance, they might say he should break into the store, and then everyone would think he was a good husband, or he should not because it is against the law. In either case, right and wrong are determined by what other people think. Because what other people think is usually a function of socially accepted morality, this view is often thought of as applying society’s standards. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies with the law. This is conventional moral development.

In Stage 3, the person reasons based on mutual expectations and relationships. They want to please others. In Stage 4, the person acknowledges the importance of social norms or laws and wants to be a good member of the group or society. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies with the law. This he called conventional morality;people care about the effect of their actions on others. Some older children, adolescents, and adults use this reasoning.

Level 3: Postconventional Moral Development

Right and wrong are typically based on social contracts established for the good of everyone, and that can transcend the self and social convention. Older children were the only ones to appreciate the fact that the Heinz dilemma has different levels of right and wrong. For example, the man should break into the store because, even if it is against the law, his wife needs the drug, and her life is more important than the consequences the man might face for breaking the law. Alternatively, the man should not violate the principle of the right of property because this rule is essential for social order. In either case, the person’s judgment goes beyond what happens to the self. It is based on a concern for others, for society as a whole, or for an ethical standard rather than a legal standard. This level is post-conventional moral development because it goes beyond convention or what other people think to a higher, universal ethical principle of conduct that may or may not be reflected in the law. Notice that such thinking is similar to what Supreme Court justices do all day when deliberating whether a law is moral or ethical, which requires being able to think abstractly. Often, this is not accomplished until a person reaches adolescence or adulthood. In the fifth stage (of post-conventional moral development), laws are recognized as social contracts. The reasons for the laws, like justice, equality, and dignity, are used to evaluate decisions and interpret laws. In the sixth stage, individually determined universal ethical principles are weighed to make moral decisions. Kohlberg said that few people ever reach this stage. All six stages and three levels are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.:Lawrence Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984). 

Age	Moral Level	Description
Young children- usually prior to age 9	Preconventional morality	Stage 1: Focus is on self-interest and punishment is avoided. The man shouldn’t steal the drug, as he may get caught and go to jail. Stage 2: Rewards are sought. A person at this level will argue that the man should steal the drug because he does not want to lose his wife who takes care of him.
Older children, adolescents, and most adults	Conventional morality	Stage 3: Focus is on how situational outcomes impact others and wanting to please and be accepted. The man should steal the drug because that is what good husbands do. Stage 4: People make decisions based on laws or formalized rules. The man should obey the law because stealing is a crime.
Rare with adolescents and few adults	Postconventional morality	Stage 5: Individuals employ abstract reasoning to justify behaviors The man should steal the drug because laws can be unjust and you have to consider the whole situation. Stage 6: Moral behavior is based on self-chosen ethical principles. The man should steal the drug because life is more important than property.

Modern Views of Moral Development

Although research has supported Kohlberg’s idea that moral reasoning changes from an early emphasis on punishment and social rules and regulations to an emphasis on more general ethical principles, similar to Piaget’s approach, Kohlberg’s stage model is probably too simple. For one, people may use higher levels of reasoning for some types of problems but revert to lower levels in situations where doing so is more consistent with their goals or beliefs (Rest, 1979). Second, it has been argued that the stage model is particularly appropriate for Western, rather than non-Western, populations in which allegiance to social norms, such as respect for authority, may be particularly important (Haidt, 2001). In addition, there is frequently little correlation between how we score on the moral stages and how we behave in real life.

Perhaps the most important critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it emphasizes justice without incorporating compassion and other moral considerations, and in doing so, might describe the moral development of males better than it describes that of females (who were not represented in Kohlberg’s initial research). Gilligan (1982) has argued that, because of differences in their socialization, males tend to value principles of justice and rights, whereas females value caring for and helping others.  She argued for an “ethic of care,” emphasizing our human responsibilities to one another and consideration for others. Although there is little evidence for a gender difference in Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Turiel, 1998), there is some evidence that girls and women tend to focus more on issues of caring, helping, and connecting with others than do boys and men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). Despite these trends in the relative priorities of caring and justice, evidence suggests that people of all genders consider both justice and caring to some extent in their moral decisions (Berk, 2014; Walker, 1995).

Development of an internal moral compass as a prerequisite for social activism. Researchers have become increasingly interested in the childhood antecedents of adolescent and adult action on behalf of social and racial justice (Killen, Rutland, & Yip, 2016). These are complex cognitive, social, and motivational processes that likely are shaped by a host of specific experiences, such as family participation in civil engagement activities (e.g., volunteering and protest movements). However, an important prerequisite would include the development of a strong moral compass during early and middle childhood. Internalization of moral principles of honesty, fairness, and accountability would be useful for helping adolescents and young adults recognize inequities and feel morally responsible for doing their part to see justice done. This will be an interesting area for further study (Killen et al., 2016).

Think It Over

Consider your own decision-making processes. What guides your decisions? Are you primarily concerned with your personal well-being? Do you make choices based on what other people will think about your decision? Or are you guided by other principles? To what extent is this approach guided by your culture?

Social Development in Middle and Late Childhood: Friends and Peers

Friendships and peer relationships are voluntary associations characterized by some degree of similarity and affiliation. Three research traditions focus on the study of friendship and peer relationships. First, there is the study of friendships, which are dyadic relationships involving closeness and reciprocity. Second, another tradition studies groups of affiliated peers. In adolescence, these include cliques and crowds. Third, a separate tradition researches agemate status and popularity, a tradition known as sociometrics. Let’s look at each of these separately.

Friendships

Friendships typically take on new importance as judges of one’s worth, competence, and attractiveness in middle and late childhood. Friendships provide the opportunity to learn social skills, such as how to communicate with others and how to negotiate differences. Children get ideas from one another about how to perform certain tasks, how to gain popularity, what to wear or say, and how to act. This group of children tends to mark transitions from a life focused on the family to a life more concerned with peers.

During middle and late childhood, peers increasingly play an important role. For example, peers play a key role in a child’s self-esteem at this age, as any parent who has tried to console a rejected child will tell you. No matter how complimentary and encouraging a caregiver may be, being rejected by peers is typically only remedied by renewed acceptance. Children’s conceptualization of what makes someone a “friend” changes from a more egocentric understanding to one based on mutual trust and commitment. Both Bigelow (1977) and Selman (1980) believe that these changes are linked to advances in cognitive development.

Peer Groups

In addition to their friendships, children also interact with other children their own age, referred to as peers. Peers include children encountered at school, in the neighborhood, or through family associations. Not all peers are friends. Some are acquaintances, and others are non-affiliated but still part of the social context. Collections of peers who hang out or repeatedly engage in joint activities are referred to as peer groups or cliques.

However, peer relationships can be challenging as well as supportive (Rubin et al., 2011). Being accepted by other children is an important source of affirmation and self-esteem, but peer rejection can foreshadow later behavior problems (especially when children are rejected due to aggressive behavior). With increasing age, children confront the challenges of bullying, peer victimization, and managing conformity pressures.

Social comparison with peers is an important means by which children evaluate their skills, knowledge, and personal qualities, but it may cause them to feel that they do not measure up well against others. For example, a boy who is not athletic may feel unworthy of his football-playing peers and revert to shy behavior, isolating himself and avoiding conversation. Conversely, an athlete who doesn’t “get” Shakespeare may feel embarrassed and avoid reading altogether.

Sociometrics and Popularity

Sociometric assessment measures social status and acceptance among members of a group, such as a classroom of students. In sociometric research, children are asked to mention the three children they like to play with the most and those they do not like to play with. The number of times a child is nominated for each of the two categories (like, do not like) is tabulated.

Popular children receive many votes in the “like” category and very few in the “do not like” category. Most children want to be liked and accepted by their friends. There are two recognized paths to popularity in middle childhood. Some popular children are nice and have good social skills. These popular-prosocial children tend to do well in school and are cooperative and friendly. Other Popular-antisocial children may gain popularity by acting tough or spreading rumors about others (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004). Antisocial here doesn’t mean shy; it means “harmful” or destructive. These children more often use aggression to climb the social hierarchy.

In contrast, rejected children receive more unfavorable votes and few favorable ones.  Rejected children are sometimes excluded because they are rejected-withdrawn. These children are shy and withdrawn and are easy targets for bullies because they are unlikely to retaliate when belittled (Boulton, 1999). Other rejected children are rejected-aggressive and are ostracized because they are aggressive, loud, and confrontational. The aggressive-rejected children may be acting out of a feeling of insecurity. Unfortunately, their fear of rejection only leads to behavior that brings further rejection from other children.

Children who are not accepted are more likely to experience conflict, lack confidence, and have trouble adjusting (Klima & Repetti, 2008; Schwartz, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2014).  Other categories in the most commonly used sociometric system include:

Neglected children tend to go unnoticed but are not especially liked or disliked by their peers. Neglected children are rarely mentioned in either category,

The average child has a few positive votes with very few negative ones

Controversial children who may be strongly liked and disliked by quite a few peers are mentioned frequently in each category, with several children liking them and several children placing them in the “do not like” category.

Long-Term Consequences of Popularity. Childhood popularity researcher Mitch Prinstein has found that likability in childhood leads to positive outcomes throughout one’s life (as cited in Reid, 2017). Adults who were accepted in childhood have stronger marriages and work relationships, earn more money, and have better health outcomes than those who were unpopular. Further, those who were unpopular as children experienced greater anxiety, depression, substance use, obesity, physical health problems, and suicide. Prinstein found that a significant consequence of unpopularity was that children were denied opportunities to build their social skills and negotiate complex interactions, thus contributing to their continued unpopularity. Further, biological effects can occur due to unpopularity, as social rejection can activate genes that lead to an inflammatory response.

Bullying

According to Stopbullying.gov, a federal government website managed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Bullying is defined as unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. Further, aggressive behavior happens more than once or has the potential to be repeated. There are different types of bullying, including verbal bullying, which is saying or writing mean things, teasing, name-calling, taunting, threatening, or making inappropriate sexual comments. Social bullying, also referred to as relational bullying, involves spreading rumors, purposefully excluding someone from a group, or embarrassing someone on purpose. Physical Bullying involves hurting a person’s body or possessions.

A more recent form of bullying is Cyberbullying, which involves electronic technology. Examples of cyberbullying include sending mean text messages or emails, creating fake profiles, and posting embarrassing pictures, videos, or rumors on social networking sites. Children who experience cyberbullying have a harder time getting away from the behavior because it can occur at any time of day and without being in the presence of others. Additional concerns of cyberbullying include that messages and images can be posted anonymously, distributed quickly, and difficult to trace or delete. Children who are cyberbullied are more likely to experience in-person bullying, be unwilling to attend school, receive poor grades, use alcohol and drugs, skip school, have lower self-esteem, and have more health problems (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2021, November 5).

Bullying can happen to anyone, but some students are at an increased risk of being bullied, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) youth, those with disabilities, and those who are socially isolated. Additionally, those who are perceived as different, weak, less popular, overweight, or having low self-esteem have a higher likelihood of being bullied.

Bullies are often thought of as having low self-esteem and then bully others to feel better about themselves. Although this can occur, many bullies, in fact, have high levels of self-esteem. They possess considerable popularity and social power and have well-connected peer relationships. They do not lack self-esteem, and instead lack empathy for others. They like to dominate or be in charge of others.

Unfortunately, most children do not let adults know that they are being bullied. Some fear retaliation from the bully, while others are too embarrassed to ask for help. Those who are socially isolated may not know who to ask for help or believe that no one would care or assist them if they did ask for assistance. Consequently, it is important for parents and teachers to know the warning signs that may indicate a child is being bullied. These include unexplainable injuries, lost or destroyed possessions, changes in eating or sleeping patterns, declining school grades, not wanting to go to school, loss of friends, decreased self-esteem, and/or self-destructive behaviors.

Emotions

Emotional regulation tends to advance during middle childhood, connecting to maturation in the prefrontal lobe. Middle childhood is a good time to develop more coping strategies due to the heightened development of cognitive thinking, interpersonal understanding, and complex problem-solving when compared to their younger years (Compas et al., 2001; Hampel & Petermann, 2005).

Many 7 to 10-year-olds are able to implement different coping strategies when they are upset. Many also have an awareness and understanding that they can have multiple emotions towards the same person (Saarni, 1999). As children gain more maturity, many become better able to appraise how well they can control emotions in stressful or upsetting events and generate multiple strategies to deal with their emotions. Many learn to manage to display their emotions (e.g., they may feel upset but smile) and to determine if someone close to them has an emotional expression that is genuine or not. Most also become more aware of expectations for the display of emotions that may be culturally defined (e.g., when it is culturally acceptable to cry) (Saarni, 1999).  Children’s perspective-taking abilities and empathy skills tend to also increase during this stage.

Stressors and Supports in Middle Childhood

Family Tasks

One of the ways to assess the quality of family life is to consider the tasks of families. There are many different types of family or family structure. The structures refer to the formation of relationships among a household, such as single-parent families, two-parent families, adoptive families, foster families, families raised by grandparents, same-sex parent families, etc. There are numerous structures of families. However, family function, or the way families function to meet each others’ needs, is paramount.

Berger (2005) lists five family functions:

1. Providing food, clothing, and shelter
2. Encouraging Learning
3. Developing self-esteem
4. Nurturing friendships with peers
5. Providing harmony and stability

Notice that in addition to providing food, shelter, and clothing, families are responsible for helping the child learn, relate to others, and have a confident sense of self. The family provides a harmonious and stable environment for living. A good home environment is one in which the child’s physical, cognitive, emotional, and social needs are adequately met. Sometimes, families emphasize physical needs but ignore cognitive or emotional needs. Other times, families pay close attention to physical needs and academic requirements but may fail to nurture the child’s friendships with peers or guide the child toward developing healthy relationships. Parents might want to consider how it feels to live in the household. Is it stressful and conflict-ridden? Is it a place where family members enjoy being?

Family Structure

Family structures have changed significantly over the years. In 1960, 92% of children resided with married parents, while only 5% had parents who were divorced or separated, and 1% resided with parents who had never been married. By 2008, 70% of children resided with married parents, 15% had parents who were divorced or separated, and 14% resided with parents who had never married (Pew Research Center, 2010). In 2017, only 65% of children lived with two married parents, while 32% (24 million children younger than 18) lived with an unmarried parent (Livingston, 2018). Some 3% of children were not living with any parents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data.

Most children in unmarried-parent households in 2017 were living with a solo mother (21%), but a growing share were living with cohabiting parents (7%) or a sole father (4%) (see Figure 4.3). The increase in children living with solo or cohabiting parents is thought to be due to overall declines in marriage, combined with increases in divorce. Of concern is that children who live with a single parent are also more likely to be living in reduced socioeconomic circumstances. Specifically, while only 8% of married couples live below the poverty line, 30% of solo mothers, 17% of solo fathers, and 16% of families with a cohabitating couple live in poverty (Livingston, 2018).

Divorce and its effects on children

A lot of attention has been given to the impact of divorce on the lives of children. The assumption has been that divorce has a strong, negative impact on the child and that single-parent families are deficient in some way. Research suggests 75-80 percent of children and adults who experience divorce suffer no long-term effects (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). Children of divorce and children who have not experienced divorce are more similar than different (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Other research suggests that divorce typically is difficult for children. For example, Weaver and Schofield (2015) selected a subsample of families from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development and found that children from divorced families had significantly more behavior problems than those from a matched sample of children from non-divorced families. These problems were evident immediately after the separation and also in early and middle adolescence.

An analysis of the factors that make adjustment to divorce easier or harder indicated that children exhibited more externalizing behaviors if the family had fewer financial resources before the separation. Researchers suggested that perhaps a lower income and lack of educational and community resources contributed to the stress involved in the divorce. Additional factors predicting fewer behavior problems included a more supportive and stimulating post-divorce home and a mother who was more sensitive and less depressed.

Mintz (2004) suggests that the alarmist view of divorce was due in part to the newness of divorce when rates in the United States began to climb in the late 1970s. Adults reacting to the change grew up in the 1950s when rates were low. As divorce has become more common and there is less stigma associated with divorce, this view has changed somewhat. Social scientists have operated from the divorce as a deficit model emphasizing the problems of being from a “broken home” (Seccombe &Warner, 2004). More recently, a more objective view of divorce, re-partnering, and remarriage indicates that divorce, remarriage, and life in stepfamilies can have a variety of effects. The exaggeration of the negative consequences of divorce has left the majority of those who do well hidden and subjected them to unnecessary stigma and social disapproval (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

The tasks of families listed above are functions that can be fulfilled in a variety of family types, just intact, two-parent households. Harmony and stability can be achieved in many family forms, and when it is disrupted, either through a divorce, efforts to blend families or any other circumstances, the child suffers (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002).

Factors Affecting the Impact of Divorce

As you look at the consequences (both pro and con) of divorce and remarriage on children, keep these family functions in mind. Some negative consequences are a result of financial hardship rather than divorce per se (Drexler, 2005). Some positive consequences reflect improvements in meeting these functions. For instance, we have learned that positive self-esteem comes in part from a belief in the self and one’s abilities rather than merely being complemented by others. In single-parent homes, children may be given more opportunities to discover their own abilities and gain the independence that fosters self-esteem. If divorce leads to fighting between the parents and the child is included in these arguments, the self-esteem may suffer.

Certain losses are inevitable in a divorce. Children miss the parent they no longer see as frequently, as well as any other family members who become estranged because of the divorce. Children may grieve the loss of the family as a unit, and reminisce about “the good old days” when the whole family lived together. The process of divorce is typically accompanied by change, disruption, and confusion, as well as increased family conflict. Because they are themselves dealing with the divorce, parents are typically stressed out and fewer resources are available for parenting.

The impact of divorce on children depends on a number of factors. The degree of conflict prior to the divorce plays a role. If the divorce means a reduction in tensions, the child may feel relief. If the parents have kept their conflicts hidden, the announcement of a divorce can come as a shock and be met with enormous resentment. Another factor that has a great impact on the child concerns the financial hardships they may suffer, especially if financial support is inadequate. Another difficult situation for children of divorce is the position they are put into if the parents continue to argue and especially if they bring the children into those arguments.

Short-term consequences: In roughly the first year following divorce, children may exhibit some of these short-term effects:

1. Grief over losses suffered. The child will grieve the loss of the parent they no longer see as frequently. The child may also grieve about other family members that are no longer available. Grief sometimes comes in the form of sadness, but it can also be experienced as anger or withdrawal. Preschool-aged boys may act out aggressively, while the same-aged girls may become more quiet and withdrawn. Older children may feel depressed.
2. Reduced Standard of Living. Very often, divorce means a change in the amount of money coming into the household. Children experience new constraints on spending or entertainment. School-aged children, especially, may notice that they can no longer have toys, clothing, or other items to which they’ve grown accustomed. The custodial parent may experience stress at not being able to rely on child support payments or having the same level of income as before. This can affect decisions regarding healthcare, vacations, rents, mortgages, and other expenditures. The stress can result in less happiness and relaxation in the home. The parent who has to take on more work may also be less available to the children.
3. Adjusting to Transitions. Children may also have to adjust to other changes accompanying a divorce. The divorce might mean moving to a new home, changing schools or friends, or leaving a neighborhood that has meant a lot to them.

Long-Term consequences: The following are some effects found after the first year of a divorce:

1. Economic/Occupational Status. One of the most commonly cited long-term effects of divorce is that children of divorce may have lower levels of education or occupational status. This may be a consequence of lower income and resources for funding education rather than divorce per se. In those households where economic hardship does not occur, there may be no impact on education or occupational status (Drexler, 2005).
2. Improved Relationships with the Custodial Parent (usually the mother): The majority of custodial parents are mothers (approximately 80.4 percent) and
   19.6 percent of custodial parents are fathers. Shared custody is on the rise, however, and shows promising social, academic, and psychological results for the children. Children from single-parent families talk to their mothers more often than children of two-parent families (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Most children of divorce lead happy, well-adjusted lives and develop stronger, positive relationships with their custodial parent (Seccombe & Warner, 2004). In a study of college-age respondents, Arditti (1999) found that increasing closeness and a movement toward more democratic parenting styles were experienced. Others have also found that relationships between mothers and children become closer and stronger (Guttman, 1993) and suggest that greater equality and less rigid parenting is beneficial after divorce (Steward et al., 1997).
3. Greater emotional independence in sons. Drexler (2005) notes that sons who are raised by mothers only develop an emotional sensitivity to others that is beneficial in relationships.
4. Feeling more anxious in their own love relationships. Children of divorce may feel more anxious about their own relationships as adults. This may reflect a fear of divorce if things go wrong, or it may be a result of setting higher expectations for their own relationships.
5. Adjustment of the custodial parent. Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991) believe that the primary factor influencing the way that children adjust to divorce is the way the custodial parent adjusts to the divorce. If that parent is adjusting well, the children will benefit. This may explain a good deal of the variation we find in children of divorce. Adults going through divorce should consider good self-care as beneficial to the children as self-indulgent.
6. Mental health issues: Some studies suggest that anxiety and depression that are common in children and adults within the first year of divorce may actually not resolve. A 15-year study by Bohman et al. (2017) suggests that parental separation significantly increases the risk for depression 15 years later when depression rates were compared to matched controls. In fact, the risk of depression was related more strongly to parental conflict and parental separation than it was to parental depression!

Helping children adjust to divorce.  According to Arkowitz and Lilienfeld (2013), long-term harm from parental divorce is not inevitable, however, and children can navigate the experience successfully. A variety of factors can positively contribute to the child’s adjustment. For example, children manage better when parents limit conflict and provide warmth, emotional support, and appropriate discipline. Further, children cope better when they reside with a well-functioning parent and have access to social support from peers and other adults. Those at a higher socioeconomic status may fare better because some of the negative consequences of divorce are a result of financial hardship rather than divorce per se (Anderson, 2014; Drexler, 2005). It is important when considering the research findings on the consequences of divorce for children to consider all the factors that can influence the outcome, as some of the negative consequences associated with divorce are due to preexisting problems (Anderson, 2014). Although they may experience more problems than children from non-divorced families, most children of divorce lead happy, well-adjusted lives and develop strong, positive relationships with their custodial parents (Seccombe & Warner, 2004).

In a study of college-age respondents, Arditti (1999) found that increasing closeness and a movement toward more democratic parenting styles were experienced following divorce. Children from single-parent families also talk to their mothers more often than children of two-parent families (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Others have also found that relationships between mothers and children become closer and stronger (Guttman, 1993) and suggest that greater equality and less rigid parenting are beneficial after divorce (Stewart, Copeland, Chester, Malley, & Barenbaum, 1997).

Is cohabitation and remarriage more difficult than divorce for children? The remarriage of a parent may be a more difficult adjustment for a child than the divorce of a parent (Seccombe & Warner, 2004). Parents and children typically have different ideas about how the stepparent should behave. Parents and stepparents are more likely to see the stepparent’s role as that of a parent. A more democratic style of parenting may become more authoritarian after a parent remarries. Biological parents are more likely to continue to be involved with their children jointly when neither parent has remarried. They are least likely to jointly be involved if the father has remarried and the mother has not. Cohabitation can be difficult for children to adjust to because cohabiting relationships in the United States tend to be short-lived. About 50 percent last less than 2 years (Brown, 2000). A child who starts a relationship with the parent’s live-in partner may have to sever this relationship later. Even in long-term cohabiting relationships, once it is over, continued contact with the child is rare.

Blended families

One in six children (16%) live in a blended family (Pew Research Center, 2015). As can be seen in Figure 4.5, Hispanic, Black, and White children are equally likely to be living in blended families. In contrast, children of Asian descent are more likely to be living with two married parents, often in their first marriage. Blended families are not new. In the 1700s-1800s, there were many blended families, but they were created because one parent (usually the mother) died and the other parent remarried. Most blended families today are a result of divorce and remarriage, and such origins lead to new considerations. Blended families are different from intact families and more complex in a number of ways that can pose unique challenges to those who seek to form successful blended family relationships (Visher & Visher, 1985). Children may be a part of two households, and if each has different rules, the situation can be confusing.

Members of blended families may not be as sure that others care and may require more demonstrations of affection for reassurance. For example, stepparents expect more gratitude and acknowledgment from the stepchild than they would with a biological child. Stepchildren experience more uncertainty/insecurity in their relationship with their parents and fear the parents will see them as sources of tension. Stepparents may feel guilty for a lack of feelings they may initially have toward their partner’s children. Children who are required to respond to the parent’s new mate as though they were the child’s “real” parent often react with hostility, rebellion, or withdrawal. This occurs especially if there has not been sufficient time for the relationship to develop organically.

Sexual Abuse in Middle Childhood

Researchers estimate that 1 out of 4 girls and 1 out of 10 boys have been sexually abused (Valente, 2005). The median age for sexual abuse is 8 or 9 years for both boys and girls, around the first signs of physical puberty (Finkelhor et al., 1990). Most boys and girls are sexually abused by a male. Childhood sexual abuse is defined as any sexual contact between a child and an adult or a much older child. Incest refers to sexual contact between a child and family members. In each of these cases, the child is exploited by an older person without regard for the child’s developmental immaturity and inability to understand the sexual behavior (Steele, 1986).

Although rates of sexual abuse are higher for girls than for boys, boys may be less likely to report abuse because of the cultural expectation that boys should be able to take care of themselves and because of the stigma attached to homosexual encounters (Finkelhor et. al. 1990). Girls are more likely to be victims of incest, and boys are more likely to be abused by someone outside the family. Sexual abuse can create feelings of self-blame, betrayal, and feelings of shame and guilt (Valente, 2005). Sexual abuse is particularly damaging when the perpetrator is someone the child trusts. Victims of sexual abuse may suffer from depression, anxiety, problems with intimacy, and suicide (Valente, 2005). Sexual abuse has additional impacts as well. Studies suggest that children who have been sexually abused have an increased risk of eating disorders and sleep disturbances Further, sexual abuse can lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Being sexually abused as a child can have a powerful impact on self-concept. The concept of false self-training (Davis, 1999) refers to holding a child to adult standards while denying the child’s developmental needs. Sexual abuse is just one example of false self-training. Children are held to adult standards of desirableness and sexuality while their level of cognitive, psychological, and emotional immaturity is ignored. Consider how confusing it might be for a 9-year-old girl who has physically matured early to be thought of as a potential sex partner. Her cognitive, psychological, and emotional state does not equip her to make decisions about sexuality or, perhaps, to know that she can say no to sexual advances. She may feel like a 9-year-old in all ways and be embarrassed and ashamed of her physical development. Girls who mature early have problems with low self-esteem because of the failure of others (family members, teachers, ministers, peers, advertisers, and others) to recognize and respect their developmental needs. Overall, youth are more likely to be victimized because they do not have control over their contact with offenders (parents, babysitters, etc.) and have no means of escape (Finkelhor and Dzuiba-Leatherman, in Davis, 1999).

Conclusion

Up until middle childhood, the process of development isn’t usually as structured as it becomes during middle childhood when children enter into the formal education setting. Children in school are taught new ways of thinking about things that they already know—they learn why they structure sentences the way they do, and they learn new words not through hearing them from others but from lists provided by teachers or determined by committees. They are even taught how to play sports in specific ways with explicit rules that they get tested on in written form. This is quite a departure from the organic learning of younger years.

Learning in this new way is difficult for some children who have never had to sit down for formal instruction. Structured learning can also shed light on learning difficulties and learning disabilities. Educators today are trained to recognize the signs of many learning disabilities so that children can get help early on in their academic careers.

Developing social relationships in the school environment and keeping up with the changing relationships at home can be difficult tasks for children during middle childhood. Children begin the period relatively dependent on parents and by the end of the period, children should be able to act autonomously in terms of decision making and caring for themselves. This change may feel quick to parents, and it can be difficult for them to let go of control and allow the child to make more decisions. In order for the child to continue healthy development, though, that gradual letting go is necessary. Parents should pay close attention to their children to recognize signs that the child is capable of taking on new responsibilities. This will help the child continue to develop their skills, their sense of self, their sense of place in the family, and their sense of place in the greater community.

Additional Resources

Websites

• Autism Science Foundation (Links to an external site.)
  • An organization supporting autism research by providing funding and other assistance to scientists and organizations conducting, facilitating, publicizing, and disseminating autism research. The organization also provides information about autism to the general public and serves to increase awareness of autism spectrum disorders and the needs of individuals and families affected by autism.
• Stop Bullying (Links to an external site.)
  • There are many types of bullying, including physical, verbal, social, and cyber. With bullying affecting so many people, it is important to understand what it is and how to respond to it and prevent it. This Web site provides a plethora of resources for a variety of audiences.

Videos

• Crash Course Video #13 – How We Make Memories
  • This video on how we make memories includes information on topics such as stages of memory, mnemonics, and levels of processing. Closed captioning available.
• Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development 
  • This video summarizes Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.  The stages themselves are structured in three levels: Pre-Conventional, Conventional, and Post-Conventional.
• Heinz Dilemma – Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development (Interactive Animation)
  • Heinz’s dilemma was conceived by Lawrence Kohlberg in its original research on the stages of moral development. This video presents a simplified version of the experiment.
• What is dyslexia? – Kelli Sandman-Hurley- TEDed 
  • Dyslexia affects up to 1 in 5 people, but the experience of dyslexia isn’t always the same. This difficulty in processing language exists along a spectrum — one that doesn’t necessarily fit with labels like “normal” and “defective.” Kelli Sandman-Hurley urges us to think again about dyslexic brain function and to celebrate the neurodiversity of the human brain.
• Piaget – Stage 3 – Concrete – Reversibility 
  • Does this child understand the concept of reversibility?  Which stage would that put her in?
• Egocentrism 
  • The Three Mountain Problem was devised by Piaget to test whether a child’s thinking was egocentric, which was also a helpful indicator of whether the child was in the preoperational stage or the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. Which stage are these children in?
• ADHD at School 
  • ADHD stands for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and is considered a mental disorder. Children with ADHD have trouble paying attention, are hyperactive, and have difficulty controlling their behavior. To understand how it affects children in school, let’s look at the story of Leo, a 12-year-old boy who is going to school with the best intentions but is struggling hard to succeed.
• The World Needs All Kinds of Minds- TED talk 
  • Temple Grandin, diagnosed with autism as a child, talks about how her mind works — sharing her ability to “think in pictures,” which helps her solve problems that neurotypical brains might miss. She makes the case that the world needs people on the autism spectrum: visual thinkers, pattern thinkers, verbal thinkers, and all kinds of smart geeky kids.

Attributions

Human Growth and Development by Ryan Newton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License,

Individual and Family Development, Health, and Well-being by Diana Lang, Nick Cone; Laura Overstreet, Stephanie Loalada; Suzanne Valentine-French, Martha Lally; Julie Lazzara, and Jamie Skow is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License,

Human Development by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License,

Child Growth and Development by College of the Canyons, Jennifer Paris, Antoinette Ricardo, and Dawn Rymond and is used under a CC BY 4.0 international license

Plays the Thing, Cambridge University is licensed under a CC BY 4.0

Additional written material by Dan Grimes & Brandy Brennan, Portland State University, and is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

References

Anderson, J. (2018). The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce. The Linacre Quarterly 81(4), 378–387.

Arditti, J. A. (1999). Rethinking relationships between divorced mothers and their children: Capitalizing on family strengths. Family Relations, 48, 109-119.

Arkowicz, H., & Lilienfeld. (2013). Is divorce bad for children? Scientific American Mind, 24(1), 68-69.

Asher, S. R., & Hymel, S. (1981). Children’s social competence in peer relations: Sociometric and behavioral assessment. In J. K. Wine & M. D. Smye (Eds.), Social competence (pp. 125-157). New York: Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action; A social-cognitive theory.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Berkowitz, M., & Gibbs, J. (1983). Measuring the Developmental Features of Moral Discussion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 399-410. Retrieved September 9, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23086309

Bigelow, B. J. (1977). Children’s friendship expectations: A cognitive developmental study. Child Development, 48, 246–253.

Bigelow, B. J., & La Gaipa, J. J. (1975). Children’s written descriptions of friendship: A multidimensional analysis. Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 857-858.

Boulton, M. J. (1999). Concurrent and longitudinal relations between children’s playground behavior and social preference, victimization, and bullying. Child Development, 70, 944-954.

Brown, S. L. (2000). Union transitions among cohabitors: The significance of relationship assessments and expectations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 833-846.

Cillessen, A. H., & Mayeaux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147-163.

Clark, M. L., & Bittle, M. L. (1992). Friendship expectations and the evaluation of present friendships in middle childhood and early adolescence. Child Study Journal, 22, 115–135.

Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87

Davis, N. J. (1999). Youth crisis: Growing up in the high-risk society. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Drexler, P. (2005). Raising boys without men. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.

Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed. NY: Norton & Company.

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York: Free Press.

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 19-28.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when parents part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guttmann, J. (1993). Divorce in psychosocial perspective: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.

Hampel, P., & Petermann, F. (2005). Age and Gender Effects on Coping in Children and Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-3207-9

Hetherington, E. M., & Kelly, J. (2002). For better or for worse: Divorce reconsidered. New York: W.W. Norton.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.

Killen, M., Rutland, A., & Yip, T. (2016). Equity and justice in developmental science: Discrimination, social exclusion, and intergroup attitudes. Child Development, 87(5), 1317-1336.

Klima, T., & Repetti, R. L. (2008). Children’s peer relations and their psychological adjustment: Differences between close friends and the larger peer group. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 54, 151-178.

Kohlberg, L. (1963). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral order: Sequence in the development of moral thought. Vita Humana, 16, 11-36.

Kohlberg, L. (1968). The child as a moral philosopher. Psychology Today, 25-30.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: Essays on moral development (Vol. 2, p. 200). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Livingston, G. (2018). About one-third of U.S. children are living with an unmarried parent. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/27/about-one-third-of-u-s-children-are-living-with-an-unmarried-parent/Mason, M. G., & Gibbs, J. C. (1993). Social Perspective Taking and Moral Judgment among College Students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489381008

McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pettit, G. S., Clawson, M. A., Dodge, K. A., & Bates, J. E. (1996). Stability and change in peer-rejected status: The role of child behavior, parenting, and family ecology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(2), 267-294.

Pew Research Center. (2010). New family types. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/11/18/vi-new-family-types/

Pew Research Center. (2015). Parenting in America. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/2015-12-17_parenting-in-america_FINAL.pdf

Reid, S. (2017). 4 questions for Mitch Prinstein. Monitor on Psychology, 48(8), 31-32.

Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Richter, D, & Lemola, S. (2017). Growing up with a single mother and life satisfaction in adulthood: A test of mediating and moderating factors. PLOS ONE 12(6): e0179639. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179639

Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York: Guilford Press.

Schwartz, D., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2014). Peer victimization during middle childhood as a lead indicator of internalizing problems and diagnostic outcomes in late adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44, 393-404.

Seccombe, K., & Warner, R. L. (2004). Marriages and families: Relationships in social context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Seifert, K. (2011). Educational psychology. Houston, TX: Rice University

Selman, Robert L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. London: Academic Press

Steele, B.F. (1986). Notes on the lasting effects of early child abuse throughout the life cycle. Child Abuse & Neglect 10(3), 283-291.

Stewart, A. J., Copeland, Chester, Malley, & Barenbaum. (1997). Separating together: How divorce transforms families. New York: Guilford Press.

Temke, Mary W. 2006. “The Effects of Divorce on Children.” Durham: University of New Hampshire. Retrieved January 16, 2012.

Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 863–932). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2021, November 5). Effects of Bullying. stopbullying.gov. https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/effects

Valente, S. M. (2005). Sexual Abuse of Boys. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 18, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2005.00005.x

Visher, E. B., & Visher, J. S. (1985). Stepfamilies are different. Journal of Family Therapy, 7(1), 9-18.

Walker, L. J. (1995). Sexism in Kohlberg’s moral psychology? In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gerwitz (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 83-107). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Walker, L. J., & Taylor, J. H. (1991). Stage transitions in moral reasoning: A longitudinal study of developmental processes. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.330

Weaver, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2015). Mediation and moderation of divorce effects on children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(1), 39-48. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000043