Identity Conceptualizations and the Consequences Of

The Illegitimacy of Single Parents: Identity Conceptualizations and the Consequences

of Owning a Deficit Status

Amy V. Andrada, B.A.

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Sociology California State University Bakersfield In Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Arts in Sociology

Spring 2014

III

Amy V. Andrada

2014

The Illegitimacy of Single Parents: Identity Conceptualizations and the Consequences

of Owning a Deficit Status

By Amy V. Andrada

This thesis has been accepted on behalf of the Department of Sociology by their supe iSory committee:

a . Cervi Committee Chair

Isabella Kasselstrand Committee Member

Dedication

This thesis stands as a promise I made to a person I met in 2004. And so, “I went in search of the unknown… and found all that lay before me.” Thank you for being my inspiration

(E.R.A).

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank committee members Daniel D. Cervi, Isabella Kasselstrand, and Janet

Armentor for their guidance, assistance, and support during the process of completing this thesis. Their open-minded approach, thorough consideration, and willingness to respect the research process speak volumes about their intellect, intelligence, and integrity.

I am grateful for the endless twists and turns that have helped me arrive at this destination.

In respect of these, I extend my gratitude to my family, friends, and colleagues. In addition, I express my appreciation for the various experiences I’ve had while attending California State

University Bakersfield, which taught me, above all, that I could learn just as much by being in the room as by studying its walls.

I would like to thank the participants that contributed to the study conducted on behalf of this thesis. These contributions have made this study possible and gave light to the dark areas of this research.

Abstract

In this study, I examine the relationship between parental marital status and social exclusion

among parents. Existing literature identifies parental marital status as an influential factor to

socioeconomic status, but does not identify whether or not the ramification of social

exclusion are limited to socioeconomic status, or if social exclusion is a byproduct of

possessing an undesired parental marital status as it is interpreted as an identity construct

among women. Through my quantitative survey research in the Western part of the United

States, I describe how attitudes/perceptions and reactions toward parental marital status are

inconsistent, and that parents which possess ‘deficit’ identities are consequently subjected to

bias. In addition, this quantitative study shows the social proximities and settings parental

outgroups are likely to experience discrimination and identify the ingroups that contribute to the prejudice of “legitimizes myths” concerning single parents and the perceived discrimination enacted.

VII

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction 1

Background of the Problem 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 4 Importance of the Study 8

Chapter Two: Literature Review 11

A Feminist View: Patriarchal Gender Socialization, False Consciousness, and Identity and Relationship Status 11 Background: Marriage and its Predicted Norms 12 Marital Status and Identity Conceptualization: Deficit and Sufficient Identities 13 Marital Status and Parenthood: Illegitimate-Deficit and Legitimate Identities 17 Single-Parentalism: Stigma and Social Exclusion 22 Summary of Literature Review 26

Chapter Three: Methodology 28

Research Method 28 Pilot Study 28 Sample 30 Instrumentation 31 Dependent Variables 32 Independent Variables 36 Data Collection 38 Subjects 39 Data Analysis 40 Strength of Method 41 Limitation of Method 42

Chapter Four: Findings 43

Females Represent Bias Trend 43 Subset: Mothers Analysis—Stigmatized Perceptions of Marital Status among Single Women and Mothers 45 Single Mother Bias vs. Coupled Mother Preference 48 Multiple Regression Analysis 51

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion 54

Marital Status as a Basis for Bias 54 Parental Marital Statuses: Bias and Preference 55 Single Parent Families as Social Outcasts 57

VIII

References 62

Appendix 68

Original Survey Instrument 68 Authorization from Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research 79

Chapter One: Introduction

Background of the problem

A person’s sense of self is a multifaceted composite formed by the various roles one occupies: man, woman, boy, girl; daughter, son, mother, father, aunt, uncle, grandmother, grandfather; single, married, divorced, widowed; nurse, pilot, laborer, etc. The dominant culture plays an integral part in determining which of these roles make up a person’s identity

(Leff, 2010). Considering the profound influence society plays in shaping the identity of individuals, it is a person’s self that evolves out of the interpersonal interactions in society and the perceptions of others. Due to this influence, individuals shape their self-concepts, and/or identity, based on the interpretations others perceive of them (Cooley, 1902;

McIntrye, 2006). It is not surprising to discover, incorporated in the development of identity, that the dominant society has been responsible for producing various forms of deviant identities (DePaulo and Morris, 2005; Leff, 2010). This thesis focuses particularly on the roles of “single,” “woman,” and “parent.”

In Western society, what defines a ‘good’ mother is often circumstantial. As such,

‘good’ mothers are married, successfully protecting their offspring from harm by staying and remaining married (Chandler, 1991; Jokinen, 1996; Natkin, 1997). As such, a single woman and especially a mother is, according to popular misperceptions, ‘bad’ because her marital status is her responsibility (Peterson, 1981; Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003). The single woman’s difficulties are significantly compounded in the event that she acquires single parental status (Becker, 1963; Jennings, 2004; May, 2004; Jun and Acevedio-Garcia, 2007).

Therefore, the identity assigned to single parents, especially single mothers, is significantly 1

influenced by society (May, 2004). Single mothers are marginalized (Patterson, 1965; Estes,

Farr, Smith and Smith, 2000) and are increasingly exposed to prejudices and stigmatization

due to the compounded identity distinguished by the labeled master status—single mother

(Becker, 1963; May, 2004).

Statement of the Problem

The combination of the influences of patriarchal gender socialization (MacKinnon,

1982) and the effects of false consciousness (Jost, 1995) are evident in the identity women

attribute to marital status, which has consequently led to the phenomenon known as

“singlism”(Morris, DePaulo, Hertel, and Taylor, 2008). This details the treatment of single

women by society in the forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (DePaulo &

Morris, 2005). A woman’s status is still well-defined utilizing no uncertain terms: a woman

is either married or she is not (Toufexis, 1996). It is this value system that is responsible for

the bias toward single women and the misguided favored perception of married women

(Cherline, 2004; Koropeckyyj-Cox, 2005). The stigma exhibited toward single women is prevalent especially when considering various forms of labeling including prejudgment, bias, and social exclusion (Morris, DePaulo, Hertel, and Taylor, 2008). Due to this ‘deficit’ identity, these forms of bias manifest in different ways. Social exclusion (Kipling and Nida,

2005), presumptions about deviant behavior (DePaulo, 2005), interpretations of abnormal psychology (Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003) and unconscious acceptance among singles perpetuate these biases (Reynolds and Taylor, 2004). These are found in an array of social settings from peer perception (Morris, Sinclair, and DePaulo, 2007), peer pressure (Perrin,

Heesacker, Tiegs, Swan, Lawrence, Smith, Carrillo, Cawood, and Mejia-Millian, 2010), and interpersonal and institutional scenarios (Conley and Collins, 2002).

Because owning a single marital status contributes to the perception and, in effect, the

negative treatment of singles, the link between single parenthood and the effects of social

exclusion are visible in varied light. Keeping in mind that the term “social exclusion,” in its relation to single parenthood, extends beyond any link to poverty (Paterson, 2001). It is attributed to consequences within various social dimensions such as well-being (Walker, et al., 2008), mental health and depression (May, 2004; Jun and Acevedo-Garcia, 2007), education (Ross and Sawhill, 1975; Paterson, 2001), and occupational prestige (Jennings,

2004). In addition, the correlation between single parenthood and social exclusion highlights

long-term and intergenerational effects that influence this social exclusion (Hills &

Waldfogel, 2004). It is also necessary to note that solutions discouraging the effects of social

exclusion are usually and exclusively defined and constituted by adults (Ridge, 2002). Social

exclusion contributes to one’s inability to adequately develop methods of social integration,

avenues of social participation, and the accumulation of social influence (Room, 1995).

Therefore, the need to identify a link between parental marital statuses, a master

status, and social exclusion is essential if there is to be an understanding of the treatment of

single parents and its associated consequences. Additionally, evidence that distinguishes this

link enables single parents, as well as parents with other martial statuses, to accurately

identify the risks in owning a single parental marital identity. It also enlightens those parties

that identify a single parental status as a ‘deficit’ identity. This encourages a reconstituted

interpretation of parental marital status as it is attributed to identity conceptualization.

Identifying contributions that substantiate the denial of single parents’ validity and the

perpetuation of ‘deficit’ identity may be suppressed or dissipated through personal

recognition (i.e. self-awareness of culpability).

This study will examine the relationship between parental marital status, based on stigmatized perceptions, and social exclusion. In the following section, I present research questions that are designed around the structure that characterizes women’s identities framed by marital status, parental status, and social exclusion.

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to explore how perceptions of parental marital status, a vehicle for identity conceptualization, and social exclusion among women are interlinked.

The goal is to investigate general perceptions of parental marital status as they associate with identity conceptualization among women. I have developed the ‘Parents: Perceptions and

Attitudes Survey’ which utilizes terms and concepts from research literature that details deficit identities (DePaulo and Morris, 2005) among single women (Reynolds and Wetherell,

2003) and the effects suffered through social exclusion (Room, 1995) which are associated with the ownership of a single marital status (DePaulo, 2006).

I explore the ways that parental marital statuses are perceived with relation to identity and how this status in interpreted by women. I utilize Reynolds & Taylor (2004) and Kaiser

& Kashy (2005) to identify correlations relating marital status and stigma while expanding this conversation in two key areas. Reynolds & Taylor (2004) and Kaiser & Kashy (2005) investigate single women’s interpretations of stigmatization in relation to the development of identity. I explore the relationship between parental marital status and identity construct and the ways in which this identity lends itself to the development of a master status—single parent (Becker, 1963). In addition, I intend to examine how the master status identity (single parent) encourages social consequences in the form of social exclusion. Utilizing perceptions

of marital status attributed to women, as explained above, I take my research one step further

by correlating both perceptions of marital status and parental status.

The first research question I pose is:

(1) Based on the perceptions of marital status among women, is there a relationship

between the bias toward single women and the bias toward single mothers?

The null and alternative hypotheses are stated:

(H0) There is no relationship in the bias perceptions of single women and the prejudice

toward single mothers.

(H1) There is a significant relationship in the bias perceptions of single women and the

prejudice toward single mothers.

For the second research question, I focus on the identities of marital status, parental

status, and stigmatization. This relationship has been a subject of numerous studies. DePaulo

and Morris (2005) recognize that women who reside outside traditional definitions of family

life and popular notions of coupling are stigmatized. Uncoupled women struggle reconciling

their marital status culturally within social frames that permeate patriarchal notions which

consign women to the confines of a romantic relationship (Bikerton, 1983; Rosa, 1994;

DePaulo and Morris, 1995) generally assumed to be connected to a man (Walby, 1990).

Since single mothers own a single marital status, they grapple with a stigma associated with

marital status in addition to the prejudice associated with single parenthood (Reilly, 1996;

Clements, 1998; May, 2004; DePaulo and Morris, 2005; Byrne and Carr, 2005).

The second research question appears as follows:

(2) Is there a difference between parental marital status and bias among mothers?

The corresponding hypothesis and null hypothesis are stated below:

(H0) There is no difference between single mothers and coupled mothers based on bias.

(H2) There is a difference between single mothers and coupled mothers based on bias.

The term single parent is interpreted here as a master status (Becker, 1963)

constituted by dominant society and is widely described as a symptom of being regularly

associated with the concept of marriage (May, 2004). Since single mothers carry the labeled

master status of single parent they often experience stigmatization in the form of prejudices

and social exclusion due the visibility of the labeled master status (Becker, 1963). In

addition, single mothers struggle with this stereotypical status perceived by the prevailing

culture and the status imposed upon them by single parents themselves (Brewer and Pickett,

1999).

The third area of focus for this study is parental marital status and stigmatization in the form of social exclusion exhibited toward women. For example, Aydin, Graupmann,

Fischer, Fieter, and Fisher (2011) investigate the interpretation of mothers that experience social exclusion in relation to their marital status. In fact, Aydin, et al., (2011) stress that, in addition to the stereotyping women endure from dominant society, the interpretation of traditional female family roles lend themselves to develop forms of self-stereotyping. These interpretations impart the significance of membership incorporation (single mothers) within ingroups (coupled mothers) and influence the construct of the self (Brewer and Caporeal,

1995).

The third research question addresses this:

(3) Is there a relationship between parental marital bias and social exclusion among mothers?

The hypotheses corresponding to the third research question are:

(H0) There is not a relationship between parental marital bias and social exclusion among

mothers.

(H3) There is a relationship between parental marital bias and social exclusion among

mothers.

The third research question analyzes various parental marital statuses identities, perceived stigmatization, and social exclusion. Based on biased perceptions of marital status, the goal here is to establish whether or not a relationship exists between parental marital status and social exclusion. By using multiple regression, is it possible to examine whether age, socioeconomic status, gender, parental status, marital status, and ingroup associations are associated with the formation of identity conceptualization among parents in the dominant culture. If they do, is the relationship consistent with associations that are linked to parental marital status as a master label, or is it possible that, for example, one factor that is associated with parental marital status identity may not influence stigmas in the form of social exclusion?

Existing research has established that women are largely identified by marital status

(Toufexis, 1996; Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003; DePaulo and Morris, 2005; DePaulo, 2006).

It is the perceived significance of marital status that is attributed to the processes by which women learn to interpret their value and establish their identity; it is this value system that also socializes women’s interpretations of other women (Eichenbaum and Orbach, 1987;

Gurian, 2002). Although the most significant factor of the identity analysis of women is marital status, parental status becomes a heightened form of identity based on age (Phoenix and Woollett, 1991; Sharp and Ganong, 2011). In addition, socioeconomic status has been

found to have a significant relationship with the perceptions of parental marital status

(Hobcraft and Kiernan, 2001; Paterson, 2001; Cairney, Boyle, Offord, and Racine, 2003; Jun and Acevedo-Garcia, 2007). Perceptions regarding marital status and parental status lend themselves to interpretations of parental marital statuses. These interpretations generate responses from dominant society, which labels master statuses associated with parental marital biases (Becker, 1963). These definitions influence social reactions and behaviors toward groups that represent the labeled master statuses of single parents (May, 2004).

Groups, specifically minority groups (i.e. single mothers), are socially stratified by dominant society (Leff, 2010). Single mothers are marginalized by their parental marital status and are subjected to mistreatment based on biased perceptions of the single parent label. This mistreatment is often expressed through stigmatization, executed through arenas of social exclusion; a behavior initiated by the in-group (coupled mothers) to reject the out-group

(single mothers). This study will focus primarily on women’s values as they relate to social exclusion and its link to parental marital status. Therefore, the facilitation of my analysis will be confined within these limitations.

Importance of the Study

It is commonly assumed that single people occupy a temporary position. This is supported by the belief that singlehood is considered a transitional stage defined by conventional norms that emphasize the pursuit of marriage or coupling. Misperceptions arise when a group challenges traditional norms regarding marriage and family because the oppositional group represents, what is presumed to be, a resistance to dominant cultural values. According to empirical data (Weiss, 1984; Misovich, et al., 1997), popular ideological systems associated with marriage and family structures negate ramifications 8

associated with marital status inconsistencies. More importantly, Welch (2013) highlights the consequences women endure while pursuing traditional marital and parental norms. This essentially suggests that conventional pathways toward coupledom and family constructions contradict the vary goals women strive to achieve, a lasting romantic partnership and producing legitimized offspring.

This study shows how perceptions of parental marital status create biased interpretations that support the stigmatization of single mothers while examining the identity conceptualized factors associated with these statues. The parental marital status identity of single parent becomes a labeled master status and/or ‘deficit’ identity status that encourages particular treatment from the host society. This mistreatment is evident in the form of social exclusion exhibited toward single mothers sanctioned by misperceptions of their parental marital status or ‘deficit’ identity.

Current research concentrates on specific aspects of single parenthood by identifying associated links, precursors, and consequences of single parenthood (i.e. victims of physical abuse and/or sexual abuse, poverty, lack of education, unskilled labor, and shortage of employment opportunities, etc.). In addition, Sklar (1993) discusses the various patterns of stigmatization of single parenthood in the form of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping (DePaulo, 2006). Each results in varied unfavorable outcomes (i.e. mental health problems, self-stereotyping, parental marital status misperceptions, and social exclusion). However, little evidence adequately addresses social identity conceptualization

(one’s sense of self as a member of a group) in relation to parental marital status and its correlation to social exclusion.

Because adults both single and coupled, are responsible for defining and sustaining the phenomena of bias, they are also the authors of solutions to social exclusion. It is essential that an investigation into interpretations of marital status be conducted because these interpretations influence the social exclusion of single parents and single mothers. This investigation is necessary if we are to begin to understand how these individuals experience social exclusion and interpret its repercussions. Because these individuals are parents to children and because children inherit the social constraints and disadvantages engendered by the host society, these children may suffer similar consequences. Furthermore, these influences support the necessity of research into the perceived illegitimacy of single parenthood and the repercussions of possessing a deficit identity and social exclusion.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

A Feminist View: Patriarchal Gender Socialization, False Consciousness, and Identity and Relationship Status

According to the pervasive view of radical feminists, American women are socialized to accept normative rules through a patriarchal perspective (Tong, 1989). This perspective maintains that male authority and power is the foundation of social relations (Delaney, 2005).

MacKinnon (1982) explains that, “It is through patriarchal gender socialization that men attempt to control the bodies of women through the creation of norms of acceptable behavior” (p. 529). Due to this patriarchal view, women in the U.S. are socialized based on normative behavioral terms defined by men. These terms are pathologically institutionalized and accepted by way of false consciousness, “when one adheres to false or mistaken ideology that conflicts with one’s own social concerns” while “supporting the disadvantaged status of the self or group” (Jost, 1995:397). Therefore, the most prevalent form of control over women’s sexual behavior is established through the institution of marriage (Stanley & Wise,

1993). In effect, false consciousness manifests itself in the mistaken belief that women consider themselves somehow inherently subordinate to men (Code, 2003). The combination of these influences describes how women identify themselves. According to Eichenbaum and Orbach (1987):

“…normative assumptions about femininity necessarily require connection with a

man. Such assumptions explain why women are propelled into relationships,

rather than celebrating their identity as a separate, free standing and autonomous

person” (289).

Eichebaum & Orbach (1987) remark how often women comment on staying on in unsatisfactory relationships for “fear of loss of self” (289). Therefore, socialization encourages the belief, among women, that relationship status is the highest order in their own value system (Gurian, 2002).

Background: Marriage and its Predicted Norms

Marriage is commonly idealized in American society and a function of normative life patterns. This is supported by the view that marriage is considered a natural and transitional stage in the normal development of individuals (Carter & McGoldrick, 1980). That being said, it is not surprising that, in the United States, at least 90% of singles will marry at some point in their lives (Connidis, 2001). This further solidifies the ideology that identifies marriage as an essential step along the traditional life path (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). Not surprisingly, it is women who are expected to uphold this ideology. Accordingly, women experience the most pressure with regard to marriage, because it is viewed as a socially acceptable means of obtaining the one truly important peer relationship—marriage—which then leads to children (DePaulo & Morris, 2005).

With the overwhelming amount of expectations regarding this developmental process, it is surprising to discover that American adults spend the majority of their adult lives single rather than married (Morris, Sinclair, & DePaulo, 2007). There are an increasing number of women in the United States who are single and forty-five percent of women are unmarried

(U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2004).

Due to the widespread and unchallenged acceptance of the ideology of marriage and family, single adult women, within the U.S., suffer the ramifications of bias through

stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). The effect of this

backlash is a phenomenon known as ‘singlism’ (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). The

consequences that single people endure result from the threat single adults place on the value

system of the ideology of marriage and family (Smith, 1993). Those who support this

practice are motivated to denigrate the source of the threat, (i.e. single adults whose presence

challenges this belief system) in an attempt to keep their beliefs [ideology of marriage and

family] intact (Greenberg et al., 1997; Lerner, 1980). But, if marriage is considered, by

societal standards, a transitional stage along the normative life path, then why are married

women the minority among the various identities of marital status (DePaulo & Morris,

2005)? Concurrently, why do single women endure the most prejudice when they represent

forty-five percent of unmarried women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004)? Finally, what perpetuates this ideology of marriage and family and why has this ideology demonstrate to be invaluable to women in the U.S.? The answers to these questions lie in the patriarchal perspective. This perspective describes how women are socialized within the U.S. and it describes the consequences women suffer at the hands of false consciousness.

Marital Status and Identity Conceptualization: Deficit and Sufficient Identities

The stigma exhibited toward single women is prevalent among various form of

“singlism”: stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Due to this "deficit identity," the

forms of bias are manifested in different ways, from social exclusion to presumptions about

deviant behavior and to singles unconsciously accepting their own biases. These are found in

an array of social settings ranging from peer perception to peer pressures through

interpersonal and institutional scenarios.

In order to understand the reality that singles experience, we must first understand

how singles are perceived. Singles are often colored by perceptions of loneliness, immaturity,

depression, narcissism, and insecurity when compared to married people (Morris, DePaulo,

Hertel, & Ritter, 2004). This stereotyping often leads to the assumption that single women

have difficulty forming romantic relationships often becoming the focus of therapeutic

intervention by family and friends (Reynolds & Wetherell, 2003). This perception also

contributes to the ‘deficit’ identity single women own. This identity signals to other women a

single woman's inability to "get a man," or "to hold on to her man," which translates as a

personal deficit (Reynolds & Taylor, 2004). These inquiries and character presumptions

carry an additional burden that married women and single men do not have to suffer. Only

single women are expected to explain their status or single condition (DePaulo & Morris,

2005; Adams, 1976). Additionally, conventional coupling and the nuclear family ideal

further perpetuate the ‘deficit’ identity. Therefore, groups that do not participate in these

conventions (i.e. singles) are not awarded the same allowances or treatment as those who

practically conform (i.e. married and/or coupled adults) (Durkheim, 1963).

This misperception of singles has the effect of attaching a ‘deficit’ or deviant label to this group. This label has created a distinct form of discrimination or social exclusion. Since coupledom is perceived as a privileged or valued state, singleness is often viewed as a disadvantaged, deprived, and excluded state (Reynolds & Taylor, 2004) The reasoning for this exclusion is derived from misguided interpretations that identify single women as possessors of an alternative form of power—the power to "take another woman's man"—thus justifying the married woman's perception to view single women as a threat (Reynolds &

Wetherell, 2003). This "threat" is a consequence of pervasive definitions of marriage or of

married women and their identities as they relate to their relationship statuses. This, in effect, is only obtained by having or "keeping a man" (e.g. Eichenbaum, 1987; Reynolds & Taylor,

2004;). The "threat" is interpreted as an aggressive act, which challenges a married woman's accumulated identity (Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003). This interpretation encourages married women to exclude single women from their social circles. This exclusion or institutional ostracizing, often makes single women self-conscious of the "lower" status, which in turn, adds to her feelings of invisibility and worthlessness (Kipling & Nida, 2005).

The ripples of social exclusion, instigated by a woman's fear of loss of identity, are evident in even the most inconspicuous of social settings. For example, social exclusion takes place in a single woman's desire to produce a family, outside the ideological constructs of the nuclear family: vitro fertilization. Due to the fact that single women are spouseless, they find it extremely difficult, when compared to married women, to qualify for this procedure. Single women also endure similar difficulties when attempting to adopt (Millbank, 1997). Another type of social exclusion, although seemingly mundane, can be seen in membership discrimination. Singles pay full price for memberships to various clubs (ex: health clubs, automobile, restaurants, etc.), when these services are often offered at discounted rates to couples and families (DePaulo, 2006). These examples of social exclusion can be attributed to owning a "lower" status.

Due to the associated deviant labels singles possess, in owning a "lower" status. The ostracization of single women has nurtured a layering of assumptions about the behavior of singles. More often than not, singles and childless adults are, generally, treated with pity and distrust (Koropeckyj-Cox, 2005). These attitudes are overwhelmingly evident in a plethora of social settings. With regard to interpersonal scenarios, in qualitative interviews, Conley and 15

Collins (2002) found that single women indicated that inquiries about their relationship status correlated with assumptions and prejudices about their sexual behaviors and orientations. In addition, they discovered that as generally perceived to be more promiscuous and at greater risk of having/had an STD (sexually transmitted disease) or HIV, when compared to married targets. This misperception is especially alarming, considering that people in close intimate relationships fail to practice safe sex (Misovich, Risher, & Fisher, 1997). The prejudice that facilitates social exclusion has been institutionalized. For example, a study by DePaulo &

Morrris (2005) details the relationship between housing applicant/renters and landlords. This study demonstrated that landlords often rejected applicants on the basis of civil status alone.

The applicants/renters in the study were informed that civil status was the primary reason of their denied applications. Yet, even knowing the rejections were based on civil status, the participants/applicants felt that the landlords were justified in their decision making process, using stereotypical depictions of single and married people as if they were accurate (DePaulo

& Morris, 2005). This evidence suggests that, not only are stereotypical depictions of singles and married people unquestioningly accepted, it also provides evidence that these groups are unaware of the prejudice they enact, especially singles when misjudging their own group.

Even more disturbing, the pervasiveness of these stereotypes in institutional settings, has developed a bias that has crept into the circles of academic research. Singleness has, for example, been widely assumed to be associated with the psychology of a woman's personal

'dysfunction' (Reynolds & Taylor, 2004).

As ironic as it may seem, singles themselves are unaware of their own stigmatization.

This is primarily due to the fact that coupledom, or family and marriage, ideology is ingrained in American culture. Unfortunately, these beliefs are substantiated by the

normative terms of marriage and family life, supported by way of patriarchal gender socialization and false consciousness, singles themselves are unlikely to be aware of their deficit position; therefore singles do not have the legs upon which to stand and to object to it

(Delaney, 2005). In fact, this ideology is so inherently ingrained in our culture that people often believe that individuals are supposed to be coupled (Kipling & Nida, 2005). Therefore, many people feel justified perpetuating this form of discrimination. Additionally, singlehood is interpreted as a temporary fix or "rite of passage" because social norms constitute the assumption that single individuals will eventually be married. This further legitimized prejudice against singles and the belief that singleness is not a lifetime status (Morris,

DePaulo, Hertel, & Taylor, 2008). In short, single individuals are perpetually identified using negative stereotypes and are treated accordingly. Meanwhile marital status or coupledom is stereotyped positively and is becoming increasingly valued (DePaulo, 2005).

Marital Status and Parenthood: Illegitimate-Deficit and Legitimate Identities

In 2004, households headed by females (lack of partner present or no husband) described one of five households in the U.S.; at least 60% of these households had a minimum of one child, compared to 44% of coupled/married households (US Census Bureau,

2005) with over 45% of women remaining unmarried in the United States. An investigation that acknowledges significant facets of single mothers’ lives is essential if we are to understand such a significant representation of the general populous.

Previous empirical research (Stanley & Wise, 1993; Reynolds and Wetherell, 2003;

May, 2004; Morris, DePaulo, Hertel, & Ritter, 2004; DePaulo and Morris, 2005; Jun and

Acevedo-Garcia, 2007; Aydin, et al., 2011) has made substantial contributions to the studies

of marital status and single parenthood by identifying various factors that contribute to a

person developing, or acquiring, marital and parental statuses. Although existing research

examines various influential factors, it does not approach the study of parental marital status

as a vehicle that designs the constructs of the self, for women, as an autonomous and social being. Such studies also fail to identify the development of the social self, with respect to parental marital status, in correlation with the dominant society by which a person ascertains

facets of various roles deemed necessary to develop an accumulated sense of self (Leff,

2010). The social environment one shares with others serves as a reciprocal representation by

which one learns to structure identity and develop a sense of self.

A female is, at birth, assigned a subordinate identity: that of ‘woman’ (Code, 2003).

As gender identities are constructed in context with the dominant society, traditional value

systems of western society govern how women navigate the development of their socially

constructed self in relation to the normative terms dictated in association with her gender

(Carter and McGoldrick, 1980; Tong, 1989). For women, a central focus of identity is

associated with relationship status (Gurian, 2002). Marriage thus raises her status by

completing her identity of ‘less than’ or ‘not (yet) whole’ by making her identity ‘complete’

and/or ‘whole’ (Eichenbaum and Orbach, 1987; Toufexis, 1997). Women that do not possess

married statuses are misrecognized as owning a ‘deficit’ status (DePaulo and Morris, 2005),

but when a single woman becomes a single mother, a single woman lacking a male

counterpart to ‘complete’ her identity, her ‘deficit’ identity then enters another realm of

classification. She becomes a single parent/mother. This identity is then further devalued into

a sub-classification, a double minority status (Lindsey, 2011), assigned within a subordinate

gender class system (MacKinnon, 1982). The single mother, in effect, becomes ‘less than’

her single woman counterpart because she not only lacks a male to ‘complete’ her identity, the child/children of a single mother lacks a male to complete the family unit. In addition, unattached, she also represents a threat to the socially constructed selves of coupled/married mothers; this “threat” is commonly interpreted as a single woman’s ability, regardless of parental status, to “steal” or “take” another woman’s man (Reynolds & Wetherell, 2003).

Classifications and groupings are distinguished by acknowledgement and social recognition (Honneth, 2012). Thus, for women, recognition is defined as a maintained order based on western social value systems that are imbedded in a patriarchally gendered system

(MacKinnon, 1982). The patriarchal perspective is therefore responsible for distinguishing between gender class systems and their associated appropriate and/or normative identifications (Code, 2003). In the event that these identities (i.e. single/unwed/uncoupled mother) do not conform to the terms of social norms that represent acceptable positive value laden beliefs and/or ideals (i.e. coupled/married mother) then the identity is devalued because it fails to fulfill perceived requirements that complete the standardized view of socially desirable identities (Stanley and Wise, 1993). As Honneth (2012) explains that lack of recognition, or misrecognition, is detrimental to the development of socially desirable identities. In the context of marriage and family, acceptable and positive identities are heavily influenced by existing patriarchal definitions (MacKinnon, 1982). Without social recognition, the development of the self, in relation to identity conceptualization, is fractured and a fragmentary or faulty identity is acquired leading to detrimental outcomes (Honneth,

1995).

By these terms, the single woman fixed with a ‘deficit’ identity (Reynolds and

Taylor, 2004), becomes a single mother/or the mother that then becomes a single mother, is

thus layered by the additional parental status that is unacknowledged by a male counterpart,

classifying her identity in a subcategory of deficit identities (illegitimate or deficit). In effect,

the single woman that becomes a parent/or the coupled/married parent that becomes a single

parent suffers the stigma of ‘singlism’ (DePaulo and Morris, 2005), now experiences the

prejudice of ‘single-parentalism.’ Single-parentalism manifests as the prejudice, discrimination, and bias exhibited toward parents that possess a single and/or uncoupled parental marital status. The reciprocity of this identity represents normative definitions of marriage and family relations in western society. There are coupled/married women whose identities are deemed ‘complete’ or ‘sufficient’ identities due to the fact that coupled/married mothers’ identities are considered desirable parental marital identities.

Due to the influences incorporated within the process of female identity conceptualization, single mothers are involved in two intertwined processes simultaneously.

The single mother must contend with owning a single marital status, a status that identifies her as possessing a ‘deficit’ identity (Reynolds and Taylor, 2004) when compared to her married equivalent. And also by owning this status she is involuntarily involved, forced to perceive her own ‘deficit’ as it is defined by the dominant culture (Stanley and Wise, 1993).

Consequently, her status (her central accumulated identity) is dependent upon another person if she is to achieve ‘complete’ status (Code, 2003). In essence, the single mother is not responsible for altering her own status. This alteration requires the presence of another individual. The single woman is, then, at a disadvantage and is disassociated from high

‘status’ (Gurian, 2002). In effect, when discussing the confines of marital status, single women are confined by a double bind (Bateson, et al., 1956).

The double bind single mothers find themselves unwillingly confronting contends with a compounded intertwined process in which she experiences the limitations of the double bind and the interpretation that she herself carries. Women subjected to the demands of the motherhood mandate (Lindsey, 2011) do not readily conform to or represent the expectations of mothers as they are defined. Heavily burdened by these demands, mothers are confronted with the necessity/need for women to represent the identity considered (most) ideal or most ‘adequate’/’good’ (May, 2004). When discussing identity, especially as it is considered primary to the values of women (Gurian, 2002), mothers must also contend with the compounded identity associated with parenthood, associated with the ‘motherhood mandate’ (Welch, 2013) while simultaneously negotiating their own composite parental marital statuses.

Again, the single mother here is the owner of a ‘deficit’ identity in position of a single marital status. She is also incapable of securing a partnership for association/identity for her child (May, 2004). In this scenario the single mother is deemed/interpreted as being responsible for the absence of another person, something often outside of her control. In this example, we find the single mother involved in a compounded version of the single woman’s double bind situation, in which the single mother unwillingly participates in her own double bind situation (Bateson, et al., 1956; Jost, 1995).

Keep in mind that choosing to marry epitomizes strong familiar cultural representations of women. As such, women often perceive marriages as something that is always moving toward them rather than away from them. Influenced by cultural norms, women must wait to be asked to marry (Peterson, 1981). This implies several things: first, women have restrictions in agency by having to wait to be asked and by choosing from a

limited and limiting selection available. In addition, in the event a woman is unmarried, the popular perception is that the woman’s marital status somehow her responsibility. Contrary to popular belief, Paterson (2001), explains that not all single mothers are poor, uneducated, or unskilled; in fact, a segment of single mothers in society are members of the middle class.

They are college educated and holders of professional degrees and occupations.

As such, feminists suggest that in order to understand the process of individuals as socially constructed beings or actors, attention must be directed toward illustrations of opposition subordination (Trethewey, 1997). According to Paterson (2001), popular conceptions of single parenthood are usually associated with single-motherhood and its correlations with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Essentially, these conceptions assume that social deviance is related to poverty, although social deviance can take many forms. In this respect, even single mothers that identify with middle class values and presumed statuses remain vulnerable to the consequences of social deviance. As members of the middle class, these single mothers may be subjected to differing though equally intense forms of prejudice including social exclusion just as their single mother counterparts experiencing lesser socioeconomic statuses.

Single-Parentalism: Stigma and Social Exclusion

Patterson (1965) asserts that the position of a minority group, in terms of level of acceptance, is largely determined by the governing culture. In this context, culture is responsible for identifying and perpetuating traditional norms that relegate single mothers to a minority status. Women (single mothers) are then included or excluded in conjunction with ideas nurtured by dominant society. Estes, et al., (2000) identifies that, within this criterion, either by stigmatized and supported beliefs or by underprivileged influences, there are

various socioeconomic factors by which single mothers are viewed as disadvantaged. In terms of economic stability, single mothers, in part, represent the absence of the male counterpart. Because fathers are predominately identified, using legal and socially constructed terms, as economic providers (a gendered value) (Welch, 2013), definitions that substantiate the criteria for inclusion are prejudiced by the absence of socioeconomic support and/or a stabilizing influence (i.e. the father).

The coupled/married mother, by contrast, possesses two vital characteristics the single mother does not. A coupled or married mother possesses a valued marital status and an idealized parental status because the representative other half, the male counterpart, is perceived to identify both married mother and her child/children. According to Western ideology of marriage and family (Stanley and Wise, 1993), these representations are necessary if proper recognition by the dominant society is to occur. Honneth (2012) claims that the development of the self in conjunction with the larger culture, or recognitive advancement, is unable to occur in a society that holds strong to traditional ideals because it is only through retrospect that normative terms can be identified ideological. In effect, retrospective lenses offer an insightful objective stance that enables viewers to ascertain whether or not historical normative terms may, in fact, have been destructive to the social context of the period. In fact, this phenomenon disables self-growth for those that fail to conform to the dominant beliefs that permeate society. Three distinct avenues hinder identity development creating this paradox. These hindrances include the lack of a male counterpart, the desired marital identity a male counterpart facilitates, and the absence of a male representative to acknowledge a parental identity to her offspring.

Feminists reacting to this paradigm suggest that individuals as socially constructed beings or actors must be directed toward instances of opposition to conditions of subordination (Trethewey, 1997). Identifying themselves with an undesired parental marital status, single mothers, collectively, represent an opposition to the normative values of the ideology of marriage and family (Greenberg et al., 1997; Lerner, 1980). Though single parenting may represent an opposition and be exceedingly demanding, parents, regardless of

marital or gender status, may expedite the development of a great sense of achievement

(May, 2004). Studies found that social support can temper adverse influences and the

pressures of parenting (Crnic & Booth, 1991; McCurdy, 2005). Social support can mitigate

the effect of stress. Stressors of various sorts (e.g., financial or health problems, lack of social

support, unhappiness at work, and unfortunate life events), many of which are more common

among single mothers, can cause emotional distress (Jun and Acevedo-Garcia, 2007).

Therefore, due to the lack of social support, the stressors influenced by a lack of social

networks are heightened for single mothers.

According to Baumeister and Tice (1990), outgroups (i.e. single parents) experience

heavy doses of negative factors in connection with being socially excluded from in-groups.

Anxiety arises when the individual becomes has been excluded from membership from ingroups. Due to the significance of being incorporated within primary groups, individuals may attempt to develop personality traits deemed desirable by dominant culture. In the event a person or group is identified as a possessor of characteristics deemed undesirable, then social exclusion will likely occur. In the case of single parents, particularly single mothers, who possess two deviant statuses (that of a single person and lone parent), are more likely to be excluded from social groups and denied access to dominant in-groups.

In addition, due to the double bind nature of the parental marital status, single mothers may experience stressors not previously documented (Bateson, et al., 1956).

Baumeister and Tice (1990) identify the environment through which social exclusion may occur. This environment has three main criteria. First, in-groups will reject persons that cannot sufficiently contribute to the group’s survival or well-being. In essence, single mothers represent a deviant status. Association with this status may negatively influence (i.e. exclude and/or stigmatize) others in pursuit of desired normative statuses. This consequently deems her incapable of contributing positively to the in-group of coupled/married mothers.

Second, groups that violate the standards, which regulate conventions of interpersonal interaction, may be excluded because they represent a potential threat to the group’s system of interaction. Because single mothers represent a threat to the accumulated normative marital identities of women, single mothers contradict the standards and interactions of coupled/married mothers. Lastly, persons or groups that are deemed physically unappealing will not be permitted to participate in in-group activities. Though physical unattractiveness may be widely interpreted as an individual physically owning an undesirable characteristic or trait, it may also be interpreted as a physical manifestation deemed unattractive by the larger and more desirable social group; therefore, the “organization of the group may be conceptualized in terms of how inclusion and exclusion are determined” (Baumeister and

Tice, 1990:169).

This physical manifestation may extend to undesired physical traits that are directly associated with the individual. As such a child may represent a direct connection to an individual’s physically undesirable manifestation. In terms of marital status, mothers that contradict normative marital standards represent opposing values of coupled parenthood

among coupled/married mothers (Carter and McGoldrick, 1980). This conforms to

contemporary parental marital values, commonly associated with religious underpinnings.

Women that do not conform to traditional beliefs about the sanctity of marriage, and the

production of the family therein, in effect undermine the foundations of characteristics of

privileged religious beliefs and religious association as a predominant social group (Rassam,

1993). Here, groups exercising social exclusion may interpret a collection of individuals as

undesirable for marriage (Baumesiter and Tice, 1990). In relation to the construct and

development of the self and identity of single mothers, “concepts of the self evolve from

knowing how one is perceived by others, and with substantial evidence that supports its

importance” (Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979:257). Identity is then connected to the physical

self within the larger social construct (Mead, 1934). People involve themselves with others on the basis of their perceived social roles, especially those that dominate their lives, along with other collected and meaningful senses of self. The concept of the self is therefore a socially constructed phenomenon contrived through a system of interpersonal relationships

(e.g., Baumeister, 1986).

Summary of Literature Review

Family structures and family systems, in conjunction with marital status identity,

contribute to the identity women accumulate through association. This becomes a

compounded role by becoming a parent and/or guardian. An estimated 37% of households

are single-parent families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). More than three-fourths of these

households are headed by women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Children residing in these

single-parent families are five times more likely to stay with their mother (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2007; Anderson & Sabetelli, 2011). Because of this, it becomes necessary to

examine the most vulnerable population that is directly affected by these social constructs

and its consequences. These are highlighted within the family structure and are specifically

linked, in proportion, to the amount of children residing in single parent and stepparent

families (UNICEF 2007, p. 25; Walker, Crawford, and Taylor, 2008). The effects of poverty

and living conditions directly influence the risks to well-being (Walker, et al., 2008). These

influences then contribute to the links between single-parenthood, poverty, and social

exclusion (Walker, et al., 2008). It is well documented that single-parent families, affected by the ripples of poverty, have been associated with behaviors that result in social exclusion due to not conforming to any societal norms (Mayall, 2006).

When considering the socialization in which women develop their accumulated identities (i.e. single, mother, parent, etc.) and suffer the effects of social exclusion, in conjunction with parental marital status as well as poverty, it becomes necessary to investigate the correlation between parental marital status and social exclusion. We must do this in an attempt to identify the variability that connects these identities and their associated consequences.

Chapter Three: Methodology

Research Method

The proposed methodological approach develops and substantiates a survey instrument designed to assess perceptions and attitudes towards single parents. To capture this data the “Parents: Perceptions and Attitudes Survey” was designed to gather information about perceptions and attitudes pertaining to marital status, parental status, and parental marital status. Included in the study are questions that pertain to socioeconomic status, subjective socioeconomic status, social distance, and personal demographics. Based on research literature, this survey was created to discover whether or not marital status, parental status, social distance, and socioeconomic status are significant factors in the perceptions and attitude assessments of people. This data set captures a variety of marital status ideals and related concepts while measuring the strength of marital status conceptually. The data measures the length of parentage, perceptions of various parental marital identities, and the strength of conformity to parental marital norms. This data set also captures individual perceptions of parental marital status while identifying individual behaviors in the form of social exclusion based on these perceptions. A pilot study was conducted as an initial investigation of this research. The next section summarizes and discusses the methodology of the pilot study.

Pilot Study

The pilot study was performed to identify problems and/or errors with the structure

and terminology utilized in the questionnaire. I designed the instruments used for the pilot

study. These instruments include Stigma, Social Exclusion, and Single Parenthood Survey.

A convenience sample was used and the survey was distributed to 66 students at a California

State University, Bakersfield in the western part of the United States. The students were

largely enrolled at the undergraduate level in Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Social Work

courses. These participants were invited to voluntarily complete the questionnaire online.

Approximately all of the questionnaires were administered through email using the Qualtrics

database survey system. No financial or other compensation was given to respondents for their participation in this study. This data set captured a variety of parent related concepts. It measured individual actual parentage, strength of marital identity, strength of parent identity, children of single parent family perceptions, and conformity to parental norms. The data set also captured individual’s perceptions in the form of bias and social exclusion, as well as perceptions of deviant behaviors. Incorporated in the pilot study was a comment box section that encouraged participants to explain their interpretation of the questionnaire, with reference to phrasing or structure. They were also asked to reveal any concerns and to offer explanations about specific responses. I was available to answer respondent inquiries prior to administering the survey and after the survey was complete (via email). Testing the pilot study questionnaire was an essential step in the process and it effectively identified potential errors and/or problems with the testing procedure. It is important that many respondents of the pilot study resemble those featured in the sample utilized for this study (Nardi, 2006).

Participants were informed that involvement in the survey was completely voluntary and anonymous. The online surveys could not be traced or used to identify any of the participants. As such, the risk of participation to the questionnaire respondents was minimal.

It was also explained that, in the event that any feelings or interpretations caused discomfort, respondents could skip questions and/or end their participation in the survey altogether. This

precaution was taken to reduce potential discomforts associated with the survey process. It

was also explained to the participants that the intentions of this survey was to investigate the

perceptions and attitudes of parents was also described to the respondents, although no

specific survey questions were expressed. This step was taken to reduce the risk of

respondents answering survey questions according to expectations.

Sample

The final survey was distributed to 496 respondents at Antelope Valley College and

California State University, Bakersfield. In order to acquire an appropriate sample size, it is

recommended that at least 100 participants be recruited to establish a positive factor

examination. A sample size smaller than 100 respondents may not offer adequate statistical

significance to reject the null hypothesis (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1995).

Students and faculty were be recruited as participants for this study. Students and a few

faculty were primarily enrolled or instructing at the undergraduate level and enrolled in large

lower level Sociology, Criminal Justice, Child and Family Studies, English, Liberal Arts, and

Psychology courses where they were invited to voluntarily complete a questionnaire.

Although the criterion was students must be enrolled and actively pursuing some course of

study and an undergraduate degree they can be in any stage of progress. In addition, only

students that were present in class, at the time of survey distribution, were chosen as respondents for the study. All of the questionnaires were administered in person and in classroom settings. Respondents did not receive any financial compensation for their participation.

Instrumentation

The research method used in this study is quantitative. Two instruments were utilized

to acquire data for this study. The survey includes the Parents: Perceptions and Attitudes

Survey and the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Survey. Incorporated in the

‘Parents: Perceptions and Attitudes Survey’ are adaptations from a published Bogardus

Social Distance Scale (Bogardus, 1926; Babbie, 2006; Karakayali, 2009), the MacArthur

Socioeconomic Status Survey (Adler, et al., 2000), and the Occupational Prestige in

Comparative Perspective study (Treiman, 1977; Nakao and Treas, 1990). A description of

the two instruments are listed as follows:

The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status Survey is a published instrument

intended to apprehend the common sense of social status (Ostrove, Adler, Kuppermann, and

Washington, 2000; Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, and Ickovics, 2000; Goodman, Adler, Kawachi,

Frazier, Huang, and Colditz, 2001; Singh-Manoux, Adler, and Marmot, 2003). The Bogardus

Social Distance Scale (Boardus 1926) is intended to capture people’s willingness to participate in social contacts, of various proximities, with members of diverse groups. . The

MacArthur Socioeconomic Survey (Adler, et al., 2000) is a published instrument designed to capture people’s collective socioeconomic statuses based on variations of educational attainment, occupational prestige, and income/wealth. The Occupational Prestige in

Comparative Study is adapted for the purpose of defining occupational prestige (Treiman,

1977; Nakao and Treas, 1990).

The questionnaire includes 71 questions with 70 close-ended questions and one open- ended qualitative response/comment section. The questions range from Likert-scale questions

to distinguish range of responses, social distance to measure proximity, personal

demographics to establish mother’s union histories, socioeconomic questions to measure socioeconomic status, and subjective socioeconomic status questions to identify self-reported perceptions of socioeconomic status. The ‘Parents: Perceptions and Attitudes Survey’ was designed by this researcher for this specific study.

Dependent Variables

Various dependent variables were transformed into four indexes to represent Single

Women Bias (SWB), Single Mother Bias (SMB), Coupled Mother Preference (CMP), and the Single Parent Family Bias (SPFB). Included within these indexes are measurements intended to capture the strength of various biases exhibited toward single women, single mothers, coupled mothers, and members of single parent families. Four dependent variables were created into indexes for the purpose of Bivariate Correlations, t-tests, and OLS multiple regression. A description of the indexes are listed as follows:

‘Single Woman Bias (SWB) is a measure that combines Likert-scale statements transformed into a dependent variable index. Responses range from “strongly agree,”

“agree,” “slightly agree,” “slightly disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” “Strongly

Disagree” is coded as 1 and “strongly agree” as 6. This index includes: (i.) People should be allowed to divorce if they choose [Q3]; (ii.) At times, I question why a woman is unmarried

[Q4]; (iii.) When I see a woman over 25 years old I wonder when she will get married [Q5];

(iv.) When I know a woman fails often in relationships I wonder about her ability to “keep a man” [Q6]; (v.) Singlehood for women is a legitimate life choice [Q8]; (vi.) A woman is within her right to terminate a pregnancy [Q10]; and (vii.) I fear that a single person might steal my spouse/partner [Q18]. In this study, single woman bias is defined as stigma directed

toward a woman that is perceived to possess an uncoupled marital status which is deemed

‘deficit’ (in terms of ‘singlism’ conceptualization) that signifies she is unidentified by a

significant other or uncoupled with a male counterpart, by which she is initially labeled and

identified by the dominant culture and by herself. Note that question Q6 is intended as a reversal question and are transformed in the data analysis to represent this change

‘Single Mother Bias (SMB) is a measure that combines Likert-scale statements transformed into a dependent variable index. Responses ranged from “strongly agree,”

“agree,” “slightly agree,” “slightly disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” “Strongly disagree” is coded as 1 and “strongly agree” as 6. This index contains: (i.) It is morally wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock [Q11]; (ii.) Single-parenthood is a legitimate life choice [Q13]; (iii.) Single-parent families weaken family values in society

[Q15]; (iv.) When a woman becomes a single-parent it is usually more her fault than the child’s father’s fault [Q16]; (v.) When a woman becomes a single-parent it is her obligation not to date [Q17]; (vi.) Most single-mothers are poor, uneducated, and unskilled [Q20]; and

(vii.) A single-mother is as capable of raising her children as a married mother [Q21]. Note that questions Q11, Q15, Q16, and Q20 are intended as reversal questions and were altered to represent this change. In this study, single mother bias is defined as stigma directed toward a

woman that identifies herself as parent/guardian of an child or adolescent person while

simultaneously perceived as possessing an uncoupled marital status which is deemed

‘deficit’ (in terms of ‘singlism’ conceptualization) that signifies she is unidentified by a

significant other or uncoupled with a male counterpart and that her child or adolescent

offspring are perceived to be unrecognized by a paternal figure, by which she is initially

labeled and identified by the dominant culture and by herself. For this reason, the Single

Mother Identity is also referenced in conceptualized terms as a parental marital status

considered an Illegitimate-Deficit Identity. In addition, parental marital bias that supports

Single Mother bias is referenced as supportive toward single-parentalism, which is a

conceptualization of the measurement of stigma toward single mothers.

‘Coupled Mother Preference (CMP) is a measure that combines Likert-scale statements transformed into a dependent variable index. Responses ranged from “strongly agree,” “agree,” “slightly agree,” “slightly disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.”

“Strongly disagree” is coded using 1 and “strongly agree” is coded using 6. This index includes: (i.) People in a committed relationship are generally happier than single people

[Q1]; (ii.) It’s a woman’s duty to keep a family together, no matter how bad it is [Q2]; (iii.)

Most women would prefer to be married [Q7]; (iv.) Most women would prefer to be a parent

[Q9]; (v.) Most women would prefer not to be a single parent [Q12]; (vi.) Most women would prefer to be married when becoming a parent [Q14]; and (vii.) A woman needs a man to be “whole” or “complete” [Q19]. The Coupled Mother Preference is favoritism directed toward a woman that identifies herself as parent/guardian of an child or adolescent person while simultaneously perceived as possessing a coupled marital status which is deemed

‘normative’ (in terms of ‘singlism’ conceptualization) that signifies she is identified by a significant other or coupled with a male counterpart and that her child or adolescent offspring are perceived to be recognized by a paternal figure, by which she is initially labeled and identified by the dominant culture and by her self. For this reason, the Coupled

Mother Preference is also referenced in conceptualized terms as a parental marital status term deemed a Legitimate Identity. Note that questions Q2 and Q19 are intended as reversal questions and are converted in the data analysis to represent this change.

‘Single Parent Family Bias (SPFB) is a measurement adapted from the Bogardus

Social Distance Scale (Bogardus, 1926). This scale captures people’s willingness to

participate in social contacts with various degrees of closeness, with members of various

groups. For the purposes of this study the group assigned to the adapted social distance scale

focuses on members of single parent families. These include: (i.) I’m comfortable interacting

with single-parent families: a) ‘in my community’ is coded as 5; b) ‘at extra-curricular

activities’ is coded as 4; c) ‘at school functions’ is coded as 3; d) ‘in my neighborhood’ is

coded 2; e) ‘in my home’ is coded as 1 [Q27]; (ii.) I would be comfortable with my

child/children: a) ‘being in the same classroom with children of single-parent families’ is

coded 5; b) ‘involved in supervised activities with children of single-parent families’ is coded

as 4; c) ‘having a play date at my house with children of single-parent families’ is coded as 3;

d) ‘having a play date at the home of peers of single-parents’ is coded as 2; e) ‘having a

sleepover at the home of peers of single-parents’ is coded as 1 [Q28]; (iii.) I would be

comfortable with my adult child having: a) ‘single-parents as acquaintance’ is coded as 5; b)

‘single-parents as best friends’ is coded as 4; c) ‘dating a single-parent’ is coded as 3; d)

‘married to a single-parent’ is coded as 2; e) ‘becoming a single parent’ is coded as 1 [Q30].

The social distance scale queries participants, with a series of segmented dichotomous questions in five degrees of proximity, to the extent that they would be tolerant or accepting of particular groups (Babbie, 2006). It also identifies groups as participants of in-groups

(desired) or out-groups (undesired) (Karayakali, 2009). Here the group under scrutiny is single parent family groups. Agreement with any item on the social distance scale indicates agreement with all previous items. The Single Parent Family Bias is a measurement that captures the perceived stigma of feelings and reactions toward members of single parent

families based on normative distinctions among members of society about parental marital

statuses that are considered part of the in-group (coupled/ married parents) or out-group

(single parents) in proximal arenas of varied interpersonal scenarios. Furthermore, various

continuous variables are utilized to capture the amount of interactions with people of various

marital, parental, and parental marital statuses. These are intended to estimate levels of exposure to people and groups mentioned herein (see questions: Q22, Q23, Q24, Q25, and

Q26).

Independent Variables

For the independent variables utilized, four variables were made into dummy

variables for the purpose of t-tests and OLS regression. For coding purposes, 0 represented

the absence of the variable characteristic and 1 represented the presence of the characteristic.

This was to ensure consistency when using dichotomous variables as dummy variables in a

multiple regression. Employed is coded as a dichotomous variable for this analysis with 0 for unemployed and 1 for employed. Sex is coded as a dichotomous variable with 0 to indicate male and 1 indicate female. Parental status is coded as a dichotomous variable with 0 for non-parent and 1 for parent. Coupled is coded as a dichotomous variable with 0 for uncoupled and 1 for coupled. Age, is represented by respondents indicating their age in number of years. The variable marital status is identified as “single, never married,”

“married,” “married, but separated,” “single, but cohabitating with another person,

“divorced,” and “widowed.” Parental status and marital status questions were asked in place of parental marital status questions. These questions were avoided because of the negative stigma associated with variations in desirability associated with parental marital statuses

(May, 2004); participants may self-report their parental marital statuses in ways that are

perceived to possess less negative connotations or less perceived biases than when asked independently of each other. Income is an ordinal variable, derived from the MacArthur

Socioeconomic Survey. It is divided into brackets which represent the respondents’ total combined annual income for a period of 12 months [Q70].

Various independent variables were transformed into three indexes to represent

Religiosity, Socioeconomic Status (SES), and Subjective Socioeconomic Status (SSS). These variables identify strength of religiosity and socioeconomic statuses (objective and subjective). These are listed as followed:

‘Religiosity’ is a measurement that combines binary, ordinal, and continuous statements transformed into a independent variable index. This index includes: (i.) Do you have religious convictions that: a) prohibit sex outside of marriage [Q29a]; (ii.) Discourage divorce [Q29b]; (iii.) Against having children out of wedlock [Q29c]; (iv.) Against having extramarital relations [Q29d]; (v.) On a scale of 0-10, how religious would you describe yourself [Q32]; and (vi.) How often do you attend religious services [Q45]. Religiosity is the subjective and self-reported interpretation of religious attitudes in terms of religious convictions, strength of religious association, and institutionalized or traditional religious involvement by which one identifies one’s self in context with internalized perceptions of one’s own relationship to religion. Note that questions Q29a-Q29d are binary questions and

Q32 is stated an ordinal statement with “never” coded as one and “once a week or more” coded as 7. All of these questions are utilized for the purpose of index incorporation when represented in the data analysis.

MacArthur Socioeconomic Status Survey. ‘Socioeconomic Status’ (SES) is a measurement derived from the MacArthur Socioeconomic Survey that combines ordinal statements

transformed into a index. This index includes the following questions: (i.) What is the highest degree you earned [Q65]; (ii.) What is your occupation [41a]; (iii.) Which of these categories best describes your total combined income for the past 12 months [Q70]. The Socioeconomic

Status is the accumulative factors of educational attainment, occupational prestige, and total wealth signifying an accrued social class status in context with the dominant society. Note that occupational prestige was adapted in accordance with occupations which possess a numerical value in the Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective (Treiman, 1977;

Nako and Treas, 1990).

‘MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status’. ‘Subjective Socioeconomic Status’ (SSS) is a measurement from the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. It is a measurement that captures the common sense of social status (Ostrove, et al., 2000; Adler, et al., 2000;

Goodman, et al., 2001; Singh-Manoux, et al., 2003). It includes (i.) MacArthur Scale of

Subjective Social Status within ones community [Q62]; and the MacArthur Scale of

Subjective Social Status within the United States [ Q63]. Subjective Socioeconomic Status is a subjective common sense of social status.

Data Collection

The procedures used in this study focus on participants answering questions on a quantitative survey. Specific steps were taken to enhance anonymity and protect the privacy of the participants for this study: a) answers provided remained anonymous and participants completed the survey a minimum of 3-feet from other participants and non-participants to ensure that other students could not see and/or witness responses for any in-class

administration; b) completed surveys were collected by students individually. They placed their completed survey face down on a table in the center or at the front of the room/classroom. Immediately following the collection of surveys from all participants in each setting, the collection was divided into several portions and then re-piled to ensure anonymity; c) student participants, because they study various majors, regardless of the demographic, should insure that responses are not used to identify any survey participant.

Furthermore, the survey does not ask any participants to identify either themselves or any other surveyors in this survey. In addition, participation in the survey was completely voluntary with no penalty for nonparticipation.

Subjects

The subject selection criteria for participation in this sample were convenient and nonrandomized. Thought the convenient sample limits the ability to generalize to a larger population, I have reason to believe that the views of the participants are different from those of the general population of college students and faculty in the Bakersfield-Antelope Valley areas of California. The participants were recruited in college classrooms. In the event that university employees were present in classrooms, the option to participate in the study was be offered. To ensure anonymity, university employees that participated in this study were instructed to follow the same procedure guidelines all other respondents are asked to follow

(note that the university employees that participated in this study were N=5). In the event classroom participants decline to participate in the study they were encouraged to communicate with other students and/or instructors regarding existing class material and/or other agendas unrelated to the survey and/or the participating respondents removed from the

survey participation area. Only adult participants over the age of 18 were asked to

participate in this study. There was no penalty for non-participation. The populations that

may have been vulnerable to this study included the economically disadvantaged and various ethnic minorities because they are not well intergraded into the ethnic, cultural, economic, and geographic characteristics of the dominant society. Although some employees at Antelope Valley College and California State University, Bakersfield were

surveyed, their anonymity was guaranteed and there is no clear loss to participants or non-

participants.

Data Analysis

The data received from these surveys were entered into SPSS by creating a separate

variable for each question asked in the survey. In addition, several indexes were created for

the purpose of capturing general biases and discrimination. The responses from these

questions were coded and identified as independent and dependent variables, which are listed

as followed:

Responses to the Likert-scale questions are transformed into several indexes by

measuring the collective mean responses to create numerous variables. Responses to the

Social Distance questions were scored based on a cumulative scale with a mean score given

to each styled question. Responses to the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status survey

were represented by two separate responses and identified as independent variables. In

order to track surveys entered into SPSS, each survey was assigned as a case number to

identify specific respondents, which corresponds to the data file in the SPSS system. This

enables the researcher to verify data entered and to ensure the validity of transferred

information. Although there is no known method of handling missing data that is isn’t 40

vulnerable to disadvantages (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black, 1995), Mertler and

Vannatta (2005) suggest that surveys with missing data (continuous only) can be substituted by the mean value of the variable.

Strength of Method

The survey method is beneficial in revealing a relationship between perceived bias, parental marital status, and social exclusion in a large population. The quantitative approach aids in identifying distinctive trends within a large population (Larsson, 1993). In addition, it is useful in capturing and filtering through social interactions that may be either latent or suppressed. This method is useful in deriving a generalization from the sample to the entire population in the Western part of the United States. With a specific, detailed, and thorough research strategy and development of the survey instrument, the findings from a sampled population may exemplify the population at large. Although the participants are largely student-respondent based, the demographics of the student body which participated in the research are atypical. The respondents varied in age, occupation, family socioeconomic history, and race. These variations are, in part, largely representative of the dominant population in which the data was collected, and therefore the population sample may accurately represent the larger population. The survey method is valuable when various variables utilized and this method allows for close-ended questions, which enables statistical analysis. Quantitative research offers an avenue to accept or reject hypothesis to be statistically significant within the margin of error. Therefore, this approach is advantageous when exploring the effect of particular factors on others.

Limitation of Method

The limitations of the study are that the responses participants can offer are limited to

the options the researcher has offered as suitable classifications. Quantitative research has

strengths and weaknesses that can identify trends and offer comparative analysis in the

dominant population, but it does not adequately explain the interrelated factors (such as

feelings, thoughts, reasons), which contribute to the perceptions and subjective notions

within a population. In addition, the survey method utilized in this research does not pose in-

depth questions and/or offer explanatory responses, which would otherwise offer information

not collected within the questionnaire.

It is probable that there is a risk in generalizing the findings due, in part, to the student-participant population that largely consisted of the sample. In addition, the geographic regions and socioeconomic factors of the participants are fairly similar, which may further place limitations on the results. Therefore, the results may have differed had data

been collected from various regions and participants with diverse socioeconomic factors. In

addition, the method chosen for this study was convenience based sampling and not random

sampling. It may also be that student-participants may possess different characteristics than those that do not attend college and that student-participants from different colleges exhibit variations in personal experiences as well, but as indicated earlier, the risk is observed to be marginal.

Chapter Four: Findings

Females Represent Bias Trend

The initial analysis of the data concentrated on t-test measures to detect any distinguishable trends between various independent variables and four dependent variables.

This measure was used because each of the variables were either binary or numeric. Table 1 displays the differences among the variables tests. The t-test results are significant with a sample size of N=496.

Table 1. Results from t-Tests Single Woman Single Mother Coupled Mother Single Parent Bias Bias Preference Family Bias

Coupled -114.859* -135.471* -138.897* -35.47*

Sex -188.473* -140.762* -141.753* -33.17*

Parent -130.936* -155.012* -151.381* -39.50*

Employed -130.010* -152.746* -150.632* -36.09*

PMS -60.227* -71.622* -71.028* -17.72*

Parent, (F) -99.183* -123.559* -117.391* -30.34*

N 496 496 496 496 * p-value <0.001

The sex variable was coded 0 for male and 1 for female, which implies here that there is a difference among sex and bias, as well as preference. The parent variable was coded as 0 for nonparent and 1 for parent, being a parent here implies that there is a difference between whether or not a participant is a parent with a bias, and/or a preference. The variable coupled was coded as 0 for uncoupled (single, never married; divorced; widowed) and 1 for coupled

(married; married, but separated; single, but cohabiting with another person) which implies

here that there is a difference between coupled and bias, and coupled and preference. The variable employed was coded as 0 for unemployed and 1 for employed, which signifies here that a participant is employed with a bias or employed with a preference. The variable

parental marital status (PMS) was coded as 0 for uncoupled mothers and 1 for coupled

mothers, which indicates there is a difference between parental marital status and bias, and/or preference. The variable mother is coded as 0 for non-mother and 1 for mother, which signifies that there is a difference between mother and bias or mother and preference.

After reviewing the initial t-test results, a specific trend began to emerge. In examining differences among the sexes, females appeared to have more bias and preference in each case. In terms of differences, there is a difference between males and females based on single woman bias in the 496 participants surveyed (t = -188.473; p < .001). Examining the means between males and females, it was discovered that females have approximately a

4% higher level of single woman bias. The differences are evident among males and females based on single mother bias in this study (t = -140.762; p < .001). Females have approximately 6% more single mother bias among the participants. There is a difference between males and females based on coupled mother preference (t = -141.753; p < .001).

Females have nearly 2% more coupled mother preference. There is a difference between males and females based on single parent family bias (t = -33.171; p < .001). Females have roughly 6% more single parent family bias among the respondents.

In analyzing the differences among the four dependent variables, single parent family bias was shown to have the most significance in multiple cases. There is a difference between coupled and uncoupled people based on single parent family bias (t = -35.47; p <.001).

Coupled people had about 4% more single parent family bias among the respondents.

In terms of differences among parents and the four dependent variables, single parent family

bias was shown to be most significant. There is a difference between nonparents and parents based on single parent family bias (t = -39.501; p <.001). Parents had about 8% more single parent family bias among the participants surveyed. In terms of difference between the mother variable and the four dependent variables, of these single parent family bias was shown to be the most statistically significant. There is a difference between mothers and non- mothers based on single parent family bias (t = -30.345; p <.001). Mothers had about 6% more single parent family bias among the participants. Also, in terms of differences between the employed variable and the four dependent variables, single parent family bias was shown to be most significant. There is a difference between employed and unemployed people based on single parent family bias (t = -36.09; p <.001). Unemployed people had more than 10%

single parent family bias among the respondents in the study.

In addition, in terms of difference between the parental marital status variable and

the four dependent variables, single mother bias was shown to be most significant. There is a

difference between coupled mothers and uncoupled mothers based on single mother bias

(t = -71.622; p <.001). Uncoupled/single mothers had over 6% more single mother bias in the

data collected.

Subset: Mothers Analysis—Stigmatized Perceptions of Marital Status among Single Women and Mothers After an in-depth examination of significance among the t-test results, the analysis concentrates on the most prominent subset within the sample population: mothers, (N=103).

After finding that there was little significance (i.e. these findings were, ultimately, immaterial 45

in statistical standards) in the larger sample (N=496) through bivariate and multiple regression, I then set out to sample my original hypothesis of female bias among the female population itself. These findings are described as followed:

The first research question concentrated on the association between perceptions of marital status among women, and whether or not the stigmatized perceptions that pertain single women apply to single mothers. To examine this issue, the sums of seven different variables were combined into a single woman bias index, and seven into a single mother bias.

In addition, for the purpose of analyzing data, the variables were coded into ranges of 1 through 6. The highest value possible for the single woman bias index was 36 and the lowest

16, with a mean of 24.88. The highest value possible for the single mother bias index was 42 and the lowest 19, with a mean of 31.05.

Bivariate regression analysis was used because the variables were all continuous.

Table 2 and Graph 1display the relationship between single woman bias and single mother bias among the subset.

Table 2. Bivariate Regression, Single Mother Bias Single Woman Bias

Constant 22.999*

Single Mother Bias 0.324

R-squared 0.098

Adjusted R-squared 0.087

N 103 *p-value <0.05

Graph 1. Bivariate Regression, Single Woman Bias and Single Mother Bias

Reviewing Table 2 of single woman bias and single mother bias, it is determined

there is a relationship between these biases among the 103 mothers in the subset sample

population (p = 0.003). For each additional point on the single woman bias index, the single mother bias score is predicted to increase by .32 points. Single woman bias explains about

10% of the variance in the single mother bias of the 103 mothers sampled and is a definite

but small relationship.

By reviewing the relationship results of single woman bias and single mother bias,

mothers that have bias toward single women also have bias towards single mothers, which suggests that the answer to the first research questioned posed is that, based on the perceptions of marital status among women, albeit statistically small, there is a relationship between the stigmatized perceptions of single women and single mothers. Consequently, the null-hypothesis is rejected (there is a relationship between the bias perceptions of single

women and single mothers). However, this analysis concentrates on prejudice within the subgroup of mothers themselves, and while focusing on this subset became necessary due to the results produced from differences measures, one needs to remember that the relationship between these biases is specific to the mother group. Based on the initial research hypothesis, that in the event a link was discovered between the stigmatized perceptions of marital status among single women and single mothers, the next inquiry then focuses on whether or not the bias extends from single mothers to coupled mothers. These findings are statistically significant in identifying factors that contribute to the parental marital status biases or preferences.

Single Mother Bias vs. Coupled Mother Preference

The second research question focused on the disparity of parental marital status and bias by inquiring whether or not being a single mother or coupled mother could predict prejudice. For the purpose of analyzing data within the subset, they were coded into scales of

1 through 6. The highest value possible for the single mother bias index was 42 and the lowest 19, with a mean of 31.05. The highest value possible for the coupled mother preference index was 40 and the lowest 14, with a mean of 30.00. Through bivariate regression, it was discovered that four independent variables, was demonstrated to be statistically significant, each had negative relationships with the single mother bias dependent variable, of which are displayed in Table 3. This analysis is listed as followed:

Table 3. Bivariate Regression, Mothers Subset Single Mother Bias Coupled Mother Preference

SSSC -0.235* ^0.055 -0.012 ^0.001

Religiosity -0.213* ^0.045 0.12 ^0.001

SPF -0.232* ^0.054 0.003 ^0.001

Adult Incomes -0.259* ^0.067 -0.005 ^0.001

FOP 0.081 ^0.006 0.272* ^0.074

N 103 103 ^ R-squared, * p-value <0.05

The bivariate regression analysis was used because the variables were all continuous.

The following tables exhibit the relationship between subjective socioeconomic status

(community), religiosity, single parent friends, adult incomes and single mother bias among the subset. There is a relationship between subjective socioeconomic status community ladder and single mother bias (p = 0.026). For each additional level on the subjective socioeconomic status community ladder, a mother’s single mother bias score is predicted to decrease by .49 points. Subjective socioeconomic status explains about 5% of the variance in the single mother bias of the subset sampled.

There is a relationship between religiosity and single mother bias in the sample subset

(p = 0.042). For each additional point on the religiosity index, a mother’s single mother bias score is predicted to decrease by .21. Religiosity explains about 4% of the variance with the single mother bias score.

There is a relationship between single-parent friends and single mother bias in the mothers’ sample (p < 0.042). For each additional single-parent friend, a mother’s single

mother bias score is predicted to decrease by .03. The number of single-parent friends

explains about 5% of the variance in the single mother bias score.

In addition, a relationship was found between adult incomes and single mother bias

(p < 0.013). For each additional adult contributing income in a household, a mother’s single

mother bias score is predicted to decrease by 1. The number of adult contributing income in a household explains about 7% of the variance in the single mother bias score.

In examining the single influencing factor that contributes to coupled mother preference, it is important to note that the relationship detailed below is positive in helping to identify a variable which directs favoritism toward coupled mothers.

Table 3 exhibits the relationship between fathers’ occupational prestige (FOP) and

coupled mother preference. There is a relationship between fathers’ occupational prestige

and coupled mother preference among the 103 participants of the subset sample population

(p = 0.024). For each additional unit of fathers’ occupational prestige, coupled mother

preference score among mothers is predicted to increase by .88. Fathers’ occupational

prestige explains about 7% of the variance with the coupled mother preference score.

Although these factors help in demonstrating the influencing variables, which can

decrease single mother bias, they don’t necessarily indicate factors that adequately contribute

to the bias toward single mothers. Although the findings indicate statistical significance, as

negative relationships were discovered, each relationship does not reveal any significant

information in ascertaining which variables predict stigmatization toward single mothers. On

the other hand, the analysis reveals the factors that contribute to the decrease in bias

exhibited toward single mothers. In addition, an examination of the single contributing factor

that produces a positive relationship with coupled mother preference, i.e. fathers’

occupational prestige, was found to be significant in revealing a favored perception toward coupled mothers. Collectively, these findings fail to reject the null-hypothesis by the statistical significance indicated in the analysis of the bivariate regression. In addition, the results, though significant, do not adequately address the second research question presented which aimed to identify the difference between parental marital status and stigmatization among mothers.

Multiple Regression Analysis

The third research question presented centered on the relationship between parental marital bias and social exclusion and whether or not one could predict the other. An answer to this question shows whether or not a mother with a single mother bias is more likely to exhibit a single parent family bias and whether or not a mother with a coupled mother preference is more likely to display a single parent family bias. The bivariate regression analysis (see Table 3) informs the following multiple regression analysis displayed in Table

4, listed below:

Table 4. Multiple Regression, Single Mother Bias Single Mother Bias (Constant) 37.394*

SSSC -0.459*

Religiosity -0.055

Single Parent Friends -0.038*

Adult Incomes -0.885*

R2 0.170

N 103 * p-value <0.05

According the multiple regression (Table 4) there is a relationship between subjective

socioeconomic status (community), single-parent friends, and people in household with

single mother bias (R2 = .170). SSSC, single-parent friends, and people in household per

person together explain about 17% of the variance in the single mother bias score. For each

additional level of SSSC, there is predicted to be a .45 decrease in the single mother bias

score per person holding constant for religiosity, single-parent friends, and adult incomes

(p = .028). For mothers, each additional single-parent friend there is predicted to be a .038 decrease in the single mother bias score holding constant for SSSC, religiosity, and contributing adult incomes. For each additional adult contributing income per household, there is predicted to be a .88 decrease in the single mother bias score, holding constant for

SSSC, religiosity, and single-parent friends. Although initially significant in the bivariate regression model, religiosity was not a significant predictor of single mother bias.

A multiple regression analysis was performed with the statistically significant independent variables in the bivariate regression (see Table 2) and the single parent family bias dependent variable. Table 5 displays the analysis below.

Table 5. Multiple Regression, Single Parent Family Bias Single Parent Family Bias

(Constant) 4.394*

Coupled Parent Friends -0.004

Religiosity 0.147*

Fathers’ Occupational Prestige -0.412*

R2 0.129

N 103 * p-value <0.05 52

There is a relationship between a participant’s religiosity and fathers’ occupational

prestige with single parent family bias (R2 = .129). Religiosity and fathers’ occupational

prestige per person together explains about 13% of the variance in the single parent family

bias score. For each additional point on the religiosity scale (between a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 23) there is predicted to be a .14 increase in the single parent family bias score per person, holding constant for coupled parent friends and fathers’ occupational prestige.

For each additional unit in fathers’ occupational prestige there is predicted to be a .41 decrease in the single parent family bias score per person, holding constant for religiosity and coupled parent friends. Although, initially significant in the bivariate regression analysis, coupled parent friends were found to not be statistically significant in the multiple regression model.

These analyses inform the third research question, which reveals that in determining whether or not a relationship exists between parental marital bias and social exclusion, that a

relationship is significant among these variables. Based on these findings, one can conclude

that as religiosity, single-parent friends, and adult incomes can predict the score of mothers’

single person bias to decrease. In addition, these results indicate that as the number of

coupled-parent friends and rise in the fathers’ occupational prestige value, a mothers’ single

parent family bias will decrease, but as mothers’ religiosity score, simultaneously, increases

so does her bias toward single parent families.

Although the aim of the research presented was to assess which factors influence the

dependent variables, and in effect, which biases and/or prejudice influence discrimination,

the research largely concentrates on how these various independent variables negatively influence the dependent variables, which contribute to bias and discrimination.

Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion

Marital Status as a Basis for Bias

Whether or not the marital status identity conceptualization thesis fails to describe the phenomena of the importance of marital status in western culture, the results from this study imply that social identity formation, for women, varies from the patterns of identity development of men. As supported by the differences measures presented by the sample population (N=496), females were overwhelmingly responsible for the most bias exhibited toward each group under investigation, representing more bias toward single women by over

4%, toward single mothers with 6%, 2% more preference for coupled mothers, and more than

6% prejudice toward single parent families. In other words, females in the study expressed a heightened sense of prejudice to every female group being researched.

In addition, the finding that single people support, and therefore accept, bias of a single marital status as a justification of legitimatized prejudice, supports DePaulo and

Morris’ (2005) argument that single people, and especially single women, are subconsciously accepting of this judgment. In this study, their finding was replicated in single women and single mothers exhibiting bias toward their own social group but, surprisingly, these groups were also responsible for holding the most bias within their own social groups, with single women exhibiting 4% more bias toward single women and single mothers responsible for 6% more prejudice expressed toward single mothers.

As DePaulo and Morris (2005) imply and as portrayed by Jost (1995), these results indicate groups which are subconsciously accepting of their own bias and, in effect, undermine the progress of the group itself, are manifestations of false consciousness by which a group in question is responsible for the underpinnings that compromise the group.

Though, as MacKinnon (1982) suggests, these paradigms are designed by a patriarchal

constructed society, which socializes women to appropriate themselves in accordance with

norms defined and supported by men—with the institution of marriage designed as primary

norm—extends to represent, for women, a vehicle for identity (Eichenbaum and Orbach,

1987). In addition, these findings further support DePaulo and Morris’ (2005) claims that a

coupled marital status is the most idealized for mothers with almost 4% of single women

expressing this preferred as a parental marital status.

These findings, highly significant but statistically weak, collectively aid in understanding a link between the stigmatized perceptions of single women that extends to that of single mothers. Although they do not adequately address the interrelated factors which support the basis for prejudice between these groups, the results do hint at the fact that the biases projected toward single mothers exists, in part due to marital status for both single women and single mothers, while acknowledging these prejudices occur for other reasons beyond those associated with socioeconomic factors (Brown and Moran, 1997; Jun and

Acevedo-Garcia, 2007). To some extent, this research aids in explaining the identity dilemmas and social contradictions highlighted in research presented by Paterson (2001), which aimed to investigate the contradictory experiences in identity reformulation and societal remarriage expectations of divorced women of the middle class.

Parental Marital Statuses: Bias and Preference

In determining whether or not parental marital status can predict stigma, the findings

indicate that although factors which contribute to the biases are not overwhelming, they are

beneficial in identifying which influences may decrease these biases. In addition, these relationships, although negative, aid in serving as a basis for acknowledging that a bias based

on parental marital status does exist. The negative relationship discovered between the number of single parent friends mothers have and their prejudice toward single mothers reverberates Zajonc’s (1968) mere exposure theory that recognizes the more interaction a member or group has to a stimulus, in this example the stimulus is single parent friends, the more accepting one becomes of it. Although this pattern helps in explaining the decrease in bias toward single mothers, it doesn’t necessarily indicate that a mother that does not have any single parent friends would have a bias toward single mothers themselves.

Farley’s (2000:33-36) argument, which suggests a person’s level of prejudice increases with a lower socioeconomic status are replicated, though subjectively, in the findings that highlight the negative relationship between a mothers’ subjective socioeconomic status (within their community) and number of adult incomes in a household

(which contributes to the subjective interpretation of socioeconomic status) with single mothers’ bias. And although the single contributing factor that produced a positive relationship with coupled mother preference, i.e. fathers’ occupational prestige (as a component of socioeconomic status), does not necessarily contradict Farley’s (2000) claim of the negative relationship between bias and lower socioeconomic status, this relationship does not necessarily support the reasoning of the favored perception toward coupled mothers that fathers’ occupational prestige influences.

Although these results do not address all of the factors that contribute to the biases of parental marital status, they bring to light a sense of awareness to the matter that a bias does in fact exist toward mothers based on marital status, but more importantly, they also expose the prejudice exhibited toward parental marital status among mothers.

Single Parent Families as Social Outcasts

With over 81% of the participants in this study identifying the term single parent as

associated with mothers, the data supports primary members of single parent families are

largely perceived to be women. Therefore, the results presented by the sample population

(N=496), which examines the bias exhibited toward single parent families, overwhelmingly

associates single mothers as a primary component of the single parent family unit. This

finding, which analyzes the single parent family bias, was overwhelmingly significant in

identifying a trend of discrimination expressed toward single parent families. Coupled people

represented over 4% more bias, parents over 8% more prejudice, mothers expressed 6% more

bias, and unemployed participants over 10% more discrimination toward the single parent

family unit. In other words, single parent families, as a family type, embody the most bias in

the prejudiced groups in this study.

In addition, the results of the study reveal that coupled mothers had about 3% more

bias toward single parent families. This finding, in part, is a contradiction in terms with the

revelation that coupled mothers are not responsible for exhibiting the most bias toward single

mothers but account for the greatest prejudice toward single parent families. Inconsistencies were also discovered in the negative relationship between religiosity and single mothers and the positive relationship between religiosity and single parent families.

This contradiction is explained by Crandrall and Eshleman’s (2003) model of justification-suppression of prejudice which details that when people face a conflict between the desire to enact bias and the need to preserve a progressive self image, the conflict itself encourages people to search for justification to keep members or groups as outgroups while simultaneously using the rationalization (legitimized bias) to escape adverse feelings about

themselves and their actions to outgroup members and to avoid stigma by other groups. This implies that the bias expressed by coupled mothers toward single parent families is justified as being exhibited toward members of these families and/or to the single parent family unit itself.

The data also implies that social exclusion, utilized as measurement of bias toward single parent families, is perceived by mothers (in the subset population) to not be directed at single mothers (though an integral part of the single parent family unit), but to interaction with other members within single parent families themselves. Since this unit is largely represented by the presence of the lone parent, usually women, and the presence of child/children, it is then suggested that the “legitimized” bias toward single parent families is more poignantly justified in its direction toward children of single parent families. This contradiction is further explained by the social distance analysis.

Since the measurement of social distance was used to identify bias exhibited toward members of single parent families (Bogardus, 1926; Babbie, 2006), the social exclusion dimensions were capable of capturing the social proximities of which mothers initialize their bias toward single parent families and in which degrees of distance they were perceived to occur. This is supported by the data that identifies that within the single parent family bias index, single mothers had about 2% more bias toward interacting with single parents themselves and 10% more bias in having their children interacting with peers from single parent families and, more so, coupled mothers expressed about 13% more bias toward the concept of their adult child interacting with adult children from single parent families.

According to Crandrall and Eshleman (2003), the “genuine prejudice” is suppressed, this became apparent by the analysis that identified single mothers as exhibiting the most

perceived bias toward single parents and the concept of having their children interact with

peers of single parent household, to being revealed through the “justified” concept of

exhibiting perceived discrimination to the concept of having a coupled mother’s child

become a single parent themselves.

In addition, single parent family bias index demonstrates a multidimensional

application. The primary function of operation is to identify the social distance at which

prejudice is enacted toward an out-group (i.e. single parent family members) (Bogardus,

1926; Babbie, 2006). Simultaneously, its alternate purpose in this study was identifying to which degree of distance mothers’ prejudice toward single parent families would become apparent and, according to Crandall and Eshleman (2003), justified. At each degree of social distance in the index, the initial bias became apparent for mothers’ in intimate settings. Over

85% of mothers in the subset indicated a bias toward interacting with single parents in their home. Almost 79% implied a prejudice to having their child sleepover at the home of peers of single parent families and about 11% indicated a bias with the idea of having their child play at the homes of peers of single parent families. In addition, mothers exhibited almost

49% discrimination with the social proximity of their adult children becoming a single parent themselves. To this extent, mothers’ score on the single parent family bias index indicated that the most ‘legitimized’ reason for a coupled mothers bias toward single parent families were exhibited toward the concept of their adult child interacting with adult children from single parent families.

Although existing research on the subject of single mother families concentrates heavily on the socioeconomic factors perceived to be associated with this unit (Brown and

Moran, 1997; Jun and Acevedo-Garcia, 2007), the data from this study indicates that the

biases exhibited toward single mothers and single parent families are more diverse and multidimensional at its basis. In addition, based on the results, they indicate that these prejudices exhibited toward single mothers and single parent families are not socioeconomically based, as indicated by Brown and Moran (1997) and Jun and Acevedo-

Garcia (2007). These findings further indicate that, although the factors that contribute to this were minimally significant, the data produced from this study is fundamental in identifying the biases that exist on the basis of parental marital status and the production of those biases through social exclusion.

This quantitative study both supports and rejects some previously held perceptions and some statistical evaluations and data. For women, there is a gap in research that concentrates on the accumulation and conceptualization of identity as it relates to parental marital status. This study contributes to existing research and empirical literature that investigates single parenthood at an interpersonal level by focusing on parental marital status among women. Generally, the data acquired through this research may alter perceptions of parental marital status and the role it plays in structuring identity accumulation, an integral component that defines individuality, autonomy, and the social self of women.

My thesis extends to the relationship between marital parental status and social exclusion through the socialization of patriarchal gender socialization as it relates to the development of womens’ identities and the consequences of owning ‘deficit identities’ (i.e. single parent, unwed mother, divorced parent, etc.) that result in stigmatization (i.e. stereotyping, prejudice, bias, etc.) contributing to the social exclusion process. In addition, future research should focus on qualitative approaches to distinguish the concerns of females, particularly mothers, about the reasoning for legitimizing the biases presenting in this

research. Research focused on identifying the reasons for the subjective interpretations of mothers may lend itself to explaining the latency of the issues, in the forms of prejudice and discrimination, investigated in this study. Furthermore, further research into the institution of marriage, as it relates to the construction of identity for women, needs to be examined by an in-depth process that aids in understanding the value attached to marital status as it is interpreted by women and compared to by women.

References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E., Castellazzo, G. & J. Ickovics. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592.

Anderson, Stephen A. and Sabatelli, Ronald M. (2011). Family Integration: A Multigenerational Developmental Perspective. Boston: Pearson.

Babbie, E. (2006). The Practice of Social Research (10th), Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc.

Bateson, Gregory, Jackson, Don D., Hayley, Jay and John Weakland. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4), 251-254.

Baumeister, Roy F and Dianne M. Tice. 1990. Point-Counterpoints: Anxiety and Social Exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 165-195.

Bickerton, T. (1983). Women alone, in Cartledge, S. and J. Ryan (eds). Sex and Love: New Thoughts on Old Contradictions. London:The Women’s Press, 157-166.

Bogardus, Emory S. (1926). Social Distance and the City. Proceedings and Publications of the American Sociological Study, 20, 40-46.

Brown, George W. and Patricia M. Moran. (1997). Single mothers, poverty and depression. Psychological Medicine, 27(1), 21-33.

Bryne, A. and D. Carr. (2005). Caught in the culture lag: the stigma of singlehood. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2/3), 83-90.

Cairney, John, Boyle, Michael, Offord, David R. and Yvonne Racine. (2003). Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemoil, 38, 442-449.

Cherlin, A.J. (2004). The Deinstitutionalization of Marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.

Clements, M. (1998). The Improvised Woman: Single Women Reinventing Single Life. London: Norton.

Code, Lorraine. (2002). Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories. London; New York: Routledge, 2002. Netlibrary/eBook Collection. (29, November 2003).

Conley, T.D. & Collins, B.E. (2002). Gender, Relationship Status, and Stereotyping About Sexual Risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1483-1494.

Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s 1902. Confer pp. 183-184 for first use of the term “looking glass self.”

Crandall and Eshleman. (2003). “A justification-suppression model of the expression of prejudice.” Psychological Bulletin 129(3):414-46.

Crnic, K. A., and C. L. Booth. (1991). Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions of daily hassles of parenting across early childhood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 1042-1050.

Delaney, Tim. (2005). Contemporary Social Theory: Investigation and Application. New York: Pearson (pp.207).

DePaulo, Bella M. & Morris, Wendy L. (2005). Singles in Society and in Science. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2/3), 57-83.

DePaulo, Bella M. (2006). Singled Out: How Single Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Eichenbaum, L., & Orbach, S. (1987). ‘Separation and Intimacy: Crucial Practice Issues in Working with Women in Therapy’ in S. Ernst and M. Maguire (Eds.) Living with the Sphinx: Papers from the Women’s Therapy Centre, pp.49-67. London: Women’s Press.

Farley, John E. (2000). Majority-Minority Relations. (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Flaherty, J., Veit-Wilson J., & Dornan P. (2004). Poverty: The Facts. Child Poverty Action Group, London.

Genna, Natach Marie De, Stack, Dale M., Serbin, Lisa A., Ledingham, Jane, and Schartzman, Alex E. (2007). Maternal and child health problems: The intergenerational consequences of early maternal aggression and withdrawal. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2417-2426.

Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L. Huang, B. & G. A. Colditz. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social standing: Development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2) Retrieved August 30, 2001, from http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/108/2/e31.

Gurian, Michael. 2002. The Wonder of Girls: Understanding the Hidden Nature of Our Daughters. New York, NY: Tarcher/Penguin Books.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and W. C. Black. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall: New Jersey.

Henslin, James M. (2007). Essential of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, (7th ed.), Pearson Custom Publishing: Boston, MA: 199.

Hills, John & Waldfogel, Jane. (2004). A “Third Way” in Welfare Reform? Evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 23(4), 765-788.

Hobcraft, John and Kathleen Kiernan. (2001). Childhood poverty, early motherhood, and adult social exclusion. British Journal of Sociology, 52(3), 495-517.

Jost, Jon T. (1995). Negative Illusions: Conceptual Clarification and Psychological Evidence Concerning False Consciousness. Political Psychology, 16(2), 397-424.

Jun, Hee-Jin and Dolores Acevedo-Garcia. (2007). The effect of single motherhood on smoking by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 653-666.

Karakayali, Nedim. (2009). Social Distance and Affective Orientations. Sociological Forum, 23(3), 538-562.

Kipling, Williams D., & Nida, Steve A. (2005). Obviously Ostracizing Singles: Psychological Inquiry, 16(2/3), 127-131.

Koropeckyyj-Cox, Tanya. (2005). Singles, Society, and Science: Sociological Perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 16(2/3), 91-97.

Larsson, Rikard. (1993). Case Survey Methodology: Quantitative Analysis of Patterns Across Case Studies. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1515-1546.

MacKinnon, Catherine A. (1982). Feminism, Marxism, Method and the State: An Agenda for Theory, Signs. 7, 515-544.

May, Vanessa. (2004). Narrative identity and the Re-conceptualization of lone motherhood. Narrative Inquiry, 14(1), 169-189.

Mayall, B. (2006). Child-adult relations in social space. In: E.K.M. Tisdall, J.M. Davis, M. Hill and A. Prout (Eds.) Children, Young People and Social Inclusion, pp.199- 215. Policy Press: Bristol.

McIntyre, Lisa. The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology. 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.

Misovich, S.J., Fisher, J.D., & Fisher, W.A. (1997). Close Relationships and Elevate HIV Risk Behavior: Evidence and Possible Underlying Psychological Processes. Review of General Psychology, 1, 72-107.

Mitchell, Wendy and Eileen Green. (2002). ‘I don’t know what I’d do without our Mam’ motherhood, identity and support networks. The Editorial Board on the Sociological Review. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford and Malden: MA.

Morris, Wendy L., Sinclair, Stacy, & DePaulo, Bella M. (2007). No Shelter for Singles: The Perceived Legitimacy of Martial Status Discrimination. Group Processes Ingroup Relations, 10(4), 457-470.

Morris, W.L., DePaulo, B.M., Hertel, J., & Taylor, L.C. (2008). Singlism: Another Problem That Has no Name: Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination Against Singles. In T.G. Morrison & M.A. Morrison (Eds.), The Psychology of Modern Prejudice (pp.165-194). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Nakao, Keiko and Judith Treas. (1990). Occupational Prestige in the United States Revisited: Twenty-Five Years of Stability and Change. Referenced in Kerbo, Harold R. Social Stratification and Inequality: Class Conflict in Historical and Comparative Perspective, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991:181.

Nardi, Peter M. (2006). Doing Survey Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ostrove, J. M., Adler, N. E., Kuppermann, M. & A. E. Washington. (2000). Objective and subjective assessments of socioeconomic status and their relationship to self- related health in an ethnically diverse sample of pregnant women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 613-618.

Paterson, A. (2001). Unbroken Homes: Single parent mothers tell their stories. New York.

Patterson, S. (1965). Dark Strangers: A Study of West Indians in London. Penguin: London.

Perrin, Paul B., Heesacker, Martin, Tiegs, Tom J., Lawton, Swan K., Lawrence, Alvin W. Jr., Smith, Mary B., Carrillo, Robin J., Cawood, Romy L., and Cristina M. Mejia- Millan. (2010). Aligning Mars and Venus: The Social Construction and Instability of Gender Differences in Romantic Relationships. Sex Roles, 64, 613-628.

Phoenix, A. and A. Woollett. (1991). ‘Motherhood: social construction, politics and psychology’ in Phoenix, A., Woollett, A. and E. Lloyd (eds.) Motherhood, Meanings, Practices and Ideologies. London: Sage, 13-27.

Rassam, A. Yasmine. 1993. “Mother,” “Parent,” and Bias. HeinOnline, 69:1155-1163. Reilly, L. (1996). Women Living Single: Thirty Women Share their Stories in Navigating Through a Married World. London: Faber and Faber.

Reynolds, Jill & Wetherell, Margaret. (2003). The Discursive Climate of Singleness: The Consequence of Women’s Negotiation of a Single Identity. Feminism & Psychology, 13(4), 489-510.

Reynolds, Jill & Taylor, Stephanie. (2004). Life Stories and Deficit Identities. Narrative Inquiry, 15(2), 197-215.

Ridge, T. (2002). Childhood, Poverty and Social Exclusion: From a Child’s Perspective. Policy Press: Bristol.

Room, G. (1995). Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion. Policy Press: Bristol.

Rosa, B. (1994) Anti-monogamy: a racial challenge to compulsory heterosexuality. Stirring It: Challenges for Feminism. Griffen, G., Hester, M., Rais, S. and S. Roseneil (eds). Portsmouth: Taylor and Francis, 107-120.

Serbin, L.A., & Karp, J. (2004). The intergenerational transfer of psychosocial risk: Mediators of vulnerability and resilience. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 333-363.

Sharp, Elizabeth A. and Lawrence Ganong. (2011). “I’m a loser, I’m not married, let’s just all look at me”: Ever-single women’s perceptions of their social environment. Journal of Family Issues, 32(7), 956-980.

Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E. & M. G. Marmot. (2003). Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 1321-1333.

Sklar, Holly. (1993). “The Upperclass and Mothers N the Hood,” Z Magazine, 3:82-97.

Tong, Rosemarie. (1989). Feminist Thought. Boulder, CO: West-View Press.

Toufexis, Anastasia. (1996). When the Ring Doesn’t Fit... for Many Women, Happiness Isn’t a Prince and a Wedding Away. So They’re Just Saying No to Nuptials. Psychology Today, 11, 52-80.

Trethewey, Angela. (1997). A postmodern feminist analysis of clients in a Human Service Organization. Communication Monographs, 64, 281- 301.

Treiman, Donald J. (1977). Occupational Prestige in Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

UNICEF. (2007). Children’s Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries. Innoceni Report Card 7. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

US Census Bureau. (2004). American Community Survey. Retrieved October 1, 2005, http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?

U.S. Census Bureau (2006). America’s families and living arrangements: 2006. http:// www.census.gove/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2006.html.

U.S. Census Bureau (2007). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2005. http://www.censue.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-234.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Living arrangements of children: Household economic studies. Current Populations, P70-114. Washington, DC: Author.

Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Walker, Janet, Crawford, Karin, and Taylor, Francesca. (2008). Listening to Children: Gaining a Perspective of the Experiences of Poverty and Social Exclusion from Children and Young People of Single-Parent Families. Health and Social Care in the Community, 16(4), 429-436.

Weiss, Robert S. (1984). The Impact of Marital Dissolution on Income and Consumption in Single-parent Households. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46(1), 115-129.

Welch, Kelly J. (2013). Family Life Now. Boston: Pearson.

Williams, Kristii, Sassler, Sharon, Frech, Adrianne, Fenaba, Addo and Elizabeth Cooksey. (2013). Mothers’ Union Histories and the Mental and Physical Health of Adolescents Born to Unmarried Mothers. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(3), 278-295.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, Monograph Supplement No 2, Part 2.

Appendix

Original Survey Instrument

Parents: Perceptions and Attitudes Consent Form

What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to learn about general perceptions and attitudes about parents. Your responses on the following survey will help me toward that end. Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to take part in the study.

What I will ask you to do: If you agree to participate in this study, I will hand out a questionnaire to you. The questionnaire will include questions about your opinions, attitudes, and perceptions of parents, along with general questions pertaining to your personal demographics. The questionnaire will take about 20 minutes to complete. The questionnaire has several pages of statements that may or may not apply to you. Please respond according to the instructions. Some questions are repeated or are stated slightly differently throughout the survey, so please answer all of them. If you are unsure about the meaning of the statement, or unsure of your feelings about it, go with your first response.

Risks and benefits: I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than those encountered in day-to-day life. In the event you experience any possible adverse reactions to participating in this survey, you may contact the KCMH hotline 1-800-991-5272 at your convenience. There are no benefits to you.

Compensation: There is no compensation for participating in this study.

Your answers will be anonymous. ALL of your responses are completely anonymous. I will NOT ask you for your name, and answers to questions will never be associated with you in any way. Please be as honest as you can. DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING MARKS ANYWHERE ON THE SURVEY. Participation is completely optional. IT IS BEST IF YOU ANSWER EVERY QUESTION, but you may omit any questions or discontinue at any time.

If you have questions. The researchers conducting this study are Amy Andrada and Dr. Daniel D. Cervi. If you have questions later, you may contact Dr. Daniel D. Cervi at [email protected] or (661) 952-5019. You can reach Amy Andrada at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a subject in this study, you may contact Dr. Steve Suter, Research Ethics Review Coordinator, at 661-654-2373 or [email protected]. You may also report your concerns or complaints anonymously to the International Review Board at [email protected].

When you are finished: Please return your completed survey and retain this form for your records.

Please indicate your personal feelings for each of the statements below based on the following scale: 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Slightly disagree 4. Slightly agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly Agree

PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE

1. People in a committed relationship are generally happier than single people...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. It’s a woman’s duty to keep a family together, no matter how bad it is...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. People should be allowed to divorce if they choose to...1 2 3 4 5 6 4. At times, I question why a woman is unmarried...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. When I see a woman over 25 years old I wonder when she will get married...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. When I know a woman fails often in relationships I wonder about her ability to “keep a man”...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Most women would prefer to be married...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Singlehood for women is a legitimate life choice...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Most women would prefer to be a parent...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. A woman is within her right to terminate a pregnancy1 2 3 4 5 6 11. It is morally wrong for a woman to have a child out of wedlock...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Most women would prefer not to be a single parent.....1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Single-parenthood is a legitimate life choice...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Most women would prefer to be married when becoming a parent...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Single-parent families weaken family values in society.1 2 3 4 5 6 16. When a woman becomes a single-parent it is usually more her fault than the child’s father...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. When a woman becomes a single-parent it is her obligation not to date...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. I fear that a single person might steal my spouse/partner……………………………………………………………………….1 2 3 4 5 6

19. A woman needs a man to be “whole” or “complete”...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Most single-mothers are poor, uneducated, and unskilled……………………………………………………………………………...1 2 3 4 5 6 21. A single-mother is as capable of raising her children as a married mother...... 1 2 3 4 5 6

Please indicate the proportion (%) for EACH of the statements below.

0%---10---20---30---40---50---60---70---80---90---100%

PLEASE WRITE YOUR RESPONSE

22. What proportion (%) of your close friends are single and not coupled (or in a relationship)?...... ______23. What proportion (%) of your close friends are single- parents?...... ______24. What proportion (%) of your close friends are married or cohabitating parents?...... ______------25. In any average week, about how many separate activities do you engage in with parents?(indicate specific amount/#) ______26. In any average week, about how many separate activities do you engage in with parents that are single? (indicate specific amount/#)...... ______

Please CIRCLE your response for EACH of the following statements:

PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE

27. I’m comfortable interacting with single-parents: a. In my community...... YES NO b. At extra-curricular activities...... YES NO c. At school functions...... YES NO d. In my neighborhood...... YES NO e. In my home...... YES NO

28. I would be comfortable with my child/children: a. Being in the same classroom with children of single-parent families...... YES NO b. Involved in supervised activities with children of single-parent families...... YES NO c. Having a play date at my house with children of single-parent families...... YES NO d. Having a play date at the home of peers of single-parents ...... YES NO e. Having a sleepover at the home of peers of single-parents...... YES NO

29. Do you have religious convictions that: a. Prohibit sex outside of marriage...... YES NO b. Discourage divorce...... YES NO c. Against having children out of wedlock...... YES NO d. Against having extramarital relations...... YES NO

30. I would be comfortable with my adult child having: a. Single-parents as acquaintances...... YES NO b. Single-parent as a best friend...... YES NO c. Dating a single-parent...... YES NO d. Married to a single-parent...... YES NO e. Becoming a single-parent...... YES NO

Please write/indicate your response for EACH of the statements below (describe or write a number/#).

PLEASE INDICATE BELOW 31. What is your religious affiliation?...... ______32. On a scale of 0-10, how religious would you describe yourself?(0= least and 10= greatest)...... ______33. How many siblings do you have?...... ______34. In the time you lived with your parent(s)/guardian(s), how many years total was it a single-parent home? (If none, mark 0)...... ______b. Which parent/guardian did you live with during this time?...... ______

35. What was your age at your oldest biological child’s birth?...... (N/A)______36. What was the age of the other parent at your oldest biological child’s birth?...... (N/A)______37. What is/was your mother’s regular occupation?.______38. What is/was your father’s regular occupation?...______39. Are you currently employed?...... YES NO 40. On average, how many hours a week do you work?..______41. What is your regular occupation?...... ______Please indicate your response for EACH of the statements below (describe or write a number/#).

40. How old are you?...... ______a. What is your sex?...... MALE FEMALE 41. With which race/ethnicity do you identify with?...______42. Do you have any children?...... YES NO 43. How many children do you have?...... N/A______Please CIRCLE your response for EACH of the following statements:

PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE 44. When I hear the term “single-parent” I first think it refers to a: a. Father e. Uncle b. Mother f. Aunt c. Grandfather g. Other (specify):______d. Grandmother

45. How often do you attend religious services? a. Never d. Several times a year g. Once a week or more b. Less than once a year e. Once a month c. 1-2 times a year f. 2-3 times a month

46.What is the predominate language spoken in your home? a. English b. Spanish c. Other (specify):______

47. How would you best describe your family while growing up? a. Traditional b. Single-Parent c. Blended/Extended e. Other: (specify)______

Please indicate a social class for EACH of the statements below based on the following scale: 1. Underclass 2. Working Poor 3. Working Class 4. Lower-middle Class 5. Upper-Middle Class 6. Upper-Class PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE 48. What social class were you predominately raised in while you were growing up?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 49. What social class do you currently identify with?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 50. What social class did your mother identify with while you were growing up?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 51. What social class did your father identify with while you were growing up?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 52. What social class does your mother identify with? ....1 2 3 4 5 6 53. What social class does your father identify with?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6

Please indicate a marital status for EACH of the statements below based on the following scale: 1. Single, never married 2. Married 3. Married, but separated 4. Single, but cohabiting with another person 5. Divorced 6. Widowed

PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE 54.What is your mother’s current marital status?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 55.What is your father’s current marital status?...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 56.What was your marital status at your oldest biological child’s birth?...... N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 a. What was the marital status of the other parent of your oldest biological child’s birth...... N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 57. What is your current marital status (held for the previous/last six (6) months)……………………….…………1 2 3 4 5 6

Please indicate your personal feelings for EACH of the statements below based on the following scale: 1. Did not complete High School Diploma 2. High School Diploma/GED 3. Vocational/Technical Training 4. Associates Degree 5. Bachelor’s Degree 6. Master’s Degree 7. Doctorate PLEASE CIRCLE YOUR RESPONSE 58. What was your highest educational degree earned at your oldest biological child’s birth?...... N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59. What was the highest educational degree earned of the other parent at your oldest biological child’s birth?...... N/A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60. What are your current living accommodations? a. Apartment d. Living with Parents g. Other (specify): b. Rented Room e. Rental, Single-Family Home ______c. Mobile Home f. Owned, Single-Family Home

61. How would you best describe your current family? a. Traditional c. Blended/Extended e. Other (specify):_____ b. Single-Parent d. I live alone

The following questions concentrate on personal demographics. Please follow the instructions below. Please mark EACH ladder with an “X”

64. What is the highest grade (or year) of regular school you have completed? Please mark/circle only one (1) of the following columns. a. Elementary School: 1-8 c. College: 13-16 b. High School: 9-12 d. Graduate School: 17-20+ 65. What is the highest degree you earned? a. High School Diploma or equivalency (GED) f. Professional (MD, JD, b. Associated Degree (junior degree) DDS, etc.) c. Bachelor’s Degree g. Other (specify):_____ d. Master’s Degree h. None of the above e. Doctorate (less than high school) 66. Which of the following best describes your current main daily activities and/or responsibilities? a. Working full time e. Keeping house or raising b. Working part-time children full-time c. Unemployed or laid off f. Retired d. Looking for work g. Other (specify):______67. The following questions will ask you to consider your current or most recent job activity: a. In what kind of business or industry do (did) you work?______(For example: hospital, newspaper publishing, mail order house, auto engine manufacturing, breakfast cereal manufacturing) b. What kind of work do (did) you do? (Job Title)...... ______(For example: registered nurse, personnel manager, supervisor of order department, gasoline engine assembler, grinder operator) c. How much did you earn during the past 12 months? a. Less than $5,000 b. $5,000-$11,999 c. $12,000-$15,999 d. $16,000-$24,999 e. $25,000-$34,999 f. $35,000-$49,999 g. $50,000-$74,999 h. $75,000-$99,999 i.$100,000 and greater 68. The following questions will ask you in detail how many people are currently living in your household, including yourself: a. Number of people:...... ______b. Of these people, how many are children?...... ______c. Of these people, how many are adults?...... ______d. Of the adults, how many bring income into the household?...... ______

69. The following questions will ask you about the home where you live? a. Owned or being bought by you (or someone in your household)?...... YES NO b. Rented for money?...... YES NO c. Occupied without payment of money or rent?...... YES NO d. Other (specify):...... ______70. Which of these categories best describes your total combined income for the past 12 months? This should include income from all sources, wages, rent from properties, social security, and/or veteran’s benefits, unemployment benefits, workman’s compensation, help from relatives (including child payments and alimony), and so on. a. Less than $5,000 f. $35,000-$49,999 b. $5,000-$11,999 g. $50,000-$74,999 c. $12,000-$15,999 h. $75,000-$99,999 d. $16,000-$24,999 i. $100,000 and greater e. $25,000-$34,999 71. If you would like to leave any additional comments, please do so in the box provided below:

Authorization from Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research