Sunday, September 12, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Married, Single, or Divorced?
In my day job, I do psychological assessments of employment candidates for corporations and public safety agencies. I test and interview candidates for jobs ranging from president and chief financial officer to salesman and firefighter/paramedic. By far, I have seen more applicants for police officer positions than for any other. Over the last 30 years, I’ve assessed over 9,000 people for employment as police officers. As the years have passed, changes in candidates have become obvious. For example, more of them have trouble with basic arithmetic, writing skills, and focused work habits. I imagine that these changes are related to changes in society’s norms, candidate’s demographics, and changes in their educational experiences.
Police officer candidates are typically quite young, with most being 19 to 25 years of age. Despite their youth, we expect them to have the common sense, judgment, initiative, and restraint to appropriately use their authority to use force on people and detain and arrest them. Because of the unusual amount of power afforded police officers, psychologists are given a lot more latitude to question candidates about personal matters than what would normally be asked in most job interviews. So I do ask about marital status, children, health, finances, substance abuse, personal attitudes and opinions, etc.
One question that I have always asked as part of the structured interview for police officers is: “Are you married, single, or divorced?” The question, and how each person answers it, is the point of entry into discussion of their life circumstances and their adjustment to life’s challenges. You might never have considered it, but the answers to this question have become more and more complicated and fascinating as the years have gone by. As recently as 10 years ago, at the turn of the millennium, virtually 100% of all candidates just answered the question by selecting one of the 3 choices:
(1) MARRIED
(2) SINGLE
(3) DIVORCED
But, over the last 10 years, this question has prompted many of the younger candidates, and a few of the older ones (say 35 to 55 years of age), to make a statement instead of just giving an answer: “I’m not any of those, but I am with someone.” By 2010, about 30% of all candidates for police officer jobs have, by the statements they have made, implicitly asked that I expand the multiple choice question to 6 options:
(1) MARRIED
(2) SINGLE AND NOT IN AN EXCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
(3) DIVORCED
(4) SEEING (DATING) SOMEONE EXCLUSIVELY
(5) LIVING WITH SOMEONE IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP
(6) LIVING WITH SOMEONE IN A LONG-TERM COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP
Nevertheless, I have continued to ask the question with the same 3 choices, probably in an attempt to gain an understanding of why so many people who are dating and/or living with someone are no longer willing to refer to themselves as single. When I have insisted that they choose from among the 3 options, many have been adamant that they fell into none of the 3 categories and could not answer. This, to me, is fascinating because just 10 years ago, the question presented no problem for anybody.
So what has happened in our society, that in just 10 years, those that are in committed relationships, both dating and cohabiting, are insisting that they are not single? I don’t begin to know the full answer, but I think it has something to do with the media. Social media like Facebook and Twitter are vehicles for large groups of people to check their perceptions about the rapidly changing societal standards. In addition, with the changes in the news media from an emphasis on hard news to a greater emphasis on what used to be called gossip, we hear about more and more celebrities who set-up households with their lovers and have children together without benefit of marriage. Such arrangements used to be very much related to social class and socioeconomic status, being much more common among poorer people throughout the world. But now, with rich unmarried celebrities very visibly (TV, Internet, magazines & tabloids at the supermarket checkout) cohabiting and having children, a model is provided for all to emulate. They also create what social psychologists call the Disinhibitory Effect, as though permission is given because everybody is doing it, implying a change in society’s norms.
Of course, the rich can afford all manner of childcare while they are busy doing whatever makes them rich, while the poor and middle classes often have to struggle to properly care for their children, especially after they break-up, which does occur in the vast majority of cases. I could find no universally accepted statistics, but based on several articles surveyed, it appears that about 30% of first marriages in the USA now end in divorce. For cohabiting couples, the prognosis is much worse: 90% of them now split-up within 5 years. With the increasing cohabitation rate in the USA, I wonder about the wellbeing of the children from these relationships. I also wonder about the ways in which this trend might impact on the lives of the adults after they go their separate ways. The latest statistics indicate that about 40% of the children in the USA are born to unwed mothers. This is quite a contrast to the 3% figure from 60 years ago, and a portent for all the problems that tend to accompany single motherhood: less education and career prospects for the mother; poverty and poor healthcare for mother and child; low income housing and greater exposure to crime for mother and child; greater likelihood of criminal activity and prison for the child; poor education for the child; repetition of the cycle in subsequent generations.
This trend of not marrying and having children seems to have few plusses and a great many minuses. So why in the world would so many people be doing it? It sure doesn't make sense to me.
Police officer candidates are typically quite young, with most being 19 to 25 years of age. Despite their youth, we expect them to have the common sense, judgment, initiative, and restraint to appropriately use their authority to use force on people and detain and arrest them. Because of the unusual amount of power afforded police officers, psychologists are given a lot more latitude to question candidates about personal matters than what would normally be asked in most job interviews. So I do ask about marital status, children, health, finances, substance abuse, personal attitudes and opinions, etc.
One question that I have always asked as part of the structured interview for police officers is: “Are you married, single, or divorced?” The question, and how each person answers it, is the point of entry into discussion of their life circumstances and their adjustment to life’s challenges. You might never have considered it, but the answers to this question have become more and more complicated and fascinating as the years have gone by. As recently as 10 years ago, at the turn of the millennium, virtually 100% of all candidates just answered the question by selecting one of the 3 choices:
(1) MARRIED
(2) SINGLE
(3) DIVORCED
But, over the last 10 years, this question has prompted many of the younger candidates, and a few of the older ones (say 35 to 55 years of age), to make a statement instead of just giving an answer: “I’m not any of those, but I am with someone.” By 2010, about 30% of all candidates for police officer jobs have, by the statements they have made, implicitly asked that I expand the multiple choice question to 6 options:
(1) MARRIED
(2) SINGLE AND NOT IN AN EXCLUSIVE RELATIONSHIP
(3) DIVORCED
(4) SEEING (DATING) SOMEONE EXCLUSIVELY
(5) LIVING WITH SOMEONE IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP
(6) LIVING WITH SOMEONE IN A LONG-TERM COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP
Nevertheless, I have continued to ask the question with the same 3 choices, probably in an attempt to gain an understanding of why so many people who are dating and/or living with someone are no longer willing to refer to themselves as single. When I have insisted that they choose from among the 3 options, many have been adamant that they fell into none of the 3 categories and could not answer. This, to me, is fascinating because just 10 years ago, the question presented no problem for anybody.
So what has happened in our society, that in just 10 years, those that are in committed relationships, both dating and cohabiting, are insisting that they are not single? I don’t begin to know the full answer, but I think it has something to do with the media. Social media like Facebook and Twitter are vehicles for large groups of people to check their perceptions about the rapidly changing societal standards. In addition, with the changes in the news media from an emphasis on hard news to a greater emphasis on what used to be called gossip, we hear about more and more celebrities who set-up households with their lovers and have children together without benefit of marriage. Such arrangements used to be very much related to social class and socioeconomic status, being much more common among poorer people throughout the world. But now, with rich unmarried celebrities very visibly (TV, Internet, magazines & tabloids at the supermarket checkout) cohabiting and having children, a model is provided for all to emulate. They also create what social psychologists call the Disinhibitory Effect, as though permission is given because everybody is doing it, implying a change in society’s norms.
Of course, the rich can afford all manner of childcare while they are busy doing whatever makes them rich, while the poor and middle classes often have to struggle to properly care for their children, especially after they break-up, which does occur in the vast majority of cases. I could find no universally accepted statistics, but based on several articles surveyed, it appears that about 30% of first marriages in the USA now end in divorce. For cohabiting couples, the prognosis is much worse: 90% of them now split-up within 5 years. With the increasing cohabitation rate in the USA, I wonder about the wellbeing of the children from these relationships. I also wonder about the ways in which this trend might impact on the lives of the adults after they go their separate ways. The latest statistics indicate that about 40% of the children in the USA are born to unwed mothers. This is quite a contrast to the 3% figure from 60 years ago, and a portent for all the problems that tend to accompany single motherhood: less education and career prospects for the mother; poverty and poor healthcare for mother and child; low income housing and greater exposure to crime for mother and child; greater likelihood of criminal activity and prison for the child; poor education for the child; repetition of the cycle in subsequent generations.
This trend of not marrying and having children seems to have few plusses and a great many minuses. So why in the world would so many people be doing it? It sure doesn't make sense to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)