Search

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar-advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.

This is the second of two articles on the risks of advocacy bias in the reporting of research findings when boundaries are blurred between social science research and advocacy in the pursuit of public policy. In the first article we identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence. The first article discusses the difference between truth in social science and truth in law and identifies a range of scholar-advocacy strategies that bias research evidence, illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. In this second article we show how biased research evidence by scholar advocates results in increased confusion and controversy that diminishes the credibility of all parties and stalemates progress in the field, using a case illustration of intimate partner violence in family court. We also show how adherence to scientific methods prevents the misuse of research and suggest a number of collaborative, integrative measures that can help transcend the adversarial stalemate. In a look to the future we consider some unbiased, standardized ways of assessing the strength and generalizability of research evidence.

The negative effects of prolonged interparental conflict on children are well documented. This article describes a preventive intervention designed to help separating parents to (a) reduce the stress of a breakup on their children and (b) learn skills for protecting them from the toxic effects of ongoing conflict. Assisting Children through Transition-(A.C.T.) For the Children is based on a risk and resilience model emphasizing skills training and effective parenting practices. Post-program results from 609 participants indicate that the majority of male and female participants reported an increased awareness of the deleterious effects of interparental conflict on children and learned skills for protecting children from ongoing conflict. Most participants reported firm intentions to continue to use skills for reducing conflict with a former spouse and to support their children's healthy relationship with both parents. Study limitations, directions for future research, and implications for legal and mental health practitioners are discussed.

The negative impact of divorce is a concern with far-reaching ramifications for children's well-being. This article reviews divorce-related risks and protective factors that provide an empirical guide for the content of effective programs for children. The promising potential of child-focused interventions is highlighted, including examples of programs with evidence of effectiveness. The Children of Divorce Intervention Program is described in greater detail as an example of a preventive program with six controlled studies documenting multiple benefits to children, including reductions in anxiety, behavior problems, somatic symptoms, and increases in their healthy adjustment at home and at school. A vision for future research and practice is discussed, including best practices for adapting children's programs to court-connected services and a paradigm shift involving systematic preventive outreach to all separating parents with minor children, before difficulties become rooted and chronic.