The Impact of Mothers' Parenting, Involvement by Nonresidential Fathers, and Parental
Conflict on the Adjustment of Adolescent Children
Author(s): Ronald L. Simons, Les B. Whitbeck, Jay Beaman and Rand D. Conger
Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 1994), pp. 356-374
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353105
Accessed: 27-06-2016 04:14 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/353105?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley, National Council on Family Relations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Marriage and Family
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
RONALD L. SIMONS, LES B. WHITBECK, JAY BEAMAN, AND RAND D. CONGER
Iowa State University
The Impact of Mothers' Parenting, Involvement by
Nonresidential Fathers, and Parental Conflict on the
Adjustment of Adolescent Children
The present study used panel data on 207 divorced women and their children to examine the
By one estimate, 44% of children born between
1970 and 1984 will live for a time in a single-par-
influence of mothers' parenting practices, in-
ent family (Bumpass & Sweet, 1989), and
volvement of nonresidential fathers, and parental
conflict on the adjustment of adolescents living in
mother-headed households. In addition, the study
investigated the possibility that child adjustment
Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991) project that 60%
of children born in the 1990s will have this experience. Unfortunately, research during the 1980s
provided rather strong evidence that children living in single-parent households are at risk for a
problems may be a cause, as well as a consequence, of parental behavior. Quality of parenting by nonresidential fathers was related to externalizing problems for boys and girls, although the
results differed somewhat depending on the
source of data used to assess father's parenting.
Quality of mother's parenting showed an association with externalizing problems of boys and
girls, and was also related to internalizing problems for boys. Parental conflict was associated
with internalizing problems for boys but not girls.
Finally, adolescent externalizing problems appeared to reduce the quality of mother's parenting for both boys and girls, and to diminish father
involvement in parenting in the case of boys.
Department of Sociology and Center for Family Research on
Rural Mental Health, 107 East Hall, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011.
Key Words: child adjustment, divorce, noncustodial fathers,
parenting.
number of negative developmental outcomes
(Amato & Keith, 1991; McLanahan & Booth,
1989). These studies also reported, however, that
there is much variability in adjustment among
such children, and that many, if not most, avoid
long-term problems (Emery, 1988). Given these
findings, researchers and policy makers have
been concerned with identifying factors that serve
to reduce the hazards of growing up in a singleparent household.
The most popular explanations for variations
in child adjustment concern the parenting practices of the custodial parent, level of involvement
of the noncustodial parent, parental conflict, and
family economic hardship. The present study uses
panel data to examine the importance of each of
these variables in predicting externalizing and internalizing problems among a sample of adolescents living in mother-headed households. The
study avoids the limitations of much of the past
research on child adjustment in single-parent fam-
356 Journal of Marriage and the Family 56 (May 1994): 356-374
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Adjustment ofAdolescent Children 357
ilies by using multiple sources of data to build
measures of constructs and by including controls
for potentially confounding variables. Also, in
contrast to most prior investigations, the present
study considers the possibility that child adjustment problems may influence, as well as be influenced by, parental behavior.
ASPECTS OF SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES
Parenting Practices of the Custodial Parent
Although a few studies have reported an associa-
tion between family structure and level of
parental warmth and support, the dimension of
parenting most consistently linked to number of
parents in the home is that of control. There is
strong evidence that single parents tend to make
fewer demands on children and utilize less effec-
tive disciplinary strategies than married parents
(Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Furstenburg &
Nord, 1985; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982).
Although past studies report a tendency for
single parents to display lower levels of monitoring and discipline than married parents, most of
these studies find substantial variability in parent-
ing practices in their samples of single parents.
Thus it is probably a minority of single parents
that account for discrepancies in control between
single- and two-parent families. The present study
examines the extent to which variations in control
exerted by single mothers is related to the adjustment of their adolescent children. Differences in
parental control are expected to exert a greater influence on adolescent externalizing than internalizing problems.
Parenting Practices of Nonresidential Fathers
Level of involvement by the nonresidential parent-usually the father-is frequently cited as an
important determinant of children's adjustment to
divorce. It is argued that children show better adjustment when both the custodial and noncustodi-
al parent are actively involved in childrearing.
Based upon this belief, researchers have initiated
studies of the conditions that promote nonresiden-
tial paternal involvement and many states have
adopted joint custody statutes in an attempt to en-
courage fathers to remain involved with their
children (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991).
Although the idea that child adjustment is facilitated by involvement by nonresidential fathers
is intuitively appealing, there is actually little em-
pirical evidence for the claim (Emery, 1988;
Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). In a recent review
of research regarding this issue, Amato (1993)
identified 16 studies that supported the hypothesis
that frequency of contact with the noncustodial
father is positively related to child adjustment.
However, an equal number of studies failed to
support the hypothesis. Indeed, seven of the studies in the latter group found frequency of visitation with the noncustodial father to be negatively
related to child adjustment. Thus, overall, the evidence suggests that frequency of visitation by fathers is not related to child adjustment.
Perhaps this finding should have been anticipated as there is little reason to expect that simply
having contact with the nonresidential father
would significantly effect a child's development.
Rather, it is most likely the quality, rather than
simply quantity, of interaction with this parent
that is the key to understanding his impact on
child adjustment. However, contrary to this idea,
studies that have examined closeness of relation-
ship with the father and child outcomes have
failed to find significant effects. Furstenberg,
Morgan, and Allison (1987), for example, found
that child reports of closeness to their father, like
their reports of frequency of contact, were unrelated to child developmental outcomes.
One might argue, however, that closeness per
se is not the important dimension when assessing
the quality of the relationship between fathers and
their child. Past research suggests that nonresidential fathers often behave toward their children
more as an adult friend or relative than as a parent
(Arendell, 1986; Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1976). Much of the time
with their children is spent watching TV, attending movies, going out to eat, and the like. Although such interaction is apt to enhance feelings
of closeness, there is little reason to believe that it
would have a major impact on child adjustment.
Fathers who limit their involvement to such activ-
ities would not be expected to exert any more in-
fluence on the developmental outcomes of their
children than that exercised by other friendly
adults (e.g., uncles, grandparents, mom's
boyfriend). On the other hand, fathers may affect
child adjustment to the extent that they continue
to play the role of parent.
As noted earlier, single mothers often show
deficiencies in the area of monitoring and discipline. Thus nonresidential fathers might be expected to influence child development to the extent that they provide assistance with child social-
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
358 Journal of Marriage and the Family
ization and control. Thus the present study exam-
ines the relationship between child adjustment
and the involvement of nonresidential fathers in
activities such as inductive reasoning, monitoring,
and consistent discipline. Such parenting behaviors are expected to be inversely related to adolescent troubles, especially externalizing problems.
Analysis of the contribution that nonresidential
fathers make to child adjustment requires that the
quality of the mother's parenting is controlled. Re-
cently Maccoby, Buchanan, Mnookin, and Dornbusch (1993) reported a zero-order relationship
between closeness to the noncustodial parent and
child adjustment. However, controlling for the
custodial parent's parenting practices eliminated
the association. Children who have involved fa-
thers also tend to have warm, supportive mothers.
Therefore the impact of mother's parenting on
child adjustment must be taken into account if one
is to establish that the effect of involvement by
nonresidential fathers is unique and not merely redundant to the contribution made by mothers.
the case in samples of two-parent families. It may
be that the same process operates in single-parent
families. If this hypothesis is valid, controlling for
quality of parenting should eliminate any relationship between parental conflict and child externalizing problems.
Just as one cannot adequately assess the impact of parental conflict on child adjustment with-
out controlling for quality of parenting, evaluation of the impact of the nonresidential father's
parenting on child outcomes requires controlling
for parental conflict. Several researchers have
noted that high paternal involvement may foster
persistent conflict between the former spouses
(Furstenberg et al., 1987; Maccoby et al., 1993).
It may be that past studies have failed to find an
advantageous effect for father's involvement because any beneficial contribution is canceled by
increased conflict with the mother.
Family Income
There is strong evidence that children of divorced
parents tend to display more adjustment problems
Marital disruption is usually associated with a
rather dramatic loss in family income (Morgan,
1991; Raschke, 1987). Such a decline in standard
of living might cause children to feel depressed
and angry. Further, limited means may require
when there is recurrent friction between their par-
moving to neighborhoods with inadequate
Parental Conflict
ents (Amato, 1993; Emery, 1988). Such conflict is
apt to be upsetting to children because it increases
the probability that they will feel frustration over
being caught in the middle, experience distress
over the emotional pain that their parents are producing in each other, and experience fear that one
of the parents may withdraw from the family in an
attempt to avoid the altercations. Thus chronic
strife between parents increases a child's risk for
feelings of frustration, anxiety, and depression.
This suggests that parental conflict is likely to be
directly related to child internalizing problems.
In contrast, one might expect the impact of
parental conflict on child externalizing problems
to be indirect through parental behavior. Past research has linked child conduct problems to inept
parental monitoring and discipline (Maccoby &
Martin, 1983; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992).
Another line of research has shown that parental
conflict tends to disrupt competent parenting
practices (Caspi & Elder, 1988; Conger et al.,
1992; Simons, Lorenz, Wu, & Conger, 1993).
Hence the contribution of parental conflict to
child conduct problems may be indirect through
its effect on parenting practices. Caspi and Elder
(1988) and Conger et al. (1992) found this to be
schools, high crime rates, and a well-developed
delinquent subculture (McLanahan & Booth,
1989). Such an environment is apt to increase an
adolescent's risk for conduct problems. Thus both
the internalizing and externalizing problems that
are common to single-parent households may be a
result of the economic hardship often experienced
by these families.
In assessing the impact of family income on
child adjustment it is important that the effects of
mother's parenting be controlled. Past studies of
both two-parent (Elder, Van Ngugen, & Caspi,
1985; Simons, Lorenz, Conger, & Wu, 1992) and
single-parent (Simons, Beaman, Conger, & Chao,
1993) families have reported that financial hardship tends to disrupt parenting practices. Thus the
impact of family income on the adjustment of
children of divorce may be expressed indirectly
through its negative effect on the parenting of the
custodial parent.
Conversely, it is important that family income
be controlled when evaluating the impact of non-
custodial fathers on child adjustment because fathers who remain involved with their children are
more apt to fulfill their child support obligations
(Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). These payments
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Adjustment ofAdolescent Children 359
serve to enhance the family's economic wellbeing. Thus any association between father involvement and child adjustment might be spurious
due to the association of both variables with the fi-
nancial status of the family. The present study addresses this issue by including both family income
and level of child support in the analysis.
The Impact of Child Adjustment on
Parental Behavior
Associations between parental behavior and child
adjustment are generally interpreted as evidence
for the impact of parents on child development. It
may be, however, that the converse causal sequence operates as well. Over time, parents may
withdraw from children who engage in unpleasant
behaviors. The present study focuses on the control dimension of parenting. Parenting practices
related to control are more likely to be influenced
by externalizing than internalizing problems.
Whereas there is little reason to anticipate that
parents modify their supervision and discipline in
reaction to a child's display of anxiety or depression, it would seem reasonable that they might
show a tendency toward reduced monitoring and
inconsistent discipline in response to a child who
is persistently hostile, coercive, and defiant. Indeed, as Patterson et al. (1992) have noted, rebellious, antisocial children often punish parental efforts to monitor and discipline while reinforcing
parental withdrawal and lenience.
This phenomenon is especially apt to operate
for noncustodial parents. Often they must invest
substantial time and energy in scheduling and ar-
ment problems on parenting practices, the present
study examines the extent to which the level of
conflict between divorced parents is influenced
by the internalizing or externalizing problems of
their children.
Relationships between the parent variables and
adolescent adjustment were tested using data
from the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP), a
three-wave study of 207 recently divorced women
and their children. At initiation of the study, each
of the families contained a target child who was
in eighth or ninth grade. Much of the prior re-
search on children's adjustment to divorce is
problematic as a single reporter (either the custodial parent or the child) is used as a source of information for all of the variables included in the
analysis. The ISPP data set provides multiple
sources of information for several of the con-
structs included in the present study, thereby re-
ducing the problem of shared method variance
between explanatory and criterion variables.
The analytic approach used to investigate the
impact of parent behavior on adolescent adjustment involved using wave-1 measures of the parent variables to predict adolescent adjustment at
wave 2, and wave-2 measures of the parent variables to predict adolescent adjustment at wave 3.
This approach accomplished two purposes. First,
using lagged measures of adolescent adjustment
provided a stronger test of the causal priorities assumed between the parent variables and child outcomes than the cross-sectional procedures utilized
in most prior studies. Second, focusing on child
adjustment at both waves 2 and 3 permitted examination of the possibility that the effect of cer-
ranging visits with their child, particularly if there
tain of the parent variables changes with time
is a fair amount of distance between the child's
since divorce. It is possible, for example, that the
impact of paternal involvement or parental conflict declines as children adjust to the absence of
their father from the household. Basically the
same approach was used to examine the influence
of child adjustment on parent behavior. Wave-1
measures of the adolescent internalizing and externalizing problems were used to predict parent
behavior at wave 2, whereas wave-2 measures of
and parent's residences. Given these costs, they
may be easily discouraged from playing the role
of parent if interaction with the child is unpleas-
ant and offers few rewards.
Besides affecting parenting practices over
time, child adjustment problems might be expected to influence the level of conflict between parents. Arguments might be made for anticipating
either a positive or negative impact. On the one
hand, child maladjustment might encourage parents to suspend their conflict with each other in
an effort to address the pressing problem of their
child's emotional or behavioral problems. On the
other hand, divorced parents may displace their
frustration with the child onto each other, blaming
one another for the child's difficulties. Thus, in
addition to investigating the effect of child adjust-
the adolescent adjustment were used to predict
parent behavior at wave 3.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Sample
A sample of 207 female-headed households was
recruited through the cohort of eighth and ninth
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
360 Journal of Marriage and the Family
grade students living in approximately two-thirds
selves each of the items listed on the cards and to
of all counties in Iowa. Mothers were screened ac-
continue talking until the interviewer returned.
The family was given 25 minutes to complete the
task. The items on the cards concerned family issues such as discipline and chores, and the children's friends and school performance. The second task, 15 minutes in length, also involved all
three family members. For this task, the family
was asked to discuss and try to resolve the issues
and disagreements that they had cited in the questionnaires they had completed earlier in the visit.
The third task involved only the two children and
was 15 minutes in length. The youths were given
a set of cards listing questions related to the way
they got along, the manner in which their parents
cording to the criteria that they be permanently
separated from their husbands, that the separation
occurred within the past 2 years, that the husband
from whom they separated is the biological parent
of the target child, and that they have a sibling
within 3 years of age of the target child. Ninetynine percent of those eligible agreed to participate.
Roughly one-third of the families lived in
communities smaller than 7,500 in population,
another third dwelled in towns ranging in size
from 7,500 to 50,000 residents, and the remaining
third resided in cities with more than 50,000 in-
habitants. Median family income, including child
support, was $21,521. Mean level of education
for the mothers was 13 years. Only 4% had not
completed high school, 42% had some post-high
school training, and 16% had a college degree.
Mean age for the target children was 14.3 years at
wave 1.
At wave 2, data was obtained from 193 of the
original 207 families, for a retention rate of 93%.
One hundred ninety of the families were visited
again at wave 3, although in some cases not all of
the members chose to participate. Thus, for wave
3, complete data was available for only 181 of the
study families.
Procedures
Data were collected annually (each spring) from
study families over a 3-year period. Essentially
the same procedures and instruments were used at
all three data collection points. Each wave of data
collection involved two visits to each of the study
families. During the first visit, each of the three
family members completed a set of questionnaires
focusing upon family processes, individual family
member characteristics, and economic circum-
stances. On average, it took approximately 2
treated them, their friends, and their future plans.
The second visit lasted approximately 2 hours.
The videotapes were coded by project observers using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating
Scales (Melby et al., 1990). These scales focus
upon the quality of behavior exchanges between
family members. The project observers were staff
members who had received several weeks of
training on rating family interactions and specialized in coding one of the three interaction tasks.
Before observing tapes, coders had to independently rate precoded interaction tasks and achieve
at least 90% agreement with that standard. For
purposes of assessing interobserver reliability,
25% of the tasks were randomly selected to be in-
dependently observed and rated by a second observer. Reliability between observers was determined by calculating a generalizability coefficient
(Suen & Ary, 1989). The magnitude of this coef-
ficient varied by rating scale but on average
ranged between .60 and .70.
Measures
Externalizing problems. Externalizing problems
involve antisocial conduct such as fighting, non-
hours to complete the first visit.
compliance, poor performance in school, and
During the second visit, which normally occurred within 2 weeks of the first, the family
delinquent behavior. Scores from three instruments were standardized and summed to form a
videotaped while engaging in several different
structured interaction tasks. The visit began by
having each individual complete a short questionnaire designed to identify issues of concern or
disagreements within the family (e.g., chores,
recreation, money, etc.). The family members
composite measure of Externalizing Problems.
The first was a 10-item, self-report school problems scale. The items focused on grades, completion of homework, attendance, and trouble with
school authorities. Response format for the items
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). Coefficient alpha was approximately .85
completed additional questionnaires and was
were then gathered around a table and given a set
at each wave. The second instrument consisted of
of cards to read and discuss. The three family
members were asked to discuss among them-
a self-report delinquency inventory adapted from
the National Youth Survey (Elliott, Huizinga, &
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Adjustment ofAdolescent Children 361
Ageton, 1985; Elliott, Huizinga, & Millard,
1989). Respondents were asked to indicate how
observational ratings, was .25 to .35, and the in-
often during the preceding year that they had en-
reliability averaged .60. These levels are within
the range of acceptable values and suggest the
gaged in each of 28 delinquent activities (0 =
never, 5 = 5 or more times) . The acts varied from
relatively minor offenses such as using alcohol to
more serious offenses such as attacking someone
with a weapon or stealing something worth over
$25. The last instrument consisted of a seven-item
measure of aggressive orientation adapted from
Velicer, Govia, Cherico, and Corriveau's (1985)
modification of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory. It contained items such as: "I do whatever I
have to in order to get what I want," "I don't care
much about what other people think or feel," and,
"When I get mad I say nasty things." The response format for the items ranged from 1 (not at
all) to 5 (exactly). Coefficient alpha was approximately .80 at each wave. The correlations between the three instruments were above .45 for all
three waves.
Internalizing problems. Internalizing problems involve emotional distress such as depression, irri-
tability, and somatic concerns. The depression,
hostility, anxiety, and somatization subscales
from the SCL-90-R (Derogatis, 1983) were used
as indicators for this construct. This instrument
requires that the respondent report how much dis-
comfort (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely) he or she
has experienced during the past week with regard
to each of 46 symptoms. The symptoms consist of
items such as crying easily, restless sleep, and uncontrollable temper outbursts. The subscales have
demonstrated construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability (Derogatis, 1983).
Coefficient alpha for the instrument was above
.90 at each wave.
traclass correlations used to measure intercoder
presence of basic agreement between coders
(Bakeman & Adamson, 1984; Hartmann, 1977)
and between family member reports (Schwarz,
Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985). Although the
measures are briefly described below, a more detailed description of the instruments and the factor analytic procedures used to generate them is
presented in McGruder, Lorenz, Hoyt, Ge, and
Montague (1992).
Mothers reported on their monitoring using a
four-item scale (e.g., "How often do you know
who your ninth grader is with when he/she is
away from home?"). The response format ranged
from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The adolescents reported on their mothers using the same items. The
observational rating of monitoring was based
upon the interaction and content of the discussion
in task 1. The mother reports, child reports, and
observational ratings were standardized and then
summed to form a measure of monitoring.
Mothers were asked to rate their consistency of
discipline using a four-item scale (e.g., "How
often do you punish your ninth grader for something at one time and then at other times not punish him/her for the same thing?"). The response
format ranged from 1 (always) to 5 (never). Adolescents rated their mothers' consistency using the
same items. The observational ratings of inconsistent discipline were based upon family interaction
and content of discussion in videotaped task 1.
The mother reports, child reports, and observational ratings were standardized and summed to
form a measure of consistent discipline.
Mothers used a four-item scale to report on the
extent to which they used harsh disciplinary prac-
Custodial mother's parenting. Past research has
tices (e.g., "When punishing your ninth grader,
established that effective parents set standards for
their children, monitor their behavior, are consis-
how often do you hit him/her with a belt, paddle,
or something else?"). Response format for this in-
tent in enforcing rules, and eschew harsh punish-
ments (Maccoby, 1992; Maccoby & Martin,
1983). High scores on these four dimensions of
parenting were treated as indications of effective
parenting. Measures for each of the dimensions
were formed by aggregating mother self-reports,
adolescent reports, and observer ratings of the
videotaped family interaction tasks. Coefficient
alpha for the several child- and mother-report
scales was generally above .80. On average, the
correlation between child and mother reports, or
between either child and mother report and the
strument ranged from 1 (always) to 5 (never).
Adolescents used the same four items to report on
their mothers' harsh discipline. Observational
coders rated the harsh discipline of mothers toward their children based upon family interaction
and content of discussion in task 1 of the video-
taped interaction. The mother reports, child reports, and observational ratings were standardized
and summed to form a measure of avoidance of
harsh discipline.
Finally, a five-item scale was used to obtain
mothers' ratings of the extent to which they set
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
362 Journal of Marriage and the Family
standards in the course of enforcing rules or dis-
of the 14 parenting practices. Coefficient alpha
ciplining their children (e.g., "How often does
was above .90 for both waves. The actual items
your mother discipline you by reasoning, explain-
were:
ing, or talking to you?"). The response format
ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Adolescents
reported on their mothers' behavior using the
same items, and coders rated level of setting standards based upon family interaction and content
of the discussion in task 1 of the videotapes. The
mother reports, child reports, and observational
ratings were standardized and summed to form a
measure of limited setting of standards.
These four composite indicators of ineffective
parenting practices were summed to form an aggregate measure of Mother's Parenting. Although
technically coefficient alpha is a measure of the
internal consistency of scales, and not indices
formed by aggregating scales, it can be used as
method of summarizing the degree of intercorrelation among aggregated scales. Using alpha in
this way, the coefficient for the four-item index of
Mother's Parenting was approximately .70 at both
waves 1 and 2.
1. How often does your dad talk with you about
what is going on in your life?
2. When your dad tells you to stop doing some-
thing and you don't stop, how often does he
punish you?
3. How often does your dad punish you for
something at one time and then at other times
not punish you for the same thing? (reverse
coded)
4. When your dad is punishing you, how much
does the kind of punishment depend on his
mood? (reverse coded)
5. How often does your dad disagree with your
mom about how or when to punish you? (reverse
coded)
6. How often do the same problems seem to
come up again and again with your dad and
never seem to get resolved. (reverse coded)
7. When you and your dad have a problem,
how often can the two of your figure out how to
deal with it?
8. How often do you talk to your dad about
Nonresidential father's parenting. It is clear that
effective parenting practices for nonresidential fathers will differ from those of fathers who live in
the home. It would be difficult, for example, for
fathers living outside of the home to monitor cur-
fews or enforce punishments such as grounding.
Indeed, noncustodial fathers who attempted to en-
gage in such activities might be perceived as intrusive and the consequence might be increased
conflict with the children and former spouse.
Many nonresidential parents are, however, in a
position to monitor their children's school performance and friendship choices, to stress the impor-
tance of certain behavior standards, to enforce
rules in a fair and consistent fashion, and to support the parenting efforts of the custodial parent.
Neither observational ratings nor father selfreports were available as measures of father's
parenting practices. The indicators for this construct were limited to mother and adolescent re-
ports about the father's behavior at wave 1, while
only adolescent reports were available for wave 2.
An adolescent scale was formed using 14 items
adapted from the scales used to measure mother's
parenting. The items selected represented actions
that parents might continue to perform even
though they no longer lived in the same residence
as the child. Adolescents were asked to indicate
how much they agreed (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree) that their father engaged in each
things that bother you?
9. How often does your dad ask what you think
before deciding on family matters that involve
you?
10. How often does your dad give you reasons
for his decisions?
11. How often does you dad ask you what you
think before making a decision that involves
you?
12. When you don't understand why your dad
makes a rule for you to follow, how often does
he explain the reason?
13. How often does your dad discipline you by
reasoning, explaining, or talking to you?
14. When you do something your dad likes or
approves of, how often does he let you know he
is pleased about it?
The mother-report scale for wave 1 focused on
similar dimensions of parenting. The mothers
were asked to indicate the extent to which (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) each of
seven statements described the current parenting
practices of their former spouse. Coefficient alpha
for the scale was .86. The items were:
1. Knows your children's teachers and how well
they are doing in school.
2. Explains to your children the reasons for the
rules he expects them to follow.
3. Encourages your children to be responsible in
the things they do.
4. Sometimes punishes your children for something and other times doesn't punish them for
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Adjustment ofAdolescent Children 363
the same thing. (reverse coded)
5. Is clear about what he expects your children
to do.
6. Agrees with you about how the children
should be raised.
7. Lets your children do things they shouldn't
do. (reverse coded)
8. Explains to your children the reasons for the
rules he expects them to follow.
Divorced women usually harbor feelings of
anger, frustration, and resentment regarding their
former husbands. Similarly, children of divorce
often possess strong feelings about their nonresidential father, although these emotions may be either positive or negative. One would expect these
emotional states to distort the objectivity of mother and adolescent reports of the father's parenting
practices. To reduce this problem, we planned to
standardize the two types of information and sum
them to form a composite measure of father's parenting for wave 1. Unfortunately, the correlation
between the two scales was rather low. For girls
and their mothers the correlation was .29 whereas
(never) to 7 (always), with a middle category of 4
(about half of the time). She then used the same
items and response format to report on her actions
toward her former spouse. Coefficient alpha for
this 16-item instrument was above .90 for both
waves.
The adolescents reported on the amount of
conflict between their parents using a three-item
scale. The items were:
1. Sometimes when people get divorced or separated they are still able to get along pretty well.
How well would you say your parents get along
with each other? (1 = very well, 4 = not at all
well)
2. How often would you say they argue or disagree with each other? (1 = never, 4 = often)
3. How often do they show affection or say nice
things to each other? (1 = often, 4 = never)
The three items were summed to form an adoles-
cent-report scale. Coefficient alpha was above .70
for both waves. Correlations between mother and
child reports were above .45. The mother and
adolescent instruments were standardized and
for boys the association was .01. Given these low
associations, the scales could not be assumed to be
indicators of the same construct. Hence, in the re-
conflict.
gression analyses reported below, the models first
use mother reports of father's parenting practices,
and then are repeated using adolescent reports.
Family income. The mothers were asked to report
the amount of money that they had received dur-
Contact with father. Adolescents were asked
about how often they had contact with their father, either by phone or in person. The response
format was: (1) no contact, (2) two or three times
a year, (3) occasionally, less than once a month,
(4) one weekend or day a month, (5) every other
week, (6) one or two times a week, (7) three or
more times a week, and (8) every day.
Parental conflict. The process of marital disruption almost always involves a high degree of conflict and emotional turmoil for both parents and
children. Given their strong feelings about these
events, family members are apt to have difficulty
providing unbiased reports about the quality of
interaction that currently exists between the former spouses. In an effort to reduce this bias,
mother and adolescent reports were combined to
form an indicator of parental conflict. Mothers
completed an eight-item scale concerned with
how often during recent interactions her former
spouse had engaged in behaviors such as shouting, criticizing, arguing, insulting, and calling
names. The response format ranged from 1
summed to form a composite indicator of parental
ing the previous year from employment, child
support, alimony, government payments, their
children's earning, etc. These amounts were
summed to form a measure of total family income. This total was divided by number of family
members to obtain a per capita measure.
Child support payments. The mothers responded
to the following question: During the past 6
months, how much child support has your former
spouse paid per month on average? The women
wrote in the dollar amount or "0" if they had received no financial assistance from their former
husband.
RESULTS
In general, the adolescents in the sample had
rather high contact with their fathers. Approximately 60% indicated that their father visited at
least twice a month, and over half reported that
they had weekly contact. For boys, frequency of
father visitation had a bivariate correlation of -.07
with Externalizing Problems and .01 with Internalizing Problems. The correlations for girls were
-.01 and .01, respectively. Thus, consistent with
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
364 Journal of Marriage and the Family
prior studies, there was no evidence that frequency of interaction with father influenced child adjustment.
lems at both waves 1 and 2, but the coefficients
are not statistically significant. Parental Conflict
The variable for Father's Parenting assumed
dren must have had some interaction with their
child reports of Father's Parenting, but is not related to adolescent problems.
Table 1 shows a similar pattern of findings for
girls with two exceptions. First, Mother's Parent-
father if they and their mother were to answer
questions concerning the father's parenting prac-
ing (TI) is related to Externalizing Problems at
waves 1 and 2 but not Internalizing Problems.
tices. The same was true for Parental Conflict.
Second, the correlations between the indicators of
father's parenting and child adjustment are just
the reverse of those found for boys: Father's Parenting-CR (TI) is negatively related to Externalizing and Internalizing Problems, whereas Father's Parenting-MR (TI) is not related to adoles-
that the adolescent had had at least one contact
with his or her father in recent months. The chil-
The former spouses must have had at least some
contact in recent months if the mother and adoles-
cent were to rate the level of conflict. Thus analy-
ses involving these variables necessarily excluded
those cases where either the child or the mother
had not seen the father in the prior 3 months.
There was almost complete overlap between these
conditions; if the child had had contact with the
father so had the mother, and vice versa. There
was no evidence that fathers were more likely to
terminate contact with children of a particular
gender. Excluding the no-contact cases resulted in
a deletion of approximately 20% of both the boys
and girls at wave 1, leaving 74 boys and 83 girls.
At wave 2 there were 63 boys and 71 girls who
had had some contact with their father.
Given that several of the variables involved
multiple indicators, structural equation modeling
with latent variables was an obvious method for
assessing associations between constructs. Unfortunately the small number of cases precluded the
use of this procedure. Therefore, as noted in the
Measures section, multiple indicators were
summed to form composite measures and analyses were performed using Pearson correlations
and ordinary least squares regression.
(TI) is negatively associated with mother and
cent adjustment at either wave.
Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations between the parent variables at wave 2 and adolescent externalizing and internalizing problems at
waves 2 and 3. The table differs from Table 1 in
that it does not contain the variable Father's Par-
enting-MR because this data was not available at
wave 2. With one exception, the pattern of correlations for boys largely parallels that reported in
Table 1. The exception involves Father's Parenting-CR (T2) which is negatively related to Externalizing Problems at waves 2 and 3 and Internalizing Problems (T2). Consistent with the findings
reported in Table 1, Mother's Parenting (T2)
shows an inverse association with both External-
izing and Internalizing Problems at waves 2 and
3. Family Income (T2) and Child Support (T2)
show small negative associations with Internalizing and Externalizing Problems at waves 2 and 3,
although only a few of the coefficients are statisti-
cally significant. Parental Conflict (T2) is nega-
tively associated with Father's Parenting-CR
Correlations Between Parental Behavior
and Child Adjustment
Table 1 presents the means and standard devia-
tions and the bivariate correlations between the
parent variables at wave 1 and adolescent externalizing and internalizing problems at waves 1
and 2. For boys, the table shows that the Mother' s
Parenting at time 1 (TI) and mother's report of
father's parenting-Father's Parenting-MR
(Ti)-are inversely related to Internalizing and
Externalizing Problems at waves 1 and 2. Child's
report of father's parenting-Father's ParentingCR (T1)-on the other hand, is not related to the
adjustment variables. Family Income (T1) and
Child Support (T1) show small negative associations with Internalizing and Externalizing Prob-
(T2), but is not related to adolescent problems.
Table 2 shows a pattern of correlations for girls
that closely resembles that for boys, and is similar
to the findings reported for girls in Table 1. Both
Mother's Parenting (T2) and Father's ParentingCR (T2) are negatively related to Externalizing
Problems at waves 2 and 3. Income (T2) is negatively related to Internalizing Problems (T2).
Parental Conflict (T2) shows an inverse association
with Father's Parenting-CR (T3), but is not significantly related to any of the adolescent outcomes.
Child Adjustment Regressed
on Parental Behavior
The intercorrelation between the parent variables
shown in Tables 1 and 2 demonstrates the impos-
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 1. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL VARIABLES AT WAVE 1 AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES AT WAVES 1 AND 2 BY G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Externalizing problems (Ti) - .82** .20 .28* -.31* .03 .38** .06 2. Externalizing problems (T2) .65** - .24 .43** -.21 .01 .42** .07 3. Internalizing problems (TI) .57** .47** - .49** .01 -.12 .26* .18 -.
4. Internalizing problems (T2) .59** .56** .65** - .01 -.04 .12 -.03 -.
5. Mother's parenting (TI) -.38** -.39** -.39** -.47** - .09 .15 .09 .
6. Father's par-MR (TI) -.29* -.30* -.13 -.30* .21 - .29* -.45** .1
7. Father's par-CR (T1) -.11 -.06 -.14 -.10 .08 .01 - -.33** -.1
8. Parental conflict (TI) .14 -.06 -.07 .15 .04 -.21 -.25* - .1
9. Family income (T1) -.14 -.16 .03 -.06 -.03 .03 -.13 .05 - .69
10. Child support (TI) -.13 -.16 -.01 -.07 .17 .21 .01 -.00
M
.31a
SD
.71a
1.96
74.00
2.47
70.51
24.14
-.823a
23.25
12.40
3.53
3.81
43.67
6.62
.166a
1.56
28,161
16,552
Note: Correlations above the diagonal are for girls whereas those below the diagonal are for boys (n - 67 boys and 72 girls).
aMean based on composite measure formed by summing standardized scores.
*p < .05. **p < .O1.
TABLE 2. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PARENTAL VARIABLES AT WAVE 2 AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES AT WAVES 2 AND 3 BY GEN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Externalizing problems (T2) - .85** .43** .19 -.31** -.31* -.08 2. Externalizing problems (T3) .85** - .40** .40** -.36** -.32** .02
3. Internalizing problems (T2) .54** .42** - .45** -.19 -.18 .10 -.24
4. Internalizing problems (T3) .65** .58** .70** - -.08 -.13 .07 -.1
5. Mother's parenting (T2) -.50** -.39** -.48** -.33* - .13 .02
6. Father's par-CR (T2) -.30* -.35** -.27* -.18 .35* - -.27* .1
7. Parental conflict (T2) -.03 -.06 .27* .24 -.02 .02 - .11
8. Family income (T2) -.25 -.29* -.24 -.29* .11 -.22 -.19 - 75
9. Child support (T2) -.24 -.31* -.14 -.23 .01 .03 .04 .4
M
SD
.64a
.69a
2.48
72.06
2.82
70.18
26.48
-.31a
22.36
43.83
3.52
6.22
-.42a
1.43
Note: Correlations above the diagonal are for girls and those below the diagonal are for boys (n = 54 boys and 67 girls).
aMean based on composite measure formed by summing standardized scores.
*p? .05. *p < .01.
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
23,066
12,367
366 Journal of Marriage and the Family
sibility of assessing the contribution of any one of
the factors to child adjustment without controlling
for the effects of the others. Multiple regression
procedures were used to perform this multivariate
analysis. Adolescent adjustment at wave 2 was re-
gressed on wave-1 measures of the explanatory
variables, and adolescent adjustment at wave 3
was regressed on wave-2 measures of the explanatory variables. The regressions were run
twice, once without controlling for earlier levels
of adolescent adjustment and a second time controlling for prior levels.
Controlling for earlier levels of adjustment
would seem to provide the strongest evaluation of
the extent to which the explanatory variables predict change in adolescent adjustment. However, it
was unlikely that this approach would produce
many, if any, significant effects. First, the impact
of parental behavior on child development is usually assumed to be immediate rather than lagged.
Therapeutic interventions to enhance parental
monitoring and discipline, for example, tend to
table presents standardized regression coefficients
(3) and their associated p values. The left half of
the table reports the findings for externalizing
problems. Without controlling for Externalizing
Problems (TI), the association between Mother's
Parenting (TI) and Externalizing Problems (T2)
is significant for boys (-.38, p ? .01) and approaches significance for girls (-.18, p = .09). Father's Parenting-MR (Ti) shows a significant effect for boys (-.25), but not for girls. None of the
other explanatory variables approaches signifi-
cance for either gender. When Externalizing
Problems (Ti) is added to the regression equation, none of the parent variables are significant
for girls. The same is true for boys except that Fa-
ther's Parenting-MR (TI) and Parental Conflict
(T1) approach significance (p = .10).
The right side of Table 3 displays the results
obtained for Internalizing Problems. Without In-
ternalizing Problems (T1) in the model, both
produce rather instantaneous changes in child behavior (Kazdin, 1984; Patterson, 1982). Therefore
Mother's Parenting (T1) and Parental Conflict
(T1) are related to Internalizing Problems (T2) for
boys (-.48 and .18, respectively). Controlling for
Internalizing Problems (T1) does not eliminate
one would expect parental behavior at one time
these associations, and has the effect of increasing
period to have little effect on child adjustment at
a later point beyond its impact on adjustment during the earlier period. Second, as shown in Tables
1 and 2, Internalizing and Externalizing Problems
are quite stable over time. Indeed the stabilities in
is not in the model. No other factors show an ef-
some cases are greater than .80. Thus removing
fect.
the effect of earlier levels of adjustment leaves lit-
tle variance to be explained by the parent variables. Finally, analyses (not shown) demonstrate
that the explanatory variables are also rather stable between waves 1 and 2 (e.g., correlations of
.70 and .62 for mother's parenting for boys and
girls, respectively). Thus, while parenting practices, income, parental conflict, and child adjustment undoubtedly changed dramatically during
the weeks immediately following marital
breakup, neither the parent variables nor the child
the significance of Father's Parenting-MR (T1)
from a probability of .40 to .09. For girls, the ef-
fect of Family Income (TI) approaches significance whether Externalizing Problems (Ti) is or
Table 4 shows the results obtained when child
reports of father's parenting are substituted for
mother reports. The findings contrast with those
reported in Table 3 in that Father's Parenting-CR
(Ti) is not related to Externalizing Problems (T2)
for boys but is for girls. Indeed, the effect of this
variable approaches significance for girls even
after controlling for Externalizing Problems (Ti).
The rest of the findings largely parallel those in
Table 3.
Although the results for the regression analyses
adjustment variables show extreme fluctuations
reported in Tables 3 and 4 differ somewhat de-
over the postdivorce period that is the focus of the
pending on the source of information (mother ver-
study. Rather, both parental behavior and child
adjustment appear to be rather slowly evolving
processes. Given this situation, the explanatory
sus child) used to measure father's parenting, analysis showed that this was not the case for the other
factors were not expected to have a significant effect after controlling for prior scores on the outcome variables.
Table 3 shows the results obtained by regressing adolescent problems at wave 2 on the parent
variables assessed at wave 1. The analysis used
father's parenting as reported by mothers. The
variables for which multiple sources of data were
available. Although not shown for the sake of par-
simony, the effect of Mother's Parenting and
Parental Conflict on adolescent adjustment remained basically the same when the different
sources of information used to form these composite measures were treated as separate indicators.
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 3. ADOLESCENT ADJUSTMENT AT WAVE 2 REGRESSED ON PARENTAL BEHAVIOR AT WAVE 1 USING MOTHER REPORTS OF
Externalizing Problems (T2) Internalizing Prob
Boys
Girls
Boys
G
Variables 3 p Value 3 p Value 3 p Value 3 p Value 3 p Value [3 p Value 3
Mother's parenting (T1) -.38 .01 .11 .21 -.18 .09 -.09 .20 -.48 .01 -.20 .0
Father's parenting-MR (Ti1) -.25 .01 -.13 .10 -.05 .68 -.04 .62 -.08 .40 -.13 .0
Parental conflict (T1) -.12 .21 -.12 .10 .13 .28 -.03 .75 .18 .06 .18 .01
Family income (T1) -.07 .50 -.01 .88 -.15 .27 -.06 .50 -.07 .49 -.04 .57
Child support (T1) -.02 .85 -.02 .77 -.01 .98 -.01 .87 .03 .79 .01 .98
Child adjustment (T1) - - .65 .01 - - .82 .01 - - .60 .0
TABLE 4. ADOLESCENT ADJUSTMENT AT WAVE 2 REGRESSED ON PARENTAL BEHAVIOR AT WAVE 1 USING ADOLESCENT REPORTS
Externalizing Problems (T2) Internalizing Prob
Boys
Girls
Boys
G
Variables 3 p Value [3 p Value [3 p Value 3 p Value [3 p Value [3 p Value 3
Mother's parenting (T1) -.41 .01 .16 .13 -.13 .14 -.08 .33 -.48 .01 -.25 .0
Father's parenting-CR (TI) -.06 .61 .09 .33 -.40 .01 -.14 .07 -.04 .72 .03 .7
Parental conflict (T1) -.02 .85 -.09 .36 -.03 .76 -.04 .63 .18 .10 .22 .0
Family income (T1) -.13 .27 -.06 .51 .04 .75 -.01 .89 -.08 .46 -.08 .38
Child support (TI) -.06 .63 -.03 .74 -.07 .64 -.02 .82 .04 .70 .01 .94
Child adjustment (TI) - .60 .01 - - .80 .01 - - .57 .0
TABLE 5. ADOLESCENT ADJUSTMENT AT WAVE 3 REGRESSED ON PARENTAL BEHAVIOR AT WAVE 2 USING ADOLESCENT REPORTS OF F
Externalizing Problems (T2) Internalizing Prob
Boys
Girls
Boys
G
Variables p Value [3 p Value 3 p Value [3 p Value 3 p Value ) p Value f
Mother's parenting (T2) -.25 .05 -.08 .37 -.29 .01 -.07 .28 -.27 .05 -.01 .8
Father's parenting-CR (T2) -.33 .01 -.17 .04 -.27 .02 -.03 .68 -.12 .38 -.01 .9
Parental conflict (T2) -.09 .43 -.05 .46 -.03 .77 .09 .22 .22 .07 .06 .5
Family income (T2) -.25 .07 -.12 .18 -.21 .24 -.19 .06 -.16 .30 -.08 .50
Child support (T2) -.19 .16 -.06 .42 .19 .27 .20 .05 -.19 .21 -.11 .32
Child adjustment (T2) - .79 .01 - .80 .01 - - .62 .0
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
368 Journal of Marriage and the Family
Table 5 presents the results obtained by regressing adolescent problems at wave 3 on the
parent variables assessed at wave 2. Without con-
the interaction terms showed a significant effect,
suggesting that the impact of the parent variables
is limited to their main effects.
trolling for Externalizing Problems (T2), the asso-
ciation between Mother's Parenting (T2) and Externalizing Problems (T3) is significant for boys
(-.25, p = .05) and girls (-.29, p = .01). Father's
Parenting-CR (Ti) also shows a significant effect
for both boys (-.33, p = .01) and girls (-.27, p =
.02). Family Income approaches significance for
boys (-.25, p = .07). None of the other explanatory variables approaches significance for either
gender. Father's Parenting-CR (T2) continues to
have a significant effect for boys even after Exter-
nalizing Problems (T2) is added to the regression
equation. For girls, Family Income (T2) and
Child Support (T2) emerge as significant once the
effect of Externalizing Problems (T2) is controlled. However, the effect of Family Income
(T2) is negative while the coefficient for Child
Support (T2) is positive. Table 2 shows that there
is a high degree of multicollinearity for these two
variables (r = .75), and hence it was possible that
the regression coefficients for these variables are
misleading given this high association. Indeed,
when the model was run with one or the other of
the variables deleted neither showed a significant
effect.
Turning to boys' Internalizing Problems,
Mother's Parenting (T2) has a significant effect
(-.27, p = .05) and the coefficient for Parental
Conflict (T2) approaches significance (.22, p =
.07) when Internalizing Problems (T2) is not in
the model. None of the explanatory variables
shows a significant association once Internalizing
Problems (T2) is added to the regression equation. For girls, none of the explanatory variables
has a significant effect regardless of whether In-
ternalizing Problems (T2) is included in the
model.
The regressions reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5
examine the main effects of the parent variables.
It is possible that these factors interact with each
other in influencing adolescent problems. For example, involvement by the father may serve to
compensate for low control by the mother, or father's parenting may only have a positive effect
when conflict with the mother is low. These hypotheses were tested by forming multiplicative interaction terms. Mother's Parenting was multiplied by Father's Parenting, Father's Parenting by
Parental Conflict, and Mother's Parenting by
Parental Conflict. These interaction terms were
entered into the regressions one at a time. None of
Parental Behavior Regressed on
Child Adjustment
In an attempt to assess the extent to which child
maladjustment influences parental behavior, each
of the parent variables (viz., Mother's Parenting,
Father's Parenting, and Parental Conflict) as assessed at wave 2 was, in turn, regressed on wave1 measures of Adolescent Internalizing and Ado-
lescent Externalizing Problems as well as the
other parent variables measured at wave 1. Thus
Mother's Parenting at wave 2, for example, was
regressed on wave-1 assessments of Adolescent
Internalizing Problems, Adolescent Externalizing
Problems, Father's Parenting, Parental Conflict,
Family Income, Child Support, and Mother's Par-
enting. These regressions were then repeated
using wave-2 measures to predict parental behavior at wave 3. The results of these analyses are
presented in Table 6. For the sake of brevity, the
only regression coefficients presented are those
representing relationships between the three de-
pendent variables--Mother's Parenting, Father's
Parenting, and Parental Conflict-and both Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Problems.
Table 6 shows, as expected, that externalizing
problems has more of an effect on parental behavior than internalizing problems. None of the coef-
ficients reported in Table 6 between Adolescent
Internalizing Problems and either Mother's or Father's Parenting is statistically significant. On the
other hand, there is a significant inverse relation-
ship between Externalizing Problems (Ti) and
Mother's Parenting (T2) for both boys (-.27) and
girls (-.22). For boys, Externalizing Problems
(TI) also shows a strong negative association
with Father's Parenting (T2) (-.48). There are no
significant relationships, however, between Externalizing Problems (T2) and Mother's or Father's
Parenting measured at wave 3, suggesting that the
coercive impact of child conduct problems on
parental behavior may be most evident during the
transition period immediately following divorce.
Internalizing Problems is not related to subsequent levels of Parental Conflict in any of the regressions, and for girls, Externalizing Problems
has no effect at either wave. For boys, Externalizing Problems (T2) shows a significant association
with Parental Conflict, although Externalizing
Problems (T1) does not. The significant coeffi-
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 6. STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE PARENTAL BEHAVIOR CONSTRUCTS REGRESSED ON
PRIOR ASSESSMENTS OF ADOLESCENT EXTERNALIZING AND INTERNALIZING PROBLEMS
Mother's Parenting Father's Parenting Paren
T1-* T2a T2---- T3b T1---- T2a T2---- T3b T1---
Adolescent Outcomes p p Value p p Value p Value p Value p p
Boys
Externalizing problems -.29 .04 -.20 .14 -.48 .01 -.18 .22 Internalizing problems .10 .42 .03 .86 .22 .17 .03 .84
Girls
Externalizing problems -.22 .05 .05 .66 -.02 .89 .03 .80 Internalizing problems .01 .94 .23 .11 -.10 .42 -.06 .60
aParental behavior at Wave 2 regressed on externalizing and internalizing problems at Wave 1.
bParental behavior at Wave 3 regressed on externalizing and internalizing problems at Wave 2.
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
370 Journal of Marriage and the Family
cient is negative (-.38), suggesting that divorced
test of the causal priorities assumed between the
parents reduce their conflict with each other in re-
parent variables and child outcomes than the
sponse to antisocial behavior on the part of their
sons. It should be noted, however, that Externalizing Problems is related to Parental Conflict in
only one regression, and that this regression involves Externalizing Problems measured at wave
2, whereas it was Externalizing Problems mea-
cross-sectional procedures utilized in most studies. The parenting variables tended to predict subsequent adolescent problems as long as measures
of prior level of adolescent adjustment were not
in the model. In most instances controlling for
sured at wave 1 that is associated with Mother's
ent variables. Other studies have reported similar
findings (Agnew, 1991; Anderson, Lindner, &
Bennion, 1992). This finding was anticipated and
is considered to be a function of two factors, one
and Father's Parenting. Thus it may be that this
coefficient is a function of random error.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Overall, five findings are suggested by the regression analyses. First, it appears that quality of father's parenting is related to externalizing problems for boys and girls, although the results differ
somewhat depending on the source of data used
to assess father's parenting. Second, quality of
mother's parenting shows an association with externalizing problems for boys and girls, and is
also related to internalizing problems for boys.
Third, parental conflict is associated with internalizing problems for boys but not girls. Fourth,
family income and child support do not appear to
have an effect on child adjustment once the influ-
ence of parenting practices and parental conflict
are taken into account. Finally, adolescent externalizing problems appear to reduce the quality of
mother's parenting for both boys and girls, and to
diminish father's parenting in the case of boys.
However, these effects may be limited to the transition period immediately following the divorce.
DIScusSION
The present study avoided the limitations inherent
in many prior studies of children's adjustment to
divorce by using longitudinal data, utilizing mul-
tiple sources of information to build measures,
and including rarely investigated factors such as
the parenting practices of nonresidential fathers.
The results provided no evidence for the view that
the impact of parental behavior on child adjustment either increases or wanes with time since di-
vorce. The results were very similar for both time
periods: mother's parenting, father's parenting,
and, to a lesser degree, parental conflict showed
significant effects at both waves, whereas the
other factors did not.
The regression analyses involved regressing
child adjustment on the parent variables measured
a year earlier. This approach provided a stronger
earlier adjustment eliminated the effect of the par-
theoretical and the other statistical.
Theoretically, the impact of parental behavior
on child development is usually assumed to be
immediate rather than delayed. This assumption
is supported by intervention studies reporting that
modifications in parenting practices produce
changes in child behavior within a matter of days
or weeks (Kazdin, 1984; Patterson, 1982). Therefore one would expect parental behavior at a particular point in time to have little effect on child
adjustment a year later beyond its impact on adjustment during the earlier period. Statistically,
both internalizing and externalizing problems are
quite stable over time. Thus removing the effect
of earlier levels of adjustment leaves little variance to be explained by the parent variables.
The variable that was most strongly and consistently related to adolescent adjustment was
mother's parenting. This finding is consonant
with past research. Studies have consistently
shown low parental monitoring and inept discipline to be related to child conduct problems such
as difficulties at school and delinquency (Macco-
by, 1992; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Further,
there is strong evidence that single parents tend to
make fewer demands on children and utilize less
effective disciplinary strategies than married par-
ents (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Furstenburg &
Nord, 1985; Hetherington et al., 1982). Together
these two lines of research suggest that differences in parental control may explain much of the
variation in externalizing problems among children living in single-parent families. Findings
from the present study corroborate this idea in
that quality of mother's monitoring and discipline
was related to externalizing problems for both
boys and girls.
For boys, mother's monitoring and discipline
was also related to internalizing problems. Indeed, the magnitude of the coefficients was quite
large. While there is an intuitively obvious connection between parental discipline and conduct
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Adjustment ofAdolescent Children 371
problems, it is less clear why quality of parental
discipline would be related to psychological distress, and only for boys. Past research has estab-
ther's parenting was not related to internalization
problems for either sons or daughters. Thus the
primary consequence of involvement by nonresi-
lished that boys have a greater propensity for con-
dential father appeared to be a reduction in the
adolescent's risk for conduct problems. This suggests that nonresidential fathers who continue to
duct problems than girls (Loeber & LeBlanc,
1990). It may be that young males understand the
dangers that low parental control poses for them,
and hence are more likely than adolescent females to interpret low control as an absence of
parental concern and caring. Or it may be, as past
studies have reported, that adolescent males,
whether living in a single- or two-parent family,
tend to resist control attempts by their mothers
(Baumrind, 1991). Thus it may be that many of
the single mothers in the present study who
scored low on effective discipline had reduced
their level of monitoring and discipline in response to the anger and resistance shown by their
sons. If this is the case, the relationship between
low maternal control and internalizing problems
fill the role of parent may serve to counter the low
control and inept discipline manifested by some
single mothers.
While overall the findings indicate that involvement by nonresidential fathers diminishes
an adolescent's involvement in conduct problems,
this conclusion is tempered by the fact that the re-
sults varied depending on the reporter used to assess father's parenting. In the case of girls, adolescent reports about father's parenting at either
waves 1 or 2 predicted externalization problems,
whereas mother reports at wave 1 did not. For
boys, on the other hand, mother reports at wave 1
for boys may be spurious due to their common as-
and adolescent reports at wave 2 were related to
externalization problems whereas adolescent re-
sociation with mother-son conflict. The fact that
ports at wave 1 were not. It is difficult to interpret
mother's control is associated with internalizing
problems for boys but not girls is intriguing because it suggests that the functions or consequences of various parental behaviors may differ
by gender of the adolescent. This finding needs to
be replicated with other samples, however, since
this pattern of findings. One possibility is that
mothers are more accurate reporters of fathers'
parenting when the child is male. Single mothers
often have a hard time controlling adolescent
males (Hetherington, 1987) and hence they may
be very aware (and appreciative) of any assistance provided by the father. Unfortunately,
mothers' reports about fathers' parenting were not
available for wave 2 so analysis could not be per-
it may merely represent sampling error.
Many past studies of children of divorce have
been based on the simple assumption that children do better when they have regular contact
with their nonresidential father. Research has
failed to support this idea (Amato, 1993; Emery,
1988). A few studies have gone beyond focusing
on frequency of visitation to consider the affective quality of the father-child relationship. However, these studies have also failed to find an association between father involvement and child
adjustment (e.g., Furstenberg et al., 1987; Macco-
by et al., 1993). In response to these negative
findings, Furstenberg and Cherlin (1991) have
speculated that noncustodial fathers only exert an
influence on child development to the extent that
they remain actively involved in the role of par-
ent. Findings from the present study provide
some support for this idea.
Father's involvement in the role of parent was
negatively related to externalizing problems in
two out of three tests for both boys and girls. In-
deed, the coefficient for this variable was often
significant (p < .05), or at least approached significance (p < .10), even after controlling for prior
scores on externalizing problems. In contrast, fa-
formed to determine whether mothers' accounts
of fathers' parenting practices continue to predict
the behavior of sons at subsequent waves.
If for no other reason than shared method vari-
ance, one would expect adolescent reports of paternal behavior to be a better predictor of adolescent self-reports of conduct problems than mother
reports of paternal behavior. Curiously this was
the case only for girls. Perhaps in the months immediately following marital breakup, adolescent
males are so disturbed by feelings of abandonment by their father that they cannot objectively
report on the quality of his parenting practices.
Hence their wave-i reports about their father's
behavior are not related to conduct problems. As
time passes they may become more objective,
with the result being that boys' reports about their
father's parenting obtained at wave 2 are strongly
associated with conduct problems.
Such ideas are, of course, mere speculation.
The finding that the effect of father's parenting
varied depending on the reporter used to assess
father's parenting is disconcerting and precludes
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
372 Journal of Marriage and the Family
drawing firm conclusions from the analyses concerning the effects of paternal involvement. However, at a minimum, the fact that in four out of six
tests father's involvement in the role of parent
had an effect on conduct problems suggests that it
would be fruitful for future studies to focus on the
parental behaviors of nonresidential parents rather
than merely considering frequency of contact or
warmth of the parent-child relationship.
It is often argued that recurrent friction be-
tween parents causes psychological distress
among children of divorce. Consistent with this
contention, several studies have found that persistent conflict between former spouses is related to
depression and anxiety among children (Amato,
1993; Emery, 1988). Most of these studies, however, do not control for the parenting practices of
the parents. This is an important omission since
research on two-parent families indicates that the
effect of parental conflict on child adjustment
may be indirect through its disruptive impact on
parenting practices (Conger et al., 1992). The
present study found that after controlling for qual-
ity of parenting by both mothers and noncustodial
fathers, parental conflict was related to internaliz-
ing problems for adolescent males but not females. It is not clear why this gender difference
might exist. Perhaps daughters are able to cope
with parental conflict by siding with the mother
and reducing emotional investment in the father,
whereas sons continue to identify with their nonresidential fathers and therefore are troubled by
parental conflict that threatens the father-son relationship.
Past studies of two-parent families have shown
that economic hardship has a coercive effect on
parental behavior (Elder & Caspi, 1988; Simons
et al., 1992). Findings from the present study suggest that similar processes may operate in single-
parent families as well. Although there was a bivariate association between family income and
adolescent adjustment, the two variables were not
significantly related once the effects of mother's
parenting were controlled. This result suggests
that the impact of financial strain on children of
divorce may be indirect through its disruptive effect on the parenting of the custodial parent.
Finally, although the study was primarily con-
cerned with the impact of parental behavior on
child adjustment, consideration was also given to
the possibility that child adjustment problems influence parental behavior. There was no evidence
that internalizing problems have an impact on the
dimensions of parental behavior included in the
analysis. Externalizing problems, on the other
hand, had a coercive effect on mother's monitoring and discipline of both sons and daughters, and
on noncustodial father's parenting of sons. Interestingly enough, this effect was found for wave-1,
but not wave-2, assessments of conduct problems.
This suggests that child antisocial behavior
may exert its greatest influence during the transi-
tion period immediately following divorce. This
is a time when parents are adjusting to new
parental roles. The custodial parent needs to accommodate his or her childrearing approach to
life as a single parent whereas the nonresidential
parent must define the role of parent given his or
her more limited access to the child. Both parents
are likely to find that the realities of their new living situation make parenting a more difficult en-
deavor. During this period of transition and role
redefinition, mothers and fathers may be particu-
larly vulnerable to aversive child behaviors that
discourage parental involvement. Combining this
idea with the findings discussed earlier, it appears
that divorced families may often encounter an
ugly circular pattern where children develop conduct problems as a result of disruptions in parent-
ing occurring during and immediately following
parental divorce. These child behavior problems,
in turn, may operate to further discourage effective parenting, with the result being an escalation
of child antisocial behavior.
Although the present study avoided some of
the weaknesses inherent in much of the past research on children in single-parent families, it
also contained several limitations. Three are particularly noteworthy. First, the sample was small
and consisted largely of families living in small
towns. Although there is no reason to believe that
the effects of the parent variables would be differ-
ent for families living in large metropolitan areas,
the findings need to be replicated using a larger,
more urban sample. Second, measures of the parenting practices of the noncustodial father were
based on reports by his children and former
spouse. Both of these parties are apt to possess
strong feelings that might serve to bias their perceptions of his behavior. Future research needs to
examine the extent to which father self-reports
are related to mother and child reports of his
parental involvement and to assessments of child
adjustment.
Finally, the age range of the children in the
sample was restricted to middle adolescence.
There is a need to replicate the study using samples containing younger children. The effect of
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Adjustment ofAdolescent Children 373
some of the variables may well differ by age of
the child. It may be, for example, that involvement by nonresidential fathers is most critical
during the turbulent adolescent period. On the
other hand, parenting by nonresidential fathers
may have its most potent effect during the highly
formative preschool and early elementary school
years. The issue of the extent to which the impact
of the parent variables interacts with the developmental level of the child could not be addressed
with the sample used in this study.
NOTE
This article is part of the Iowa Single Parent Project, a
panel study supported by the National Institute of Men-
tal Health (MH48165) and the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (HD27724).
Journal Paper No. 15281 of the Iowa Agriculture and
Home Economic Experiment Station, Ames, IA. Project
No. 2931. Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Ronald L. Simons.
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control
theory and delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 28, 126-156.
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children's adjustment to divorce:
Theories, hypotheses, and empirical support. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23-38.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and
the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.
Anderson, E. R., Lindner, M. S., & Bennion, L. D.
(1992). The effect of family relationships on adoles-
cent development during family reorganization.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 57, 178-199.
Arendell, T. (1986). Mothers and divorce: Legal, economic, and social dilemmas. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family
structure, parenting practices, and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.
Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating
attention to people and objects in mother-infant and
lationships: Mutual influences (pp. 218-240). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O.,
Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1992). A family
process model of economic hardship and influences
on adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.
Derogatis, L. R. (1983). SCL-90-R: Administration,
scoring, and procedures manual-II. Towson, MD:
Clinical Psychometric Research.
Elder, G. H., & Caspi, A. (1988). Economic stress in
lives: Developmental perspectives. Journal of Social
Issues, 44, 25-45.
Elder, G. H., Van Nguyen, T., & Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children's lives. Child Development, 56, 361-375.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Millard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and
mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Emery, R. E. (1988). Marriage, divorce, and children's
adjustment. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Furstenberg, F. F., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when parents part.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., Morgan, S. P., & Allison, P. D.
(1987). Paternal participation and children's wellbeing after marital dissolution. American Sociological Review, 52, 695-701.
Furstenberg, F. F., & Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting
apart: Patterns of childrearing after marital disruption. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893-
904.
Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of
interobserver estimates. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 10, 103-119.
Hetherington, E. M. (1987). Family relations six years
after divorce. In K. Pasley & M. Ihinger-Tallman
(Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 185-205). New York: Guil-
ford.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1976). Divorced fathers. Family Coordinator, 25, 417-428.
Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects
of divorce on parents and children. In M. E. Lamb
(Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and child
development (pp. 233-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
peer-infant interaction. Child Development, 55,
Kazdin, A. E. (1984). Treatment of conduct disorders. In
Baumrind, D. (1991). Effective parenting during the
early adolescent transition. In P. A. Cowan &
M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family Transitions (pp.
111-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
chotherapy research: Where are we and where
1278-1289.
ates.
Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1989). Children's experience in single-parent families: Implications of cohabitation and marital transitions. Family Planning
Perspectives, 21, 256-260.
Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction of problem
behavior and relationships. In R.A. Hinde &
J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within re-
J. B. W. Williams & R. L. Spitzer (Eds.), Psy-
should we go? (pp. 3-27). New York: Guilford.
Loeber, R., & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In Michael Tonry & Norval
Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 12, pp. 375-473). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.
Maccoby, E. E., Buchanan, C. M., Mnookin, R. H., &
Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Postdivorce roles of moth-
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
374 Journal of Marriage and the Family
ers and fathers in the lives of their children. Journal
of Family Psychology, 7, 24-38.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in
Student
the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In
P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp.
1-101). New York: Wiley.
Subscription Rates
for NCFR journals!
McGruder, B., Lorenz, F. 0., Hoyt, D., Ge, X. J., &
Montague, R. (1992). Dimensions of parenting: A
technical report. Iowa State University, Center for
Family Research in Rural Mental Health, Ames, IA.
McLanahan, S. S., & Booth, K. (1989). Mother-only
families: Problems, prospects, and policies. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 51, 557-580.
Melby, J., Conger, R., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L.,
Repinski, D., Ahrens, K., Black, D., Brown, D.,
Huck, S., Mutchler, L., Rogers, S., Ross, J., &
Journal of Marriage and the Family (JMF) and
Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and
Child Studies (FR) are now available to students at
special low rates.
Stavros, T. (1990). The Iowa family interaction cod-
Students save up
ing manual. Ames, IA: Iowa Youth and Families
Project.
to 50%
Morgan, L. A. (1991). After marriage ends: Economic
consequences for mid-life women. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992).
Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Raschke, H. J. (1987). Divorce. In M. B. Sussman &
S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of Marriage and
the Family (pp. 597-624). New York: Plenum.
Schwarz, J. C., Barton-Henry, M. L., & Pruzinsky, T.
(1985). Assessing childrearing behaviors: A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and
sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-
over individual rates.
Student Rates:
JMF only $25/year
FR only $20/year
These discounted rates
allow you to save time,
too! Have the journals
delivered directly to
your home or work. You
no longer have to wait for
the library copy to become
479.
Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Chao, W.
(1993). Stress, support, and antisocial behavior trait
as determinants of emotional well-being and parenting practices among single mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 385-398.
available.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C.
(1992). Support from spouse as mediator and moderator of the disruptive influence of economic strain on
parenting. Child Development, 63, 1282-1301.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Wu, C., & Conger, R. D.
(1993). Marital and spouse support as mediator and
moderator of the impact of ecomonic strain upon
parenting. Developmental Psychology, 29, 368-381.
Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative
behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Velicer, W. R., Govia, J. M., Cherico, N. P., and Corriveau, D. P. (1985). Item format and the structure of
the Buss-Durkee hostility inventory. Aggressive Behavior, 11, 65-82.
Prfesos
Many of you already use JMF and FR as
supplemental texts. Now they are more affordable
for your students.
Please share this special rate information with
your students! Encourage them to subscribe. They
will reap the benefits of exposure to the latest
original theory and applied research in the family
field.
If the journals are not currently a part of your
courses, consider their value to your students. The
new student rates make it possible to integrate
journals into various family courses. Students
receive 4 issues per year of JMF for only $25 and
FR for only $20.
This content downloaded from 131.247.112.3 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms