Reframing fathers 1
Running head: REFRAMING FATHERS AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES
Reframing Fathers: Parental Inputs About Fathers’ Behavior and their Effects on Adolescent
Outcomes
Sandi Dial
Arizona State University
Reframing fathers 2
Abstract
The construct of how others help an individual to reframe an upsetting event has largely been
unstudied. The current study aimed to address how others’ reframing of father-child events that
upset an adolescent affected the youngster’s behavioral problems and the father-child
relationship measures. Using 393 7th graders and their families, reframing items, behavioral
outcomes, and father-child relationship measures were included in an extensive survey
administered in the families’ homes. Analyses show that: (1) in general, the reframing items
were negatively correlated with behavioral outcomes and positively correlated with father-child
relationship measures; (2) mothers and fathers reframe fathers somewhat differently, and that
this difference affects the child’s report of externalizing behavior; and (3) stepfamilies and intact
families also differ in how they reframe the (step-)father’s behavior.
Reframing fathers 3
Reframing Fathers: Parental Inputs About Fathers’ Behavior and their Effects on Adolescent
Outcomes
Psychologists have identified coping processes as a prime area of study. There are a
number of theories available in the literature that posit how the processes of coping and appraisal
function. Coping has been defined as the thoughts or actions, or a combination of the two, which
are used in such a way as to manage problems as well as the negative emotions that may
accompany these problems (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Kliewer, Sandler, & Wolchik, 1994).
According to Suls and Fletcher (1985), there are two main categories of coping strategies:
avoidance and approach coping. Approach coping has been defined as those strategies that aim
to deal directly and actively with a problem, and avoidance coping strategies have been defined
as passive means of dealing with a problem, e.g., distraction (Suls & Fletcher, 1985). Power
(2004) speculates that these styles of coping are both functional, but the adaptability of the
strategy depends largely on the context in which it is used. Avoidance coping has been shown to
be adaptive in situations that are unlikely to recur and when it is used in ways that are nondestructive, e.g., distraction (non-destructive) versus drug abuse (destructive), while approach
strategies have been shown to be more adaptive in situations that are likely to occur again in the
future (Suls & Fletcher, 1985).
Along with these two broad categories of coping, researchers have also differentiated
between primary and secondary coping strategies. As defined by Band and Weisz (1988),
primary strategies are problem-solving strategies that people can use to change the situation to
reduce stress. Secondary strategies include measures to increase the person’s acceptance (i.e., the
person changing himself or herself to better fit the situation). Again, research has shown that the
manageability and controllability of the situation dictate which strategies are best to use:
Reframing fathers 4
situations that are easily manageable and controllable call for the use of primary strategies, and
those situations that are less controllable may require the use of secondary coping strategies
(Band & Weisz, 1988). Power (2004) suggests that although coping can be categorized as above,
it should not be assumed that coping is a rigid process, as there is a great amount of flexibility in
situations. Since no situation is completely controllable or uncontrollable, any given situation is
not best handled using only approach or only avoidance strategies, or only primary or only
secondary strategies. Situation types are determined by a constant interaction between the person
experiencing the event and the event itself (Power, 2004).
The above theories and definitions all relate to the coping processes found in adults. Less
numerous are the theories available regarding the coping processes of children. As outlined by
Power (2004), modern theories regarding children’s ways of coping with stress use process
models. Process models are models that do not use environmental events, behavior, or
physiological changes to define stress; rather, these process models look at an interaction
between environmental events, appraisal, and coping processes to define stress. Appraisals have
been defined as the meanings or perceptions children and adolescents assign events or situations
(Kurdek & Fine, 1993; Power, 2004). Before children have fully developed their own set of
coping mechanisms and problem-solving skills, they are likely to turn to their parents. Parents
can help both with the way children appraise stressful situations and with what they do to cope
with the stressful situation. Researchers have identified three different conceptual pathways
parents can adopt in aiding children with coping and appraisals: a coaching pathway, a modeling
pathway, or a contextual pathway (Kliewer, et al., 1994). Parents who engage in the coaching
pathway guide their children’s appraisals, suggest specific methods for managing and dealing
with the problem, and then reinforce these appraisals and coping strategies (Kliewer, et al., 1994;
Reframing fathers 5
Morris, 2001). Parental coaching can aid the child in filling the gap between the coping resources
they have and the resources necessary to successfully cope with the problem at hand (Kliewer, et
al., 1994; Kliewer, Fearnow, & Miller, 1996). The modeling pathway is less direct: children
observe parents’ responses, and these observations affect the way in which the child will later
appraise a stressful circumstance. Observing parent responses serves as a vehicle for teaching a
child how to interpret stressful situations as well as how to appraise them (Kliewer, et al., 1994).
The contextual pathway examines how the creation of the family environment by the parents can
affect how different coping behaviors are learned (Kliewer, et al., 1994).
These pathways may not operate independently in their effects on children. Kliewer, et al.
(1996) found that the use of coaching and modeling interact to affect the child’s coping efforts in
different ways: girls will tend to rely more on approach strategies as a result of this interaction
and boys tended to engage in more avoidant strategies. This interaction may be more prevalent
given the circumstances under which parents are coaching or modeling. Power (2004) claims that
parental influence occurs more through coaching and modeling pathways when related to aiding
children in appraising situations. There are several different types of appraisals a child might
make, and among those are threat appraisals, challenge appraisals, negative cognitive errors, and
positive illusions (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Mazur, Wolchik, Virdin, Sandler, & West, 1999; Power,
2004). Sheets, Sandler, and West (1996) have found that the foci of threat appraisals include the
categories of threat to self, other-related threat, and loss of desired objects and activities.
Challenge appraisals, which have been shown to be adaptive in adults but have not been
researched in children, are defined as seeing a stressful situation as a challenge to be overcome
rather than a threat (Power, 2004). Mazur, et al. (1999) have defined negative cognitive errors as
appraisals that overemphasize negative aspects of a situation while at the same time
Reframing fathers 6
underemphasizing the positive or ambiguous aspects of the same situation. Positive illusions
have been defined as a tendency to create an exaggerated positive meaning from a situation
(Mazur, et al., 1999).
Sheets, et al. (1996) found that appraisals change as children age: the older children get,
the more diverse the foci of their appraisals are. Power (2004) posits that as children get older
they are influenced just as much by why an event is happening, what implications that event has
for their future, and what the child can do about the situation as the event itself. Once exposed to
a stressful situation, researchers claim appraisal plays an important role in how children handle
that situation. According to Power (2004), “children’s short- and long-term adaptation to
potentially stressful events is not simply a function of the nature of the events experienced, but of
the meaning [appraisals] that children derive from these events” (p. 281).
How parents influence coping and appraisals is still a gray area that has many
unanswered questions. Although the way parents influence coping and appraisal is unclear,
coping and the family context have been shown to share a strong link (Brown & Harris, 1989;
Forman & Davies, 2003; Kliewer, et al., 1996; Kurdek & Fine, 1993). Brown and Harris (1989)
have identified a number of family factors that may reduce the chance of a child making a threat
appraisal. Among these family factors are cohesiveness, level of communication (especially with
regard to emotion), consistency of schedule, and living in an environment where the children feel
safe and secure. Kliewer, et al. (1996) found that within a warm family context, i.e., one
embodying the qualities identified by Brown and Harris (1989), children are more likely to seek
parental support in the process of coping and appraisals. It has also been found that in these
family contexts less maladaptive forms of coping are used by children because processing
emotions and negative situations is something that comes more naturally to them (Kliewer, et al.,
Reframing fathers 7
1994). Forman and Davies (2003) found that adolescent’s appraisals of family security are
mediators that can predict whether or not externalizing or internalizing behavior problems will
result from family instability. Parenting difficulties have been shown to hinder the ability of
parents to influence appraisals of family security, but in overcoming these difficulties parents are
likely to provide guidance in the appraisal process through coaching (Forman & Davies, 2003).
In families that have experienced a high number of marital transitions (post-divorce single parent
families or stepfamilies), with intact families (biological parents still married) having a transition
score of zero, Kurdek and Fine (1993) found that children have been shown to appraise the
family climate and parenting style less positively than in those families with lower marital
transition scores.
The types of parental suggestions afforded to children have been shown to be affected by
family context as well (Kliewer, et al., 1996). Power (2004) terms parents the “life experts” to
whom children tend to turn during early and middle childhood. Parental influence on the
appraisal process is “potentially one of the greatest socialization influences in the stress and
coping area” (Power, 2004, p. 290). However, parents may differentially affect the appraisals
their children make. Research has shown that the effect of parental influence may be mediated
through the quality of the relationship children have with their parents (Kliewer, et al., 1996;
Vandervalk, Spruijt, De Goede, Meeus, & Maas, 2004). Kliewer, et al. (1996) found that
maternal influence is better received in children versus paternal influence, and this may be due to
the fact that children tend to rate their relationship with the mother more favorably than their
relationship with the father. The same study found that children tend to be more satisfied overall
with their relationship with their mothers (Kliewer, et al., 1996). There is also a small body of
research available that shows children’s perceptions of stressful events are influenced by parental
Reframing fathers 8
coaching (Kliewer, et al., 1994). Parental coaching may act as a reinforcer for certain types of
appraisals, and not all coaching has been found to be adaptive. Researchers have found that
parents may induce the tendency for children to minimize major events, create too large of an
emphasis on minor events, or pass on the “chip on the shoulder” that parent has about a
particular issue (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Power, 2004).
Within the processes of appraisals is the sub-process of reframing, and this sub-process
has been defined many different ways. Most past research has defined reframing as an activity an
adult undergoes on his or her own to more positively reinterpret or re-appraise a stressful or
unpleasant situation (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Kliewer, et al, 1996; McKelvey, 2004; Power, 2004).
In emotion regulation research, reframing is defined as “shifting attention away from an emotion
eliciting stimulus” (Morris, 2001, p. 8). Reframing has also been categorized as a secondary and
active coping strategy (Kliewer, et al., 1996; Power, 2004). Regardless of how it is named,
categorized, or defined, this process of appraisal can be undertaken individually or facilitated by
another person. Reframing an event positively has been shown to change the coping process.
Kliewer, et al. (1996) found that parents who engage in positive reframing are more likely to
suggest active coping strategies to their children. However, only maternal reframing use was
correlated with more active coping strategy use in children of both sexes (Kliewer, et al., 1996).
For sons, the father engaging in reframing was viewed as a more passive coping strategy.
McKelvey (2004) found that reframing is associated with lowered stress in the parent in secure
attachment parent-child relationships. McKelvey (2004) also observed that reframing is a
mediator between parenting stress and attachment with infants. In low stress families, McKelvey
(2004) found that mothers who use more reframing indicated higher scores on mother-child
Reframing fathers 9
interaction. This relationship did not hold in higher stress families—there was no difference in
quality of mother-child interaction in those who used cognitive reframing and those who did not.
Despite a thorough analysis of the process of an individual engaging in reframing
conducted by McKelvey (2004), as well as the findings by Kliewer, et al. (1996), reframing has
largely not been researched. The process of an individual engaging in reframing facilitated by
another person has been ignored as well. Of particular interest are appraisals and reframing about
the actions of the parents themselves. Since there is a tradition of favoring the study of the effects
of mothers on their adolescents and little is known about the differential effects of fathers and
stepfathers on adolescents, the current study will focus on reframing about the father’s or
stepfather’s behaviors. Thus, within the current study, reframing will be defined as the nature of
the messages mothers, fathers, and non-parents provide to an adolescent when s/he “is upset or
bothered about” the relationship to the step- or intact father “or about the things he says and
does.” Reframing, as defined above, is an area of study that has been deemed important by other
researchers. As Power (2004) points out, yet to be explored is the process of how parents can
affect a child’s attribution in the midst of an upsetting event, and he cites this failure as
“unfortunate” (p. 287). It has also been noted that there is a need to identify the processes that
underlie how adolescents represent the family and resulting psychological maladjustment
(Forman & Davies, 2003). Reframing may be a process that underlies how adolescents mentally
represent the family. In Kliewer, et al. (1994), it was suggested that future research try to answer
“how children interpret [parental] messages and about how they affect children’s internal
emotional experience, their expression of emotion, and their interactions with their parents
around stressful situations” (p. 280). Understanding how children interpret parental messages in
post-divorce situations has also been stated to be of interest (Sandler, Wolchik, & Braver, 1988).
Reframing fathers 10
Reframing is not only important within parent-child relationships, but also in nonparental relationships. In coping research, it has been stated that participating in active coping
with an adult who is not a parent could act as a buffer for the impact of stressful events (Kliewer,
et al., 1994). A non-parent who the child trusts can be an excellent source of information in terms
of reframing. This third party can afford the child a more objective perspective on an unpleasant
situation because this third party is further removed from the problem than a parent would be.
Due to this person’s objectivity, he or she may be able to provide a more accurate reframe for
how or why this unpleasant circumstance arose. A more accurate reframe can aid the child along
a more adaptive path of coping.
There are a number of interesting issues surrounding reframing that arise from the
directions for future research suggested by past investigators of coping and appraisal processes.
One area of interest may be to look at what characteristics of reframes can change the way an
adolescent feels about himself or herself, or how reframe characteristics can change his or her
relationship with the father or stepfather. Some characteristics that may change the feelings the
adolescent has in these two areas are whether or not a plausible reason was given for why the
father/stepfather acted in the way he did or said the things he said, or whether or not the reframe
criticized and condemned versus supported and defended the actions and words of the
father/stepfather. Another area that could be explored is what might happen if adolescents are
given conflicting parental messages, or reframes, with which to interpret a situation. It is possible
that mothers will reframe the father’s behavior differently than the father will reframe the
behavior. The father will have a fuller understanding of his intentions, motives, and other
extraneous factors (e.g., work-related stress, marital discord) that may have contributed to a
reaction or statement that was not well received in the adolescent. Further, past research has
Reframing fathers 11
shown that parental use of reframing is viewed differently when engaged in by the mother versus
the father (Kliewer, et al., 1996). Due to this finding, it would be interesting to see how differing
reframes given by each parent would affect adolescent outcomes. Also of interest would be to
see if the reframes about the father afforded to adolescents are different in stepfamilies versus
intact families as the dynamics of these family systems are reliably different. In a study by
Kurdek and Fine (1993), family climate was found to be rated less positively in stepfamilies
when compared to intact families, so it is possible that reframes afforded to adolescents in these
family situations may be qualitatively different (e.g., criticism versus support).
The Current Study
Using the definition of reframing that describes it as the nature of the messages mothers,
fathers, and non-parents provide to the adolescent when s/he “is upset or bothered about” the
relationship to the step- or intact father “or about the things he says and does,” the following
research questions will be explored. First, research question 1 is: how do frequency of reframing
communications, frequency of the reframer giving a plausible explanation for the
father’s/stepfather’s behavior, type of reframe given (i.e., criticism versus support of the
father’s/stepfather’s behavior), adolescent feelings about himself or herself after the reframe, and
adolescent feelings about the relationship with the father/stepfather after the reframe, as provided
by mother, father and any non-parental reframers, each correlate with the dependent or outcome
variables of overall rating of relationship quality between the adolescent and father, as well as
adolescent behavioral outcomes? The current study proposes that reframing is generally
beneficial, in that it generally improves child outcomes and relationships. Thus, it is expected
that the more effectively someone reframes the father for the child (as operationalized by each of
the five dimensions of reframing), the fewer child internalizing and externalizing behaviors will
Reframing fathers 12
be reported. Similarly, the more effectively someone reframes the father for the child, the better
the father-child relationship becomes, as reported by any of the reporters. Research question 2 is
how do the types of reframes given by mothers about the father’s behavior compare to the
reframes given by the fathers? If there is a difference in the types of reframes given, it is also of
interest to see what effect this discrepancy has on the overall relationship quality between
adolescent and father/stepfather and the adolescent’s behavioral outcomes. It is expected that the
mothers and fathers will reframe the father’s behavior differently, and that when they disagree
about how to reframe the father’s behavior, e.g., the mother criticizes the father but the father
defends/supports his behavior, that this disagreement will lead to greater behavioral problems in
the child, as well as a decrease in the ratings of overall relationship quality. Finally, research
question 3 concerns whether or not there is a difference in the nature of reframes afforded to
children in intact versus stepfamilies. If there is a difference, how do the reframes differ? Based
on the research by Kurdek & Fine (2003) on appraisals of family climate and parenting styles in
intact families compared to the same appraisals in families with greater numbers of transitions—
in the current study, stepfamilies—it is expected that the stepfamilies and intact families will
differ in how they reframe the father’s behavior.
Method
Sample
Sample recruitment was determined by protocol established by the investigators of the
Parents and Youth Study (PAYS). PAYS is a longitudinal study comprised of four waves of
measurement. The goal of PAYS is to better understand the effects of fathers and stepfathers on
adolescents. Data for the current study will be the data collected in the first wave only.
Reframing fathers 13
PAYS recruited participants in two metropolitan areas: Phoenix, AZ and Riverside, CA.
Overall, there were approximately 100 families recruited from each of four family backgrounds
(50 per site): Anglo intact family, Anglo stepfamily, Mexican-American intact and MexicanAmerican stepfamily. Ethnicity was limited to only those families in which all three members
(child, mother, and (step-)father) were of the same ethnicity (either Anglo or Mexican
American). “Stepfather” was defined as the male partner of the mother who had occupied the
family home for more than one year and adopted a “father-like” role. Marriage was not a
requirement for the definition of stepfather.
Due to differing laws regarding contact with school personnel by outside entities,
recruitment differed between the two sites. In the Phoenix component, postcard surveys were
given in eight different schools to seventh graders in classes selected to eliminate sampling the
same student twice. These surveys determined the ethnicity and family structure of the target
student. Because informed consent was not given prior to the administration of the postcard
survey, the PAYS group employed a bi-lingual school employee to sort the postcards by family
type and ethnicities into five stacks and then contact families meeting the participation criteria.
The postcard stacks were defined as follows: the first four were families who fit the profile of
one of the four desired groups, and the fifth stack of postcards was of families who did not meet
participation criteria. There were a total of 2,459 students (660 Anglo intact, 159 Anglo
stepfamily, 1318 Mexican-American intact, and 322 Mexican-American stepfamily) who were
eligible based on their postcard data, and from these the PAYS team randomly selected families
who would be contacted during a 10-week recruitment period. The school recruiter sent out a
letter and a brochure about PAYS to the selected families after they extracted the contact
information for these families. After receiving consent from the families to be contacted by ASU
Reframing fathers 14
(either via telephone or mail), trained interviewers from ASU followed up with families with the
details of PAYS. A total of 640 families were contacted, and of these 204 were both eligible and
agreed to participate. Cash incentives were awarded to families for participation.
In Riverside, principal investigators from the PAYS team met with assistant
superintendents for the Riverside Unified School District and the San Bernardino City Unified
Schools to summarize the project and its goals. With permission from the assistant
superintendents, the principal investigators of the Riverside PAYS team met with principals of
14 middle schools, 6 in from the Riverside district and 8 from the San Bernardino district. All the
Riverside schools agreed to participate, and 6 of the 8 San Bernardino schools agreed to
participate.
Two different methods of recruiting were used: school recruiter telephone calls in the San
Bernardino City district, and mailings with postcard replies in the Riverside district. In the San
Bernardino district, emergency contact cards were examined to determine if a student did or did
not meet eligibility criteria. For the Riverside district, enrollment data and family contact
information were provided to the PAYS staff. These data for each district were screened in the
same ways to determine if the family should be contacted to verify eligibility and ask for
participation. If the mother, father, and child all had the same last name, it was assumed that this
group comprised an intact family. Ethnicity was not reported on the emergency contact forms, so
ethnicity was estimated by Spanish surnames. Once presumed eligibility was determined, school
recruiters then contacted families to explain the PAYS project and screen for eligibility. If the
families agreed to participate and met eligibility requirements, the family information was turned
over to PAYS staff for further contacts.
Reframing fathers 15
There were 540 families between the two districts who expressed interest in participation,
either through the phone calls or returning of the postcards. A total of 192 families both met
eligibility requirements and agreed to participate (61 Anglo intact, 47 Anglo stepfamily, 55
Mexican-American intact, and 29 Mexican-American stepfamily).
Measures
There were three different surveys given as part of PAYS: one for the child, one for the
mother, and another for the residential father (either biological or stepfather). Each survey
contains questions from all the different measures of interest in the overall PAYS project. There
are five reframing items per each potential reframer (mother, father, non-parent, which could be
a relative, e.g., a grandparent or sibling, or a non-relative) on the adolescent’s survey, and this is
the only place where these items appear (see Appendix A). The reframing questions are not
considered together as a scale; rather, each question assesses different characteristics of
reframing. There are questions assessing frequency of reframing (“When you are upset with your
(dad/stepdad)…how frequently do you and [your mom] talk about him?”), another set of
questions regarding whether or not a plausible explanation is given for the father’s/stepfather’s
actions (“how often does she [your mom] give you a reason for why he acted the way he did?”),
another set about the nature of the reframe given (“is [your mom] more likely to criticize him or
to support him for what he said or did?”), and two questions per reframer about how the
adolescent feels about himself or herself and the relationship after the reframe (“when you and
[your mom] talk about your (dad/stepdad)’s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you
feel…”). The responses for the relationship feelings range from feeling “a lot worse abour your
(dad/stepdad) or your relationsip with him” to “a lot better about your (dad/stepdad) or your
Reframing fathers 16
relationship with him.” The responses for feelings about self after the reframe range from “a lot
worse about yourself” to “a lot better about yourself.”
The dependent measures include an Overall Relationship Quality Scale and an adapted
version of the Behavior Problems Index (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Achenbach & Rescorla,
2001; Peterson & Zill, 1986). The Overall Relationship Quality Scale is a two-item set of
questions with high reliability for all reporters (child α = .79, father α = .81, mother α = .79). The
items on this scale for the child are “How well do you get along with your (dad/stepdad)?”, with
responses ranging from “extremely well” to “not well at all,” and “Tell me what kind of
relationship you have with your (dad/stepdad),” with responses ranging from “the worst” to “the
best” (see Appendix B for all three versions of this scale (mother, father, and child)).
The Behavior Problems Index (BPI; see Appendix C) is a 32-item scale adapted from the
Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and other scales of
child behavior problems. This index will produce internalizing and externalizing scores as well
as an overall score for mother and father reports. This scale also has national norms. The
reliabilities within the current study are high (internalizing father report α = .76, mother report α
= .74; externalizing father report α = .88, mother report α = .86). Children reported externalizing
behavior using an adapted version of the Youth Self Report (YSR, see Appendix D; Achenbach
& Rescorla, 2001; Peterson & Zill, 1986). Eight items from the aggression subscale and four
items from the delinquency subscale were selected to assess externalizing. This scale yields high
reliability from child report (α = .82).
Internalizing for the child reporter is assessed using depression or anxiety measures rather
than the BPI. A set of seven items taken from the Child Depression Inventory (CDI) was used to
assess adolescent depression levels (Kovacs, 1992). These seven items correlate highly with the
Reframing fathers 17
overall CDI (r = .87), and they were selected using a stepwise regression predicting total scale
score. The top eight items were originally selected, but one was dropped in order to increase
reliability. Items from the shortened version of the CDI asked how often in the past month the
child experienced feelings such as “things bothered me all the time” or “there were some bad
things about my looks” (see Appendix E). The reliability of the child report on this scale is
moderate (α = .65). The anxiety scale is comprised of six questions taken from the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1979; Reynolds & Paget,
1981). Again, these items were selected using a stepwise regression predicting total scale score
with the top seven items being selected. As was the case with the CDI, one item was dropped in
order to increase reliability (α = .67). Items used from this scale include such questions as “In the
past month you got mad easily” and “In the past month you felt tired a lot” (see Appendix F).
Procedure
Participants were interviewed in the home by a team of three interviewers assigned to that
family at the time of consenting to participate in PAYS. All three participants (mother, father,
and child) were interviewed simultaneously in different rooms of the home. Each interview was
conducted in the participant’s language of choice (either Spanish or English). The interview
process took approximately two hours and followed the all-inclusive surveys created for the
PAYS project. Only the data collected in the first wave of data collection (i.e., when the
adolescent was in the seventh grade) will be used in data analyses for the current study.
Results
There were five reframing questions each asked about three potential “reframers”:
mothers, fathers, and a non-parent. The means, Ns, and standard deviations for each of these five
reframing questions for each reframer are provided in Table 1. The N’s are of particular interest
Reframing fathers 18
here since they reflect whether the adolescent ever approached that (category of) person for
reframing. Thus, mothers, with an N of 284 for frequency of reframing, were the most frequently
approached reframers, while the fathers themselves were approached by only N = 164. Also of
note are the differences in means for the question of whether the reframer gave a reason for why
the father behaved as he did across reframers (mother M = 4.97, father M = 5.33, and non-parent
M = 3.78). Despite these mean differences, the mean values across reframers of the child’s
feelings about the father-child relationship (mother M = 3.82, father M = 4.08, non-parent M =
3.67), as well as the child’s feelings about himself or herself (mother M = 3.74, father M = 4.00,
non-parent M = 3.63), do not show as marked a difference.
Descriptive statistics for the internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems and
father-child relationship outcome measures by reporter are shown in Table 2. It should be
recalled that different scales are being used to measure the problem behaviors for the adolescent
report versus the mother and father report, which accounts for their different means.
Specifically, both parents were administered an adapted version of the Behavior Problems Index
(Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A., 2001; Peterson, J. L. & Zill, N., 1986) for both the
internalizing and externalizing scores, while the adolescent responded to an adapted version of
the Youth Self Report for externalizing scores (Achenbach, T. M., 2001; Peterson, J. L. & Zill,
N., 1986). Responses on these scales were coded such that higher scores indicate higher
frequencies of the behavioral problems of interest. The child score for internalizing was found by
combining standardized scale scores for both depression and anxiety measures, then calculating
the mean of these standardized values for the adolescent. Any adolescents with missing data for
one scale were excluded in this figure because the definition of internalizing for the current study
was the combined report of both depression and anxiety. As with the externalizing measure,
Reframing fathers 19
higher scores indicate higher levels of internalizing behaviors. Similar to the internalizing scale
score calculations, the overall relationship quality scale (father-child relationship) score was
calculated using standardized values due to differences in the range of values possible for the
answers to the scale’s two questions. Due to the standardized values for the child report of
internalizing and the father-child relationship measure for all reporters, the resulting means for
the scales were equal to zero.
Each of the reframing and outcomes variables reported in Tables 1 and 2 were included
in each of the subsequent research questions within the current study. The analysis for research
question 1, which asked if there were relationships between the reframing questions and the
outcomes variables, required correlating the five reframing questions for each reframer (15 items
total) with each of the behavior outcome measures and the father-child relationship measure for
each of the three reporters (9 items total). The resulting correlations can be found in Table 3.
Rather than review each significant correlation individually, broad patterns of results were
identified and will be highlighted here. First, there were a substantial number of correlations that
were significant (even in view of the large number – 135 – of correlations computed). Second,
virtually every significant correlation was in the expected direction. That is, referring to Table 3,
it can be seen that the correlations of reframing questions with behavioral outcomes are all
negative, as expected; further, with only two exceptions, the correlations of the reframing items
with the father-child relationship measure are positive, as expected. The exceptions are a
significant negative correlation between the father’s type of reframe (i.e., apologize vs. defends
himself) and the child’s report of father-child relationship (r = -.17, p < .05), as well as between
the frequency of non-parent’s reframes and the mother’s report of father-child relationship (r = .16, p < .05).
Reframing fathers 20
Third, significant correlations of the reframing questions with mother and father reports
of child behavior outcomes were sparse; in contrast, for mother and father reports, significant
associations of reframing with the father-child relationship measure were comparatively
common. Fourth and perhaps most striking in Table 3, the child’s reports of behavior outcomes
as well as father-child relationship outcomes were consistently significantly correlated with
reframing both across reframing items and across reframers. Fifth, the greatest numbers of
significant correlations with all the outcome variables were found for the child’s feelings about
the father after mother’s reframe. This reframing question was significantly correlated with the
following outcome measures: mother’s report of father-child relationship, father’s reports of
child externalizing and father-child relationship, and the child’s reports of internalizing,
externalizing, and father-child relationship. Sixth, a similarly large number of significant
correlations were found on the outcome variables for the type of the non-parent’s reframe (i.e.,
criticize vs. support father); significant associations were found with the mother and father
reports of father-child relationship, as well as the child’s reports of internalizing, externalizing,
and father-child relationship. Finally, the largest correlation in all of Table 3 is one of these
correlations just mentioned: the correlation of the type of non-parent’s reframe with the child’s
report of the father-child relationship (r = .43, p < .01).
Research question 2 contained two parts. In order to analyze the first part of the research
question, probing the difference between mothers’ and fathers’ reframes, a multivariate repeated
measures analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. A summary of the mean differences
and their F-values is presented in Table 4. As shown, there was a significant multivariate
(simultaneous) difference between the values for mothers and fathers on the five reframing
questions (multivariate F(5, 124) = 13.32, p< .001). There were two significant univariate
Reframing fathers 21
differences. First, mothers were equally likely to criticize or support the father/step-father’s
behavior, while the fathers were more likely to apologize or admit they were wrong. (mother M =
3.20, father M = 2.23; F(1, 128) = 58.75, p < .001). Second, adolescents were more likely to feel
good about themselves after father’s reframe (M = 4.00) than after the mother’s reframe (M =
3.82, F(1, 128) = 4.20, p < .05).
The second part of research question 2 investigated whether any difference in parental
reframing had a differential effect on the outcome variables. In order to evaluate this question, a
series of nine regression analyses were conducted exploring potential moderation effects. In
each, the values for the mother reframe and father reframe were combined to create a product
term according to the procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986). In each regression
analysis, the variables were entered such that the mother’s reframe and the father’s reframe were
partialled when the product term of both variables was examined. Each of the three outcome
variables for each of the three reporters was used as the dependent variable, thus nine regression
analyses resulted. If a significant t-value for the moderation product term was found, this
indicated that the moderation was significant.
Only one of these analyses found a significant moderating effect: parental reframing on
the adolescent’s report of externalizing behavior (t = 2.07, p < .05). The plot of the moderation is
found in Figure 1. Note that the line labeled “Father Apologizes” is actually for the fathers
whose responses are one standard deviation below the mean, the line for “Father Equal
Apologizes and Defends Himself” more accurately represents the fathers whose responses are at
the mean, and the line for “Father Defends Himself” truly depicts the fathers whose responses
are located one standard deviation above the mean. The striking feature of the plot is that, when
father tends toward defending himself while the mother tends toward supporting rather than
Reframing fathers 22
criticizing the father/step-father’s behavior (in essence agreeing that the father’s behavior was
justified or correct), the greater the child’s report of externalizing problems.
Research question 3 explored possible differences between reframing in stepfamilies
(about the stepfather) and intact families (about the “real” father). Four sets of analyses were
conducted to investigate these differences. The first three, one for each reframer, were
MANOVAs conducted so that stepfamilies and intact families could be compared to see if there
were differences in the ways the family types reframe the father’s behavior. The findings are
summarized in Table 5. For each reframer, a multivariate F was calculated to test for a difference
for the set of reframing questions simultaneously. If the multivariate F was significant (or nearly
so), then the univariate F-values were interpreted. The multivariate F-value for the mother’s
reframes was significant (F(5, 263) = 3.90, p < .01) and for the father’s reframes was nearly
significant (F(5, 145) = 1.99, p = .08). The univariate ANOVAs disclosed a significant
difference in how often mothers in stepfamilies versus mothers in intact families gave a reason
for why the father was behaving the way he did or saying the things he did to upset the
adolescent (F(1, 267) = 11.68, p < .001). A significant difference was also found in how the
adolescent felt about the father after the mother’s reframe. The univariate F-values comparing
father’s reframes across family types yielded a significant difference in the father’s type of
reframe (i.e., apologize vs. defend himself) (F(1, 149) = 5.11, p < .05), as well as a significant
difference in how the adolescent felt about the father after the father’s reframe (F(1, 149) = 7.90,
p < .01). There were no significant differences between family types in terms of the non-parent’s
reframing.
The fourth analysis conducted was a comparison of stepfamilies and intact families in
terms of the correlations of the reframing questions to the outcome variables used in research
Reframing fathers 23
question 1. These findings are summarized in Table 6. Note that there were 135 comparisons
made using Fisher’s r-to-z method, so, for practical purposes, only the significant differences are
listed in Table 6. As with the results for research question 1, rather than comment here on each
significant finding individually, patterns of results will be highlighted. Almost every comparison
of correlations with the behavioral outcome measures resulted in a positive Zdifference (the lone
exception is the final Zdifference reported for the behavior outcomes), while every correlation with
father-child relationship measures resulted in a significant negative Zdifference. The positive
Zdifference for the behavioral outcomes indicates that the stepfamilies’ correlation was more
negative in magnitude (the expected direction) than the intact families’. The negative Zdifference
for the father-child relationship outcomes indicates that the stepfamilies’ correlation was more
positive in magnitude (the expected direction) than the intact families’. Thus, for the correlations
with the behavioral measures, the stepfamilies’ correlations were always negative, or in the
expected direction, while the intact families’ correlations were more often positive than negative.
The same pattern applies to the stepfamilies’ correlations with the father-child relationship
measure: their correlations with this measure were positive, while the same did not hold true for
the intact families.
Discussion
The issue of how others help an individual to reframe an upsetting event was identified as
an important area of study because it is a sub-process of appraisals and coping, but has yet to be
more fully understood in how it affects the appraisal and coping processes in general and in
children specifically. By focusing directly on reframing the actions and communications of the
father/step-father that upset the adolescent, and by including three categories of possible
reframers of his actions (the father himself, the mother, and any non-parent reframers), the
Reframing fathers 24
current study was able to gain information about how others’ assistance in the process of
reframing fathers affected adolescent outcomes and overall relationship quality (father-child
relationship) with the father/step-father. The current study consisted of three main foci or
research questions: 1) how do the five characteristics of reframing measured for each potential
reframer (mother, father, and non-parent) correlate with the adolescent’s behavioral outcomes
and the father-child relationship as reported by the mother, father, and child; 2) do mothers and
fathers/step-fathers differ in how they reframe the father/step-father, and if there is a difference
what effect does that difference have on the adolescent’s outcomes; and 3) are there differences
in how stepfamilies and intact families reframe the father’s/stepfather’s behavior?
The first interesting finding was the difference in N’s for each reframer. As stated
previously, the N’s are indicative of how many children from the sample experienced a given
aspect of reframing. In terms of frequency, the N’s revealed that the child approached his or her
mother more frequently than the father to reframe. Further, the child approached the non-parent
to reframe more frequently than the father as well. Thus, the father was the least often
approached reframer, despite the fact that he would be able to reframe his own behavior for the
child. This could mean that the child found it less difficult to approach either the mother or nonparent as opposed to going directly to the source of the upsetting event, the father. The low N’s
for the father’s reframing could also indicate a less open or communicative relationship between
the father and child when compared to the mother or a non-parent.
In analyzing research question 1, the resulting correlations revealed relationships between
the reframing questions and the outcomes measures that were overall in the expected directions.
This pattern of significant results revealed two things: first, that the act of reframing tends to
result in fewer behavior problems and second, that the reframing items tend to result in an
Reframing fathers 25
improved father-child relationship. This pattern could be interpreted a couple of different ways:
(1) that the act of reframing reduced the adolescent’s experience of internalizing and
externalizing while it improved the father-child relationship, or (2) that the child, as a result of
experiencing fewer internalizing and externalizing behaviors and having a good father-child
relationship, was more likely to approach someone to reframe the father’s behavior when it upset
or bothered him or her. These interpretations could be functioning jointly. For instance, in the
second interpretation possibility, a relative lack of internalizing and externalizing problems and
an overall good father-child relationship would be indicative of fewer factors that could
potentially interfere with the child seeking the help of a reframer. Behavior problems or a poor
father-child relationship could distract the child from the possibility of reframing the father’s
behavior. After reframing, the child could have experienced a lessening of any behavior
problems that arose during the upsetting event, as well as an improvement in the father-child
relationship, both of which would be reinforcing, thus resulting in a greater likelihood that the
reframing behavior could occur in future instances when the father’s behavior upsets the child.
Recall that there were two exceptions to this pattern, and these were a significant
negative correlation between the frequency of non-parent reframes and the mother’s report of
father-child relationship, as well as a significant negative correlation between the father’s type of
reframe (i.e., apologize vs. defends himself) and the child’s report of father-child relationship.
The first of these exceptions, the negative correlation of the frequency of non-parent reframes
with the mother’s report of father-child relationship, could mean that the mother views the
greater frequencies of the non-parent reframes as damaging to the father-child relationship, thus
the resulting lower report of father-child relationship. This correlation could also indicate that the
child is seeking out a non-parent reframe more often due to a poor father-child relationship. The
Reframing fathers 26
second exception, the negative correlation of type of father’s reframe with child’s report of
father-child relationship, can also be interpreted few different ways. It could be that the more
likely the father is to defend himself for what he has said or done, the more unhappy the child is
with the father-child relationship. The opposite of this relationship may also be true: the less
happy the child is with the father-child relationship, the more the child will likely be upset with
the father in general, thus the father may be acting in a way that is justifiable but, due to the
fractured relationship. these actions nonetheless upset the child.
The second aspect of the pattern of results found was a lack of significant negative
correlations of the reframing items with mother and father reports of child behavior outcomes,
but a contrasting abundance of significant positive correlations of the reframing items with
mother and father reports of father-child relationship. The lack of significant correlations could
be indicative of the reframing items having a limited effect on decreasing the child’s expression
of externalizing and internalizing behavior. Conversely, the reframing items had a more
consistently significantly positive effect on the reports of father-child relationship. Because this
pattern is consistent, it can be inferred that the overall act of reframing can improve the fatherchild relationship.
The consistency of significant correlations of the reframing items with the child reports
of all outcomes measures was impressive as it was consistent across reframing items and
reframers. These findings contribute to the confidence that the act of reframing contributes to
improved behavioral outcomes and father-child relationships. Although it could be argued that
these results could be due to shared method variance, i.e., the child is reporting on both the
reframing items as well as the outcomes measures, the significance across measures, reframing
Reframing fathers 27
questions, and reframers leads to increased confidence that these significant correlations are due
to an actual relationship between the reframing questions and the outcomes measures.
In addition to the consistency of significant correlations within the child’s report of
outcomes measures, there were a large number of rather high correlations of the outcomes
measures across reporters with two particular reframing items: the child’s feelings about the
father after the mother’s reframe and the non-parent’s type of reframe (i.e., criticize vs. support).
Thus, these two reframing questions had the most robust effect on the outcomes measures when
compared to other reframing questions. First, the child may value the mother’s opinions about
the father’s behavior, thus leading to improved feelings about the father after the mother’s
reframe. The fact that the child may value the mother’s opinion more highly, combined with the
better feelings about the father after the mother’s reframe, may lead to more significant decreases
in the behavioral outcomes and improvements in the father-child relationship. Second, the nonparent’s type of reframe may be valuable in terms of the outcomes measures because the nonparent can give a more objective view of the father’s behavior. Thus, this objectivity may lead to
a general decrease in behavior problems and an improvement in the father-child relationship.
Further, because the non-parent may be more objective in his or her interpretation of the father’s
behavior, the child may come away from the reframing experience with the non-parent feeling
better about the father, thus leading to a more greatly improved father-child relationship.
Although the analyses of the reframing items for research question 1 are preliminary and are not
causal findings, the patterns of results as a whole suggest that children should be encouraged to
seek out a reframer when they are upset or bothered by something the father said or did, as it
appears the act of reframing tends to decrease the experience of behavior problems and improve
the father-child relationship.
Reframing fathers 28
Analyses of research question 2 showed that mothers and fathers were significantly
different in how they reframe the father’s/step-father’s behavior. In particular, two significant
differences were found: first, there was a significant difference in the mother’s and father’s type
of reframe (i.e., criticize/apologizes vs. support/defends himself), and second there was a
significant difference in how the child felt about himself or herself after mother’s reframes vs.
father’s reframes. In the first difference, the fathers were more likely to apologize and admit they
were wrong, whereas the mothers were equally likely to criticize or support the father’s actions.
Since the mother is less aware of the factors that may be underlying the father’s behavior, it is
expected that she would be equally likely to criticize or support the father’s behavior. In some
instances she will understand what is motivating the father’s behaviors, thus supporting him,
while in other instances she may be less clear and criticize his behaviors. Second, it was found
that the child felt significantly better about himself or herself after father’s reframing than after
mother’s reframing. Because the child is engaging in reframing when s/he is upset or bothered by
something the father/step-father said or did, the father’s reframing or clarifying his own actions
lends itself to helping the child feel better about himself or herself. The father can give the child
a more clear explanation about the motivations for acting in a way that upset or bothers the child
than the mother can. The clearness of this explanation could allow the child the feel less at fault
for how the father/step-father acted, thus allowing the child to feel better about himself or
herself. It would be more beneficial to know exactly what the father/step-father says while
reframing his behavior for the child, but this is a limitation that will be addressed in greater detail
shortly.
Moderation analyses disclosed that mother-father differences in reframing had a
moderating affect the adolescent’s report of externalizing behavior. Due to the differential
Reframing fathers 29
wording of the questions regarding mother’s and father’s type of reframe (i.e., (mother) criticize
vs. (father) apologize or (mother) support vs. (father) defend himself), this comparison may not
be completely fair. It was expected that if the mother and father disagreed in the way they
reframed the father’s/step-father’s behavior that this discrepancy would create behavior problems
for the adolescent. However, data analyses showed an opposite pattern: when the parents agreed
with each other in their reframes of the father’s/step-father’s behavior, especially when the father
defended himself and the mother supported his behavior, this was associated with more reported
externalizing behavior by the adolescent. Because the adolescent is seeking out speaking to
either parent when s/he is upset or bothered about something the father/step-father said or did,
one possibility is that the adolescent feels “double-teamed” in his or her negative feelings about
the father’s behavior when the parents agree that the father is in the right. An alternative
explanation focuses on the opposite causal sequence: when the adolescent is demonstrating
externalizing behavior problems (“acting out”), this could lead both of the parents to criticize or
discipline the adolescent; here, the actions of the parents are justifiable reactions to misbehavior,
in their own minds at least.
With regard to research question 3, pertaining to reframing in stepfamilies vs. intact
families, it was found that mothers in intact families were giving reasons for the father’s/stepfather’s behavior significantly more often than in stepfamilies. The child also tended to report
feeling better about their father/step-father relationship after mother’s reframing in intact
families than in stepfamilies. There was also a near significant difference showing that mothers
in intact families were reframing the father/step-father’s behavior more frequently than in
stepfamilies. With the fathers, fathers in intact families were more likely to apologize and admit
they were wrong than step-fathers in stepfamilies. Also, adolescents reported feeling better about
Reframing fathers 30
their father/step-father and their relationship with him after father’s reframing in the intact
families compared to stepfamily children. These findings are congruent with the research by
Kurdek and Fine (2003) that suggests children in stepfamilies tend to appraise parenting styles
and the family climate less positively than children from intact families. In an intact family,
where it is expected that a child will appraise the parenting styles more positively, it logically
follows that the child will be more likely to approach his or her parents with problems. The more
confidence the child places in their parents’ ability to parent, the more frequently reframing is
likely to occur. The better feelings about the father can be explained in light of the same
research, only with regard to the more positive appraisals of family climate. If the child is more
likely to be positive about the family climate in general, it is expected that the feelings about the
father would be better in general as well.
With regard to the Fisher’s r-to-Z comparisons of correlations for stepfamilies and intact
families of the reframing questions with the outcomes measures, the results were noteworthy.
The analyses showed that for the stepfamilies the correlations were more highly in the expected
direction than for intact families. Due to the consistency of these results among the significant
correlations, it can be inferred that perhaps the act of reframing as a whole is more beneficial for
stepfamilies than intact families. Since the step-father is not the real father, these explanations for
his behavior might be more important to the child compared to children in intact families
because the dynamics of the relationship with a biological father are by their nature different
than the dynamics of a relationship with a step-father. Although it was found that reframing is
happening less often in stepfamilies when compared to intact families, in instances when
reframing does occur it appears to be more greatly beneficial for the adolescent in terms of
behavior outcomes and father-child relationship. Similarly to the findings for research question
Reframing fathers 31
1, this pattern of results suggests that, especially in stepfamilies, the child should be encouraged
to approach someone to reframe the father’s behavior when that behavior is upsetting.
There are several limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting the current
study. First, the closed-ended nature of the reframing questions did not allow for a complete
examination of this construct, particularly the content of the reframe. Exactly what did the
reframer say? An alternative, albeit more complicated, way to study reframing would be to ask
open-ended questions, rather than the fixed-response scale-type questions of the current study.
For example, the child might provide a narrative describing both the nature of the upsetting event
and of the nature and content of the reframing that took place after the upsetting event. In
addition to the narrative, it would be informative to have the child rate how upsetting the event
was and how helpful they felt the reframing was with respect to their interpretations of the
upsetting event, as well as some variation of the current items (e.g., did it make you feel better
about yourself, and the father-child relationship.) In this way it will be possible to understand
what types of paternal behaviors are upsetting the child, how upset they feel after the event, and
then what the reframers are saying with regard to the father/step-father’s behavior in order to
reframe it. Categorizing the nature of the messages the reframers are affording to the child, based
on the child’s descriptions, is a better option than asking questions with preconceived categories
in mind, and this method allows for a less biased description of the messages of reframers.
Knowing how beneficial the reframing was will assist in teasing apart how much emphasis to
place on the associations between reframing and behavioral outcomes.
These modifications would also remedy another limitation to the current study—the
differential wording for the type of reframe given by mothers and non-parents versus fathers.
The mother and non-parent question asks if these reframers are more likely to criticize or support
Reframing fathers 32
the father for what he said or did, and the father question asks if he is more likely to apologize
and admit he was wrong, or defend himself. While these alternative wordings were necessary in
order for the respective questions to make sense, and while the questions are conceptually similar
(justifying our testing of significance), it cannot be denied that the exact wording of the questions
is different, and thus potentially non-comparable. Again, asking an open-ended question about
what the reframers say about the father’s/step-father’s behaviors would eliminate the problem of
differential wording.
Beyond the wording, it could also be argued that with the number of statistical tests
performed, alpha inflation, and thus chance, could be the cause of the significant findings.
Efforts were made to reduce alpha inflation in the analyses for research questions 2 and 3 by
conducting multivariate tests of overall differences, either between mothers and fathers or
between stepfamilies and intact families. Because the multivariate tests in each of these analyses
were significant, that indicated that where the univariate tests were significant it was not likely to
be due to chance.
Although there are more thorough methods for examining the construct of reframing, the
current study was able to show evidence that it is a worthwhile area of research to be pursued
further in other studies. The current study supported the claim by Power (2004) that it was
unfortunate that yet to be studied is how parents can affect a child’s attribution in the midst of an
upsetting event. It is clear from the results of the current study that the reframing items are
associated with behavioral and relationship quality outcomes, and that there are differences
between parents and family types for what reframing looks like.
Reframing fathers 33
References
Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised
Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, &
Families.
Band, E. B. & Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children’s perspectives
on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 247-253.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Brown, G. W. & Harris, T. O. (1989). (Eds.), Life events and illness. New York: Guilford.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Forman, E. M. & Davies, P. T. (2003). Family instability and young adolescent maladjustment:
The mediating effects of parenting quality and adolescent appraisals of family security.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(1), 94-105.
Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M. D., Miller, P. A. (1996). Coping socialization in middle childhood:
Tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67, 2339-2357.
Kliewer, W., Sandler, I. N., & Wolchik, S. (1994). Family socialization of threat appraisal and
coping: Coaching, modeling, and family context. In F. Nestmann & K. Hurrelmann
(Eds.), Social Support and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence. (pp. 271-293).
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Reframing fathers 34
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory. New York: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Kurdek, L. A. & Fine, M. A. (1993). The relation between family structure and young
adolescents’ appraisals of family climate and parenting behavior. Journal of Family
Issues, 14(2), 279-290.
Mazur, E., Wolchik, S. A., Virdin, L., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (1999). Cognitive moderators
of children’s adjustment to stressful divorce situations: The role of negative cognitive
errors and positive illusions. Child Development, 70, 231-245.
McKelvey, L.M. (2004). Examining the effects of coping on the relationship between family
stress and mother-child interactions across time. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64
(12-B), 6358. (UMI No. 3790543).
Morris, A. S. (2001). The role of the family context in the development of children’s
emotional regulation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (10-B), 5598. (UMI No.
9990341).
Peterson, J. L. & Zill, N. (1986). Martial disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior
problems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 295-307.
Power, T. G. (2004). Stress and coping in childhood: The parents’ role. Parenting Science and
Practice, 4(4), 271-317.
Reynolds, C. R. & Richmond, B. O. (1979). Factor structure and construct validity of “What I
Think and Feel”: The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 43, 281-283.
Reynolds, C. R. & Paget, K. D. (1981). The factor analysis of the Revised Children’s Manifest
Anxiety Scale for Blacks, Whites, males, and females with a national normative sample.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 352-359.
Reframing fathers 35
Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., & Braver, S. (1988). The stressors of children’s postdivorce
environments. In S. A. Wolchik & P. Karoly (Eds.), Children of divorce: Empirical
perspectives on adjustment. New York: Gardner.
Sheets, V., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G. (1996). Appraisals of negative events by preadolescent
children of divorce. Child Development, 67(5), 2166-2182.
Suls, J. & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping
strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 249-288.
Vandervalk, I., Spruijt, E., De Goede, M., Meeus, W., & Maas, C. (2004). Marital status, marital
process, and parental resources in predicting adolescents’ emotional adjustment: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 25(3), 291-317.
Reframing fathers 36
Appendix A: Reframing Items as they Appear on Child Survey (Items 235-249)
235. [ASK IF YES TO MOM IN Q.230. OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.240]
When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how
frequently do you and YOUR MOM talk about him? This could be times she brought it
up as well as times you brought it up. Use list 28. [CARD 28]
= Never [IF NEVER, SKIP TO Q. 240]
= Hardly ever
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Very often
= Almost always
))
236. At times like this, when you and your mom have talked about your
(dad's/stepdad's) behavior that is upsetting you, how often does she give you a reason
for why he acted the way he did? [CARD 28]
= Never [IF NEVER, SKIP TO Q. 238]
= Hardly ever
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Very often
= Almost always
))
237. When your mom gives you a reason for the things your (dad/step-dad) does that
upset you, is she more likely to criticize him or more likely to support him for what he
said or did? Now use list 29. [CARD 29]
= Very likely to criticize him or what he said or did.
= Somewhat likely to criticize him or what he said or did.
= She does both equally
= Somewhat likely to support him or what he said or did.
= Very likely to support him or what he said or did.
238. Look at list 30 and tell me, when you and your mom talk about your (dad/stepdad)'s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 30]
= A lot worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= Somewhat worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= No different than before you talked with her.
= Somewhat better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= A lot better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
239. Next use list 31. When you and your mom talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s
behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 31]
= A lot worse about yourself
Reframing fathers 37
= Somewhat worse about yourself
= No different than before you talked with her
= Somewhat better about yourself
= A lot better about yourself
)240. [IF YES TO (DAD/STEP-DAD) IN Q. 231 ASK. OTHERWISE SKIP TO 245]
When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how
frequently do you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about it? This could be times he brought
up as well as times you brought up. Look back at list 28 now. [CARD 28]
= Never [IF NEVER SKIP TO Q. 245]
= Hardly ever
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Very often
= Almost always
241. At times like this, when you and your (dad/step-dad) have talked about his
behavior that is upsetting you, how often does he give you a reason for why he acted
the way he did? [CARD 28]
= Never [IF NEVER SKIP TO Q. 243]
= Hardly ever
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Very often
= Almost always
242. When your (dad/step-dad) gives you a reason for the things he does that upset
you, is he more likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong, or more likely to defend
himself for what he said or did? Look at list 32. [CARD 32]
= Very likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong.
= Somewhat likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong.
= He does both, apologizes and defends himself.
= Somewhat likely to defend himself for what he said or did.
= Very likely to defend himself for what he said or did.
243. Refer to list 30 again and tell me, when you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his
behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 30]
= A lot worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= Somewhat worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= No different than before you talked with him.
= Somewhat better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= A lot better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
244. Use list 31 again. When you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behaviors that
upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 31]
Reframing fathers 38
= A lot worse about yourself.
= Somewhat worse about yourself.
= No different than before you talked with him.
= Somewhat better about yourself
= A lot better about yourself
[SKIP TO PG. 40 IF THEY DO NOT TALK WITH ANYONE ELSE (SEE Q. 232 &
Q. 234). IF MULTIPLE OTHERS USE THE ONE THEY TALK TO THE MOST FOR
THE NEXT QUESTIONS]
245. When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how
frequently do you and (other person) talk about your (dad/step-dad)? This could be
times (he/she) brought it up as well as times you brought it up. We're going to use some
of those same lists again. So look at list 28. [CARD 28]
= Never [SKIP TO PAGE 40]
= Hardly ever
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Very often
= Almost always
246. At times like this, when you and (other person) talked about your (dad/step-dad)'s
behaviors that are upsetting you, how often does (other person) give you a reason for
why your (dad/step-dad) acted the way he did? [CARD 28]
= Never [SKIP TO Q. 248]
= Hardly ever
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Very often
= Almost always
247. When (other person) gives you a reason for the things your (dad/step-dad) does
that upset you, is (other person) more likely to critcize your (dad/step-dad) or more likely
to support your (dad/step-dad), for what he said or did? Use list 29. [CARD 29]
= Very likely to criticize him or what he said or did.
= Somewhat likely to criticize him or what he said or did.
= He/she does both equally.
= Somewhat likely to support him or what he said or did.
= Very likely to support him or what he said or did.
248. Refer to list 30 again. When you and (other person) talk about your (dad/stepdad)'s
behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 30]
= A lot worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= Somewhat worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
Reframing fathers 39
= No different than before you talked with (him/her).
= Somewhat better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
= A lot better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
249. Now use list 31. When you and (other person) talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s
behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 31]
= A lot worse about yourself.
= Somewhat worse about yourself.
= No different than before you talked with him or her.
= Somewhat better about yourself.
= A lot better about yourself.
Reframing fathers 40
Appendix B: Overall Relationship Quality Items on Mother (Items 196-197), Father (Items 3233), and Child Surveys (Items 20-21)
Mother Survey
196. How well does (child) get along with (husband/partner)? Use list 27. [CARD 27]
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
197. What kind of relationship does (husband/partner) have with (child)? [CARD 28]
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
Father Survey
32. How well do you get along with (child)? Look at list 4 now. [CARD 4]
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
33. What kind of relationship do you have with (child)? Look at list 5. [CARD 5]
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
Child Survey
20. Now look at list 5. How well do you get along with your (dad/step-dad)? [CARD 5]
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just Okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
Reframing fathers 41
21. Look at list 6 and tell me what kind of relationship you have with your (dad/stepdad)? [CARD 6]
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
Reframing fathers 42
Appendix C: Adapted Behavior Problems Index from Mother Survey and Father Survey (Items
62-83 Internalizing and Items 83-94 Externalizing; Identically Worded on Each Survey)
I am going to read statements about behavior problems many children have. As I read
each sentence, decide which best describes (child's) behavior over the LAST THREE
MONTHS. Look at list 15 for these questions. [CARD 15] (Often True, Sometimes
True, Never True)
62. (He/she) had sudden changes in mood or feeling
63. (He/she) felt or complained that no one loved (him/her).
64. (He/she) was rather high strung, tense, and nervous.
65. (He/she) cheated or told lies.
66. (He/she) was too fearful or anxious.
67. (He/she) argued too much.
68. (He/she) had difficulty concentrating, could not pay attention for
long.
69. (He/she) was easily confused, seemed to be in a fog.
70. (He/she) bullied or was cruel or mean to others.
71. (He/she) was disobedient at home.
72. (He/she) did not seem to feel sorry after (he/she) misbehaved.
73. (He/she) had trouble getting along with other children.
74. (He/she) was impulsive, or acted without thinking.
75. (He/she) felt worthless or inferior.
76. (He/she) was not liked by other children.
77. (He/she) had a lot of difficulty getting (his/her) mind off certain thoughts (had
obsessions).
78. (He/she) was restless or overly active, could not sit still.
79. (He/she) was stubborn, sullen or irritable.
80. (He/she) had a very strong temper and lost it easily.
81. (He/she) was unhappy, sad, or depressed.
82. (He she) talked about killing (him/herself) or tried to kill (him/herself).
83. (He/she) was withdrawn, did not get involved with others.
Keep thinking about the last 3 months.
84. (He/she) broke things on purpose or deliberately destroyed (his/her) own or
another's things.
85. (He/she) clung to adults.
86. (He/she) cried too much.
87. (He/she) demanded a lot of attention.
Remember we are asking about the past three months.
88. (He/she) was too dependent on others.
89. (He/she) felt others were out to get (him/her).
90. (He/she) hung around with kids who get into trouble.
91. (He/she) was secretive, kept things to (himself/herself).
92. (He/she) worried too much.
93. (He/she) was disobedient at school.
Reframing fathers 43
94. (He/she) had trouble getting along with teachers.
Reframing fathers 44
Appendix D: Adapted Youth Self Report on Child Survey (Externalizing, Items 257-268)
Again think about the past month and look at list 33. Choose the answer that describes
how true each statement was about you. [CARD 33] (Not True, Somewhat True, Very
True)
257. In the past month you argued a lot.
258. In the past month you were mean to others.
259. In the past month you destroyed things that belonged to you.
260. In the past month you destroyed things belonging to others.
261. In the past month you disobeyed at school.
262. In the past month you got in many fights.
263. In the past month you hung around with kids who got in trouble.
264. In the past month you lied or cheated.
265. In the past month you physically hurt other people.
266. In the past month you stole at home.
267. In the past month you stole from places other than home.
268. In the past month you had a hot temper or threw tantrums.
Reframing fathers 45
Appendix E: Adapted Child Depression Inventory (Items 269-276)
I'd like you to think about the past month. Look at each list. I'll read you these
statements and I want you to tell me which statement comes closest to how you have
felt. Here's the first one.
269. Use card 34 first. In the past month... [CARD 34]
= Things bothered me all the time.
= Things bothered me many times.
= Things bothered me once in a while.
270. Look at card 35. In the past month... [CARD 35]
= I could not make up my mind about things.
= It was hard to make up my mind about things.
= I made up my mind about things easily.
271. Now use card 36. In the past month... [CARD 36]
= I looked OK.
= There were some bad things about my looks.
= I looked ugly.
272. Look at card 37. In the past month... [CARD 37]
= I had trouble sleeping every night.
= I had trouble sleeping many nights.
= I slept pretty well.
273. Look at card 38. In the past month... [CARD 38]
= I did not think about killing myself.
= I thought about killing myself but would not do it.
= I wanted to kill myself.*
274. Look at card 39. In the past month... [CARD 39]
= I did not feel alone.
= I felt alone many times.
= I felt alone all the time.
275. Look at card 40. In the past month... [CARD 40]
= My school work was alright.
= My school work was not as good as before.
= I did very badly in subjects I used to be good in.
276. Look at card 41. In the past month... [CARD 41]
= I could never be as good as other kids.
= I could be just as good as other kids if I wanted to.
= I was just as good as other kids.
Reframing fathers 46
Appendix F: Adapted Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (Items 250-256)
We'd like to know how you have been feeling during the past month. Just tell me yes
or no whether you have felt the way I describe. (Response choices are Yes/No)
250. In the past month you got mad easily.
251. In the past month you felt that others did not like the way you did things.
252. In the past month your feelings got hurt easily.
253. In the past month you felt tired a lot.
254. In the past month you worried about what was going to happen.
255. In the past month other peers were happier than you were.
256. In the past month you woke up scared some of the time.
Reframing fathers 47
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Reframing Questions by Reframer
N
Mom
M(SD)
N
Dad
M(SD)
N
Non-Parent
M(SD)
Frequency
284
4.27(1.48)
164
4.40(1.51)
205
4.33(1.34)
Reason
277
4.97(1.46)
156
5.33(1.42)
204
3.78(1.73)
Criticize or Support
270
3.06(1.08)
154
2.17(1.10)
184
2.70(1.11)
Feelings about dad and
relationship with him
after reframing
277
3.82(.99)
153
4.08(.92)
203
3.67(.94)
Feelings about self after
reframing
276
3.74(.96)
156
4.00(.91)
204
3.63(.92)
Question
a
a
For exact wording of reframing questions, please reference Appendix A.
Reframing fathers 48
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Outcome Measures by Reporter
N
Mom
M(SD)
Internalizing
393
Externalizing
Overall Relationship Qualitya
a
N
Dad
M(SD)
N
Child
M(SD)
34.65(3.32)
392
33.93(3.06)
393
0(.88)
393
71.03(6.26)
392
70.73(6.28)
393
16.15(3.86)
393
0(1.82)
393
0(1.83)
393
0(1.82)
Reporters are reporting on the overall relationship quality between the child and the father/step-father.
Reframing fathers 49
Table 3
Correlations of the Reframing Items for All Reframers with Outcome Variables for All Reporters
Father’s Report Of
Mother’s Report Of
When you are upset w ith y our (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, r
how f requently do you and y our mom talk about him?
N
How of ten does s he give y ou a reason f or w hy he acted the w ay he did? r
N
Is s he more likely to criticize him or more likely to support him f or w hat he
r
said or did?
N
When you and your mom talk about your (dad/s tep-dad)'s behaviors that
upset you, does it us ually make you feel (about dad/step-dad)...
r
N
When you and your mom talk about your (dad/s tep-dad)'s behaviors that
r
upset you, does it us ually make you feel (about yourself )...
N
r
When you are upset w / y our(dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how
f requently do y ou and your(dad/s tep-dad) talk about it?
N
How of ten does he give you a reas on f or w hy he ac ted the w ay he did?
r
N
Is he more likely to apologiz e, or admit he w as w rong, or more likely to
r
def end himself f or w hat he s aid or did?
N
When you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behav iors that upset you, r
does it us ually make you f eel (about dad/step-dad)...
N
When you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behav iors that upset you, r
does it us ually make you f eel (about yourself )...
N
When you are upset w / y our (dad/step), or bothered by his behavior, how r
f requently do y ou and(other person)talk about your(dad/s tep)?
N
How of ten does (other pers on) give you a reas on w hy your (dad/step-dad) r
ac ted the w ay he did?
N
Is (other pers on) more likely to criticiz e your (dad/step-dad) or more likely to r
support your (dad/s tep-dad), f or w hat he said or did?
N
When you and (other pers on) talk about your (dad/s tep-dad)'s behaviors thatr
upset you, does it us ually make you feel (about dad/step-dad)...
N
When you and (other pers on) talk about your (dad/s tep-dad)'s behaviors thatr
upset you, does it us ually make you feel (about yourself )...
N
*. Correlation is signif ic ant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is signif ic ant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
dad's overall
child's
relationship
internaliz ing
w ith c hild
behav ior
-.08
-.06
284
283
.07
-.13*
277
276
.16**
-.05
Child’s Report Of
child's
internaliz ing
behav ior
.00
284
-.05
277
-.02
child's
ex ternaliz ing
behav ior
-.01
284
-.06
277
-.01
child's
dad's overall
ex ternaliz ing
relationship
behav ior
w ith c hild
-.12*
.00
283
284
-.20**
.12
276
277
-.03
.01
270
270
270
269
269
270
270
270
270
-.03
277
-.06
276
-.04
164
.10
156
-.05
154
.02
153
.00
156
.06
205
-.02
204
-.05
184
.03
203
.05
204
-.08
277
-.12*
276
-.03
164
-.01
156
-.04
154
-.09
153
-.10
156
.11
205
.01
204
-.10
184
-.02
203
.06
204
.17**
277
.25**
276
.05
164
.16*
156
.00
154
.12
153
.07
156
-.16*
205
.15*
204
.22**
184
.06
203
-.01
204
-.06
276
-.03
275
-.01
164
-.02
156
.00
154
-.05
153
-.03
156
.04
204
-.08
203
.01
183
-.04
202
-.01
203
-.14*
276
-.07
275
-.04
164
-.09
156
.05
154
-.10
153
-.12
156
.08
204
-.05
203
-.01
183
-.05
202
.01
203
.21**
277
.10
276
.19*
164
.13
156
-.02
154
.19*
153
.14
156
-.12
205
.08
204
.22**
184
.11
203
-.04
204
-.19**
277
-.21**
276
-.10
164
-.22**
156
.14
154
-.33**
153
-.24**
156
.10
205
-.02
204
-.32**
184
-.14*
203
-.08
204
-.24**
277
-.17**
276
-.23**
164
-.25**
156
.12
154
-.22**
153
-.18*
156
.02
205
-.05
204
-.19**
184
-.11
203
-.04
204
.31**
277
.30**
276
.21**
164
.34**
156
-.17*
154
.31**
153
.23**
156
-.10
205
.20**
204
.43**
184
.29**
203
-.10
204
internaliz ing
behav ior
.03
284
-.10
277
-.09
ex ternaliz ing
behav ior
-.06
284
-.17**
277
-.02
ov erall
relationship
w ith dad
-.04
284
.25**
277
.11
Reframing fathers 51
Table 4
Parental Differences in Reframing
Means
Reframing Questionc
Mother
Father
Fb
How frequently do you talk
to this person about your
father/stepfather’s behavior?
4.54
4.56
.01
How often are you given
reason for your father/stepfather’s behavior?
5.26
5.39
.98
Does the reframer criticize
or supporta your father/stepfather’s behavior?
3.20
2.23
58.75**
How do you feel about
your father/stepfather and
your relationship with him
after reframing?
4.03
4.09
.59
How do you feel about
yourself after reframing?
3.82
4.00
4.20*
a
The wording for the mother and father questions is different. The mother question asks if she is
more likely to criticize or support the father and the father question asks if he is more likely to
apologize and admit he was wrong or defend himself.
b
Within family analyses are equivalent to matched t-tests.
c
For the tests of all five of the mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5,124) =
13.32, p < .01.
* significant at .05 level; **significant at .001 level
Reframing fathers 52
Table 5
Differences in Reframing by Family Type and Reframer
Moma
Intact
(N= 150)
Step
(N = 119)
F
Question
Frequency
4.55(1.28)
4.25(1.45)
3.27†
Reason
5.32(1.20)
4.77(1.42)
11.68***
Criticize or
Support
2.97(1.05)
3.19(1.10)
2.96
Feelings about dad
and relationship
with him after reframe
3.94(.91)
3.69(1.06)
4.36*
Feelings about self
after reframe
3.83(.95)
3.65(.99)
2.28
Dadb
Intact
(N = 95)
Step
(N = 56)
F
Question
Frequency
4.66(1.31)
4.45(1.28)
.98
Reason
5.43(1.40)
5.36(1.18)
.11
Criticize or
Support
2.03(1.00)
2.45(1.22)
5.11*
Feelings about dad
and relationship
with him after reframe
4.23(.76)
3.80(1.10)
7.90**
Feelings about self
after reframe
4.06(.85)
3.88(1.01)
1.50
Step
(N = 82)
F
Question
Intact
(N = 101)
Frequency
4.42(1.27)
4.39(1.31)
.02
Non-parentc
Reframing fathers 53
F
Question
Non-parentc
Intact
Step
(N = 101)
(N = 82)
Reason
4.22(1.57)
3.94(1.50)
1.49
Criticize or
Support
2.77(1.02)
2.62(1.21)
.83
Feelings about dad
and relationship
with him after reframe
3.83(.92)
3.62(.95)
2.29
Feelings about self
after reframe
3.62(1.00)
3.77(.85)
1.08
a
For the tests of all five of the mother mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5,
263) = 3.90, p < .01.
b
For the tests of all five of the father mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5, 145)
= 1.99, p = .08.
c
For the tests of all five of the non-parent mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5,
177) = 1.11, p = NS.
† significance = .07 *significant at .05 level; **significant at .01 level, ***significant at .001
level
Reframing fathers 54
Table 6
Table of Significant Differences in r’s for Stepfamilies vs. Intact Families
Reframing Variable
Outcome Variable
Reporter
r for Intact
r for Step
Zdifference
Frequency of mother reframe
Externalizing
Child
.08
-.16
1.92*
Is mother more likely
to criticize or support dad?
Internalizing
Mother
.14
-.24
3.14**
Is mother more likely
to criticize or support dad?
Externalizing
Mother
.10
-.15
2.03*
Feelings about dad and
relationship after mother
reframe
Externalizing
Father
.01
-.24
2.13*
Feelings about self
After mother reframe
Externalizing
Child
-.05
-.28
1.95*
Frequency of father
reframing
Internalizing
Mother
.12
-.21
2.01*
Feelings about self
After non-parent reframe
Internalizing
Father
.15
-.27
3.00**
Frequency of other
reframing
Internalizing
Mother
-.07
.21
-1.98*
Reframing fathers 55
Reframing Variable
Outcome Variable
Reporter
r for Intact
r for Step
Zdifference
Feelings about dad and
Relationship after mother
Reframe
Father-child
relationship
Father
.07
.30
-1.97*
Feelings about dad and
Relationship after mother
reframe
Father-child
relationship
Child
.10
.48
-3.46***
Frequency of father
reframing
Father-child
relationship
Father
-.05
.45
-3.19***
Feelings about self
After father reframe
Father-child
relationship
Mother
-.11
.36
-2.87**
Feelings about self
Father reframe
Father-child
relationship
Child
.06
.42
-2.27*
*significant at .05 level; **significant at .01 level; ***significant at .001 level
Reframing fathers 56
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Plot of the moderating effects of mother and father reframes on the child’s report of
externalizing behavior.
Reframing fathers 57
Child's Report of Externalizing Behavior
17
Father Apologizes
16.5
Father Equal Apologizes
and Defends Himself
16
Father Defends Himself
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
1
2
3
4
Mother's Reframe of Father's Behavior:
Low = Criticize, High = Support
5
Reframing fathers 58
Reframing fathers 59
Reframing fathers 60
Reframing fathers 61
Reframing fathers 62