Relationship Security and Outcomes 1
Running head: RELATIONSHIPS PREDICTING STEPCHILD’S ADJUSTMENT OUTCOMES
Children’s Adjustment Outcomes as Predicted by Relationship Security: An Examination of
Emotional Security Theory and Attachment Theory within Stepfamily Relationships
Lauren Jeffress
Arizona State University
Mentor: William Fabricius
Relationship Security and Outcomes 2
Abstract
Protection, safety, and security are among the most prominent goals in the human hierarchy
(Bowlby 1973 as cited in Cummings and Davies 2006), especially within a child’s development.
Attachment theory and emotional security theory address the relationships surrounding a child in his
or her family and how the quality of these relationships affects the child’s adjustment. Previous
studies have examined these theories either within the context of intact families or without
controlling for the influences of other relationships on each particular dyad and how it may be
associated with the child’s behavior. This thesis examined how parent – child relationship quality
and interparental relationship quality independently predicted a child’s behavioral outcomes in
stepfather families. Data corresponding to 175 stepfamily participants were provided by the PAYS
dataset, a five year, three-wave, two-site study. The present study found that child’s relationships
are arranged in a hierarchical manner where parent – child relationships significantly predict a
child’s behavioral outcomes over and above what interparental relationships predict of child’s
behavioral outcomes. The study also found that within parent-child relationships each dyad
contributes in an additive manner to behavioral outcomes with each dyad adding something over
and above what the other dyads are contributing to the child. Further findings are analyzed by each
reporter and discussed along with implications for future research.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 3
Children’s Adjustment Outcomes as Predicted by Relationship Security: An Examination of
Emotional Security Theory and Attachment Theory within Stepfamily Relationships
Attachment Theory
John Bowlby began his pioneering work on attachment theory and uncovered many of the
underlying ties between a caregiver and infant. These attachment mechanisms emerged as a result
of evolutionary pressures for the infant’s survival (Cassidy 1999). The attachment system operates
within the context of the infant’s set goal: a state of security that is maintained within set limits of
proximity with the caregiver (Sroufe and Waters 1977; Bowlby, 1969/1982). Bowlby argued that a
set of diverse behaviors was enacted by the child to signal the caregiver when information reached
the infant that the distance threshold between infant and caregiver had been breached (Sroufe and
Waters 1977). Genetic selection favored specific attachment behaviors from the child because they
helped maintain caregiver-child proximity, which increased the likelihood of the infant’s survival
(Cassidy 1999). Because of the biological function of these behaviors, Bowlby suggested that
infants became genetically predisposed to seek their caregivers in times of distress (Cassidy 1999).
Thus, attachment is a normal, healthy characteristic in humans (Cassidy 1999).
The attachment system is analogous to a thermostat (Cassidy 1999) in that the system is
continually activated for the purpose of monitoring the infant’s set goal. If that goal is disrupted,
then the system is activated to initiate behaviors that bring the caregiver closer to the infant. It is
through the caregiver’s continued responsiveness that the infant creates and maintains an
expectation that, in times of distress or uncertainty, the caregiver is a secure and available base. If
the infant’s behaviors are not responded to appropriately by the caregiver, then the baby does not
learn a feeling of security and a positive attachment is not established between caregiver and child.
This attachment bond is best described as not one between two people but rather a bond one
individual has on another individual who is perceived as stronger and wiser (Cassidy 1999).
Relationship Security and Outcomes 4
Attachment theory can be expanded to include the child’s attachments beyond infancy. Both
infants and adults exhibit comfort and ease in the presence of the attachment figure, whereas the
unexplained absence of the attachment figure engenders discomfort and anxiety (Chapman 1991).
Sroufe and Waters (1977) propose that even as a child’s behaviors adapt to both developmental and
contextual changes across his or her lifespan, the goals for security still remain. As the attachment
model continues through childhood, adolescence and adulthood and into other relationships, the
underlying factor in the system is the behavior of the attachment figure (Cassidy 1999).
Developmentally, the behaviors a child relies on in infancy to cue the response of the caregiver may
not necessarily be those they rely on in preadolescence. A baby’s cry, for example, is used to signal
the mother in infancy, but will hopefully articulate in adolescence to more mature verbal cues.
These may include, for example, a teenager calling his or her parent to ask for money. The
attachment systems model can, thus, be applied outside the infancy stage. It can continue into
childhood, preadolescence, adolescence, and adulthood as the behaviors for assuring the set goal
adapt to the individual’s growth. Contextually, Sroufe and Waters suggested that a child may select
certain behaviors to restore an internally set goal depending on their effectiveness in the current
environment (1977). The variety of behaviors as learned by the infant can all be exercised to
preserve the sense of security with the caregiver, but will vary as the functions of the attachment
figure become elaborated and extend with the development of the infant. From an attachment
perspective, a significant feature of secure attachment as the child develops involves open
communication between the parent and child (Bowlby, 1969/1982).
Attachment theory can also be expanded so that, with the development of the child, more
attachment figures are added beyond just the child’s attachment to the primary caregiver. For
example, both Cassidy (1999) and Sroufe and Waters (1977) suggested the possibility of separate
maternal and paternal systems. Kelly and Lamb (2000) affirmed that children are enriched by two
Relationship Security and Outcomes 5
emotionally supportive parents and regardless of who had been the primary caregiver, both parents
contribute to the child extensively. Therefore, the attachment theory can be applied to caregivers
beyond the mother.
The expansion of a child’s attachments presents the question of a hierarchy within those
attachments. Ainsworth and Bowlby proposed that mothers become primary attachment figure
before any other relationships are formed, thus suggesting a hierarchy of attachment figures (as
cited in Lamb & Lewis 2005). Additionally, Lamb and Lewis (2005) suggest that, despite other
attachments, mothers still remain the primary attachment. Through the child’s acquisition of
multiple attachments Cassidy (1999) and Kelly and Lamb (2000) also suggests an “attachment
hierarchy”. In other words, it is possible that not all additional attachment figures sustain the same
level of security or responsiveness with the child. When a (pre)adolescent has already developed a
working model of attachments with his or her parents, how is the hierarchy of attachments affected
with the addition of a non-biological resident stepparent? I will be examining the possibility of a
hierarchy model within a child’s attachment figures. If there is a hierarchy it could be that the
mother is seen as the primary, stable attachment figure for the child since the biological father is
non-residential and the stepfather is new to the household. If the attachments are additive it could
be because the child is pre-disposed to forming secure attachments with all caregivers and not
placing complete dependence on one primary figure.
Emotional Security Theory
Bowlby emphasized that the family as a whole needs to be considered in the understanding
of a child or infant’s sense of security and distress (as cited in Cummings and Davies 2006).
Building on this notion, Davies and Cummings developed their emotional security theory, which is
a family-wide model wherein preserving emotional security is a set-goal that influences children’s
reactions to marital conflict (Davies and Cummings 1998, Cummings, Schermerhorn, Davies,
Relationship Security and Outcomes 6
Goeke-Morey, and Cummings 2006). Similar to Bowlby’s theory, emotional security theory
focuses on the importance of emotional security provided to the child. However, attachment theory
represents the relationships between child and each of his parental attachment figures (e.g., childfather). Emotional security theory, on the other hand, addresses the interparental relationships
surrounding the child (e.g., mother-father) and their influences “in addition to parent-child
attachment” (Cummings et al. 2006 p 133, italics in text). Just as physical distance violates the set
goal from the evolutionary standpoint in attachment theory, marital conflict is the stressor that
signals a disruption in the set goal of emotional security. Emotional security is the child’s appraisal
that interparental bonds will remain positive and stable despite conflict (Cummings et al. 2006).
Additionally, even with everyday stressors, like marital conflict, children expect their parents to
remain responsive and emotionally available for them (Cummings et al. 2006). Children evaluate
marital conflict in terms of preserving emotional security. The theory assumes that a child’s
emotional security can be improved or weakened by the quality of family relationships (Cummings
et al. 2006; Kelly et al 2000). Preserving a sense of security within those relationships organizes a
child’s behavioral reactions to parental conflict (Cummings et al. 2006). Similar to attachment
theory, a behavioral system is activated in the child if the emotional security is threatened
(Cummings et al. 2006). For example, a child might proactively try to mediate an argument
between parents, or may become avoidant and withdrawn during an argument. Thus, a child’s level
of emotional security can be measured by the organization of behaviors that attempt to preserve the
child’s goal of emotional security in the face of interparental conflict (Cummings et al. 2006).
Similar to attachment theory, emotional security theory can be expanded beyond the infant
stage. Cummings (1987) investigated children’s behavioral responses to parental conflict at ages
two- to five-years old. Harold, Shelton, Goeke-Morey, and Cummings (2004) also studied
Relationship Security and Outcomes 7
emotional security as related to child’s behavior and marital conflict in children ages 11- to 12-years
old.
Emotional security theory can apply to beyond children’s biological parents’ relationship.
Therefore, marital conflict does not always imply biological parents within intact families. Kelly et
al. (2000) confirm that factors like marital conflict and divorce can influence a child’s sense of
security and stability within these bonds. In the context of stepfamilies, there could be conflict from
the previous relationship between the biological parents and additional conflict between the resident
parent and stepparent. This raises the issue of whether an attachment hierarchy also exists for
interparental relationships. If so, then the question is whether one or more than one is more closely
linked to the child’s sense of emotional security. If there is a hierarchy of these interparental
relationships, then only one dyad would be important to the child’s sense of security and the rest of
little significance. If it is an additive model, the child could consider security within all
interparental dyads of equal importance. Studies of emotional security and the child’s behavioral
adjustment to marital conflict have been conducted with intact families and thus cannot address the
complexities within a stepfamily dynamic (see Harold et al 2004).
Security and Adjustment
Sroufe and Waters (1977) suggested attachment relationship quality and closeness can be
linked to the child’s adjustment as measured by their behavior patterns. Fabricius (2003), Chapman
(1991), and Kelly and Lamb (2000) suggested that, through attachment theory, the security in a
parent-child bond will predict future social, cognitive, and emotional functioning and adjustment.
Verschueren and Marcoen (1999) also reported that secure mother-child attachments had an effect
on positive self-perceptions of 5 and 6-year olds, whereas attachments to the biological father best
predicted behavior problems (as cited in Lamb and Lewis 2005). Additionally, Wolchik, Tein,
Sandler, and Doyle (2002) confirmed that, as part of attachment theory, the child’s fear of being
Relationship Security and Outcomes 8
abandoned by their primary caregiver could lead to adjustment problems. Children who have a
secure relationship with both parents (whether they are married or not) are more likely to attain their
full psychological potential; likewise, children who lack a meaningful relationship with one parent
are at a greater risk (Kelly et al. 2000).
However, not all adults are equally reliable in pacifying the fear of abandonment, so infants
differ with respect to amount of trust they feel and, thus, the way they behave (Lamb & Lewis
2005). Therefore, Cassidy (1999) raised a situation in which a child is faced with “conflicting
models” of attachment within the family system and how they affect the child’s functioning.
Ultimately, the question is whether one secure relationship is sufficient for the child’s positive
adjustment, or whether two or more are better. For example, if a child has formed a secure
attachment with the mother, does an additional secure relationship with the nonresidential father or
the residential stepfather make a significant, independent difference to the child’s outcomes? Does
an insecure relationship with one parent influence the child’s behavioral outcome despite a secure
relationship with another parent? Verschueren and Marcoen (1999) found that the positive effects of
a secure attachment to one parent “partially offsets” the negative effects of an insecure attachment
to another (as cited in Lamb & Lewis 2005). Additionally, Vandewater and Lansford (1998) found
that a good relationship with at least one parent or caregiver could be a protective factor during
parental conflict.
Davies and Cummings’ (1998) work provides support for the idea of emotional security as a
principle mediating variable between interparental discord and the child’s maladjustment. It is a
resource that helps children cope with stress and makes them less vulnerable to anxiety and
depression (Davies & Cummings, 1994). If these separate interparental dyads are important
predictors for adjustment, are they arranged in a structure based on hierarchy or equality? We will
test this by examining their independent contributions towards predicting adjustment.
If all dyads
Relationship Security and Outcomes 9
are significantly independent predictors of adjustment then they will be contributing in an additive
model; however, if only one dyad is independently able to predict adjustment outcomes then a
hierarchical model is suggested. In order to answer the above questions about the hierarchical
versus additive nature of both systems, it is important to investigate stepfamilies because they
provide three dyads relevant to each attachment system.
Integration of Attachment Theory and Emotional Security Theory
I will address the question whether attachment security, though the child’s individual
relationships, and emotional security, through interparental relationships, significantly predict
child’s adjustment outcomes, independent of one another. Sobolewski and Amato (2007) report
that much research links the quality of parent-parent relationships to the quality of parent-child
relationships. For example, when parents have a negative marital relationship, the parent – child
relationship most likely suffers from spill-over effects (and vice versa) (Sobolewski et al 2007).
Therefore, it is important to statistically control for each type of relationship to see their effects on
the child, without one type of relationship confounding the other. Davies, Harold, Goeke-Morey,
and Cummings (2002) found support that both marital conflict (interparental) and attachment
(parent-child) relationships independently influence child behavioral adjustment in intact families
(as cited in Cummings et al. 2006). By looking at these relationships independently as they predict
adjustment, we are able to assess if outcomes are due solely to a specific relationship (e.g. a parentchild attachment) or if the other attachment system (e.g. an interparental attachment) contributes
additional, independent changes over and above the specific relationship. However, most studies
measuring the interaction of parent – child and interparental relationships with each other and their
influence on child outcomes were conducted with intact families and focused on one particular
parent-child relationship (Sobolewski et al. 2007).
Current study
Relationship Security and Outcomes 10
These two theories of attachment and emotional security tend to address relationships within
intact, biological families. I seek to better understand how they apply to more complex dynamics
within the realm of stepfamilies. Previous studies have often failed to test both types of
relationships (parent-child, and parent-parent) in one study and their independent contributions to
adjustment. Therefore, I want to use these theories on security as bases to test relationships and
attachments within stepfamilies, specifically those with the biological mother and stepfather and
nonresident biological father. Sobolewski et al (2007) reports that postdivorce families may
provide an important perspective for unequal parent-child relationships. Thus it will be interesting
to see how this unfolds in remarried families (ie. how the presence of a stepfather changes
relationships). It has also been noted by Hetherington (1993) that early adolescence, the age-group
of the present study, is a time of greatest difficulty to remarriage adaptations.
Using the framework of attachment and emotional security theories, I first plan to measure
each relationship (interparental and parent-child) and if they independently, significantly predict
child behavioral outcomes. Secondly, I plan to measure each dyad within the two relationships and
determine if there is a hierarchy of attachments that independently predict the child’s outcomes. If
so, which specific attachment relationship provides the most impact, whether positive or negative to
the child’s outcomes. By doing this, I will be able to assess if one secure dyad in the hierarchy is
enough for predicting positive adjustment outcomes, or if all dyads are equally important for child
outcomes.
The answers to these questions of attachment relationships and outcomes can be addressed
within two hypotheses. Thus, I predict that within a stepfamily:
1) The child-parent relationships and the interparental relationships will each predict the
child’s behavioral outcomes independently
Relationship Security and Outcomes 11
2) The separate dyads within each relationship (e.g. mother-child, stepfather-biological
father, etc) will predict child behavioral outcomes independently.
Previous research
Because of the novelty of stepfamilies in research, uncovering processes of specific dyads
has been purely a-theoretical. Therefore, it is important to test the specific aspects of the stepfamily
relationships and how previous literature lends support. Many questions are still left unanswered
concerning stepfamilies, despite pervasive numbers in the US. The US has the highest rate of
divorce and remarriage in the world (Ganong and Coleman 2004) with about one-third of children
living in a remarried or cohabitating step-family before they reach age 18 (Coleman and Ganong
2000). Such a population speaks to the necessity of understanding the dynamics within the
stepfamily. However, because of its diverse nature, it has been difficult for researchers to delineate
or organize links and causal associations across the stepfamily dynamics.
Divorce and remarriage create many stressors and disruptions that are attributable to postdivorce relations and child adjustment such as the quality of resident parent/child relation, conflict
expressed between parents, and child’s contact amount and quality of relationship with
nonresidential parent (Emery 1999; Ganong and Coleman 2004; Wolchik et al 2002; Fabricius &
Luecken 2007; Fabricius 2003; Kelly et al 2000; Amato 1987). These disruptions, in turn, are likely
to create concerns within the child’s attachment system about the ability or willingness of their
family to continue to care for them (Wolchik et al 2002). Coleman et al. (2000) additionally
affirmed that conflicts between divorced parents and between stepparents were significant causes of
stress to stepchildren’s emotional security and contributed to poorer behavior and psychological
outcomes than children living with both biological parents. However, these stressors of divorce do
not have uniform psychological and emotional effects on the involved children and adults (Ganong
Relationship Security and Outcomes 12
Coleman 2004). These diverse effects of divorce and remarriage affect all family members and
their relationships in a changing and adaptive dynamic over time.
Measuring a child’s outcome behaviors as predicted by their quality of relationships with
parents and the parents’ quality of relationships with each other has been a large focus of
researchers’ work. Theoretically, behavior problems may arise from the disruptions in family
dynamics and the consequential negative impact on the child’s sense of attachment and security
within familial relationships. Research has found that children growing up in a stepfamily seem to
exhibit more internal and external problems and are at least two times more at risk for
maladjustment than those in nuclear families ( Amato 1987; Hetherington 1999; Cherlin 1994;
Ganong and Coleman 2004; Coleman 2000). Adolescents show slightly higher levels of depression
and anxiety in remarried families, and their levels of externalizing behaviors (i.e. antisocial
behavior, school behavior problems) is highest in stepfamilies, as compared to single mother or
intact families (Chapman 1991; Amato & Keith 1991; Bray, 1999; Kelly & Emery 2003;
Hetherington 1992). Additionally the risk of teenage pregnancy and early sexual behavior is
doubled (Kelly & Emery 2003; Amato & Keith 1991; Chapman 1991). Children in stepfamily
homes are twice as likely to have psychological, behavioral, social, and academic problems than are
children in nondivorced families (Bray, 1999; Kelly & Emery 2003; Hetherington 1993). These
problem behaviors seem to be prevalent for all family types (ie. intact, divorced and remarried)
when the child is in early adolescence, but they are especially evident in remarried families
(Hetherington 1993).
For the majority of the time the new marital relationship consists of a mother and stepfather
since 90% of post-divorce children end up living with their mothers and having some type of access
to their nonresidential fathers (Bray and Depner 1993; Fabricius et al. 2007; Kelly et al. 2000). In
Relationship Security and Outcomes 13
our current study we address this common type of family dynamic with mother, resident stepfather,
nonresident biological father, and child.
Resident Stepfather and Child Dyad
The step-parent/stepchild relationship may be the most important relationship in predicting
overall stepfamily happiness, and could also be the most problematic, stressful, and variable
relationship in the new stepfamily (Chapman 1991; Clingempeel, Brand, & Ievoli, 1984;
Clingempeel & Segal, 1986). Researchers have tried to determine how stepchildren and stepparents
view each other. One influential factor stemming from attachment theory may be the quality of the
relationship the child has with the nonresidential parent (Chapman 1991; Amato 1987); another
factor, in line with emotional security theory, may be the quality of relationship between the
stepparent and the biological parent in the household (Cherlin 1994; Amato 1987).
For a long time, the widespread perspective on stepfamilies was that living with a stepparent
had a negative impact on children (Coleman et al. 2000). Unfortunately, there has been little
published research on the positive interpersonal relationships of stepfamilies (Ganong and Coleman
1994); for example, the positive influence a step-parent could have on step-children. Amato (1987)
cites two studies in particular that did find close stepparent-child relationships and subsequent
positive effects for the child (Wallerstein and Kelly 1980 and White, Brinkerhoff, and Booth 1985).
Hetherington (1993) stated that children, especially boys, may have more to gain and nothing to
lose in forming a relationship with a stepfather. Most stepchildren view their relationship with their
stepparent as positive, although typically more distant than with their biological parents (Amato
1999; Chapman 1991). Adolescents report feeling less closeness with stepparents than with
biological parents (Furstenberg, 1987, as cited in Chapman 1991).
Children’s acceptance of an additional parental figure in the household is determined by the
level of security established within their relationship. Children were less likely to connect in a
Relationship Security and Outcomes 14
positive relationship with the stepparent and be accepting of their authority position in the family if
the stepparent immediately assumed a parenting role without a warm emotionally available
relationship being first established (Fine, Coleman, and Ganong 1998; Ganong and Coleman 1999).
Without a stable sense of the stepparent’s physical availability and emotional responsiveness, the
child is less likely to be receptive to any of their parenting attempts.
The children’s level of security in the new relationship can be measured by their behaviors
towards the stepparent. A troubled residential stepparent-child relationship is linked to children’s
externalizing and internalizing behavior problems (Emery 1999; Hetherington 1992). Children of
both genders typically demonstrate negative behavioral responses with the introduction of a
stepparent into the family (Vuchinich, Hetherington, Vuchinich, & Clingempeel 1991; Hetherington
1993). A supportive stepfather has been shown to decrease the behavior problems of boys, but not
girls, who have actually have been shown to increase in behavior problems (Vuchinich et al 1991).
There has also been research on the level of involvement of the stepparent with their
stepchildren. Compared to the biological parent, a stepparent has invested little time with the
family and is less sure of their role as a parent with the stepchildren. Thus, the stepparent might be
more disengaged, less emotionally available, less affectionate, and provide less supervision than
biological parent (Ganong and Coleman 2004; Amato 1999; Amato 1987; Hetherington 1992).
Their attention is, thus, directed elsewhere and the stepparent/child relationship suffers (Coleman et
al. 2000). Because the stepparent is significantly disengaged from the child, they are highly
unlikely to respond to the child in times of distress. Moreover, the child may be less likely to
expect the stepparent to be responsive in the first place and, thus, not even attempt to form any kind
of attachment. Hetherington (1992) found that differences between (step)father-child relationships
in remarried and nonremarried families were quite significant and the negativity between stepfather
and child endured for over two years after remarriage
Relationship Security and Outcomes 15
Mother and Child Dyad
Generally, mother/child relationships within the stepfamily dynamic have received little
attention from researchers (Coleman et al. 2000). The great majority of research concerning the
impact of marital conflict on mother-child relationships has consisted of intact family samples.
Lamb and Lewis (2005) stated that, across their review of studies, adolescents in the United States
report being closer to their mothers than fathers. However, it was found that across samples of
various family compositions, mother-child negativity was higher in families in which the resident
father was not the biological father (Dunn, Davies, O’Connor, Sturgess 2000; Hetherington 1993).
Therefore Dunn et al (2000) proposed that the mother-child relationship clearly “suffered” in
stepfamilies.
There has been mixed results on the impact divorce and stepfamilies have on the motherchild relationship. In one study using stepfamily samples, Hetherington and Chingempeel (1992)
found that mother/preadolescent children relationships deteriorated after remarriage, but resumed
within two years (as cited in Coleman et al 2000). Similarly, Hetherington (1992) found evidence
to support that over time the mother-child relationship in remarried families became similar to those
in intact families. However, Hetherington (1993) found that within samples of early adolescent
children in stepfamilies, the mother-child interactions were less positive and noncommunicative.
Dunn, Cheng, O’Connor, and Bridges (2004) found that positivity in a child’s adjustment was
linked to the quality of the relationship with the mother. Similar associations were found in
Wolchik et al (2002) where custodial parent–child relationship quality was significantly linked with
postdivorce adjustment problems. Warm and affectionate mother–child relationships may affirm the
stability of the relationship over time, which would reduce children’s fears of abandonment and
impact of internalizing and externalizing problems (Wolchik et al 2002). Additionally, in a study of
children from divorce it was also found that children had positive adjustment when the parent-child
Relationship Security and Outcomes 16
relationship was “very good”, but this relationship had to be with the mother (Hetherington et al
1979, as cited in Emery 1982).
Nonresidential Biological Parent and Child Dyad
The nonresidential parent-child relationship is the most variable across families (Braver,
Wolchick, Sandler, and Sheets 1993) and could be a major contributor to children’s individual
differences in adjustment outcomes (Dunn et al. 2004; Amato & Gilbreth 1999; Kelly et al 2000).
The overwhelming question in the research concerns the factors that predict and influence a
sustained quality relationship between nonresidential parent and child. The nonresidential parentchild relationship has proven to be a very important and influential bond; therefore, it is an
important dyad to investigate because a disruption could have major implications for the child
concerning attachment and emotional security. An emotionally distant or absent nonresidential
parent-child relationship has shown to have direct detrimental effects to the child’s well-being,
social adjustment, and academic performance (Braver et al. 1993; Amato and Gilbreth 1999; Kelly
et al 2000; Clingempeel and Segal 1986). Similarly, Sturgess et al. (2001) found that children’s
perceptions of their relationships with fathers and externalizing problems were significantly related.
It seems, then, that despite the increased physical distance, the relationship still has a strong impact
on the child’s security and behavioral outcomes. As Ainsworth suggested, the attachment bond can
continue even with intermittent, unpredictable contact (as cited in Lamb and Lewis 2005). So, it
could be that if the nonresidential parent still remains emotionally responsive, physical distance
might not as vital an issue.
Likewise, research was mixed regarding whether or not remarriage affects nonresidential
parent-child interaction (Coleman et al. 2000; Lamb & Lewis 2005). Clingempeel et al (1986) state
that although there is a positive relation between regular nonresident father-child contact and
adjustment, the research is still unclear which this holds true after remarriage. In the context of
Relationship Security and Outcomes 17
stepfamilies, Sturgess, et al. (2001) found that many young children did not feel close to their
stepfathers, but rather the biological link between children and their fathers was significantly
associated with felt closeness in the father-child relationship. Therefore, because of this
biologically-linked attachment to parents, it seems only natural that the large majority of children
would want a continued relationship with both parents post-divorce.
Sadly, the nonresidential fathers may gradually “disappear” (Thompson and Amato 1999).
Data from Fabricius (2003) reveals that the quality of the relationships in the long term between
biological dad – and child depended on the amount of contact they had with each other after the
divorce; unfortunately many had little contact (Fabricius 2003). Additionally, Braver & O’Connell
(1998) found that fewer than twenty percent of nonresidential fathers had no contact with their
children, as reported from surveys in the late 1980’s to early 1990’s. However, the disengagement
of a nonresidential parent can become even more pronounced with reinstatement of other household
members, typically the stepparent (Bray and Depner 1993; Bray and Berger 1993). This impacts the
child’s sense of stability, especially in the context of other immediate familial disruptions in the
child’s attachment relationships.
Still, it is being revealed more and more in the research that it is the nature of the
relationship rather than increased contact that is related to child outcome. Kelly and Lamb (2000)
agree that time spent interacting is not the only factor in development of attachments. Research by
Sturgess et al (2001), Amato and Gilbreth (1999), and Kelly and Emery (2003) confirm a significant
link between the quality of nonresidential parent-child relationships, rather than frequency of visits,
and children’s internalizing and externalizing problems. Buchanan, Maccoby, and Dornbusch
(1996) found positive associations between adolescents' feelings of closeness to their noncustodial
fathers and their psychological and behavioral adjustment (as cited in Amato and Gilbreth 1999).
Lamb (1999) and Marsiglio, Amato, Day, and Lamb (2000) additionally suggest that an active
Relationship Security and Outcomes 18
relationship with the nonresidential fathers was shown to enhance the child’s well-being,
demonstrating the importance of maximizing the quality involvement rather than simple frequency
of visitation. In other words, according to emotional security theory, the child will have a better
sense of well-being and secure adjustment if they know their nonresidential biological parent is
emotionally available to them. Even according to attachment theory, if the quality of the
relationship is stably secure and responsive despite any physical disruptions, the child may be even
more positively adjusted. Thus, Amato and Gilbreth (1999) suggested future research should
concentrate on measures of relationship closeness than frequency of contact.
Three studies in particular focused on the quality or closeness of the relationship and its
relationship to the child’s adjustment outcomes. According to Bray and Berger (1993) one
longitudinal study found that: 1) contact with nonresidential father decreased over time but the
quality remained constant for girls; 2) boys had the same amount of contact and felt improved in
their relationship with their nonresidential father over time. Interestingly, they also found that more
contact and better relationship with the nonresidential father and son was predictive of mother’s
ratings of more internalizing problems for boys (Bray and Berger 1993). Also, higher self-esteem
was related to less contact between nonresidential father and son (Bray and Berger 1993). Future
research was suggested in order to examine other relationships within the family that could
influence adjustment and possibly explain these processes within the father-child dyad. Lamb
(1999) concluded that frequent, quality contacts with nonresidential parent leads to better
adjustment in children, but only when interparental conflict is low. Results like these support our
hypothesis of an additional relationship (e.g. within interparental relationships) contributing
influences on child adjustment, whether positive or negative, that are over and above those
measured by another relationship (e.g. within a parent-child relationship). Additionally, Sturgess et
al (2001) found that prosocial behavior was related to closeness with both mother and father. Even
Relationship Security and Outcomes 19
though his research was across families of diverse structures, these findings speak to the importance
of examining the additive effects of the separate parent-child dyads’ correlations with children’s
outcomes .
Resident Stepfather and Mother Dyad
As in other relationships within stepfamilies, research shows discrepancy in the new marital
relationship. Some show that over time there is a decrease in differences between remarried and
non-remarried groups. For example, Hetherington (1992) found that remarried couples’ responses
in regards to marital satisfaction became similar to the non-remarried couples. Amato (1987) also
reports that the quality of stepfamily marital relations is just as good as intact families. However,
the newly remarried couple does suffer significant conflict due to the many stressors and overall
added complexity within a stepfamily. For example, Hetherington (1993) reports that after an
intital “honeymoon” period for the newly remarried couple, they begin to exhibit less cohesiveness
and more conflict than first-married families. Bray and Berger’s (1993) also report that 60% of
remarriages have an average length of five years before the couple divorces. This fact has
significant impact if the remarriage involves children since the higher rates of re-divorce are within
families with stepchildren (White and Booth 1985). Spouses with stepchildren report significantly
less satisfaction with family life than those with biological children, thus signaling more strain
within stepfamilies than biological families (White and Booth 1985; Hetherington 1992). Spouses
report increased problems with their children, less satisfaction with partner’s relationship with their
children, and thoughts of the marriage’s negative effects on the children (White et al1985). As
children move into adolescence, there is a decline in marital satisfaction, especially within
remarried families, where there is more reported negativity within the new marital interactions
(Hetherington 1993).
Relationship Security and Outcomes 20
According to emotional security theory, interparental conflict threatens the intactness of the
family and is especially likely to undermine the child’s sense of security because it signifies the
possibility of family dissolution (Davies 2002; Davies et al 1998). Re-divorce can rupture newly
formed or rebuilt attachment relationships in the stepfamily and too many indications of instability
within the marital relationship of a stepfamily could threaten the child’s sense of security.
There is potential for the effects of marital conflict having a “spillover” effect into the
parent-child interactions (Davies et al 2002; Hetherington 1992). Cooperation between resident
parent and stepparent in raising the children may be just as important as stepparent involvement
(Ganong and Coleman 2004). According to emotional security theory as a family-wide model, this
relationship may prove to be a very decisive factor because the child might draw a better sense of
security, and thus have better adjustment, if they see a more cohesive bond between resident parents
in attending to the child’s needs. However, Vuchinich et al (1991) found that closer motherstepfather relationships are associated with more behavioral problems. Additionally, Hetherington
(1993) found that a close marital relationship between mother and stepfather is associated with high
levels of negative behavior in preadolescent children. It may be that the child feels threatened by
another household member. This illustrates the importance of looking at these dyads independently
because, in this specific example, an insecure parent-child relationship might explain this negative
child outcome, despite the secure interparental relationship.
Nonresident Biological Father and Mother Dyad
It is important in stepfamily research to analyze the pre-divorce family context by assessing
the conflict and cooperation dynamics within the biological parents’ relationship In analyzing
research across biological families and stepfamilies, Lamb (1999) suggested that at least some of
the increase risk found between children of divorced families and first marriage families is
attributable to the pre-divorce family environment. Amato (1999) notes, in his review of the
Relationship Security and Outcomes 21
literature that the children who were the more securely adjusted and had the best well-being were
those raised by cooperative two parent biological household. Therefore, cooperation between the
biological parents is strongly emphasized as one of the most important predictors of children’s
positive adjustment (Thompson and Amato 1999). However, twenty to thirty percent of divorced
couples’ interaction would be described as highly conflictive (Ganong and Coleman 2004). The
relation between pervasive parental conflict and child’s adjustment problems continues several
years after the divorce process (Bray and Berger 1993
Although Kelly and Emery (2003) and Sobolewski et al (2007) claim that findings of
postdivorce conflict and children’s adjustment have been mixed, the majority of the research
supports that conflict between custodial parent and nonresidential parent is highly detrimental to
children’s well-being (Bray and Berger 1993; Vandewater & Lansford, 1998; Emery 1982;
Fabricius & Luecken 2007; Kelly et al 2000; Sobolewski & Amato 2007). Grych and Fincham
(1990) found in a sample of divorced couples that marital conflict before and after divorce was
associated to a variety of negative child behavioral outcomes. Further, these negative outcomes
have been suggested to lower the age at which the adolescent becomes sexually active and weaken
intergenerational ties (especially between child and father) (Amato 1999). Altogether, these findings
indicate the importance of lessening the interparental and marital conflicts in order to work towards
cooperation and agreement for the sake of the child.
Nonresident Biological Father and Resident Stepfather Dyad
Of all the relationships within the stepfamily dyad, resident stepfather and nonresident biological
father’s relationship has been rarely analyzed; however, in accordance with Bowlby’s and Davies’
theories, this uninvestigated relationship could be highly influential. The unique aspect of my study
will be in investigating correlations between this relationship and its affect on child’s outcomes. It
is possible that how children decide to react to the stepparent’s relationship-building efforts is
Relationship Security and Outcomes 22
guided by how they define the relationship between their nonresidential parent and stepparent. The
additive model suggests that both men have significantly important roles for the child’s outcome
(Ganong and Coleman 2004). If we assume that 1) by attachment theory, the child has maintained a
secure relationship with the biological father and 2) by emotional security theory, the child
maintains security through a stable mother-stepfather marital relationship, then it may be
appropriate to hypothesize that the quality of the father-stepfather relationship has impact on the
child’s attachment outcomes.
Methods
Participants
Participant data for the current study come from an existing data set, provided by the Parent
and Youth Study (PAYS). Participants were part of a five-year, three-wave, two-site (Phoenix, AZ
and Riverside, CA) longitudinal investigation of the role of fathers in adolescent development. Data
for the present study were collected during the first wave of the project. Approximately equal
numbers of participants came from each location, and included 392 (48% boys) self-identified
European American (n = 199) and Mexican American (n = 193) adolescents, ages 11 to 14 years (M
=12.93 years), and their resident parents. Data were collected in the Spring (n = 200) and Fall (n =
192) semesters of children’s 7th grade school year. Approximately less than half of the participants
(n = 175) from the overall study were in step-father families. For the purposes of the current study,
only these participants’ data will be analyzed. Step-father families were defined as families in
which the target child’s biological mother had been living for at least the past year with a man who
was not the child’s biological father, and in which the target child lived with the mother more than
half time.
Recruitment of families. Recruitment strategies varied between sites due to differing laws
and school district policies. In Arizona, adolescents were recruited from eight ethnically diverse
Relationship Security and Outcomes 23
schools in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Seventh grade teachers administered a short survey to all
their students, asking about their ethnic background and family composition. The schools were
given a small donation of equipment (scanner, fax machines) for their participation. A total of 2,459
families appeared eligible. A staff member at each school was employed by the research project to
telephone families according to a random selection scheme to ascertain eligibility, explain the
project, and ask for consent to have research staff call the family. A total of 640 families were
contacted. Research staff then called families to explain the details of the project, offer a monetary
reward for participation, and obtain consent. In Arizona, 204 families were both eligible and
initially agreed to participate.
In California, families were recruited from two school districts. School staff used emergency
contact cards and enrollment data to determine families that appeared eligible. They then contacted
these families to explain the project and screen for eligibility. If the families agreed to participate
and met eligibility requirements, research staff called families to explain the details of the project,
offer a monetary reward for participation, and obtain consent as per university Institutional Review
Board procedures. In California, a total of 540 families were contacted, and of these 192 were both
eligible and initially agreed to participate.
Recruitment of teachers. Children were asked to provide the names of two teachers that
research staff could contact. At both sites, a letter describing the project and a copy of the written
consent from the parents were mailed to each teacher requesting that he or she complete the
enclosed questionnaire about the adolescent’s behavior. In Arizona, an incentive of $5 cash, and a
pre-paid envelope were enclosed along with the letter. In Arizona, 387 (97%) were completed by
teachers; 197 (98%) adolescents had a questionnaire from at least one teacher, and 190 (95%) had
questionnaires from both teachers. The procedure in California was similar, except a non-monetary
Relationship Security and Outcomes 24
incentive was used. In California 261 (68%) were completed by teachers; 169 (88%) adolescents
had a questionnaire from at least one teacher, and 92 (48%) had questionnaires from both teachers.
Procedures
All three family members (mother, stepfather, and child) were interviewed in the home by a
team of interviewers. Interviews were conducted concurrently in separate rooms to maintain
privacy. Similar interviewing procedures were done for both Arizona and California. The
interviews lasted about two and a half hours and followed surveys created by the PAYS project
team. Interviewers presented all the measurers analyzed verbally to family members, except the
delinquent behavior items which were presented to adolescents in a self-administered, paper-andpencil questionnaire mid-way through the interview (see Appendix D). Only data collected in the
first wave (i.e. when the children were in seventh grade) were used in the current study.
Measures
Relationships. Mother, Stepfather, and child were asked two questions pertaining to the
quality of all the relationships including the stepfamily and the nonresidential father. First they
were asked “How well does ___ get along with ___?” with responses ranging from 1) extremely
well to 5) not well at all; second, “What kind of relationship does ___ have with ___?” with
responses of 1) the worst to 7) the best. Mothers and Stepfathers reported on all questions
pertaining to parent-child and interparental dyads. Children reported all parent-child dyads. Parents
were able to skip the relationship questions about the biological father if they reported him as
deceased; they also had the option at each question to say whether they did not know about the
relationship or had no contact with him. However, children were not given the option of “don’t
know” or “no contact” at each relationship question concerning the biological father. Scores were
calculated using standardized values due to differences in the range of possible values for the
answers to the two questions. Higher scores reflect better relationships. See Appendix A
Relationship Security and Outcomes 25
Externalizing Outcomes. Adolescents were asked to report on the negative behaviors that
they had displayed within the last three months on a 12-item scale with answers ranging from 1 (not
true) 2 (somewhat true) to 3 (very true). For example, the child was asked to respond to questions
like “In the past month you argued a lot” and “In the past month you got in many fights.” Mothers
and resident fathers also completed a similar 20-item subscale pertaining to the child’s externalizing
problems within the last three months; responses ranged from 1 (often true) to 3 (never true).
Teachers were asked to report externalizing problems using a similar 18-item externalizing
problems subscale, modified for teacher report. Scores were standardized to account for differences
in the range of possible answers for the different measures. Higher scores reflect higher behavioral
problems. See Appendix B
Internalizing Outcomes. Parents reported on adolescents’ internalizing behaviors within the
prior three months of being interviewed. There are 10 items and parents responded to a three-point
likert-scale ranging from 1=often true; 2=sometimes true; 3=never true. Examples of items include;
“(He/she) had sudden changes in mood or feeling” and “(He/she) was too fearful or anxious.”
Teachers also reported on adolescents’ internalizing behaviors on a similar 10-item scale, modified
to fit teacher reports. As with the other measures, scores were standardized to account for
differences in the range of possible answers for the various measures. Children reported on
internalizing behaviors using a different, 15-item scale. The scores were calculated by compositing
the standardized scores for depression and anxiety scales, then computing the mean of the
standardized values. Higher scores reflect higher behavior problems. See Appendix C
Delinquent Behaviors. A composite score to measure delinquent behavior was formed from
four sets of items assessing the child’s self-reported smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, and
sexual behavior. For this portion of the interview, a paper-and-pencil questionnaire was
administered to the child so as to avoid embarrassing the child and to encourage honest responses.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 26
For each substance, the questionnaire asked about age of onset of use, and use within the last 30
days. For example, the child was asked “If you have ever tried marijuana (pot, weed, grass, hash,
etc.), how old were you when you tried it for the first time?” and was given a scale ranging from “I
have never tried marijuana” to “13 or 14 years old”. In the section sexual behavior adolescents
were first asked, “Have you ever had sexual intercourse (made love, gone all the way)?” If they
answered “yes”, questions about the age of first intercourse, number of partners, use of
contraceptives, and pregnancy followed. Scores for each of the four scales were standardized due to
the range of possible responses for each of the questions. Higher scores on this scale reflect having
had sexual intercourse, having had it at a younger age, with more partners, and with riskier
contraceptive behavior. See Appendix D
Results
Preliminary Analysis
I formed two measures of behavioral outcomes to be used in the regression analyses. The
composite BPI includes all reports of internalizing and externalizing behaviors from the child,
teacher, and parent reports. The delinquency score consists of reports from the child about his or
her alcohol use, drug use, smoking, and sexual behavior. The scores for each of these four
delinquency scales were standardized across the whole PAYS sample which included both intact
and stepfamilies; the delinquency score was the mean of these standardized scales. The descriptive
analyses can be seen in Table 2. The composite BPI measure it shown first and is then followed by
the internalizing and externalizing scores for each reporter (mother, stepfather, child, and teacher).
I decided to present each reporter separately in order to illustrate the consistency across the
reporters on the two BPI behavior outcomes. Children’s report involved a different scale and thus
account for different means compared to parent and teacher report; therefore, their reports cannot be
compared to the adult reports. However, similar means for the behavior outcomes can be seen
Relationship Security and Outcomes 27
across parent and teacher reporters, which demonstrate that there was a consistent view of the
child’s behaviors. However, teacher’s standard deviations are higher than parents’ which may
indicate that children are more likely to exhibit various behaviors depending on their contexts (e.g.
outside the home at school vs. home with parents) and may even differ in behavior depending on
specific teachers and classes. Alphas are also presented for each of the reporters in internalizing and
externalizing outcomes. All the alphas are high, and thus verify that the items on the scales, as
given to each reporter, were adequately reliable. The fact that the children in my stepfamily sample
are above the standardized mean of 0 on the delinquency score demonstrates that stepchildren have
more behavioral problems compared to children from intact families. However, overall, the
delinquency scores for the children in my sample are low. .
Table 3 shows there was a consistent number of reporters for each dyad, except for those
involving the biological father. The child’s report of the biological dad –child (N=135) was missing
a total of 40 reporters. The main reason why there were missing reports was mainly due to children
answering “No” or “Don’t know” to the question “Is your biological dad living?” (n=32); the
remaining 8 missing reports were children who skipped the relationship questions, although they
had reported their dad was alive. The parents’ reports (N=116 and N=110) for the biological dad –
child dyad are missing more reporters because parents’ response scale for relationship questions
included the options “no contact” or “don’t know” (see Appendix A) as opposed to the child’s
response scale which did not include either of those options. The same can be seen for any of the
interparental dyads involving the biological dad, where parents’ response scale included response
options of “no contact” or “don’t know”1. Table 3 also shows that alphas were fairly strong except
for mother’s report of biological dad-stepfather dyad (α = .54).
Table 4 shows all bivariate correlations between reporters for each Parent – Child dyad and
outcomes. As seen in Table 4, the delinquency outcome is only correlated with the child’s report of
Relationship Security and Outcomes 28
the mother- child dyad (which also appears to be the only significant report in the delinquency
regression as seen later in Table 9). However, the composite BPI is highly correlated for reports of
the mother – child and stepfather – child dyads across all three reporters. Biological dad – child is
only correlated with BPI for stepfather’s report. The table also shows the reporters agree
moderately well with each other, with all but one correlations ranging from r= .72 to .41. The
biological dad – child dyad shows the strongest correlations among all three of the reporters. The
stepfather – child dyad also shows strong correlations among its three reporters. Mother – child
dyad shows weaker, yet significant, correlations among reporters. However, the weakest
correlation was between the child’s report and stepfather’s report about the mother- child dyad
(r=.08). Therefore, when entering the dyads into the regression I kept reporters responses
disaggregated from one another, rather than averaging responses2.
Table 5 shows the correlations between reporters for each interparental dyad and BPI and
delinquency. The mother - stepfather dyad was the only one significantly correlated with both
outcome variables; however, each reporter was correlated with a different outcome: mother’s report
was significant for BPI and stepfather’s report for significant for delinquency. Table 5 also
illustrates that both reporters strongly agreed with each other in their responses across the three
dyads.
Planned Analysis
Figure 1 shows the model I tested by using hierarchical multiple regressions. My first
hypothesis was that each relationship (Interparental and Parent-Child) would individually predict
the composite BPI and delinquency outcomes. I simultaneously entered each set of dyads as two
blocks into the regression analysis with the BPI composite, as seen in Table 6, and with the
delinquency composite, as seen in Table 7. This allowed for a test of the independent contributions
of the two relationships to the adjustment outcomes. Table 6 shows that when the two types of
Relationship Security and Outcomes 29
relationships were entered into the regression for the BPI outcome, only the block for Parent-Child
relationships was significant, regardless of whether it was the first or second step in the regression.
Table 7 shows that neither of the relationships were significant, regardless of the order in which
each step was entered for the delinquency outcome.
For my second hypothesis, I examined whether each of the relationships was composed of a
hierarchical or additive organization of the dyads. To test this, each dyad was entered separately
into the regression to see their independent contributions. If they were hierarchical, only one dyad
would make a significant, independent contribution to the outcomes, and the other dyads within the
relationship would not significantly affect the outcomes. If additive, I expected each dyad to make
a significant, independent contribution to adjustment outcomes.
Table 8 shows each parent-child dyad made a significant contribution to composite BPI
when added to the regression. This indicates an additive organization of dyads within the parentchild relationships because all relationships contributed independently of each other for predicting a
child’s behavioral outcomes. Note that within the mother – child dyad, the mother’s report was the
only significant report. Also, for the biological dad – child dyad, both residential parents’ reports
were significant, but the mother’s report was in the opposite direction than predicted. Depending
on the order in which I entered the dyads into the regression, all three parent – child dyads had
independent significance as long as the mother – child dyad was not first into the regression. If
mother- child was entered first, the mother – child dyad and biological dad – child dyad were
independently significant but the stepfather – child dyad was not. This is likely due to the fact that
the mother – child and stepfather – child dyads were highly correlated with each other (r=.44, Table
10), compared to the biological dad – child dyad which was less correlated with mother – child and
stepfather – child (r=.16 and r= -.04 respectively, Table 10). As long as the stepfather – child was
entered into the regression before the mother – child dyad, all three dyads were significant.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 30
Table 9 shows that none of the separate dyads contributing independently to the delinquency
outcome in the regression, regardless of the order in which the dyads were entered into the
regression. However, note that the child’s report of the mother - child dyad was significant for
delinquency, although the step itself was not significant in the regression.
Discussion
This study was conducted to look at the independent contributions of parent-child and
interparental relationships and how they predict the child’s outcome in stepfamilies. The purpose
was to determine, by analyzing the quality of each dyad, whether each dyad contributed to the
child’s scores of BPI and delinquency over and above what other dyads were contributing. Does
each of the relationships between the child, custodial mother, stepfather, or biological father hold
any predictive value towards the child’s behavior that is separate and distinct from the other
relationships?
In the present study, I expected, based on attachment theory and emotional security theory,
both parent-child relationships and interparental relationships would independently predict the
child’s behavioral outcomes. The results from Table 6 in the regression with BPI composite show a
hierarchy in relation to the two types of relationships, in that the parent-child relationship
independently predicts BPI; however, the interparental relationship was not significantly
independent. Each of the parent-child dyads significantly predicted BPI over and above any of the
contributions from other dyads (Table 8). Therefore, the independent contributions of each parentchild dyad towards child’s BPI composite represent an additive organization within the parent-child
relationship. According to the attachment theory, if the primary caregiver maintains a healthy and
secure attachment with the child, he or she can act as a secure base with which the child is able to
explore and sustain additional secure relationships. As is shown in the present study, all parental
figures in the child’s life have important impacts in relation to a child’s internalizing and
Relationship Security and Outcomes 31
externalizing behaviors. The higher quality the relationship was, the less reported negative
behaviors there were.
Contrary to my expectations, the interparental relationships offered no significant
associations with children’s behavioral outcomes that were independent of the parent-child
relationships (Table 6). None of the separate interparental dyads was significant in the regression
for predicting BPI composite (Table 8). This is contrary to the emotional security theory, which
poses that the quality of relationship between the parents should effect how secure the child feels
within the family setting. The child’s main goal is to preserve emotional security and a stressor
such as marital conflict could disrupt that sense of security. Therefore, the child might react
behaviorally when they feel that sense of security being threatened. It is possible that these
interparental dyads were not independently significant because they are each so highly correlated
with parent – child dyads (see Table 10). Therefore, they would not contribute anything that is not
already provided for by the parent-child relationship or in a working combination with other factors.
One unusual finding is that individual mother and stepfather reports for the biological dadchild dyad are significant in the regression with BPI composite, but appear in opposite directions
(Table 8). The mother’s report seems to indicate that the better the relationship is between the child
and nonresidential parent, the more behavior problems exist for the child. This finding seems
consistent with Depner and Bray (1993) who found that more contact and a better relationship with
the biological dad caused the mother to report more internalizing problems for the child. On the
other hand, the stepfather’s report follows a pattern that is supported by the previous literature in
that the better the relationship, the better the child’s behavior (or vise versa) (e.g. Depner and Bray
1993; Amato and Gilbreth 1999; Kelly et al 2000). This problem seems even more puzzling by the
fact that the mother’s report of the biological dad-child dyad appears to not be correlated with BPI
Relationship Security and Outcomes 32
composite at all (Table 4), but is significant in the regression when other reporters are partialled out
(Table 8).
The other unusual finding was that the stepfather-child dyad was only significant if it was
entered before the mother-child dyad in the BPI composite regression (Table 8). This implies that
the stepfather might provide important aspects in the relationship with the child that are unique to
their interaction; some factors that make a good relationships between the stepfather and child could
be independent of what is provided for the child in the relationships with the other parents. The
stepfather’s relationship with the child might contribute to the child’s outcomes independently of
other relationships because he is a new member of the household and adding a completely new
dynamic to the previously single-parent home. For example, Coleman et al (2000) stated that the
stepparent-child dyad might be the most important in predicting overall stepfamily wellbeing, as
well as possibly being the most problematic relationship in the new stepfamily. If this dyad does
have such an impact on the new family, and specifically the child’s outcomes, it would explain the
significance of the stepfather-child dyad in the regression. However, the fact that it was only
predictive of child outcomes when it preceded the mother-child dyad could imply that a good
relationship with the mother is able to provide the child with enough feelings of security in place of
anything the stepfather may contribute. In other words, the mother’s relationship with the child
might be sufficient despite any disruptions to the child’s outcomes caused by the presence of a
stepfather in the family because the mother has already invested time with the child before the
introduction of the stepfather. For example, most adolescents report having fairly positive
relationships with their stepparents, although not as close or positive as their relationships with
biological parents (Coleman et al 2000; Thompson and Amato 1999).
The delinquency outcomes offer other findings that were contradictory to my expectations
and previous research. For example, the stepfather’s report of mother-stepfather dyad was the only
Relationship Security and Outcomes 33
one correlated with the delinquency outcome (Table 5). None of the other dyads correlated with
delinquency outcome. This may suggest the presence of other important factors included in the
mother-stepfather dyad, such as parenting roles and agreement with rules and behavior monitoring
within the household (e.g. Ganong and Coleman 2004). However, although it correlated with
delinquency, it did not significantly predict delinquent behaviors in the regression (Table 7). This
could be because the mother-stepfather dyad by itself does not offer anything beyond what it shares
with the stepfather-child and mother-child dyads (see Table 10). It could be, then, that once this
interaction is teased apart, none of the dyads add anything independently to delinquent behaviors.
Additionally, the only report to show up significant in the delinquency outcome regression
was the child’s report of the mother-child dyad (Table 9). The fact that this report was significant,
although the step itself was not, raises the question: what is distinct about the child’s view of his or
her relationship with the mother that associates his or her view of the quality of the relationship to
delinquency? Is the child thinking of relationship quality in different terms than how the parents
perceive it? How does the child view the relationship with the mother so that it predicts his or her
delinquency behaviors? According to Wolchik (2002), the mother-child dyad is of particular
importance in that children who experience poorer mother–child relationship quality, and thus a
lower sense of security, are at a particularly high risk that could benefit from interventions.
Another interesting finding was the fact that the biological dad-child dyad was not correlated
with either of the behavior outcomes (except for the stepfather’s report for BPI composite) (Table
4). This is contradictory to the research by Depner and Bray (1993) and Sturgess et al (2001) which
states that children’s outcomes were associated with the quality of biological dad-child dyad.
However, the present study found the biological dad-child dyad was significant in the regression
with BPI composite (Table 8). This agrees with attachment theory in that a child still relies on the
biological parent to care for him or her even though that parent is not living in the same household
Relationship Security and Outcomes 34
as the child. This finding supports the idea that despite the physical distance, the attachment bond
can still continue (e.g. Ainsworth 1978; Weiss 1982) and the relationship can still have a significant
impact on child’s behavior that is distinct from the other parent-child dyads.
Overall these findings indicate that the parent-child relationships are additive in the way
they contribute to the child’s behavior. There are unique aspects that each parent-child relationship
adds to the child’s outcomes that are over and above those provided by the other parents.
According to attachment theory this could be the basis for the child in formation of other positive
relationships and their overall sense of security of being cared for. Perhaps if the child feels that
each of his or her parents is providing for the basic necessities and showing the child the appropriate
level of warmth, responsiveness, compassion, etc. that constitutes a good relationship, then the child
has a better sense of security regardless of the interparental relationships. Also, it could be that the
interparental relationships do not add any independent or exceptional aspect that contributes to the
child’s security over and above what the child already feels from the individual relationships he or
she has with the parents.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There were some important limitations to the present study which lend themselves for
possible directions in future research. First, the data in the present study are correlational and,
therefore, cannot prove causality. The data tell us how individual parents contribute their own
unique aspects to their relationship with the child, that are in addition to what other parents’
relationships provide and how those distinctive aspects are associated with child’s behavior.
However it does not tell us the direction of causality. It could be that the child’s behavior problems
cause the parent-child dyads to suffer rather than the parent-child dyads predicting the behavioral
outcomes. There is also the possibility of a third variable that future studies could address through
other models. One variable that might explain both good relationships and good behavioral
Relationship Security and Outcomes 35
outcomes is the child’s physical attractiveness. Research has found that attractive children elicit
more affection and interaction from parents and adults, which in turn positively increases their
social and emotional outcomes (Siegler, Deloache, and Eisenberg 2006). Another variable that
could later be investigated is the extent of parenting identity or parenting commitment of mothers,
stepfather, and biological fathers within the stepfamily context. An additional variable that could
interact with parent – child dyads and child’s outcomes could be the availability of the parent and its
potential affect on the quality of relationship and subsequent child behaviors. Another example that
would help to further understand the specific influence of the stepfather on the child could involve
future measurements of the importance of fathering goals by the mother and stepfather reporters.
One other variable that future investigations could address is the religiosity factor and how it differs
for parents’ relationships with their children and the children’s subsequent outcomes.
The measurement used for the independent variables in the present study included two
questions that addressed how well two individuals got along and how they rated the overall
relationship. Therefore, the answers may differ depending on what each reporter might consider a
quality relationship to entail. This could explain the discrepancy between some of the dyads not
correlating strongly with the behavior outcomes. There could be other factors, depending on the
particular dyad, which would better predict or associate with a child’s behavior; the dynamics of
each dyad might dictate what factors are truly important towards behavior and not necessarily if the
relationship is an overall “good” relationship. Therefore, it is important for future research to
analyze various factors that could act as components to a certain relationship. For example, there
has been much debate on what determines the quality of a relationship with the biological dad and
child and how it might affect the child’s outcomes (e.g. Dunn et al 2004; Thompson & Amato 1999;
Amato & Gilbreth 1999). It could be some parents believe that the frequency of contact the child
has with their biological dad is important to his or her relationship with the biological dad, but
Relationship Security and Outcomes 36
doesn’t necessarily imply a quality relationship; thus, it would explain the weak correlations of
reports of biological dad-child relationship and composite BPI and delinquency.
Another aspect of this study that could be addressed in future research is to obtain the report
of the child concerning the quality of interparental relationships. According to the emotional
security hypothesis, it is the sense of security of continually being cared for by parental figures that
the child is actively trying to maintain, predicted by the quality of the interparental relationships.
Thus, it may be important to obtain the child’s views on how well he or she believes the parents are
getting along. The present study only included the two residential parents’ reports on the
interparental relationships and none of the relationships were significant in the regression. Perhaps
getting the child’s sense of how well he or she perceives the parents’ relationships would hold
significance in the regression in predicting the behavioral outcomes.
The emotional security hypothesis describes parental conflict as being the major stressor for
a child’s sense of emotional security. Therefore, future studies should investigate the degree to
which people rate a relationship as being of good quality but still report high levels of conflict.
Families or parents that report conflict in their relationship might not consider that to be an
important factor in the quality of their relationship because of how the problems were discussed and
whether or not they were later resolved. It could be that a lot of conflict existed and the child felt a
sense of instability in their relationships within the home; however, the parents might report that
their relationship is fine because conflict is a part of their communication and being able to discuss
and resolve issues. The child, however, might not feel the same and be confused and uncertain of
the security within the relationships at home.
One methodological limitation is the fact the sample size is not very large, especially for the
dyads including the biological dad. However, other aspects of the dataset offer certain strengths to
the study, such as the diverse families within the dataset based on their various locations. Another
Relationship Security and Outcomes 37
strength is the fact that the same measures for the relationship variable were used across all dyads
and reporters. The study included data collection from multiple members who might have
provided different perspectives into the relationships and the child’s behavior in various
environments (e.g. the teacher’s report at school to the parent’s report at home and the child’s own
perspective).
Overall, this study adds to the literature by demonstrating the independent contributions of
parent-child relationships and how important those relationships are to a child’s outcomes without
the compounding effects of other relationships in a stepfamily dynamic. This study also included
one dyad that other previous literature has not specifically addressed: the stepfather-biological dad
dyad. From our results in the regression analyses in Tables 8 and 9, none of the interparental dyads
added anything over and above what the other relationships were contributing to the child’s
outcomes. This suggests that perhaps all interparental relationships have the same level of influence
on the child and thus deserve the same amount of attention when it comes to interventions for
children in particularly at-risk family environments. It may not just be one particular interparental
relationship that has a stronger impact on the child’s sense of security and, subsequently, their
outcomes. In interventions, perhaps more attention should focus on improvement in each of the
parent- child dyads, rather than interparental dyads, since they appear to have a stronger and more
distinct association with child outcomes.
The present study’s results speak to the complexity of the stepfamily dynamics and the
necessary care that is needed in real-life intervention applications to address each family. The fact
that each parent-child dyad has its own separate contribution towards the child’s outcome
demonstrates the importance of interventions addressing not only the family system as a whole, but
each parent in the stepfamily dynamic – concentrating on how aspects specific to each parent-child
dyad may be improved.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 38
References
Amato, P.R. (1987). Family processes in one-parent, stepparent, and intact families: The child’s
point of view. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49, 327-336.
Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J.G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A metaanalysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 61, 3.
Amato, P.R. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and well-being of children: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin. 53, 1.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry. 52, 664-678.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Canada's Mental
Health Supplement, 59, 12.
Braver, S.L. & O’Connell, E. (1998). Divorced Dads: Shattering the myths. New York, NY:
Penguin Putnam Inc.
Braver, S., Wolchick, S.A., Sandler, I. N., Sheets, V. (1993). “A social exchange model of
nonresidential parent involvement”. In C.E. Depner & J.H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresidential
parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 87- 108). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Bray, J.H. & Berger S.H. (1993). “Nonresidential parent-child relationships following divorce and
remarriage: A longitudinal perspective”. In C.E. Depner & J.H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresidential
parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 87- 108). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Bray, J.H. & Depner, C.E. (1993). “Perspectives on nonresidential parenting”. In C.E. Depner &
J.H. Bray (Eds.), Nonresidential parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 3-12). Newbury
Park: Sage Publications.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P.R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications. New York: The Guilford Press.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 39
Chapman, S.F. (1991). Attachment and adolescent adjustment to parental remarriage. Family
Relations, 40, 232-237.
Cherlin, A.J., & Furstenberg, F.F. (1994). Stepfamilies in the United States: A reconsideration.
Annual Review Sociology. 20, 1-20.
Coleman, M., Ganong, L.A., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of
progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 62, 1-10.
Cummings, E.M., Schermerhorn, A.C., Davies, P.T., Goeke-Morey, M.C., & Cummings, J.S.
(2006). Interparental discord and child adjustment: Prospective investigations of emotional
security as an explanatory mechanism. Child Development. 77, 1-3.
Davies, P.T., & Cummings, M.E. (1998). Exploring children’s emotional security as a mediator of
the link between marital relations and child adjustment. Child Development, 69, 1.
Davies, P.T., Harold, G.T., Goeke-Morey, M.C., Cummings, E.M., Shelton, K., & Rasi, J.A.
(2002). Child responses to interparental conflict: Comparing the relative roles of emotional
security and social learning processes. 67, 1, 3, 9.
Depner, C.E., & Bray, J.H. (1993). Nonresidential parenting: New vistas in family living. Newberry
Park: Sage Publications.
Dunn, J., Cheng, H., O'Connor, T.G., & Bridges, L. (2004). Children's perspectives on their
relationships with their nonresidential fathers: Influences, outcomes, and implications.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1-2, 10-11.
Dunn, J., Davies, L.C., O'Connor, T.G., & Sturgess, W. (2000). Family lives and friendships: The
perspectives of children in step-, single-parent, and nonstep families. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15, 9.
Emery R.E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological
Bulletin. 92, 2.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 40
Emery, R.E. (1999). “Postdivorce family life for children: An overview of research and some
implications for policy”. In R.A. Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds). The postdivorce family:
Children, parenting, and society (pp. 3-27). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fabricius, W.V. (2003). Listening to children of divorce: New findings that diverge from
Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee. Family Relations. 52, 4.
Fabricius, W. V. & Luecken, L.J. (2007). Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and
long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology, ?
Fine, M.A., Coleman, M., & Ganong, L.A. (1998). Consistency in perceptions of the stepparent role
among stepparents, parents, and stepchildren. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.
15, 1-16.
Fine, M.A., & Kurdek, L.A. (1995). Relation between marital quality and (step)parent-child
relationship quality for parents and stepparents in stepfamilies. Journal of Family
Psychology. 9, 1-3.
Ganong, L.H., & Coleman, M. (1999). Changing families, changing responsibilities.Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ganong, L.H., & Coleman, M. (1994). Remarried family relationships. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Ganong, L.H., & Coleman, M. (2004). Stepfamily relationships: Development, dynamics, and
interventions.New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A cognitivecontextual framework. Psychological Bulletin. 108, 1-3, 5.
Hetherington, E.M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia longitudinal study of divorce and
remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 39-56.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 41
Hetherington, E. M. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems perspective.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57.
Kelly, J.B. & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Using child development research to make appropriate custody
and access decisions for young children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 1-5, 89.
Lamb, M. E. (1999). “Noncustodial fathers and their impact on the children of divorce”. In R.A.
Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds). The postdivorce family: Children, parenting, and society
(pp.105- 126). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lamb, M.E. & Lewis, C. ( 2005). “The role of parent-child relationships in child development”. In
M.H. Bornstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds). Developmental Science: An advanced textbook (pp.
429-468). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R.D., & Lamb, M.E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the
1990’s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 4.
O'Connor, T.G., Dunn, J., Jenkins, J.M., & Rasbash, J. (2006). Predictors of between-family and
within-family variation in parent-child relationships. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47, 7.
Pasley, K., & Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1994). Stepparenting: Issues in theory, research, and practice.
Westport: Greenwood Press.
Siegler, R., Deloache. J., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). How children develop. New York, NY: Worth
Publishers.
Sobolewski, J.M. & Amato, P.R. (2007). Parents’ discord and divorce, parent-child relationships
and subjective well-being in early adulthood: Is feeling close to two parents always better
than feeling close to one? Social Forces, 85, 3.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 42
Sroufe, L.A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development.
48, 1-5, 7, 10-12.
Sturgess, W., Dunn, J., & Davies, L. (2001). Young children's perceptions of their relationships
with family members: Links with family setting, friendships, and adjustment. International
Journal of Behavioral Development. 25, 7.
Thompson R.A. & Wyatt, J.M. (1999). “ Values, policy, and research on divorce: Seeking fairness
for children”. In R.A. Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds). The postdivorce family: Children,
parenting, and society (pp. 191 -232 ). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Thompson, R.A., & Amato, P.R. (1999). “The postdivorce society: How divorce is shaping the
family and other forms of social organization” In R.A Thompson & P.R. Amato (Eds). The
postdivorce family: Children, parenting, and society (pp. 161-190). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Vandewater, E. & Landsford, J.E. (1998). Influences of family structure and parental conflict on
children’s well-being. Family Relations, 47.
Vuchinich, S., Hetherington, E. M., Vuchinich, R., & Clingempeel, G. (1991). Parent-child
interaction and gender differences in early adolescents' adaptation to stepfamilies.
Developmental Psychology, 27, 618-626.
White, L. K., & Booth, A. (1985). The quality and stability of remarriages: The role of stepchildren.
American Sociological Review, 50, 689-698.
Wolchik, S.A., Tein, J. Y., Sandler, I.N., & Doyle, K.W. (2002). Fear of adandonment as a mediator
of the relations between divorce stressors and mother-child relationship quality and
children’s adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 30, 4.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 43
Footnotes
1
After running several descriptive analyses, there appeared to be no difference in behavioral
outcomes between children who had been missing reporters and children who had all three reporters
for any of the biological dad dyads.
2
I also averaged reporters for each dyad and ran those regression analyses as well, but obtained
similar results as we did with disaggregated reporters.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 44
Parent-Child Relationships
MotherChild
FatherChild
StepfatherChild
Internalizing/Externalizing
Behaviors and Delinquency
StepfatherMother
FatherMother
StepfatherFather
Relationship Security and Outcomes 45
Table 1
The Three Dyads Within the Relationship Addressed by Each Theory,
and the Persons Who Reported on Each Dyad
Theory and Relationships
Emotional Security Theory (EST)
“Interparental Relationships”
_______________________________________
Mother-Biological Father Dyad
Reporters: Mother, Stepfather
Mother-Stepfather Dyad
Reporters: Mother, Stepfather
Stepfather-Biological Father Dyad
Reporters: Mother, Stepfather
Attachment Theory
“Parent-Child Relationships”
__________________________________________
Child-Mother Dyad
Reporters: Child, Mother, Stepfather
Child-Biological Father Dyad
Reporters: Child, Mother, Stepfather
Child-Stepfather Dyad
Reporters: Child, Mother, Stepfather
Relationship Security and Outcomes 46
Table 2
Descriptives of Dependent Variables
Variable
N
Alphas
Min/Max
175
Mean
(SD)
19.42(3.65)
Composite BPI
--
12.97/30.92
Child Internalizing
Mother report
Stepfather report
Child report
Teacher report
175
174
174
160
14.98(3.37)
14.31(3.06)
.32(1.91)
15.37(5.17)
.74
.72
.79
.89
10.00/27.00
10.00/23.00
- 2.70/5.86
10.00/37.00
Child Externalizing
Mother report
Stepfather report
Child report
Teacher report
175
174
175
160
32.20(6.62)
31.04(6.66)
16.82(4.24)
30.71(11.78)
.86
.88
.82
.96
20.00/51.00
20.00/51.00
12.00/31.00
18.00/74.00
174
.15 (2.27)
--
- .67/19.11
Delinquency
Relationship Security and Outcomes 47
Table 3
Descriptives of Independent Variables
Variable
N
Mean
(SD)
Alphas
Min/Max
Mother-Child dyad
Stepfather report
Child report
Mother report
175
174
174
.05(1.62)
- .00(1.74)
- .07(1.84)
.85
.85
.85
-5.07/1.90
-6.25/1.55
-6.14/2.18
Stepfather-Child dyad
Stepfather report
Child report
Mother report
175
175
175
- .50(1.89)
- .35(1.91)
- .28(1.88)
.83
.83
.83
-6.96/2.22
-5.74/2.08
-8.90/2.35
Biodad-Child dyad
Stepfather report
Child report
Mother report
116
135
110
-.37(1.66)
.01(1.96)
- .50(1.64)
.78
.78
.78
-3.65/2.00
-3.87/1.76
-4.45/1.64
Mother-Stepfather dyad
Mother report
Stepfather report
175
172
.00(1.95)
- .05(1.84)
.89
.83
-9.29/2.04
-7.89/2.02
Mother-Biodad dyad
Mother report
Stepfather report
111
121
- .54(1.58)
- .42(1.58)
.83
.85
-4.07/2.36
-2.81/3.18
Biodad-Stepfather dyad
Mother report
Stepfather report
102
100
- .62(1.45)
- .64(1.49)
.54
.78
-3.90/2.35
-3.41/2.23
Relationship Security and Outcomes 48
Table 4
Correlations between Reporters for Parent-Child dyads and Dependent Variables
BPI
Delinquency
Stepfather's
report:
Child and
biological
dad
Child’s
report:
child and
biological
dad
Mother's
report:
child and
mother
Stepfather's
report: child
and mother
Mother's
report:
child and
resident
stepfather
Child's
report:
child and
resident
stepfather
BPI
Delinquency
-.22**
-.40**
-.25**
-.14
.02
-.07
Child's report: child
and biological dad
-.12
-.04
.62**
Mother's report: child
and biological dad
.03
-.01
.72**
Stepfather's report:
child and mother
-.26**
-.05
Child's report: child
and mother
-.28**
-.19*
-.27**
-.10
-.29**
-.08
Child's report: child
and resident
stepfather
Stepfather's report:
child and resident
stepfather
**significant at .01 level
* significant at .05 level
.59**
.41**
.28**
.08
.47**
.49**
.52**
Relationship Security and Outcomes 49
Table 5
Correlations between Reporters for Parent-Parent dyads and Dependent Variables
BPI
Delinquency
Mother's
report:
mother and
biological
dad
Mother's
report:
mother and
resident
stepfather
Mother’s
report:
biological
dad and
resident
stepfather
BPI
Delinquency
Stepfather's report:
mother and
biological dad
Stepfather’s report:
mother and resident
stepfather
Stepfather's report:
biological dad and
resident stepfather
**significant at .01 level
* significant at .05 level
-.16
.09
-.13
-.21**
-.12
.16
.02
-.18*
-.07
.07
-.04
.08
.55**
.46**
.60**
Relationship Security and Outcomes 50
Table 6
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Stepfamily Relationship and Composite Behavior Outcomes
Variable
∆ R2
Step 1 (Parent – Child Relationships)
Stepfather’s report of Child - Stepfather
Mother’s report of Child - Stepfather
Child’s report of Child – Stepfather
Stepfather’s report of Child – Mother
Mother’s report of Child - Mother
Child’s report of Child – Mother
Stepfather’s report of Child – Biological dad
Mother’s report of Child – Biological dad
Child’s report of Child – Stepfather
.34*
Step 2 (Parent – Parent Relationships)
Stepfather’s report of Mother - Stepfather
Mother’s report of Mother - Stepfather
Stepfather’s report of Mother – Biological dad
Mother’s report of Mother – Biological dad
Stepfather’s report of Stepfather - Biological dad
Mother’s report of Stepfather – Biological dad
.04
*p<.01
**p<.05
B
SE B
β
-.34
.16
-.19
-.03
-.53
-.38
-.95
.96
-.16
.25
.24
.24
.26
.23
.23
.33
.32
.24
-.17
-.08
-.10
-.01
-.27**
-.18
-.43*
.43*
-.09
.26
-.18
-.15
-.06
.73
-.40
.25
.27
.39
.39
.43
.43
.13
-.09
-.07
-.02
.30
-.16
Relationship Security and Outcomes 51
Table 7
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Stepfamily Relationship and Delinquency Outcome
Variable
∆ R2
Step 1 (Parent – Child Relationships)
Stepfather’s report of Child - Stepfather
Mother’s report of Child - Stepfather
Child’s report of Child – Stepfather
Stepfather’s report of Child – Mother
Mother’s report of Child - Mother
Child’s report of Child – Mother
Stepfather’s report of Child – Biological dad
Mother’s report of Child – Biological dad
Child’s report of Child – Stepfather
.06
Step 2 (Parent – Parent Relationships)
Stepfather’s report of Mother - Stepfather
Mother’s report of Mother - Stepfather
Stepfather’s report of Mother – Biological dad
Mother’s report of Mother – Biological dad
Stepfather’s report of Stepfather - Biological dad
Mother’s report of Stepfather – Biological dad
.08
*p<.05
β
B
SE B
-.02
-.09
.01
-.09
.19
-.30
-.06
.08
-.05
.19
.18
.18
.19
.17
.17
.24
.24
.18
-.01
-.07
.01
-.07
.16
-.23
-.04
.06
-.04
-.22
.14
-.02
.10
.42
-.03
.19
.20
.28
.29
.32
.31
-.18
.12
-.02
.07
.27
-.02
Relationship Security and Outcomes 52
Table 8
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Stepfamily Relationships and Composite Behavior Outcomes
Variable
∆ R2
Step1 (Overall relationship of child and stepfather)
Stepfather’s report
Mother’s report
Child’s report
Step 2 (Overall relationship of child and mother)
Stepfather’s report
Mother’s report
Child’s report
Step 3 (Overall relationship of child and biological dad)
Stepfather’s report
Mother’s report
Child’s report
Step 4 (Overall relationship of mother and stepfather)
Dad’s report
Mother’s report
Step 5 (Overall relationship of mother and biological dad)
Dad’s report
Mother’s report
Step 6 (Overall relationship of stepfather and biological dad)
Dad’s report
Mother’s report
.11*
*p<.05
**p<.01
B
SE B
β
- .48
- .34
- .29
.36
.35
.35
- .18
- .11
- .13
- .18
- .86
- .39
.39
.35
.33
- .06
- .31*
- .13
-1.35
1.37
- .23
.47
.46
.34
- .43**
.43**
- .09
.24
- .30
.35
.38
.09
- .11
.23
- .27
.48
.50
.07
- .08
1.04
- .56
.61
.61
.30
- .16
.12**
.11**
.01
.00
.03
Relationship Security and Outcomes 53
Table 9
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Stepfamily Relationships and Delinquency Outcome
Variable
∆ R2
Step1 (Overall relationship of child and mother)
Stepfather’s report
Child’s report
Mother’s report
Step 2 (Overall relationship of child and stepfather)
Stepfather’s report
Child’s report
Mother’s report
Step 3 (Overall relationship of child and biological dad)
Stepfather’s report
Child’s report
Mother’s report
Step 4 (Overall relationship of mother and stepfather)
Dad’s report
Mother’s report
Step 5 (Overall relationship of mother and biological dad)
Dad’s report
Mother’s report
Step 6 (Overall relationship of stepfather and biological dad)
Dad’s report
Mother’s report
.05
*p<.05
β
B
SE B
- .11
- .29
.15
.17
.15
.15
- .08
- .22*
.12
- .00
.02
- .10
.18
.17
.17
.00
.01
- .09
- .06
- .05
.08
.24
.18
.24
- .04
- .04
.06
- .29
.12
.18
.20
- .24
.12
.14
.11
.25
.26
.10
.08
.42
- .03
.32
.31
.27
- .02
.01
.00
.03
.01
.03
Relationship Security and Outcomes 54
Table 10
Correlations for Reporter Composite Dyads
Child –
Mom
Child –
Stepdad
Child –
Nonresident
dad
Mom –
Stepdad
Mom –
Nonresident
dad
Nonresident
dad –
Stepdad
** p < .01
* p < .05
ChildMom
ChildStepdad
ChildNonresident
dad
Mom Stepdad
Mom –
Nonresident
dad
Nonresident
dad - Stepdad
BPI
Delinquency
-
.44**
.16*
.35**
.09
.24**
-.45**
-.10
-
-.04
.52**
.12
.19*
-.33**
-.10
-
.11
.58**
.51**
-.13
.02
-
.04
.16
-.18*
-.15*
-
.63**
-.09
.08
-
-.09
.13
Relationship Security and Outcomes 55
Appendix A – Relationship Questions
Resident Dad – parent child overall relationship
32. How well do you get along with (child)? Look at list 4 now.
= 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.
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
124. Think about what you know about (child)'s relationship with (his/her) birth father. Use list 21
and tell me how well (child) gets along with (birthdad's name)?
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
125. Look at list 22 that has 7 numbers that go from the worst to the best. What kind
of relationship does (child) have with (birthdad's name)?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
188. How well does (child) get along with (wife/partner name)? Use list 25.
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
= Don’t know
189. What kind of relationship does (wife/partner name) have with (child)? Use list 26.
= The worst
= Very bad
Relationship Security and Outcomes 56
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= Don’t know
Resident Dad – interparental overall relationship
218. How well do you get along with (wife/partner name)? Use list 28. [CARD 28]
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
219. What kind of relationship do you have with (wife/partner name)? Look at list 29.
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
126. Think about what you know about (wife/partner)'s relationship with (child)'s birth
father. How well does (wife/partner) get along with (birthdad's name)? Go back to list 21.
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
127. a) Look at list 22 again. What kind of relationship does (wife/partner) have with (birthdad's
name)?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
b) LOOK AT LIST 21 ONCE MORE. Think about YOUR relationship with (child)'s birth father.
How well do YOU get along with (birthdad's name)?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
Relationship Security and Outcomes 57
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
128. Look at list 22 one more time. What kind of relationship do YOU have with (birthdad's name)?
[CARD 22]
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
=NA, NO CONTACT
=DON'T KNOW
MOM – interparental overall relationship
127. Think about what you know about (husband/partner)'s relationship with (child)'s birth
father. How well does (husband/partner) get along with (birthdad's name)? Go back to list 22.
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
128. Look at list 23 again. What kind of relationship does (husband/partner) have with
(birthdad's name)?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
129. LOOK AT LIST 22 ONCE MORE. Think about YOUR relationship with (child)'s birth
father. How well do you get along with (birthdad's name)? [CARD 22]
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
130. Look at list 23 one more time. What kind of relationship do YOU have with (birthdad's name)?
[CARD 23]
= The worst
Relationship Security and Outcomes 58
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
226. How well do you get along with (husband/partner)? Use list 30. [CARD 30]
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
227. What kind of relationship do you have with (husband/partner)? Look at list 31.
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
MOM – parent child overall relationship
37. How well do you get along with (child)? Look at list 6 now. [CARD 6]
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
38. What kind of relationship do you have with (child)? Look at list 7. [CARD 7]
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
125. Think about what you know about (child's) relationship with (his/her) birth father.
Use list 22 and tell me how well does (child) get along with (his/her) birth father?
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
Relationship Security and Outcomes 59
= Not well at all
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
126. Look at list 23 that has 7 numbers that go from the worst to the best. What kind of
relationship does (child) have with (birthdad's name)?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= NA, NO CONTACT
= DON'T KNOW
196. How well does (child) get along with (husband/partner)? Use list 27.
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
= DK
197. What kind of relationship does (husband/partner) have with (child)? Use list 28.
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
= DK
CHILD – overall parent child relationship
20. Now look at list 5. How well do you get along with your (dad/step-dad)?
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just Okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
21. Look at list 6 and tell me what kind of relationship you have with your (dad/step-dad)?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
279. How well do you get along with your mother? Look at list 42 now.
= Extremely well
Relationship Security and Outcomes 60
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
280. What kind of relationship do you have with your mother? Use list 43.
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
355. Look at list 54 now. How well do you get along with your birthdad?
= Extremely well
= Pretty well
= Just okay
= Not too well
= Not well at all
356. Look at list 55 and tell me what kind of relationship you have with your
birthdad?
= The worst
= Very bad
= Not too good
= Just okay
= Good
= Very good
= The best
Appendix B – Externalizing Outcomes
Parent Reported Externalizing Outcomes
Subject Instructions:
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.
(1=often true; 2=sometimes true; 3=never true)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
(He/she) cheated or told lies
(He/she) was too fearful or anxious
(He/she) bullied or was cruel or mean to others
(He/she) clung to adults
(He/she) was disobedient at school
(He/she) had trouble getting along with teachers
(He/she) had sudden changes in mood or feeling
(He/she) was rather high strung, tense, nervous
Relationship Security and Outcomes 61
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
(He/she) argued too much
(He/she) was disobedient at home
(He/she) was not liked by other children
(He/she) had a very strong temper and lost it easily
(He/she) was unhappy, sad, or depressed
(He/she) had difficulty concentrating, could not pay attention for long
(He/she) was easily confused, seemed to be in a fog
(He/she) was impulsive, or acted without thinking
(He/she) had a lot of difficulty getting (his/her) mind off certain thoughts
(had obsessions)
(He/she) was restless or overly active, could not sit still
(He/she) had trouble getting along with other children
(He/she) was stubborn, sullen or irritable
Child Reported Externalizing Outcomes
Subject Instructions:
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.
(1=not true; 2=somewhat true; 3=very true)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
In the past month you argued a lot
In the past month you were mean to others
In the past month you destroyed things that belonged to you
In the past month you destroyed things belonging to others
In the past month you disobeyed at school
In the past month you got in many fights
In the past month you hung around with kids who got in trouble
In the past month you lied or cheated
In the past month you physically hurt other people
In the past month you stole at home
In the past month you stole from places other than home
In the past month you had a hot temper or threw tantrum
Teacher Reported Externalizing Outcomes
Subject Instructions:
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.
(1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; 5=very often)
1.
Had changes in moods or feelings
Relationship Security and Outcomes 62
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Was nervous, high-strung or tense
Lied or cheated
Argued a lot
Could not concentrate, could not pay attention for long
Was confused or seemed to be in a fog
Was cruel, bullied or was mean to others
Was disobedient at school
Did not get along with other students
Was impulsive or acted without thinking
Was not liked by other students
Could not get his/her mind off certain thoughts; had obsessions
Could not sit still, was restless or hyperactive
Was stubborn, sullen or irritable
Had temper tantrums or a hot temper
Was unhappy, sad or depressed
Destroyed his/her own things or destroyed property belonging to others
Had trouble getting along with teachers
Appendix C – Internalizing Outcomes
Parent Reported Internalizing Outcomes
Subject Instructions:
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.
(1=often true; 2=sometimes true; 3=never true)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
(He/she) felt or complained that no one loved (him/her)
(He/she) was too fearful or anxious
(He/she) was easily confused, seemed to be in a fog
(He/she) felt worthless or inferior
(He/she) was unhappy, sad, or depressed
(He/she) clung to adults
(He/she) cried too much
(He/she) demanded a lot of attention
(He/she) was too dependent on others
(He/she) was withdrawn, did not get involved with others
Teacher Reported Internalizing Outcomes
Subject Instructions:
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
Relationship Security and Outcomes 63
MONTHS.
(1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; 5=very often)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Felt or complained that no one loves him/her
There was very little he/she enjoyed
Was confused or seemed to be in a fog
Felt worthless or inferior
Was unhappy, sad or depressed
Was withdrawn, did not get involved with others
Clung to adults or was too dependent
Cried a lot
Demanded a lot of attention
Was too dependent on others
Child Reported Internalizing Outcomes
Depression Scale:
Subject Instructions:
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...
= 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...
= 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...
= I looked OK.
= There were some bad things about my looks.
= I looked ugly.
272. Look at card 37. In the past month...
= 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...
= 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...
= I did not feel alone.
= I felt alone many times.
= I felt alone all the time.
Relationship Security and Outcomes 64
275. Look at card 40. In the past month...
= 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...
= 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.
Anxiety Scale:
Subject Instructions:
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.
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.
Appendix D – Child’s Self-Report on Delinquent Behaviors
9. If you have ever smoked more than one or two puffs of a cigarette, how old were
you when you tried it for the first time?
= I have never smoked more than one or two puffs of a cigarette.
= Less than 9 years old
= 9 or 10 years old
= 11 or 12 years old
= 13 or 14 years old
10. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?
= 0 days
= 1 or 2 days
= 3 to 5 days
= 6 to 9 days
= 10 to 19 days
= 20 to 29 days
= All 30 days
11. During the past 30 days, on the days you smoked, how many cigarettes did
you smoke per day?
= I did not smoke cigarettes during the past 30 days
= Less than 1 cigarette per day
= 1 cigarette per day
= 2 to 5 cigarettes per day
Relationship Security and Outcomes 65
= 6 to 10 cigarettes per day
= 11 to 20 cigarettes per day
= More than 20 cigarettes per day
12. The next questions ask about drinking alcohol. This includes drinking beer, wine,
wine coolers and liquor such as tequila, rum, gin, vodka, whiskey. For these questions,
drinking alcohol does not include drinking a few sips of wine for religious purposes. If
you have ever had more than a few sips of alcohol, how old were you when you first
drank that much alcohol?
= I have never had a drink of alcohol other than a few sips
= Less than 9 years old
= 9 or 10 years old
= 11 or 12 years old
= 13 or 14 years old
13. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of
alcohol?
= 0 days
= 1 or 2 days
= 3 to 5 days
= 6 to 9 days
= 10 to 19 days
= 20 to 29 days
= All 30 days
14. During the past 30 days, on how many days did you drink enough to feel drunk?
= 0 days
= 1 or 2 days
= 3 to 5 days
= 6 to 9 days
= 10 to 19 days
= 20 to 29 days
= All 30 days
15. Do you have a problem with drinking too much alcohol?
= No not at all
= A little problem
= Yes, it is a problem
16. If you have ever tried marijuana (pot, weed, grass, hash, etc.), how old were
you when you tried it for the first time?
= I have never tried marijuana
= Less than 9 years old
= 9 or 10 years old
= 11 or 12 years old
= 13 or 14 years old
17. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana?
= 0 times
= 1 or 2 times
= 3 to 9 times
= 10 to 19 times
= 20 to 39 times
= 40 to 99 times
Relationship Security and Outcomes 66
= 100 or more times
18. If you have ever tried any form of cocaine, including powder, crack, or
freebase, how old were you when you tried it for the first time?
= I have never tried cocaine
= Less than 9 years old
= 9 or 10 years old
= 11 or 12 years old
= 13 or 14 years old
19. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use any form of cocaine,
including powder, crack, or freebase?
= 0 days
= 1 or 2 days
= 3 to 5 days
= 6 to 9 days
= 10 to 19 days
= 20 to 29 days
= All 30 days
20. If you have ever tried any form of inhalants (things you sniff, huff, or breathe to
get high such as glue, paint, aerosol sprays, gasoline, poppers, gases) how old were
you when you tried it for the first time?
= I have never tried inhalants
= Less than 9 years old
= 9 or 10 years old
= 11 or 12 years old
= 13 or 14 years old
21. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use any inhalants?
= 0 days
= 1 or 2 days
= 3 to 5 days
= 6 to 9 days
= 10 to 19 days
= 20 to 29 days
= All 30 days
22. If you have ever used ANY OTHER TYPE OF ILLEGAL DRUG, such as
LSD, PCP, ecstasy, mushrooms, speed, ice, heroin, or pills without a doctor's
prescription, how old were you when you used them for the first time?
= I have never tried other illegal drugs
= Less than 9 years old
= 9 or 10 years old
= 11 or 12 years old
= 13 or 14 years old
23. During the past 30 days, how many times did you use ANY OTHER TYPE OF
ILLEGAL DRUG, SUCH AS LSD, PCP, ecstacy, mushrooms, speed, ice, heroin, or
pills without a doctor's prescription?
= 0 days
= 1 or 2 days
= 3 to 5 days
= 6 to 9 days
Relationship Security and Outcomes 67
= 10 to 19 days
= 20 to 29 days
= All 30 days
Now we'd like you to answer these questions about your relationships with boyfriends or girlfriends.
24. Have you ever had sexual intercourse (made love, gone all the way)?
= Yes
= No [SKIP TO THE END]
25. If you and a partner HAVE ever had sexual intercourse (made love, gone all the way):
How old were you when you first had sexual intercourse?
= Before 10
= 10 years old
= 11 years old
= 12 years old
= 13 years old
= 14 years old
= 15 years old
= 16 years old
26. DURING THE PAST YEAR, how many different partners have you
had sexual intercourse with?
= None
= 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = 7 = 8 = 9 = 10 or more
27. If you and a partner HAVE ever had sexual intercourse (made love, gone all the
way): DURING THE PAST YEAR, how often have you and/or your partner used
some form of contraception (for example: condom/rubber; birth control pill...)?
= Never
= Seldom
= Sometimes
= Often
= Always
28. If you and a partner HAVE ever had sexual intercourse (made love, gone all the
way): Have you EVER BEEN PREGNANT (for girls) or GOTTEN SOMEONE
PREGNANT (for boys)?
= Yes
= No