Bre Iven 2009 Does

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

1/29

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50:400426, 2009Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1050-2556 print/1540-4811 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10502550902766282

WJDR1050-25561540-4811Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 50, No. 6, June 2009: pp. 00Journal of Divorce & Remarriage

Does the Quality of ParentChildRelationships Mediate the Increased Riskfor Antisocial Behavior and Substance Use

Among Adolescents in Single-Motherand Single-Father Families?

ParentChild Relationships and DivorceK. Breivik et al.

KYRRE BREIVIK, DAN OLWEUS, and INGER ENDRESEN

Research Center for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

This study focuses on how specific parentchild relationship vari-

ables may function as mediators of the association between twopostdivorce family structures and antisocial behavior and substanceuse. Five parentchild relationship variables (mother/fatherchild

conflict, parental monitoring, and mother/fatherchild closeness)were tested as potential mediators of the relationship between liv-ing in a single-mother or single-father household and the outcome

variables in a sample of 4,117 students with modal ages of 11 to15 years. The applied multimediating path approach proved to bea useful method for identification of the relative importance of the

included mediators. As hypothesized, there was a clear tendencyfor motherchild conflict and parental monitoring to be the mostpotent mediators between residing in a divorced single-mother

household and the adolescents antisocial behavior and substanceuse. In the single-father household, on the other hand, only parentalmonitoring was a clear mediator.

The research reported was conducted within the Research Unit of the Olweus GroupAgainst Bullying at the HEMIL-center, University of Bergen, Norway. The research was sup-ported by grants from the Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation/Council forMental Health to Dan Olweus and Kyrre Breivik and from the Ministry of Children andEquality to Dan Olweus, which are gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due for grantsin earlier phases of the project from the National Association for Public Health.

Address correspondence to Kyrre Breivik, Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL),

Christiesgate 13, N-5015 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

2/29

ParentChild Relationships and Divorce 401

KEYWORDS divorce, adolescence, antisocial behavior, substanceuse, single mother, single father, parentchild relationship, mediatingeffect

It is well established that children of divorce residing with a single motherare at increased risk of developing both antisocial behavior and substanceuse compared with children in nondivorced two-biological-parent families(Amato, 2000). An accumulating body of research indicates that this riskmight be even greater for adolescents residing in single-father families (seeBreivik & Olweus, 2006a).

Several perspectives have been launched to explain why children ofdivorce are at risk, including economic, parental absence, stress, family process,selection, and parental adjustment perspectives (Amato, 1993; Hetherington,Bridges, & Insabella, 1998). In this study, we focus especially on the familyprocess perspective. Proponents of this perspective typically argue that allof the perspectives are probably needed to explain fully the increased riskof adjustment problems among children of divorce, but that the effects ofthe factors dealt with in the other perspectives are largely mediated throughdisruptions in family relationships and interactions (see Hetherington et al.,1998). The quality of the residential and nonresidential parentchild rela-tionship has often been given an especially prominent role in this perspective(Capaldi, DeGarmo, Patterson, & Forgatch, 2002; Dunn, Davies, OConnor, &

Sturgess, 2000; Laub & Sampson, 1988; Simons, 1996).A number of studies have examined whether the quality of the motherchild and the fatherchild relationship can serve as mediators of the associ-ations between living in a divorced single-mother household and antisocialbehavior or substance use, but the results from these studies have so farbeen inconsistent. Although some studies have found evidence to supportthe hypothesis that the quality of various parentchild relationship variablesmediates a fair amount of the link between residing in a divorced single-mother household and the development of antisocial behavior or substanceuse (Carlson, 2006; Hess & Camara, 1979; Hoffmann, 1993, 1995; Mcleod,

Kruttschnitt, & Dornfeld, 1994; Simons, Lin, Gordon, Conger, & Lorenz, 1999;Wood, Repetti, & Roesch, 2004), other studies have found only weak orno mediating effects (Dornbusch, 1985; Hetherington et al., 1992; Hilton &Desrochers, 2002; Kirby, 2002; Morrison & Cherlin, 1995; Thomson, Hanson, &McLanahan, 1994; Turner, Irwin, & Millstein, 1991). Inconsistent results havealso been found in the few studies that have tried to explain the increasedrisk of antisocial behavior and substance use among adolescents in single-fatherfamilies (Buchanan, Maccoby, & Dornbusch, 1992; Crawford & Novak, 2008;Deleire & Kalil, 2002; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Hilton & Desrochers, 2002;Hoffmann, 2002).

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

3/29

402 K. Breivik et al.

The mixed findings in previous studies in this area are probably tosome extent a result of methodological differences between the studies,such as use of different age groups or informants, cross-sectional versus lon-gitudinal designs and, perhaps of most importance, use of different mediator

variables. Aggregated parenting scales, or sets of variables comprising sev-eral parentchild relationship variables, have often been used as potentialmediators in these studies and, as the specific variables included in the scales orsets have often varied from study to study, the inconsistent results are notreally surprising.

To obtain more consistent results in future research, and thereby gaingreater understanding of the processes involved, it seems to be crucial toaccumulate more systematic knowledge about which particular parentchildrelationship mediators may be of most importance. For a parentchild rela-tionship variable to serve as a clear mediator (M) of the link between family

structure (X) and antisocial behavior or substance use (Y), it is importantthat there are relatively strong X M (family structure parentchild rela-tionship variable) and M Y (parentchild relationship variable antisocialbehavior or substance use) paths. The product of the X M and M Ypaths is an estimate of how much the X Y path will be altered by theinclusion of the mediator (see MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000). Conse-quently, the search for effective mediators becomes a search for mediatorsthat have at least moderately strong relationships with both the predictorand the outcome variable, as weak associations with either of these willmake the product of the X M and M Y paths small. Given this prerequisite,it is not surprising that previous studies that have failed to find clear mediat-ing effects have often used parentchild relationship variables that wereonly weakly associated with either single-parent status (Hetherington et al.,1992; Turner et al., 1991) or antisocial behavior and substance use (Deleire &Kalil, 2002; Dornbusch, 1985; Thomson et al., 1994).

THIS STUDY

Previous research on this sample has established that adolescents living indivorced single-mother or divorced single-father families have an increasedrisk of antisocial behavior and substance use (X Y) compared to theircounterparts in nondivorced two-parent families (Breivik & Olweus, 2006a,2006b).

The first aim of this study was to examine whether five different parentchild relationship variables (mother/fatherchild conflict, parental monitoring,and mother/fatherchild closeness), used as a set, would mediate the rela-tionships between residing in a single-mother or single-father householdand antisocial behavior or substance use among students in their early or

middle adolescence. These particular parentchild relationship variables

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

4/29


were included in this research because they are generally regarded as rela-tively strong predictors of antisocial behavior and substance use (Dishion &McMahon, 1998; Laursen & Collins, 1994; Smith & Stern, 1997). With regardto single-mother households we made a distinction between less and more

than 2 years elapsed since divorce as it is often assumed that the parentchild relationship is particularly troubled in the immediate years surround-ing the divorce (Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1982; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

The results from these mediating analyses are of interest in their ownright, as we are aware of no other Scandinavian study that has examinedthis issue. Most of the research in this area has been conducted in theUnited States and it is uncertain whether their findings can be generalized toScandinavian countries. For instance, research has repeatedly found thatpoor economic resources are associated with more troubled parentchildrelationships. It is therefore noteworthy that Scandinavian countries have a

much more generous welfare state than the United States, buffering single-parent families against much of the drop in income that the average single-parent family experiences in the United States (cf. Breivik & Olweus, 2006b).

Our hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) was that the parentchild relationshipvariables as a set would at least partly mediate the relationship betweenfamily structure and antisocial behavior or substance use.

However, based on our preceding considerations, we wanted in particularto examine the potential mediating effect of each of the specific parentchild relationship variables by using multimediation path analyses(MacKinnonet al., 2001). This particular statistical approach makes it possible to examinethe effects of both the X M and M Y paths simultaneously, and therebyto disentangle their contribution, or lack of contribution, to the mediatingeffects.

Potential Mediators

SINGLE-MOTHERHOUSEHOLDS

It was hypothesized that both the motherchild conflict and the parental

monitoring variables would have a mediating effect on the relation betweenliving in a single-mother household and the development of both antisocialbehavior and substance use (Hypothesis 2). Even if hardly any previousstudies have specifically tested whether motherchild conflict and parentalmonitoring serve such mediating roles (but see Matsueda & Heimer, 1987),the results from some correlation studies justify this prediction. Both motherchild conflict and lack of parental monitoring have been shown to be at leastmoderately associated with both single-mother status (Astone & McLanahan,1991; DeGarmo & Forgatch, 1999; Demo & Acock, 1996; Hetherington, 1991;Simons & Johnson, 1996) and level of antisocial behavior as well as substance

use (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Laursen & Collins, 1994; Montemayor, 1986)

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

5/29


in previous studies. The findings from these studies, then, are in line withthe previously mentioned requirement that both the X M and M Ypaths should be at least moderately strong for motherchild conflict and forparental monitoring to serve as clear mediators.

No hypothesis was launched with regard to the importance of motherchild closeness as a potential mediator. The results from previous researchare inconsistent, and it is not clear whether adolescents in single-motherfamilies tend to have a less close relationship with their mothers than theircounterparts in nuclear families (Falci, 2006; Guttmann & Rosenberg, 2003;Hetherington et al., 1992).

We did not expect fatherchild conflict and fatherchild closeness toserve as important mediators of the increased risk of either antisocial behavioror substance use among adolescents in the single-mother households. First,some previous research suggests that adolescents from single-mother fami-

lies actually have fewer conflicts with their fathers than their counterparts innuclear families (Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Laursen, 1995, 2005). In line

with this, one might expect that fatherchild conflict, if anything, wouldserve as a suppressor rather than as a mediator; that is, that the effect wouldbe negative and thereby actually counteract the risk of antisocial behaviorand substance use. Second, even if previous research (e.g., Falci, 2006;Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006; Peterson & Zill, 1986) has repeatedly shownthat adolescents in single-mother households have on average a less closerelationship with their father than their counterparts in nuclear families(indicating a strong X M path), low closeness with a nonresidential fatherseems to be only weakly associated with the development of antisocialbehavior (indicating a weak M Y path; Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Stewart,2003).

SINGLE-FATHERHOUSEHOLDS

Previous studies that have examined the quality and the influence of thefatherchild relationship and the nonresidential motherchild relationship insingle-father households are few in number and have given inconsistent

results. Therefore, we refrained from launching any specific hypotheses orexpectations regarding the potential mediating effects of these relationshipvariables. There is, however, one clear exception. The results from a growingnumber of studies suggest that adolescents in single-father families are moni-tored and supervised less than their peers in single-mother families (Buchananet al., 1992; Cookston, 1999; Crawford & Novak, 2008; Downey, 1994; Lippman,2004; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992).Based on the results of these studies, we hypothesized (Hypothesis 3) thatlack of parental monitoring would act as a mediator of the associationbetween living in a single-father household and the risk of both antisocial

behavior and substance use.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

6/29


Moderated Mediating Effects

As noted by Grant et al. (2006), previous mediator research has demon-strated that some mediation effects may only apply to particular groups of

youths or contexts, thereby indicating that the mediation effects are moderated.

In this study, we decided to examine the possible moderating effects ofgender and age on the included mediators. We hypothesized that we wouldfind one such moderated mediating effect involving age in this study. Age group

was hypothesized to moderate the possible mediating effect of monitoringon the relationship between living in a single-mother family and involvementin antisocial behavior. Specifically, we assumed that lack of monitoring wouldbe of more importance to the older adolescents development of antisocialbehavior, because they spend more time in peer groups without directadult supervision than do children in the younger age group (Patterson &

Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Snyder, 2002).

METHOD

Participants

The data that form the basis of this study were collected in the communityof Bergen, Norway, in the spring of 1997 (MayJune) as part of a large-scalecohort longitudinal intervention project under the direction of the secondauthor (see Olweus, 2005; Olweus & Limber, 1999; Solberg & Olweus,

2003). Bergen is the second largest city in Norway, with a population ofapproximately 225,000 in 1997. The original sample consisted of 5,171 stu-dents (88.1% of the total targeted population) in Grades 5 through 9 (2,544girls and 2,627 boys), with modal ages of 11 to 15 years, recruited from 37schools. Of the students, 3,182 were from the elementary level (Grades 57),and 1,989 students came from the lower secondary level (Grades 8 and 9).

Although the target population of this study only included schools in Bergen,there are grounds for assuming, on the basis of earlier large-scale studies(e.g., Olweus, 1991, 1993), that the sample in many respects is roughly rep-

resentative of other communities in Norway. A somewhat more detaileddescription of the sample is given in Solberg and Olweus (2003).Cross-sectional data were used in this study because only the first wave

questionnaire contained information about the quality of the parentchildrelationships. From the original sample, only students who reported thatthey lived with both their biological parents or had experienced divorce orseparation and lived in either a single-mother or single-father family wereincluded in the study. However, some of these students were excluded. Students

who lived with a single father and were either (a) in Grades 5 or 6 (n = 17)or (b) in Grades 7 through 9 (n = 11) and had experienced divorce or sepa-

ration less than 2 years previously were excluded due to low sample sizes

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

7/29


in these groups. In addition, we excluded students who lived in either a single-mother (n = 20) or single-father (n = 1) family who had missing data on allthe items regarding the relationship with their noncustodial parent and nomissing data on their relationship with their custodial parent. This was done

to exclude the participants who most likely had no contact with their non-custodial parent. This left us with a sample of 4,117 students, which wasdivided into two subsamples: Grades 5 and 6 (n = 1,737, clustered in 121school classes) and Grades 7 through 9 (n = 2,380 clustered in 138 schoolclasses).

Procedure

The questionnaire, composed of several subquestionnaires, was adminis-tered in the students regular classrooms. Two specially trained research

assistants administered the questionnaires with the teacher absent. Eachmeasurement occasion lasted for two school periods of 45 minutes. The stu-dents were told that their responses would be confidential (confidentiality

was achieved by means of a code system). All students who participated inthe project had received parental permission.

Measures

FAMILYSTRUCTURE

Four items were used to determine family structure. The respondents wereasked if their parents were divorced or separated or not; with whom theypresently lived with (including step-parents); which of their biological par-ents they lived with most of the time (biological mother, biological father,or both); and, if they had divorced or separated parents, the approximatelength of time since the divorce or separation. Based on their responses tothese items, the students in Grades 5 and 6 were classified as belongingto the following three groups or family structures: nondivorced two-parent(n = 1,498; girls = 741, boys = 757), single mother less than 2 years since

divorce (n = 51; girls = 29, boys = 22), and single mother more than 2 yearssince divorce (n = 188; girls = 93, boys = 95). Students in Grades 7 through9 were classified into four groups or family structures: nondivorced two-parent(n = 2,000; girls = 974, boys = 1,026), single mother less than 2 years sincedivorce (n = 61; girls = 27, boys = 34), single mother more than 2 yearssince divorce (n = 281; girls = 149, boys = 132), and single father more than2 years since divorce (n = 38; girls = 18, boys = 20).

The nondivorced two-parent group consisted of adolescents whoreported that (a) they lived with both their biological parents, (b) their parents

were not divorced or separated, (c) they did not live with a step-parent, and

(d) they did not live with foster parents. Along with adolescents who lived

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

8/29


with their married parents, this group was also likely to include some ado-lescents living with both biological parents who had been cohabiting sincetheir birth. However, this group was probably very small, as it was uncommonin Norway in the early to mid-1980s (when the adolescents in this study

were born) to grow up with long-term cohabiting biological parents (Jensen &Clausen, 1997).To be included in the single-mother groups, adolescents had to affirm

that (a) their parents were divorced or separated, (b) they lived mostly withtheir biological mother at the time of the study, (c) there was no stepfatheror male cohabitor or friend of the mother in the household, and (d) theydid not live with foster parents. Corresponding criteria were used for inclu-sion in the single-father group. We did not exclude adolescents in single -parent families who lived with other persons (e.g., grandparents, aunts)beyond those already mentioned, due to the fact that only a small fraction

(4.3% or less) of the adolescents in our single-parent groups reported thatthey lived with such persons.

PARENTALEDUCATION

To assess parental education, the older participants (Grades 79) wereasked what level of education their parents had. There were separate ques-tions for fathers and mothers education. The three response categories were(a) compulsory primary (and lower secondary) school (usually 9 years), (b)secondary education (usually 12 years), and (c) college or university education(typically more than 12 years). In addition, there was a category for dontknow. In an earlier (unpublished) study, students responses about parentaleducation were found to correlate reasonably well with the responses pro-

vided by the parents themselves (a Pearson correlation of approximately .50).Fathers level of education was included as a covariate in the analyses(Grades 79) to control for possible socioeconomic differences. Motherslevel of education did not differ significantly among the groups and was notincluded in the analyses.

OUTCOMEVARIABLES

To assess the degree of involvement in nonviolent antisocial activities, weused the 17-item Bergen Questionnaire on Antisocial Behavior developedby Olweus and described in detail in Bendixen and Olweus (1999). Ten ofthese items concerned relatively nonserious, highly prevalent activities (e.g.,avoiding paying for things, scribbling on the school building, skippingschool for a whole day), whereas seven items covered more serious, lessprevalent activities (e.g., signing someone elses name to obtain money orother things; purposely breaking chairs, tables, etc. in school; breaking into a

shop; etc.). The students were asked if they had done the listed act this term

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

9/29


(the past 45 months), and the response alternatives were 0 (no), 1 (once),and 2 (two or more times).

In this study, we used a variety version of the scale, which is a sum-mary measure of the range of antisocial acts that the individual reported to

have committed this term. Variety scales are generally considered to be goodindicators of an individuals involvement in antisocial behaviors (Bendixen,Endresen, & Olweus, 2003; Bendixen & Olweus, 1999). Cronbachs alphafor this scale was .84.

Three scales (Use of Illegal Drugs, Often Drunk, and Regular Smoker)were standardized, combined and used as a Substance Use scale among thestudents in the older age group. The Use of Illegal Drugs scale included fiveitems assessing whether the respondents had used any illegal drugs (sniffedglue, used hashish, amphetamines, etc.) this term. The response alterna-tives were the same as for antisocial behavior. Often Drunk was assessed by

asking the students How often do you drink beer, wine, or spirits in orderto get more or less drunk? The response alternatives were 0 (never oralmost never), 1 (rarely), 2 (two or three times a month), 3 (about once a week),and 4 (several times a week). Regular Smoker was assessed by asking therespondents Do you smoke cigarettes or hand-rolled tobacco regularly?The response alternatives for this question were 0 (no, I have hardly ever

smoked), 1 (no, I only smoke occasionally), 2 (yes, but I do not smoke every day),and 3 (yes, I smoke every day). The correlation between the scales used inthe Substance Use scale ranged from .37 (between Use of Illegal Drugs andRegular Smoker) to .70 (between Often Drunk and Regular Smoker).

We performed some preliminary analyses to test whether it was appro-priate to combine the measures into a common substance use scale. Theseanalyses revealed very similar findings irrespective of whether we used oneof the three subscales or the combined scale in the analyses. Furthermore, theCronbachs alpha for the Substance Use scale (based on the three subscales)

was adequate (.76).

PARENTCHILDRELATIONSHIPVARIABLES (POSSIBLEMEDIATORS)

Motherchild conflict was assessed by a single item (I quarrel a lot with mymother), whereas motherchild closeness was assessed by the average oftwo items (I can talk with my mother about things that I find important,and My mother and I understand each other well). The correlationbetween these two items was .63, Cronbachs alpha = .77. Correspondingitems were used to assess the fatherchild relationship (correlation = .67,Cronbachs alpha = .80).

Parental monitoring was measured using a four-item scale (e.g. It isimportant for my parents to know where I am and what I do during my sparetime and My parents usually know who I am with during my spare time).

Cronbachs alpha was .81. The responses to all of the preceding parentchild

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

10/29


relationship variables were measured by using a 6-point Likert scale withscore values varying from 1 (does not apply at all) through 6 (appliescompletely).

Missing Data

The amount of missing data was very low for variables measuring antisocialbehavior and substance use (2% or lower), rather low for various parentadolescent relationship variables (1.77.8%) but high for the items measur-ing parents education (approximately 34% had missing data or checkeddont know). We replaced missing data using the Mplus3.11 built-in fullinformation maximum likelihood (FIML) procedure. Unlike standard ad hocmissing data routines, such as mean replacement or pairwise deletion, FIMLis based on sound theory. This method is generally regarded as superior to

the other two methods unless the data are missing completely at random,which is seldom the case (Allison, 2002; Schafer & Graham, 2002).

Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses were performed with the Mplus3.11 program package,which includes a sandwich estimator (HuberWhite) that takes the nesteddesign into account in the computation of standard errors. The outcome

variables were log transformed to reduce skewness.Three different models were formulated for this study: antisocial behavior

model for the fifth and sixth graders, antisocial behavior model for the sev-enth through ninth graders, and substance use model for the seventh throughninth graders. We did not formulate a substance use model for the fifth andsixth graders as items measuring the use of alcohol and illegal drugs wereonly available for the older age group. All of the students were asked about

whether they smoked cigarettes but this item turned out to be of limitedvalue for the fifth and sixth graders as the great majority (97%) of themreported that they never or hardly ever smoke cigarettes or hand-rolledtobacco.

All three models used in our analyses are versions of what we term thegeneral multiple mediator model, which is shown in Figure 1. The mediators(motherchild conflict, fatherchild conflict, monitoring, motherchild close-ness, and fatherchild closeness) were allowed to correlate with each otherin these models. The same was true of the independent variables (singlemother < 2 years, single mother > 2 years, single father > 2 years, age, gender,and fathers education [Grades 79 only]). As noted previously, the singlefather more than 2 years group was left out of the model dealing with fifthand sixth graders due to small sample size. Both the mediator and outcome

variables were standardized, and the dummy-coded family structure vari-

able was left in its original form. The unstandardized paths between the

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

11/29


mediators and the outcome variables are then identical to partial standard-ized betas, whereas the paths between the family structure variables and themediators are expressed in standard deviation units (similar to Cohens d).

The general multiple mediation model was our first choice because ofits parsimony. An important assumption of this model is that the specificmediators predict the outcome variables (antisocial behavior and substanceuse, respectively) similarly across the different family structures included inthis study. If this assumption is not met, this is an indication of the presenceof a moderated mediation effect (cf. Model 1 in Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes,

2007), in which the M

Y path (parentchild relationship variable

antisocialbehavior or substance use) is moderated by X (family structure). Accord-ingly, the model would have to be regarded as somewhat misspecified.However, because no such interaction (moderated mediation) effects werefound (tested by multigroup analyses; Byrne, 2001) the validity of the appliedmodels was supported.

In an initial set of analyses, the parameters involving the mediatorswere fixed to zero to leave out possible mediating effects. This was done toenable us to estimate and test the significance of the total effects. However,in this study, it was of particular interest to decompose the total effect of a

specific family structure on the relevant outcome variable into its indirect

FIGURE 1 General multiple mediator model The covariates age, sex, and fathers education(for Grades 79) and the correlations between the mediators are omitted from the figure. Theindependent family structure variable is a set of dummy-coded variables where the nondi-

vorced two-parent family served as a reference group.

Single mother

< 2 years

Single mother

> 2 years

Single father

> 2 years

Mother-child

conflict

Father-child

conflict

Monitoring

Mother-child

closeness

Father-child

closeness

Outcome

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

12/29


and direct effects, and estimation of the remaining parameters and their sig-nificance levels were based on multiple mediation models in which noparameters were fixed. A total indirect effect quantifies how much the totalset of the included mediators contributes to the relationship between the

specific family structure and the specific outcome variable, whereas the totaldirect effect reflects how much of the total effect is left unexplained by thetotal set of mediators included in the study.

The total indirect effects can be decomposed further into the specificindirect effects; that is, to what degree each specific mediator mediates thefamily structureoutcome relation. The specific indirect effects were calcu-lated by multiplying the value derived from the path leading from a familystructure to a specific mediator (X M path) with the value derived fromthe path of that specific mediator to the outcome variable (M Y path).Following MacKinnon et al. (2001), we chose to use Mplus default Sobel

(delta) method when testing the significance of the indirect effects in themultiple mediation models. We chose this conservative method because therather high number of mediating effects tested in this study increased the risk ofType I errors.

We also wanted to investigate whether possible indirect effects mightbe moderated by gender or age. Such an effect is supported if at least oneof the two paths that represent the indirect effect (X M, M Y) is signif-icantly moderated by one of these variables (Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005).

We tested for such moderated mediating effects by the use of multigroupmodeling (Byrne, 2001), and used the SatorraBentler scaled chi-square(see www.statmodel.com) for chi-square difference testing, due to the nesteddesign of our study. When we investigated whether age group functionedas a moderator, we had to leave out fathers education, as this covariate wasnot available for the younger group.

Preliminary analyses revealed that none of the paths in the three gen-eral multiple mediation models tested were significantly moderated by gender.Girls and boys were therefore treated as one group in all of the subsequentanalyses.

RESULTS

Total Effects

As shown in Table 1, the total effects (described in the first row beneatheach family structure heading) reveal that children in both single-motherand single-father families reported both more antisocial behavior and sub-stance use than their counterparts in nondivorced two-biological-parentfamilies. Using Cohens (1988) criteria, the effect sizes (expressed in stan-dard deviation units) ranged from rather small (.172) to moderate (.436)

among adolescents who resided with their single mother, whereas the effect

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

13/29


sizes were rather strong (.724.930) for adolescents who lived with their singlefather.

The total effects were significantly different from zero, with two excep-tions: the effect on antisocial behavior in the younger students (Grades 5and 6) and the effect on substance use in the older students (Grades 79)in the single mother < 2 years family structures. However, at least with

regard to the risk of antisocial behavior in the younger group, the effect size

TABLE 1 Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects (Expressed in Standard Deviation Units) ofFamily Structure on Outcome Variable (Antisocial Behavior or Substance Use)

Antisocial behaviorSubstance

use

Grade 56 Grade 79 Grade 79

Single mother < 2 years n = 51 n = 61 n = 61Total effect 0.269 0.436** 0.172Direct effect 0.039 0.282* 0.024Total indirect effect 0.230*** 0.154** 0.148**

Percent mediated by total indirect effect 86% 35% 86%

Specific indirect effectVia motherchild conflict 0.134** 0.073* 0.065*Via fatherchild conflict 0.025 0.002 0.002Via monitoring 0.032 0.059* 0.074*Via motherchild closeness 0.032 0.001 0.004

Via fatherchild closeness 0.007 0.021

0.012Single mother > 2 years n = 188 n = 281 n = 281

Total effect 0.212* 0.298*** 0.349***Direct effect 0.114 0.168** 0.225***Total indirect effect 0.098** 0.130*** 0.124***

Percent mediated by total indirect effect 46% 44% 36%

Specific indirect effectVia motherchild conflict 0.057** 0.077*** 0.067***Via fatherchild conflict 0.001 0.015* 0.010

Via monitoring 0.025* 0.048*** 0.059***Via motherchild closeness 0.009 0.001 0.003Via fatherchild closeness 0.008 0.019* 0.011

Single father > 2 years NA n = 38 n = 38Total effect NA 0.724*** 0.930***Direct effect NA 0.470*** 0.651**Indirect effect (total) NA 0.254** 0.279**

Percent mediated by total indirect effect NA 35% 30%

Specific indirect effectVia motherchild conflict NA 0.004 0.003Via fatherchild conflict NA 0.012 0.008Via monitoring NA 0.214*** 0.259***Via motherchild closeness NA 0.002 0.006V ia fatherchild closeness NA 0.026 0.014

Note. Nondivorced two-parent family served as reference group (Grade 56, n = 1,498; Grade 79,n = 2,000). NA = not available.p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

14/29


(.269 SD units) was of such an order that the nonsignificant finding wasmost likely primarily due to the small sample size in this group (n = 51).

Direct and Indirect Effects

A main aim of this study was to examine the contribution of the parentchild relationship variables as mediators between family structure and anti-social behavior and substance use. The mediating role of the parentchildrelationship variables were clearly supported as all of the total indirecteffects tested in this study were significant (Hypothesis 1), and these indi-rect effects can be considered rather large. The set of parentchild relation-ship variables accounted for as much as 35% to 86% of the total effects((total indirect effect/total effect)* 100) in single-mother families, and 30% to35% in single-father families.

SPECIFICINDIRECTEFFECTS

In this section, we examine whether there are any specific parentchild vari-ables that function as particularly strong mediators and whether these differfor adolescents living in single-mother versus single-father families. Thespecific effects of these mediators are described in the Specific IndirectEffect heading in Table 1.

As hypothesized (Hypothesis 2), there was a clear tendency for mother

child conflict and monitoring to be the most potent mediators of the associationbetween residing in a divorced single-mother household and adolescentsdevelopment of antisocial behavior and substance use. These findings wereconsistent across the four single-mother groups (divided according to timesince divorce and the adolescents grade level). These indirect effects weretypically in the range of .05 to .08 SDunits. However, there was a tendency formonitoring to be a somewhat weaker mediator of the effect of living with asingle mother in the younger age group (effects varying from .025.032 SDunits).Motherchild conflict, in contrast, served as a particularly pronounced mediatorof the relationship between living with a recently divorced single mother and

antisocial behavior in the same age group (.134 SDunits).Monitoring was, as expected (Hypothesis 3), a particularly strong (and

the only significant) mediator of the effect of residing in a divorced single-father household on both antisocial behavior (.214 SDunits) and substanceuse (.259 SDunits).

FURTHERDECOMPOSITIONOFTHESPECIFICEFFECTS

The background of these mediation effects can be understood by studying

the various paths of the models, which are shown in Table 2. Recall that the

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

15/29


specific indirect effect is calculated by multiplying the value derived fromthe path leading from the relevant family structure to a specific mediator(X M) with the value derived from the path of that specific mediator onan outcome variable (M Y).

Motherchild conflict and monitoring functioned as clear mediators of

the link between living in a single-mother household and both antisocialbehavior and substance use, and in most cases both these mediators con-tained a rather strong X M and a rather strong M Y path. For instance,in the antisocial behavior, seventh to ninth grade column, it can be seenthat motherchild conflict had a moderately strong relationship with bothsingle mother < 2 years (X M, .316) and antisocial behavior (M Y, .230).Similarly, it can be observed in the same column that monitoring had a par-ticularly strong relationship with single father > 2 years (X M, .949) anda moderately strong relationship with antisocial behavior (M Y, .225).Motherchild conflict in single-father families did not function as a mediator

due to weak X M paths for both antisocial behavior and substance use.

TABLE 2 Decomposition of Specific Indirect Effects into Family Structure on Mediator Pathsand Mediator on Outcome Paths

Outcome

Antisocial behavior Substance use

Grade 56 Grade 79 Grade 79

X M M Y X M M Y X M M Y

Single mother < 2 yearsMotherchild conflict 0.696*** 0.192*** 0.316** 0.230*** 0.326** 0.198***Fatherchild conflict 0.360 0.069* 0.029 0.077*** 0.037 0.051*Monitoring 0.268* 0.119*** 0.260* 0.225*** 0.268* 0.275***Motherchild closeness 0.339* 0.093* 0.228 0.006 0.237* 0.017Fatherchild closeness 0.485** 0.012 0.291 0.073* 0.301* 0.040

Single mother > 2 yearsMotherchild conflict 0.299*** 0.192*** 0.336*** 0.230*** 0.337*** 0.198***Fatherchild conflict 0.008 0.069* 0.189** 0.077*** 0.187** 0.051*Monitoring 0.206** 0.119*** 0.214*** 0.225*** 0.214*** 0.275***Motherchild closeness 0.094 0.093* 0.155* 0.006 0.156* 0.017Fatherchild closeness 0.514*** 0.012 0.266*** 0.073* 0.267*** 0.040

Single father > 2 yearsMotherchild conflict NA NA 0.018 0.230*** 0.018 0.198***Fatherchild conflict NA NA 0.155 0.077*** 0.154 0.051*Monitoring NA NA 0.949*** 0.225*** 0.944*** 0.275***Motherchild closeness NA NA 0.324 0.006 0.324 0.017Fatherchild closeness NA NA 0.360 0.073* 0.359 0.040

Note. NA = Not available. X M (expressed in standard deviation units) = Family structure on mediator

path in Figure 1. M Y (expressed in standardized beta) = Mediator on outcome path in Figure 1.p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

16/29


The remaining potential mediators (fatherchild conflict, motherchild closeness, and fatherchild closeness) failed to function as clearmediators mainly because they were only weakly related to both antisocialbehavior and substance use (the M Y paths). In fact, all of these M Y

paths were less than .10 standardized Betas. Thus, even if adolescents inboth single-mother and single-father households were at moderate risk ofreporting a lack of fatherchild closeness, and in most cases at small tomoderate risk of reporting a lack of motherchild closeness, these parentchild variables failed to function as clear mediators due to weak M Ypaths.

Young adolescents who lived with a recently divorced mother alsoreported more fatherchild conflict than their peers in nuclear families(.360 SD units), but this relationship variable also failed to act as a clearmediator due to its weak relationship with antisocial behavior. The rest of

the adolescents living with a single parent of either sex were at no, or at asmall, but significantly lower, risk (seventhninth graders in the singlemother > 2 years group) of fatherchild conflict compared with their coun-terparts in nuclear families. The latter is an example of where the X M path

was small (SDunits < .20) in addition to the small M Y path (standardizedBeta < .10). A similar tendency was found with regard to motherchildcloseness in the single mother > 2 years group.

Possible Moderated Mediation Effects

As mentioned earlier, there was a tendency for monitoring to act as asomewhat weaker mediator of the increased risk of antisocial behavioramong the younger adolescents in single-mother households when com-pared with their older counterparts. As can be seen in Table 2, this age-related difference was mainly due to the fact that the path from monitoringto antisocial behavior (M Y) was nearly twice as strong in the olderthan the younger age group (.225 vs. .119 standardized Betas). Thisdifference was found to be highly significant (SatorraBentler scaledchi-square = 22.12, df= 1, p < .001), and thus supports the occurrence of

a moderated mediating effect.It was also noted previously that the mediating effect of motherchildconflict on the relationship between living with a single mother and antiso-cial behavior was particularly large among the younger adolescents wholived with a recently divorced single mother. This specific effect can beattributed to the fact that this particular group tended to have a larger risk ofmotherchild conflict than other single-mother groups (X M, .696 vs.approximately .300 SD units). However, this path was not significantlystronger for this group than for the older adolescents who had lived with arecently divorced single mother (SatorraBentler scaled chi-square = 0.66,

df= 1,p > .05).

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

17/29


DISCUSSION

Main Results

The results obtained from the mediation analyses gave strong support to

our first hypothesis. Including the parentchild relationship variables as aset had significant mediating effects on the relations between living with adivorced single parent and an increased risk of antisocial behavior and sub-stance use. This was the case in all four single-mother groups as well as inthe single-father group, and as much as 30% to 86% of the effects weremediated by the parentchild relationship variables used in this study.

The most important aim of our study was to analyze the mediatingeffects in more detail than has usually been done before, by disentanglingthe effect of each of the specific parentchild relationship variables. Themultimediating path approach used to analyze the data proved to be useful,

and some mediators were identified as clearly more important than others.In line with our second hypothesis, these analyses revealed that both motherchild conflict and lack of parental monitoring served as important mediatorsof the relationship between living within a single-mother household andproblematic outcomes. These findings were especially convincing as they

were consistent across age groups, time elapsed since divorce, and domainof functioning (antisocial behavior or substance use). Also, our third hypothesis

was strongly supported. Lack of parental monitoring served as an especiallyimportant mediator of the increased risk of antisocial behavior as well assubstance use in the adolescents living with their divorced single fathers.The remaining parentchild relationship variables did not function as clearmediators because they had a weak relationship with either family structure(X M path), the outcome variables (M Y path), or both.

We also examined if the effects of the mediators might be moderatedby the students gender, but no such moderating effects were identified.However, the results for age indicated the presence of a couple of suchmoderated mediating effects. These are discussed later in connection withthe relevant mediators.

ParentChild Conflict

The results for motherchild conflict yielded in most cases the strongestmediation effects between single-mother residence status and the develop-ment of antisocial behavior and substance use. The mediating effects forantisocial behavior tended to be particularly strong for the younger students

who had experienced a parental divorce within the last 2 years. The decom-position of the specific indirect effect revealed that the strength of this medi-ating effect could be attributed to the fact that the adolescents in this group

were at an especially high risk of being in conflict with their mother. A similar

pattern, although with a clearly weaker effect (p < .10), was also found for

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

18/29


fatherchild conflict in this group. It is important to emphasize, however,that the strength of the increased risk of motherchild conflict was not sig-nificantly stronger for this particular group than for the older adolescents

who lived with their recently divorced single mothers. This was probably at

least in part a consequence of low power (low sample size in the groups).These findings give some support to the usefulness of taking the age ofthe children and adolescents, as well as time elapsed since the divorce, intoconsideration in the analyses. The increased vulnerability caused by parentalconflicts among the younger adolescents who had experienced a parentaldivorce within the last 2 years can probably be traced to their cognitive andemotional developmental status at the time of the divorce of their parents.

According to Wallerstein and Kelly (1980), children who are 9 to 12 yearsold at the time of their parental divorce may be especially prone to feelanger and direct those feelings toward their parents as a way of deflecting

their feelings of sadness and helplessness. This might partly explain the highdegree of conflict with their custodial mothers and, to a lesser degree, theirnoncustodial fathers in the younger single mother

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

19/29


and disagreements about rules and regulations from developing into pettybickering or full-blown conflicts (cf. Clarke-Stewart & Hayward, 1996; Gjerde,1986; Maccoby, 1998).

As expected, fatherchild conflict failed to act as an important mediator

of the increased risk of antisocial behavior and substance use in single-mother families. Similarly, motherchild conflict did not mediate the rela-tionship between living with a single father and antisocial behavior andsubstance use. Apart from the younger students who lived with a recentlydivorced single mother (see earlier), adolescents in single-parent familiesdid not judge their relationship with their nonresidential parent as moreconflictual than adolescents in nuclear families did with the correspondingparent. In fact, the older students who lived with their single mothers whohad been divorced for more than 2 years assessed their relationships withtheir fathers as significantly less conflictual than did their counterparts in

nuclear families (for similar findings see Furstenberg & Nord, 1985; Laursen,1995, 2005). In this case, fatherchild conflict actually served as a (weak)suppressor rather than a mediator. These findings fit well with studies thathave found that nonresidential parents often try to make their limited timetogether with their children as fun and conflict-free as possible (Kielty, 2006;Simons, Whitbeck, Beaman, & Conger, 1994; Stewart, 1999).

Parental Monitoring

As noted earlier, lack of parental monitoring was an especially important,and in fact the only significant, mediator of the increased risk of both antisocialbehavior and substance use among adolescents living with their single father.It is not unlikely that this strong effect might, at least partly, be interpretedin light of traditional gender roles.

Results from previous research have repeatedly shown that mothers, onaverage, are more involved with their adolescent children, monitor andsupervise them more closely, and have a closer and more intimate relation-ship with them than fathers do (Collins & Laursen, 2004; Hawkins et al.,2006; Lamb & Tamis-Lemonda, 2004; Maccoby, 1998; Updegraff, McHale,

Crouter, & Kupanoff, 2001; Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson-Newsom,2004). Single fathers are assumed to be especially prone to having problemswith the monitoring of their offspring, both because they seem to have lessknowledge about their childrens friends and activities throughout theirdevelopment and because they might have a less intimate and open rela-tionship with them (Hetherington et al., 1998; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).

When taking a closer look at the decomposition of this indirect effect, wesee that our results fit rather well with this view. It is the path between thedivorced single-father family structure and lack of parental monitoring thatis unusually strong, even if the contribution of the M Y (monitoring

antisocial behavior and substance use) path is also marked for this mediator.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

20/29


It is important to stress, however, that due to the cross-sectional design,no firm conclusions about cause and effects can be drawn from these results.It is possible that the low level of monitoring found among single fathersmight at least to some extent reflect selection effects. Even though fathers

gain custody of their children for a number of reasons, it is not uncommonthat this is due to particular disadvantaged situations (e.g., the mother haspsychological problems or there is strong motherchild or motherfather con-flict;Buchanan et al., 1992; Herreras, 1995; Kielty, 2006; Maccoby & Mnookin,1992). Problems with monitoring might thus partly be due to problematicbehaviors among these adolescents already being established before their res-idence in the single-father household (Buchanan et al., 1992).

Lack of monitoring was also significant in all four single-mother familystructures, and these associations were of similar strengths irrespective ofthe time elapsed since their parents divorce. As regards age, parental moni-

toring was, as expected, a more important mediator of the relationship amongthe older adolescents (Grades 79) than among the young adolescents(Grades 5 and 6). The more serious consequences of poor monitoring in theolder students could be due to an increasing amount of time spent on socializ-ing in peer groups without direct adult supervision (Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Snyder, 2002).

ParentChild Closeness

In our full model with all predictors included, neither motherchild nor fatherchild closeness served as clear mediators between family structure and anti-social behavior or substance use. This was mainly due to the fact that these

variables turned out to be very weak predictors of both antisocial behaviorand substance use. It should be noted, however, that there were in fact sig-nificant negative zero-order correlations between motherchild and fatherchild closeness and antisocial behavior and substance use but these relations

were (largely) wiped out by the motherchild conflict and monitoring vari-ables, which were more strongly associated with the two outcome variables.

A similar finding has been reported by some other researchers (Buchanan

et al., 1992; Ingram, Patchin, Huebner, McCluskey, & Bynum, 2007; Warr,2005), who discovered that a substantial part of the association between res-idential parentchild closeness and adolescents antisocial behavior or sub-stance use was mediated through the effect of parental monitoring. Theseresearchers typically interpreted this finding as reflecting the possibility thatparentchild closeness helps parents monitor their children more effectivelythrough greater child disclosure, for example. More research is needed,however, as other studies (e.g., Demuth & Brown, 2004; Mack, Leiber,Featherstone, & Monserud, 2007) have found that parent-child closeness andattachment seem to have a clear impact on antisocial behavior and substance

use even if one controls for the effect of parental monitoring.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

21/29


Possible Strengths and Limitations

The applied multimediating path approach proved to be very useful, bothto identify the most potent of the specific mediators, and to disentangle

which paths (X M, M Y, or both) contributed most to the mediation

effects. Further, the somewhat different results for the different age groupssupported the view that an integration of mediators and moderators in thisresearch area might give valuable information.

A clear strength of this study is the relatively large sample and the lowattrition rate. Even if the sample sizes of the single-father and recentlydivorced single-mother groups are relatively small, this reflects the lowerprevalence of these family constellations as compared with single mothers

who divorced more than 2 years ago. Another advantage of the study is theinclusion of items that tap both mothers and fathers degree of closeness

and conflict with their children, and not only mothers or custodial parentsrelationships with their children, as has often been the case in previousstudies.

A limitation of the study might be the sole reliance on self-reports fromthe adolescents. The use of adolescents self-reports for both the mediatorsand the outcome variables might have led to somewhat inflated associationsdue to a possible same-source bias (Amato, 1993). Still, it is difficult toexplain on the basis of same-source bias why motherchild conflict andmonitoring were the only variables that came out as clear mediators, espe-cially because these results were consistent across age groups and time

elapsed since divorce.Another measurement issue is the fact that most of the applied parent

child relationship variables were based on relatively few items, and it couldbe argued that inclusion of more items would have increased the reliabilityand the validity of the measures. However, for motherchild conflict andmonitoring, most of the findings were consistent across age groups, timeelapsed since divorce, and domain of functioning. This consistency suggeststhat these variables capture valid and important information.

From a causal analytic point of view, the cross-sectional design of ourstudy is a limitation, as it prevents firm conclusions about cause and effect,

and our results might to some degree be influenced by selection effects. Wewere prevented from taking advantage of the longitudinal data set due tothe fact that information about parent-child relationships was only availableat Wave 1. In future research, it might be favorable if changes in familystructure and relationships following a divorce are studied over time withrepeated measurements of possible moderators and mediators as well as theoutcome variables. Also, to gain a more complete picture, it would beimportant to include additional relevant parentchild relationship variables

with a focus on the relationship with the residential as well as the nonresi-dential parent.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

22/29


REFERENCES

Allison, P. D. (2002).Missing data. London: Sage.Amato, P. R. (1993). Childrens adjustment to divorceTheories, hypotheses, and

empirical support.Journal of Marriage and the Family,55, 2338.Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 62, 12691287.Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and childrens well-being:

A meta-analysis.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 557573.Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and

high school completion.American Sociological Review,56, 309320.Avison, W. R., & Davies, L. (2005). Family structure, gender, and health in the con-

text of the life course.Journal of Gerontology: Series B, 60, 113116.Bendixen, M., Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Variety and frequency scales

of antisocial involvement: Which one is better? Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 8, 135150.Bendixen, M., & Olweus, D. (1999). Measurement of antisocial behaviour in early

adolescence and adolescence: Psychometric properties and substantive find-ings. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,9, 323354.

Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006a). Adolescents adjustment in four post-divorce family structures: Single mother, stepfather, joint physical custodyand single father families. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 44(34),99124.

Breivik, K., & Olweus, D. (2006b). Children of divorce in a Scandinavian welfare state:Are they less affected than US children? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47,

6174.Buchanan, C. M., Maccoby, E. E., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1992). Adolescents and theirfamilies after divorce: Three residential arrangements compared. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 2, 261291.Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Capaldi, D., DeGarmo, D., Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. (2002). Contextual

risk across the early life span and association with antisocial behavior. InJ. B. Reid, J. J. Snyder, & G. R. Patterson (Eds.), Antisocial behavior inchildren and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for interven-

tion (pp. 123145, 285332). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behav-

ioral outcomes.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 137154.Christoffersen, M. N. (1998). Growing up with dadA comparison of children aged

35 years old living with their mothers or their fathers. Childhood: A GlobalJournal of Child Research,5, 4154.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Hayward, C. (1996). Advantages of father custody and con-tact for the psychological well-being of school-age children. Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology, 17, 239270.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

23/29


Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parentadolescent relationships and influences.In R. M. Lerner & L. D. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology(2nd ed., pp. 331361). New York: Wiley.

Cookston, J. T. (1999). Parental supervision and family structure: Effects on adoles-cent problem behaviors.Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,32(12), 107122.

Crawford, L. A., & Novak, K. B. (2008). Parentchild relations and peer associationsas mediators of the family structuresubstance use relationship. Journal of

Family Issues, 29, 155184.DeGarmo, D., & Forgatch, M. (1999). Contexts as predictors of changing maternal

parenting practices in diverse family structures: A social interactional perspec-tive of risk and resilience. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Coping with divorce,

single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and resiliency perspective(pp. 227252).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deleire, T., & Kalil, A. (2002). Good things come in threes: Single-parent multigenera-tional family structure and adolescent adjustment.Demography,39, 393413.

Demo, D. H., & Acock, A. C. (1996). Family structure, family process, and adoles-cent well-being.Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 457488.

Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and adoles-cent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 5881.Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of

child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formula-tion. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 6175.

Dornbusch, S. T. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control ofadolescents. Child Development,56, 326341.

Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-mother andsingle-father familiesEconomic or interpersonal deprivation?Journal of Family

Issues, 15, 129147.Dunn, J., Davies, L. C., OConnor, T. G., & Sturgess, W. (2000). Parents and partners

life course and family experiences: Links with parentchild relationships indifferent family settings.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied

Disciplines, 41, 955968.Falci, C. (2006). Family structure, closeness to residential and nonresidential par-

ents, and psychological distress in early and middle adolescence. SociologicalQuarterly, 47, 123146.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Nord, C. W. (1985). Parenting apartPatterns of child-rearing

after marital disruption.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 893904.Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The interpersonal structure of family interaction settings:

Parentadolescent relations in dyads and triads.Developmental Psychology, 22,297304.

Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Thurm, A. E., McMahon, S. D., Gipson, P. Y., Campbell, A. J.,et al. (2006). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Evi-dence of moderating and mediating effects. Clinical Psychology Review, 26,257283.

Guttmann, J., & Rosenberg, M. (2003). Emotional intimacy and childrens adjustment:A comparison between single-parent divorced and intact families. EducationalPsychology, 23, 457472.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

24/29


Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2006). Parentadolescent involvement:The relative influence of parent gender and residence.Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 68, 125136.

Herreras, C. (1995). Noncustodial mothers following divorce. Marriage & FamilyReview, 20(12), 233255.

Hess, R. D., & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediatingfactors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues,

35(4), 7996.Hetherington, E. M. (1991). Presidential address: Families, lies, and videotapes.

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 323348.Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters? What

does not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions andchildrens adjustment.American Psychologist,53, 167184.

Hetherington, E. M., Clingempeel, W. G., Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Hagan, M. S.,Hollier, E. A., et al. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems

perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,57(23).

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1982). Effects of divorce on parents andchildren. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), Nontraditional families: Parenting and childdevelopment(pp. 233288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hilton, J. M., & Desrochers, S. (2002). Childrens behavior problems in single-parentand married-parent families: Development of a predictive model. Journal of

Divorce and Remarriage,37(12), 1336.Hilton, J. M., Desrochers, S., & Devall, E. L. (2001). Comparison of role demands,

relationships, and child functioning in single-mother, single-father, and intactfamilies.Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,35(12), 2956.

Hoffmann, J. P. (1993). Exploring the direct and indirect family effects on adoles-cent drug-use.Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 535557.

Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). The effects of family-structure and family-relations on ado-lescent marijuana use.International Journal of the Addictions,30, 12071241.

Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The community context of family structure and adolescentdrug use.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 314330.

Ingram, J. R., Patchin, J. W., Huebner, B. M., McCluskey, J. D., & Bynum, T. S.(2007). Parents, friends, and serious delinquency: An examination of direct andindirect effects among at-risk early adolescents. Criminal Justice Review, 32,380400.

Jensen, A. M., & Clausen, S. E. (1997). Barns familier. Samboerskap og forel-drebrudd etter 1970 [Childrens families. Consensual unions and parentalbreak-up since 1970]. (Rep. No. 21). Oslo: NIBR.

Kielty, S. (2006). Similarities and differences in the experiences of non-residentmothers and non-resident fathers.International Journal of Law, Policy and the

Family, 20, 7494.Kirby, J. B. (2002). The influence of parental separation on smoking initiation in

adolescents.Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 5671.Lamb, M. E., & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. (2004). The role of the father: An introduc-

tion. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed.,pp. 131). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

25/29


Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1988). Unraveling families and delinquency: A reanalysisof the Gluecks data. Criminology, 26, 355380.

Laursen, B. (1995). Variations in adolescent conflict and social interaction associ-ated with maternal employment and family structure. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 18, 151164.Laursen, B. (2005). Conflict between mothers and adolescents in single-mother,

blended, and two-biological-parent families. Parenting: Science and Practice,5, 347370.

Laursen, B., & Collins, W. A. (1994). Interpersonal conflict during adolescence.Psychological Bulletin, 115, 197209.

Lippman, L. (2004). Indicators of child, family, and community connections.Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge,MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992).Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmasof custody. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mack, K. Y., Leiber, M. J., Featherstone, R. A., & Monserud, M. A. (2007). Reassess-ing the familydelinquency association: Do family type, family processes, andeconomic factors make a difference?Journal of Criminal Justice,35, 5167.

MacKinnon, D. P., Goldberg, L., Clarke, G. N., Elliot, D. L., Cheong, J., Lapin, A., et al.(2001). Mediating mechanisms in a program to reduce intentions to use anabolicsteroids and improve exercise self-efficacy and dietary behavior. PreventionScience, 2, 1528.

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the medi-ation, confounding and suppression effect.Prevention Science, 1, 173181.

Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family-structure, and delinquencyAtest of differential association and social-control theories. American Sociological

Review,52, 826840.Mcleod, J. D., Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1994). Does parenting explain the

effects of structural conditions on childrens antisocial-behaviorA comparisonof blacks and whites. Social Forces, 73, 575604.

Montemayor, R. (1986). Family variation in parentadolescent storm and stress.Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 15.

Morrison, D. R., & Cherlin, A. J. (1995). The divorce process and young childrenswell-beingA prospective analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,

800812.Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and

mediation is moderated.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852863.Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and

effects of a school based intervention program. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.),The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 100125). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Olweus, D. (1993).Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford,UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus BullyingPrevention Program.Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 389402.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

26/29


Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention: Bullyingprevention program. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University ofColorado.

stberg, V. (2001). Frldrars tid och arbete. [Parents time and work.] In J. Jonsson& V. stberg (Eds.), Barn och ungdomars vlfrd (SOU 2001:55, pp. 133153).Stockholm: Fritzes.

Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family manage-ment practices and delinquency. Child Development,55, 12991307.

Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parentchild relationships,and behavior problems in children.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48,295307.

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated media-tion hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 42, 185227.Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.

Psychological Methods, 7, 147177.Simons, R. L. (Ed.). (1996). Understanding differences between divorced and intact

families: Stress, interaction, and child outcome. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Simons, R. L., & Johnson, C. (1996). Mothers parenting. In R. L. Simons (Ed.),

Understanding differences between divorced and intact families: Stress, interac-

tion, and child outcome(pp. 8193). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., Gordon, L. C., Conger, R. D., & Lorenz, F. O. (1999).

Explaining the higher incidence of adjustment problems among children ofdivorce compared with those in two-parent families. Journal of Marriage andthe Family, 61, 10201033.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Beaman, J., & Conger, R. D. (1994). The impact ofmothers parenting, involvement by nonresidential fathers, and parental conflicton the adjustment of adolescent children. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

56, 356374.Smith, C. A., & Stern, S. B. (1997). Delinquency and antisocial behavior: A review of

family processes and intervention research. Social Service Review, 71, 382420.Snyder, J. (2002). Reinforcement and coercion mechanisms in the development of anti-

social behavior: Peer relationships. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.),Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and

model for intervention (pp. 101122, 285332). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying withthe Olweus Bully Victim Questionnaire.Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239268.

Stewart, S. D. (1999). Disneyland dads, Disneyland moms? How nonresident parentsspend time with absent children.Journal of Family Issues, 20, 539556.

Stewart, S. D. (2003). Nonresident parenting and adolescent adjustment: The qualityof nonresident fatherchild interaction.Journal of Family Issues, 24, 217244.

Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure andchild well-being: Economic-resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces,73, 221242.

Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, andparental socialization.Journal of Marriage and the Family,54, 368378.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

27/29


Turner, R. A., Irwin, C. E., & Millstein, S. G. (1991). Family structure, familyprocesses, and experimenting with substances during adolescence. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 1, 93106.Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents

involvement in adolescents peer relationships: A comparison of mothers andfathers roles.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 655668.

Waizenhofer, R. N., Buchanan, C. M., & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2004). Mothers andfathers knowledge of adolescents daily activities: Its sources and its links withadolescent adjustment.Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 348360.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children andparents cope with divorce. London: Grant McIntyre.

Warr, M. (2005). Making delinquent friends: Adult supervision and childrens affilia-tions. Criminology, 43, 77106.

Wood, J. J., Repetti, R. L., & Roesch, S. C. (2004). Divorce and childrens adjustmentproblems at home and school: The role of depressive/withdrawn parenting.

Child Psychiatry & Human Development,35, 121142.

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

28/29

7/27/2019 Bre Iven 2009 Does

29/29

Bre Iven 2009 Does

Documents

Transcript of Bre Iven 2009 Does