What Are the Predictive Factors for Negative Effects of Divorce on Children Peer Reviewed Article

• Journal Listing
• HHS Writer Manuscripts
• PMC5051343

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 5.

Published in final edited course as:

PMCID: PMC5051343

NIHMSID: NIHMS819673

Mediation and Moderation of Divorce Effects on Children'south Behavior Problems

Jennifer Weaver

Department of Psychology, Boise Land University

Thomas Schofield

Section of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University

Abstract

Using information from the NICHD Study of Early on Child Care and Youth Evolution, we examined children's internalizing and externalizing behavior problems from age 5 to age 15 in relation to whether they had experienced a parental divorce. Children from divorced families had more behavior problems compared with a propensity score-matched sample of children from intact families co-ordinate to both teachers and mothers. They exhibited more than internalizing and externalizing issues at the kickoff assessment after the parents' separation and at the last bachelor assessment (historic period xi for teacher reports, or historic period xv for female parent reports). Divorce besides predicted both brusque-term and long-term rank-society increases in behavior problems. Associations between divorce and child behavior bug were chastened by family income (assessed before the divorce) such that children from families with higher incomes prior to the separation had fewer internalizing issues than children from families with lower incomes prior to the separation. Higher levels of pre-divorce maternal sensitivity and child IQ too functioned as protective factors for children of divorce. Mediation analyses showed that children were more likely to exhibit behavior bug later the divorce if their post-divorce domicile environment was less supportive and stimulating, their mother was less sensitive and more depressed, and their household income was lower. We discuss avenues for intervention, peculiarly efforts to better the quality of home environments in divorced families.

Keywords: divorce, internalizing and externalizing beliefs problems, longitudinal report

In today's world, divorce is a normative event, affecting approximately half of all marriages in the U.Southward. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Many of the children caught up in the experience of divorce showroom difficulties in functioning, including frequent behavior bug and deficiencies in academic functioning, even years post-obit the event (Amato, 2001, 2010; Amato & Keith, 1991; Lansford et al., 2006; Woods, Repute, & Rosh, 2004). Parental divorce does not touch on all children to the aforementioned extent, however. Some children ride out the dissolution of their family unit relatively unscathed, whereas others go on to prove difficulties in behavioral and psychological aligning (Amato, 1994, 2000, 2001; Hetherington, 1989, 1999; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Lansford, 2009). The developmental psychopathology framework (Davies & Cicchetti, 2004; Sroufe & Rutter, 1984) informs this investigation of why some children function better than others following parental divorce. This framework focuses on studying processes over time in development, stresses the importance of individual trajectories of aligning to agin events (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000), and focuses attention on risk and protective factors that can impact these trajectories. Drawing on these concepts of hazard and protection, we examined why some children function ameliorate than others following parental separation. We model longitudinal trajectories of behavior bug in a sample of children whose parents separated and a matched control sample of children in continuously married families and examine both mediators and moderators of the hypothesized association betwixt parental divorce and behavior problems.

Adaptation over Fourth dimension

Understanding patterns of adaptation is an important aspect of the developmental psychopathology model (Cummings et al., 2000) and researchers have frequently used growth-curve modeling to investigate how children conform to their parents' divorce over time in terms of absolute modify, or modify in mean levels over fourth dimension. Lansford et al. (2006) examined trajectories of children's internalizing and externalizing beliefs issues from 1 year prior to 3 years following parental separation, using a group matched on ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic (SES) status as a comparison. They found that separation/divorce was related to trajectories of increasing internalizing and externalizing problems, though there was some show of pre-divorce differences in externalizing problems. Using a similar multi-level modeling approach, Magnusen and Berger (2009) also observed that experiencing family status transitions, such as into a single-mother or pace-father family, was associated with increases in behavior problems over time. Magnuson and Berger also constitute that individuals in divorced families differed from individuals in intact families in systematic ways leading to selection biases. Longitudinal associations between divorce and children's adjustment were likewise found in several other studies (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae, 1998; Ge, Natsuaki, & Conger, 2006; Strohschein, 2005). In sum, prior research shows that divorce is associated with changes in kid behavior problems, though these findings are tempered by selection furnishings and preexisting differences between children in divorced families and children in intact families. The current study contributes to this literature by modeling absolute change in kid behavior, while controlling for selection furnishings through propensity score-based matching, which is rare in studies of divorce (Frisco, Muller, & Frank, 2007).

In improver to modeling children's adjustment to divorce as a trajectory representing absolute change in behavior problems, an alternative is to model relative changes in their behavior over fourth dimension, using children's own pre-divorce behavior as a control. This approach allows for an examination of whether children of divorce exhibit a change in their rank-ordering of behavior problems relative to other children. Although studies which control for predivorce characteristics of the kid are insufficiently rare, including pre-divorce measures of kid behavior in analyses of divorce furnishings is peculiarly critical, given the prove supporting a option perspective on divorce furnishings (Amato, 2000; Clarke-Steward & Brentano, 2006). Essentially, this perspective argues that some children show difficulties in functioning prior to divorce, and therefore the purported furnishings of divorce might be eliminated if children's level of operation prior to the divorce were taken into business relationship (Videon, 2002; Allison & Furstenberg, 1989; Hetherington, 1999). Indeed, many researchers who have adopted this approach report that controlling for pre-divorce differences reduces or eliminates divorce furnishings (Cherlin, Church-Lansdale & McRea, 1998; Størksen et al, 2005). If pre-divorce differences are not controlled for, fifty-fifty longitudinal data cannot effectively speak to the causal effect of divorce (Sun & Li, 2001). The present study contributes to this literature by modeling both trajectories of absolute alter in children from divorced and intact families, too as relative change, controlling for pre-divorce behavior.

Moderating the Effects of Divorce: Risk and Protective Factors

According to Amato (2000, pg. 1272), "Protective factors human activity like shock absorbers and weaken the links betwixt divorce-related events and people's experience of stress, and hence the extent to which divorce is followed by negative emotional, behavioral, or health problems." In selecting protective and risk factors, we drew from Garmezy's (1985) tripartite model of protective factors, which includes (a) dispositional characteristics of the child, (b) family unit characteristics, and (c) extrafamilial contexts. Nosotros limited our focus to the first ii areas, considering how their effects might buffer children from the effects of divorce. Within the domain of dispositional attributes we examined child intelligence equally a potential moderating cistron; inside the domain of family characteristics nosotros examined positive parenting as a protective factor and college family income prior to the divorce as a potential buffer.

Kid intelligence has often been identified every bit an of import protective factor for children experiencing adversity (Rutter, 2006). For case, Hawaiian children in Werner'south (1993) report of resilience coped more effectively with extreme poverty when they had college levels of intelligence. In a like manner, more than intelligent children may be better equipped cognitively to handle the challenges presented by a parental divorce. They may be improve able to empathise why their parents are separating and to reason nigh possible benefits of divorce for their parents and perhaps themselves. Although intelligence is frequently studied in inquiry on child resilience, it is rarely considered as a protective factor for children of divorce. In one written report, Katz and Gottman (1997) did find that children's intelligence partially buffered them from the negative effects of marital conflict and dissolution in terms of peer relations and bookish achievement. In the nowadays study, we extend Katz and Gottman'south work by looking at the relation between child intelligence and postal service-divorce aligning over a longer and later age period rather than the 3-year period from age v to age 8 they observed.

Positive parenting, including being sensitive and responsive to the child's needs, is likely to protect children from the negative fallout associated with parental divorce because it increases the child's sense of stability and security in the parent-child relationship and tin can strengthen the kid'southward coping abilities when faced with the challenges of parental separation (Amato, 2000; Hetherington, 1999; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000). Wolchik and colleagues (2000) reported that maternal credence of the child moderated post-divorce stress and predicted fewer internalizing and externalizing issues in children aged 8–12. However, this written report lacked a comparison group of intact families, and the researchers were not able to model longitudinal associations between parenting and kid adjustment. These limitations are addressed in the current study.

Adults take more trouble adjusting to divorce if they have less income (Amato, 2000; Booth & Amato, 1991; Duffy, Thomas & Trayner, 2002). Extending this finding to children of divorce, one might expect that children from families with college incomes prior to the divorce would be less affected by their parents' separation than children whose families had fewer monetary resource, because they would be less likely to feel stresses from poor housing, education, neighborhoods, and communities. The current report further contributes to this research area by testing for moderating effects of these three factors.

Processes Linking Divorce and Children'south Trouble Behaviors

A focus on process is an of import aspect of the developmental psychopathology approach, and for this reason we examine four post-separation processes, or mediators, through which divorce might lead to problems in children's adjustment: family unit income, mother'due south depressive symptoms, mother'due south sensitivity to the child, and the quality of the home surroundings. Family income is probable to decline after a divorce (Fields, 2003), and parents with limited resources generally experience greater stress and have less energy to devote to their children and the children are more likely to have mental health difficulties (Barrett & Turner, 2005). Parents are as well likely to provide less sensitive care to their children following a divorce and may experience more than depressive symptoms as well (Whiteside & Becker, 2000). In addition, the environment in the home of a divorced family may be less supportive of children's evolution (Poehlmann & Fiese, 1994), considering parents are distracted and distressed and unable to provide the same level of cognitive and social stimulation. Each of these factors may offer a pathway through which divorce could result in adjustment difficulties in children following a divorce.

The Electric current Study

In the current written report nosotros modeled children's trajectories of problem behaviors assessed by multiple informants from age 5 to age 15. We sought to model the effects of a variety of protective factors to place dispositional or family characteristics that characterize children who fare improve or worse following divorce. Lastly, we examined the processes that link parental divorce with problem outcomes. This written report is especially unique in the literature on divorce for several important reasons. Start, unlike many studies of divorce effects (e.g. Cherlin at al., 1991; Morrison & Cherlin 1995; Robbers et al., 2011) we took a quasi-experimental approach to our analyses, using propensity score matching to attain a sample of divorced and intact families. Secondly, we analyzed the effects of divorce from multiple perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential effects on children's aligning: nosotros modeled trajectories of internalizing and externalizing behavior issues to determine if divorce related to the intercept or slope of problem behaviors; we modeled rank guild changes in problem behaviors past taking into account children's pre-divorce level of trouble behaviors; and divorced and intact families were compared at the assessment immediately before the divorce and again at the assessment immediately following the divorce to examine the curt-term effect of divorce, to complement the long-term effect of divorce addressed by the first two approaches. Lastly, longitudinal assessments of family unit characteristics brand our findings particularly informative, equally we were able to test for both moderation (using pre-divorce assessments) and mediation (using mail service-divorce assessments) To our knowledge, nowhere in the literature have such comprehensive analyses been undertaken in a single study.

The following specific hypotheses were tested:

1. We anticipated that, on average, children from divorced families would have more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than children from intact families (Ge, Natsuaki, & Conger, 2006; Lansford et al., 2006; Strohschein, 2005). We hypothesized that this divergence would be axiomatic in a higher mean number of beliefs problems and a sharper increase in problems following parental separation, even after accounting for the child'southward pre-divorce behavior bug.

2. Divorce effects will be moderated past several protective factors related to child and family characteristics. We anticipated that more intelligent children and children with sensitive mothers would exist buffered from the negative consequences of divorce. Finally, we predictable that children from more affluent families prior to the divorce would be less affected past their parents' separation considering they had experienced less stress and strain in their pre-divorce family.

3. Divorce furnishings will be mediated by family and parental characteristics including post-divorce custodial parent income, mail-divorce maternal sensitivity and depressive symptoms, and the quality of the post-divorce home environment.

Method

Participants

Participants were the families in the National Institute of Child Wellness and Human Development Study of Early Child Intendance and Youth Evolution. These families were recruited in 1991, presently after their child's nascency, from hospitals at 10 sites beyond the United States (Little Rock, AR; Irvine, CA; Lawrence, KS; Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Charlottesville, VA; Morganton, NC; Seattle, WA; and Madison, WI). Specific recruitment procedures are detailed more thoroughly by the NICHD Early Child Care Enquiry Network (ECCRN) (2005). When infants were 1 month old, 1,364 mothers completed a abode interview and became part of the initial study sample. This sample included a substantial proportion of low education parents (30% had no more than a high school degree), ethnic minority families (13% were African American compared with the national proportion of 12%), and the hateful income level was the same as the U.S. average ($37,000).

Procedures and Variables

Detailed measures of family demographics, maternal behaviors, and children's characteristics and aligning were obtained from multiple informants beginning when children were 1 calendar month of age and standing until they were 15 years old. Assessments were conducted when children were 1, 3, 9, 12, xv, 24, 36, 42, 46, fifty, and 54 months former, in Kindergarten and grades 1, ii, 3, 4, v, half-dozen, and 7, and at ages 14 and 15 years.

Marital status variables

Children's experience of a parents' divorce was determined from information nerveless from mothers at multiple fourth dimension points. Mothers reported on their current marital arrangements when children were i, 3, nine, 12, 15, 24, 36, 42, 46, 50, and 54 months onetime, in Kindergarten (M = 5.10 years) and grades one (1000 = half-dozen.45 years), ii (Thousand = vii.39 years), 3 (M = 8.42 years), iv (G = nine.32 years), 5 (M= 10.half dozen years), six (M = eleven.36 years), and 7 (M = 12.five years), and at ages 14 and 15 years. Of the original sample of 1364 children, 355 families were lost to attrition before the children were 15 years erstwhile resulting in a 73.4% retentivity rate in the study (N = 1009 at age 15). Families who remained in the written report until historic period xv did not differ significantly in minority status from families who failed to continue, but they were more likely to exist considered above the poverty line co-ordinate to their income-to-needs ratio, χ^two (ane, Due north= 1273) = 27.25, p < .001; to have an older mother, r(1362) = .14, p < .001; and to have a mother with more years of educational activity, r(1361) = .fourteen, p < .001.

For analyses, the entire sample was examined for reports of divorce. Of the original sample (Northward = 1364), 770 mothers (56.5% of the original sample) reported being continuously married at available time points and 260 (xix.one%) mothers began the study married at i month and subsequently reported a separation or divorce. The remaining 334 families who began the study at one month were excluded either because they reported cohabitating with a partner (N = 153, 11.2%); were widowed or single parents at the offset assessment(N = 150, eleven%), reported an ambiguous modify from married to partnered/living together (N = 18; 1.3%) began the study separated (N = 11, 0.eight%), or had extensive missing information on the marital status variable (N=2, 0.1%).

These 260 families comprised the divorced sample for all analyses; the distribution of children's ages at the time of separation is presented in Table i.

Tabular array 1

Mean Levels of Kid Bug for Children in Separated Versus Intact Families

Age of Child (years)	due north of children whose parents separated during this age	Female parent rated internalizing		Mother rated externalizing		Teacher rated internalizing		Teacher rated externalizing
		Mean for:		Mean for:		Mean for:		Hateful for:
		Separated	Intact	Separated	Intact	Separated	Intact	Separated	Intact
0–3	78	51.46	49.59	53.12	l.81	-	-	-	-
3–6	78	47.38	46.72	52.32	50.01	48.92	46.3	52.76	48.45
6–9	48	49.69	47.65	49.77	46.90	51.42	48.97	53.82	49.36
9–12	37	49.12	47.57	48.15	44.70	51.64	49.81	53.22	48.84
12–15	xix	48.22	45.71	48.15	43.58	-	-	-	-

Propensity to divorce and selection of a matched control grouping

To reduce option furnishings relating to divorce, we created a score reflecting a couple'due south propensity to divorce past combining covariates of divorce into a composite score (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983). 6 variables that previous research had shown to co-vary with divorce were analyzed for inclusion: mother's age, begetter'due south ethnicity, couple's socioeconomic status, couple's marital conflict, mother'southward depression, and mother's parenting stress. Socioeconomic condition (SES) was divers every bit the average of v standardized indicators collected at the commencement assessment: mother's didactics, begetter's education, father's employment status, mother'south employment condition, and family's income-to-needs ratio. When divorce status was regressed onto these half-dozen variables using logistic regression, all six showed unique predictive furnishings: Exp (b) = .937, p < .001 for mother's historic period, Exp (b) = 2.26, p < .001 for begetter'due south ethnicity, Exp (b) = .668, p = .003 for couple'south socioeconomic status, Exp (b) = ane.38, p < .001 for couple's marital conflict, Exp(b) = one.02, p = .040 for mother's depression, and Exp (b) = i.02, p = .029 for mother's parenting stress. Therefore, the propensity score was created past saving the predicted probability of divorce based on the logistic regression of divorce status onto these six predictors. A high score represented a high probability of divorce (young age of mother, depression SES, African American father, high marital conflict, high maternal depression, and high maternal parenting stress); propensity scores ranged from .07 to .78; M = .30, SD = .thirteen. We so selected a sample of 260 intact married families (from the total sample of 770) matched to the separated/divorced sample by propensity scores. Each of the 260 separated/divorced families was manually matched to the intact family that was their nearest neighbour on the propensity variable, with matching beginning at the families who had the highest propensity to divorce (without replacement). Of these matches, 95% were within .10 on the propensity score. The maximum distance between matched families required to match the final 5% of the sample was .15.

Child outcomes

Internalizing and externalizing behavior issues: Mothers completed age-appropriate versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach 1991, 1992) when children were 24 months, 36 months, 54 months, in Kindergarten, in grades one, 3, 4, five, and vi, and age 15. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (TRF; Achenbach, 1991) each year kickoff when children were in Kindergarten through course 6. These instruments are recognized as highly reliable and valid measures of children's behavior problems (Achenbach, 1991; 1992).

Moderator variables

Pre-divorce family income to needs: family's income-to-needs ratio from each cess bespeak, averaged across the pre-divorce assessments (Thou = 3.79; SD= 2.63, average correlation beyond assessments was r = .85). Averaging across all available pre-divorce assessments produces an estimate that is non only representative of a longer period of time (and therefore a more accurate representation of persistent economic stress) merely is too much more reliable.

Pre-divorce maternal sensitivity: Observations of mothers' sensitivity when interacting with their children were obtained eight times between historic period half dozen months and grade 6. Videotapes of mother-child interactions involving play scenarios and problem-solving tasks were made at each of the report's 10 sites and sent to a unmarried site for central coding, with coders blind to other data about the families. Rating scales were designed to capture the mother's emotional and instrumental back up for the child's appointment with the job activities as well as collaborative interactions between mother and kid. Individual ratings were combined at each age to represent maternal sensitivity in the interaction tasks. In club to maintain an age-appropriate measure of the construct, maternal sensitivity indicators changed somewhat over time, to reflect a developmentally appropriate measure of the same construct at each time point. Inter-coder reliability was established by having ii coders assess approximately twenty% of the tapes, randomly drawn from each cess period. Additional details regarding coding procedures, training and reliabilities is bachelor in NICHD ECCRN (1999, 2003 and 2006). For assessments at vi, 15, 24, and 36 months, sensitivity scores reflected the sum of three 4-indicate ratings: sensitivity to the child's non-distress signals, positive regard, and intrusiveness (reversed); these scores were recoded (by multiplying each by 7/4) to seven-point scales to make them comparable to observational scales obtained at later time points. The sensitivity score at 54 months and in grades 1, iii and v was computed as the sum of iii 7-point ratings: supportive presence, respect for autonomy, and hostility (reversed). For tests of moderation, mothers' average sensitivity from all pre-divorce assessments were used (K = sixteen.75; SD = 2.03, average correlation across assessments was r = .46). Averaging across all available pre-divorce assessments produces an estimate that is a more accurate representation of persistent maternal sensitivity) and is more reliable (α = .79).

Child'south IQ: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence scores when the child was in grade 4; observed values ranged from 71 to 145 (M = 107.44; SD= 13.84).

Mediator variables

Post-divorce abode environs: The HOME Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) was used to measure the quality and quantity of stimulation and support bachelor to children at home. Information for the Dwelling house Inventory was gathered when children were 54 months old and in grades 1 and 3. At 54 months, the Dwelling Inventory for Early Childhood was administered. In grades one and iii, the Center Babyhood HOME Inventory was completed. For each assessment, a Domicile total score was computed, with higher scores denoting greater stimulation and back up. To examination whether this variable was a mediator of divorce furnishings, nosotros used an average from all post-divorce assessments (M = 41.29; SD = five.11, average correlation across assessments was r = .64), (α = .84).

Postal service-divorce maternal low: Mothers' low was assessed using the CES-D calibration (Radloff, 1977) when children were 6, fifteen, 24, 36, and 54 months one-time, in grades i, 3, 5, and half dozen, and at historic period 15. To examine whether mothers' depression mediated associations betwixt divorce and children's beliefs problems, nosotros used an average from all postal service-divorce assessments of depressive symptoms (M = ix.48; SD = half dozen.88, average correlation across assessments was r = .55). Averaging across all bachelor postal service-divorce assessments produces an estimate that is more representative of the average home environment, and is more reliable.

Post-divorce maternal sensitivity: To examine whether maternal sensitivity mediated associations between divorce and children'due south aligning, we used mothers' summed sensitivity scores from all mail service-divorce assessments (M = 16.71; SD = 2.01, average correlation beyond assessments was r = .48).

Post-divorce family income to needs ratio: The family's income-to-needs ratio was computed as the ratio between total family unit income and the poverty threshold for each twelvemonth the data were collected. The household income of the custodial parent was computed and averaged across post-divorce assessments to create the post-divorce income variable (K = 3.81; SD = ii.84, boilerplate correlation beyond assessments was r = .82).

Data analytic strategy

We used Mplus Version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2006) to estimate models using full-data maximum likelihood estimation (missingness was less than 11% for every cell of the covariance matrix). Analyses focused on both absolute change also every bit relative change. Absolute change refers to changes in mean level over time, whereas relative change refers to shifts in rank order (Caspi & Bem, 1990). It is possible for ane of these types of change to be present without the other. Therefore, to establish whether divorce is associated with either accented modify or relative change, nosotros assess both separately. Nosotros also wanted to accost whether divorce was associated with either short-term furnishings, or long-term modify. Consequently, 3 approaches were followed to assess the effect of parental divorce on children'southward adjustment.

First, models identifying latent intercepts and linear and quadratic slopes were fit to each of the four child outcomes (standardized into T-scores) to model accented modify in children'due south behavior problems from kindergarten through sixth grade (teacher report) and eighth grade (mother report). For example, the intercept of teacher externalizing was a latent factor with loadings of 1 onto each assessment (kindergarten – grade six). The linear slope of teacher externalizing was a latent cistron with loadings of −six onto the kindergarten assessment, −5 onto the assessment at get-go grade, −iv onto the cess at second grade, and and then on. The quadratic slope of teacher externalizing was a latent factor with loadings of 36 onto the kindergarten assessment, 25 onto the assessment at first course, sixteen onto the assessment at second grade, and so on. Growth models were centered at the concluding available timepoint (grade half-dozen for teacher reports, historic period fifteen for mother reports), allowing usa to examine their adjustment in adolescence. This specification meant that the event of parental divorce temporally preceded the intercept, and occurred at some point either before or during the measured slope. This also means that differences in the intercept associated with divorce represent a bourgeois test, as the intercept is equally temporally distant from the issue of parental divorce as the data let.

Second, rank-society change in children'due south behavior problems was modeled by regressing mother-reported internalizing and externalizing problems from the most distal postal service-divorce assessment (age 15) onto mother-reported problems from the assessment immediately preceding the divorce (inside 24 months of divorce for 98% of families). We likewise pulled i family at random from the propensity-matched never-divorced pool and used their data from the same timepoint as the family who experienced divorce. This allowed us to create a age-matched control grouping. Because teacher-reported outcomes were available only from kindergarten through sixth grade, these analyses of relative change were conducted only for female parent-reported issues.

Tertiary, divorced and intact families were compared at the assessment immediately before the divorce and over again at the assessment immediately following the divorce (inside 12 months of divorce for 98% of families) to examine the firsthand short-term outcome of divorce, rather than the long-term event addressed by the first two approaches.

Moderators were tested by entering the variable representing divorce, the hypothesized moderator (centered), and the product of the moderator and divorce. Mediation of divorce was assessed by entering each hypothesized mediator into a regression analysis that allowed the interpretation of the indirect path from divorce status to child outcomes via the mediator.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

Associations between Divorce and Kid Problems

The first set of analyses tested associations between divorce and the intercept and gradient for each child outcome. Divorce status was related to the intercept for all iv outcomes merely was not related to the slopes. Children from divorced families had more internalizing problems at grade half-dozen reported by teachers, b = 2.23, p = .008, more internalizing problems at age 15 reported by mothers, b = 1.70, p = .014, more externalizing issues at grade half-dozen reported past teachers, b = 3.56, p < .001, and more externalizing issues at age fifteen reported past mothers, b = 2.59, p < .001. Specifically, at the last available assessment, teachers and mothers rated the behavior problems of children from divorced families approximately ane-5th of a standard divergence college than the bug of children from intact families. Model fits were all acceptable, with RMSEA values ranging from .034 to .043 and TLI values ranging from .934 to .986.

The second prepare of analyses tested the effect of divorce in a framework that modeled relative, or rank social club change, rather than accented alter. Rank-order stability refers to the consistency of the relative ordering of individuals over time and provides an indicator of the extent to which participants maintain their relative position in a grouping over time (Caspi & Bem, 1990). Female parent-reported internalizing at age 15 was regressed onto divorce status and pre-divorce mother-reported internalizing, and mother-reported externalizing at age 15 was regressed onto divorce condition and pre-divorce mother-reported externalizing. The fit of this model was adequate, χⁱⁱ = ix.65, df = 5, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .043. Divorce predicted rank-gild increases in internalizing, β = .x, SE = .04, p = .011 and externalizing, β = .ten, SE = .04, p = .011.

Third, comparison of children from a matched sample of intact and separated/divorced families at the cess immediately before the parents' separation showed no pregnant differences in mother-reported internalizing problems, mother-reported externalizing issues, teacher-reported externalizing problems, or teacher-reported internalizing issues. However, comparing of intact and separated/divorced families at the showtime assessment following the parents' separation showed significant increases in mother-reported internalizing issues, β = .09, p = .036, mother-reported externalizing issues, β = .12, p = .013, teacher-reported externalizing issues, β = .16, p < .001, and instructor-reported internalizing problems, β = .fourteen, p = .001.

Moderators of Divorce Effects

Pre-divorce income to needs ratio

Family income earlier the divorce chastened the effect of divorce on the intercept of teacher-reported kid externalizing bug, χ^two = 72.11, df = 38, TLI =.966, RMSEA = .043; b = −.58, SE = .28. Amongst divorced families, children from families with college incomes prior to the separation had less internalizing problems than children from families with lower incomes prior to the separation. Income was not a pregnant moderator of divorce furnishings on the other child outcomes or on child event slopes.

Mother's pre-divorce sensitivity

Mother's sensitivity toward the kid chastened the effect of divorce on the intercept of teacher-reported externalizing problems, χ² = 59.62, df = 31, TLI =.973, RMSEA = .036; b = −.fourscore, SE = .30. Moderation was also evident for the quadratic slope of mother-reported kid internalizing bug, b = .005, p = .001, mother-reported child externalizing problems, b =.003, p = .022, and teacher-reported child internalizing problems, b = .009, p = .031. In each instance, mother's sensitivity functioned as a protective factor buffering the result of divorce (i.east., there were fewer problems or problems decreased more rapidly). When graphed (Figures 1–2), results for mother-reported internalizing and externalizing reflected that maternal sensitivity was well-nigh protective during center to late childhood..

Moderation of maternal sensitivity on mother-reported internalizing

Moderation of maternal sensitivity on female parent-reported externalizing

Child's intelligence

The child's IQ moderated the outcome of divorce on the intercept of instructor-reported child internalizing problems, χ² = 62.nineteen, df = 31, TLI =.986, RMSEA = .043; b = i.23, SE = .60, and the linear slope of instructor-reported child externalizing problems, χ² = 51.79, df = 31, TLI =.975, RMSEA = .049; b = −.16, SE = .08. Moderation was too evident for the quadratic gradient of mother-reported child internalizing bug, b = .006, p = .016, and female parent-reported kid externalizing bug, b = .005, p = .018. In each example, IQ functioned every bit a protective factor; that is, the association betwixt divorce and high levels of behavior bug was weaker for more intelligent children (Figures iii–4).

Moderation of child IQ on mother-reported externalizing

Moderation of child IQ on teacher-reported externalizing

Mediators of Divorce Effects

Associations betwixt mediators and child problems

In a preliminary assay to ostend that divorce predicted the selected mediator variables, nosotros computed associations betwixt divorce status and the four mediators. Divorce was associated with home environment = [r] −.42, maternal depression = .25, maternal sensitivity = −.34, and family income-to-needs = .26 (all assessed post-divorce, all significant at p < .01). Nosotros so tested for mediation by examining the significance of indirect paths (employing bootstrapped confidence intervals; MacKinnon, 2008). Fit for these mediation models was good, with RMSEA values ranging from .023 to .053, and TLI values ranging from .983 to .937. Results for mediation analyses are presented in Tabular array ii. For example, teacher reported internalizing was partially mediated by mail-divorce family income, maternal low, and maternal sensitivity. Home environment fully mediated the association between parental divorce and teacher-reported internalizing bug, every bit evidenced by the nonsignificant main effect of parental divorce when dwelling house environment was included in the model. When all these mediators were tested simultaneously, just the postal service-divorce home environment remained meaning. Across the four child outcomes, family unit income mediated once, maternal depression and home surroundings mediated three times, whereas maternal sensitivity mediated 4 times.

Tabular array two

Unstandardized Outcome Sizes From Models Testing For Mediation of Parental Divorce

	InternalizingT		ExternalizingT		InternalizingM		ExternalizingM
Model	Straight Path	Indirect Path	Direct Path	Indirect Path	Direct Path	Indirect Path	Direct Path	Indirect Path
Unmediated model	0.22*	-	0.26*	-	ane.lxx*	-	two.59*	-
Mediated past post-divorce family income	0.20*	0.02*	0.09	0.02	0.41	0.46	0.37	0.43
Mediated by post-divorce maternal depression	0.20*	0.02*	0.13	0.06	0.78	0.93* A	1.88*	0.73* A
Mediated by mail-divorce maternal sensitivity	0.18*	0.04*	0.xx*	0.06* A	1.38*	0.43*	ane.66*	0.96*
Mediated by postal service-divorce domicile environment	0.12	0.09* A	0.16*	0.10* A	1.28	0.42	1.xi	ane.46* A

Discussion

In this study we analyzed children'south longitudinal aligning to their parents' divorce in terms of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems rated by teachers and mothers, modeled processes by which divorce leads to increases in behavior problems, and identified protective factors that moderate the furnishings of divorce on children'southward adjustment.

As predicted, children from divorced families had significantly more beliefs problems than peers from intact families, and these problems were evident immediately after the separation and afterward on, in early and middle adolescence. This is an important finding, considering many studies and reviews of divorce have concluded that children return to typical functioning after the starting time 2 years following the divorce (Amato, 1994, 2001; Hetherington, 1999; Kelly & Emery, 2003). Our results suggest that divorce effects can exist quite persistent, consistent with findings from two other longitudinal studies of children's adjustment trajectories (Cherlin et al., 1998, VanderValk, Spruijt, de Goede, Maas, & Meeus, 2005). Associations were small in size, just were in line with results of meta-analyses reported in the literature (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991). Effects were evident both at home as reported past mothers and at school every bit reported by teachers, suggesting that the observed differences were non the result of setting or informant bias.

Divorce did not lead to a faster increase in behavior problems. Nonetheless, children from divorced families did increase in their rank lodge of behavior bug in a relative change model that took into account beliefs issues immediately prior to the divorce. This finding indicates that, relative to the rest of the sample, children from divorced families increased in their ranking of behavior bug. Thus, for case, a child from a divorced family may go from a relative rank of 7 in the sample to a ranking of 5 post-divorce. Information technology is rare in studies of divorce for researchers to control for children'southward pre-divorce problems, and this is an important contribution made past the current report.

Analysis of moderators of divorce furnishings revealed that children were more likely to exhibit externalizing behavior problems after their parents' separation if they came from families that had fewer financial resources earlier the separation. Thus, having greater family unit income prior to the divorce appeared to buffer children from the negative consequences of divorce. For children with lower incomes, the experience of stress due to family financial woes, lack of educational and community resources, and perhaps neighborhood crime exacerbated children'due south difficulty adjusting to the divorce. Few researchers have analyzed pre-divorce family income as a specific risk gene for children, instead focusing on the loss of resource mail service-divorce (Gadalla, 2009; Fischer, 2007). This is another contribution made by the present study, and it suggests that kid advocates should make children from low-income families a particular focus for intervention aimed at helping children adjust to divorce.

We besides found that mother's pre-divorce sensitivity buffered the overall result of divorce on children'southward externalizing problems reported past teachers. It also decreased children's divorce-related internalizing bug reported by teachers and internalizing and externalizing problems reported past mothers. These findings extend the results of previous enquiry and the current study showing that adept parenting after divorce has positive effects for children by suggesting that mothers' practiced parenting before the divorce likewise predicts meliorate and more than rapid aligning for children.

Another protective factor was children's intelligence. If children had higher IQ scores, this buffered the result of divorce on internalizing problems reported by teachers and the charge per unit of decrease in instructor-reported externalizing behaviors. Previous research has indicated that kid intelligence buffers children from negative effects of divorce (Guidubaldi & Duckworth, 2001; Hetherington, 1989; Katz & Gottman, 1997; Kraynak, 1997; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), although the nowadays report suggests that intelligence, and maternal sensitivity every bit well, may not be sufficient to fully inoculate children from problems associated with divorce, as children at historic period 15 still evinced behavior difficulties.

Analysis of mediators of divorce furnishings revealed that children were more probable to exhibit behavior problems afterwards the divorce because their postal service-divorce habitation environment was less supportive and stimulating, their female parent was less sensitive and more than depressed, and their household income was lower. Other studies have also shown that proficient parenting later on divorce has positive effects for children (Amato, 2000; Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, & West, 2000; Ruschena, Prior, Sanson, & Smart, 2005; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein, & Sandler, 2000). In the present study, the quality of the dwelling house surroundings was a particularly strong, consistent, and independent mediator of internalizing bug, suggesting that after parents separate their children are probable to become anxious, withdrawn, and depressed because their daily living becomes more than cluttered, their daily routines fall past the wayside, and their parents provide less emotional support and fewer avenues for cognitive and social stimulation (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Poehlmann & Fiese, 1994). This finding indicates that divorce itself may not exist as detrimental for children as the circumstances that back-trail it and suggests a possible avenue for intervention—helping divorced parents provide a supportive and stimulating home environment. This kind of intervention is more than viable than increasing maternal sensitivity, decreasing maternal depression, or increasing postal service-divorce household income.

The findings from this study hint that although private and family characteristics may indeed be protective before in a child's life, the effects of divorce may still remain years following the upshot. Overall, the picture that emerges from this enquiry is one of complex associations between divorce, pre- and postal service-divorce family and home characteristics, and children's behavior problems over time. In full general, the quality of the dwelling house environment following divorce offers a positive and concrete avenue for intervention efforts. Additionally, the associations between divorce and trouble behaviors may be less astringent for more intelligent children and children of more sensitive mothers, but such children would also likely benefit from therapeutic programs.

Strengths, Limitations, and Time to come Directions

The present investigation had a number of strengths. Information technology was based on a large sample of families drawn from 10 locations across the United States and included a substantial proportion of low pedagogy parents and ethnic minority families. Importantly, the sample was non selected on the basis of divorce status. Rather, the families were followed over fourth dimension from infancy through adolescence and data were collected both prior to and following a naturally occurring family transition. Assessments were made at multiple time points by multiple informants. Analyses were strengthened by the use of multi-level modeling techniques and a quasi-experimental approach that allowed each kid to act as his/her own command. Using a matched sample of intact families for comparison purposes and decision-making for parents' propensity to divorce reduced potential selection effects.

Nonetheless, the written report had limitations. Because children could non be randomly assigned to divorcing parents, findings are necessarily correlational. It is possible that other, unexplored variables could account for observed associations. Furthermore, due to the longitudinal nature of the study, attrition was an issue in the report and the sample that completed the written report was not identical in risk factors to those who began the study. This may have implications for the longitudinal interpretation of our findings. A specially important limitation was our lack of data about fathers' behavior following parental separation. These children all remained with their mothers following separation, and data were non collected from non-resident fathers. Furthermore, this study was express by a lack of information on contextual details, such as the family structure following divorce and the details of custody and living arrangements. Additionally, although at recruitment the sample was not queried regarding sexual orientation, it is assumed that the sample represents heterosexual couples, thus limiting our ability to generalize to children experiencing separations in same-sex activity couples. Continued report of individual differences in children's adjustment to parental separation is clearly necessary if we are to fully sympathize the processes of aligning to divorce and provide support for children who experience information technology.

Contributor Data

Jennifer Weaver, Department of Psychology, Boise State University.

Thomas Schofield, Section of Man Development and Family Studies, Iowa Land University.

References

• Achenbach TM. Manual for the Kid Behavior Checklist/4–xviii and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: Academy of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Beliefs Checklist/ii–iii and 1992 Profile. Burlington: Academy of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1992. [Google Scholar]
• Allison PD, Furstenberg FF., Jr How marital dissolution affects children: Variations by age and sex. Developmental Psychology. 1989;25:540–549. [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR. Life-span adjustment of children to their parents' divorce. Future of Children: Children and Divorce. 1994;4:143–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family unit. 2000;62:1269–1287. [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR. Children of divorce in the 1990'south: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:355–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR, Keith B. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1991;110:26–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR. Enquiry on divorce: Standing trends and new developments. Periodical of Matrimony and Family unit. 2010;72:650–666. [Google Scholar]
• Barrett A, Turner RJ. Family construction and mental health: The mediating furnishings of socioeconomic status, family unit procedure, and social stress. Periodical of Health and Social Behavior. 2005;46:156–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Booth A, Amato PR. Divorce and psychological stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1991;32:396–407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Caldwell B, Bradley R. Home Ascertainment for Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Footling Rock; 1984. [Google Scholar]
• Caspi A, Bem DJ. Personality continuity and change across the life class. In: Pervin LA, editor. Handbook of personality: Theory and enquiry. New York, NY, Usa: Guilford Press; 1990. pp. 549–575. [Google Scholar]
• Cherlin AJ, Hunt-Lansdale PL, McRae C. Effects of parental divorce on mental wellness throughout the life grade. American Sociological Review. 1998;63:239–249. [Google Scholar]
• Cherlin AJ, Furstenberg FF, Chase-Lansdale PL, Kiernan KE, Robins PK, Morrison DR, Teitler JO. Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland and the United States. Science. 1991;252:1386–1389. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clarke-Steward KA, Brentano C. Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Oasis, CT: Yale University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Cummings EM, Davies PT, Campbell SB. Developmental psychopathology and family process: Theory, enquiry, and clinical implications. New York: Guilford Publications; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Davies PT, Cicchetti D. Toward an integration of family unit systems and developmental psychopathology approaches. Development and Psychopathology. 2004;16:477–481. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Duffy ME, Thomas C, Trayner C. Women's reflections on divorce: 10 years later. Health Care for Women International. 2002;23:550–560. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fields J. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.Southward. Census Bureau; 2003. Children's living arrangements and characteristics: March 2002; pp. 20–547. [Google Scholar]
• Fischer T. Parental divorce and children's socio-economic success: Provisional effects of parental resources prior to divorce, and gender of the child. Sociology. 2007;41:475–495. [Google Scholar]
• Frisco ML, Muller C, Frank G. Parents' union dissolution and adolescents' school performance: Comparison methodological approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007;69:721–741. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gadalla TM. Impact of marital dissolution on men's and women's incomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2009;50:55–65. [Google Scholar]
• Garmezy Due north. Stress resistant children: The search for protective factors. In: Stevenson J, editor. Recent inquiry in developmental psychopathology. Oxford: Pergamon Printing; 1985. [Google Scholar]
• Ge 10, Natsuaki MN, Conger RD. Trajectories of depressive symptoms and stressful life events amongst male person and female adolescents in divorced and nondivorced families. Development and Psychopathology. 2006;18:253–273. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Guidubaldi J, Duckworth J. Divorce and children'south cognitive power. In: Grigorenko EL, Sternberg RJ, editors. Family environment and intellectual functioning: A life-span perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. pp. 97–118. [Google Scholar]
• Hetherington EM. Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers and survivors. Child Development. 1989;60:1–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hetherington EM. Should nosotros stay together for the sake of the children? In: Hetherington EM, editor. Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999. pp. 93–116. [Google Scholar]
• Hetherington EM, Kelly J. For better or for worse. New York: Norton; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Katz LF, Gottman JM. Buffering children from marital conflict and dissolution. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 1997;26:157–171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kelly JB, Emery RE. Children'southward adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations. 2003;52:352–362. [Google Scholar]
• Kraynak AR. The human relationship of children's intellectual ability and adjustment to parental divorce. Dissertation Abstracts International: Department B: The Sciences and Engineering. 1997;57(12-B):7758. [Google Scholar]
• Krishnakumar A, Buehler C. Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Family Relations. 2000;49:25–44. [Google Scholar]
• Lansford JE. Parental divorce and children's adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009;four:140–151. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lansford JE, Malone PS, Castellino DR, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Trajectories of internalizing, externalizing, and grades for children who have and have non experienced their parents' divorce or separation. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006;20:292–301. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lengua LJ, Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, West SG. The additive and interactive effects of parenting and temperament in predicting adjustment problems of children of divorce. Periodical of Clinical Child Psychology. 2000;29:232–244. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical arbitration analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Magnusen M, Berger LM. Family structure states and transitions: Associations with children's well-being during middle childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009;71:575–591. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Morrison DR, Cherlin AJ. The divorce procedure and immature children'due south well-beingness: A prospective assay. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1995;57:800–812. [Google Scholar]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide. 4th. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Kid care and child development: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. New York: Guilford; 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Poehlmann JA, Fiese BH. The effects of divorce, maternal employment, and maternal social support on toddlers' home environments. Periodical of Divorce and Remarriage. 1994;22:121–135. [Google Scholar]
• Radloff L. The CES-D Scale: A self-written report depression scale for research in the general population. Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977;1:385–401. [Google Scholar]
• Robbers SCC, Bartels M, Toos van Beijsterveldt CEM, Verhulst FC, Huizink Air-conditioning, Boomsma DI. Pre-divorce problems in three-year-olds: a prospective study in boys and girls. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2011;46:311–319. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DR. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55. [Google Scholar]
• Ruschena E, Prior M, Sanson A, Smart D. A longitudinal study of adolescent adjustment following family unit transitions. Periodical of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005;46:353–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rutter M. The promotion of resilience in the face of adversity. In: Clarke-Stewart A, Dunn J, editors. Families count: Furnishings on kid and adolescent development. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. pp. 26–52. [Google Scholar]
• Sroufe LA, Rutter Grand. The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development. 1984;55:17–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Størksen I, Røysamb East, Moum T, Tambs One thousand. Adolescents with a childhood experience of parental divorce: a longitudinal study of mental wellness and adjustment. Journal of Adolescence. 2005;28:725–739. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Strohschein L. Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2005;67:1286–1300. [Google Scholar]
• Dominicus Y, Li Y. Marital disruption, parental investment, and children's academic achievement: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Issues. 2001;22:27–62. [Google Scholar]
• U. Due south. Census Bureau. Washington, DC: Author; 2004. [Retrieved July sixteen, 2009]. Detailed tables: Number, timing and elapsing of marriages and divorces, 2004. from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div/2004detailed_tables.html. [Google Scholar]
• VanderValk I, Spruijt E, de Goede Chiliad, Maas C, Meeus Westward. Family construction and trouble behavior of adolescents and young adults: A growth-curve study. Journal of Youth and Boyhood. 2005;34:533–546. [Google Scholar]
• Videon TM. The furnishings of parent-boyish relationships and parental separation on boyish well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2002;64:489–503. [Google Scholar]
• Wallerstein JS, Kelly JB. Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books; 1980. [Google Scholar]
• Werner EE. Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal Study. Development and Psychopathology. 1993;v:503–515. [Google Scholar]
• Whiteside MF, Becker BJ. Parental factors and the young child'southward post-divorce adjustment: A meta-analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000;fourteen:5–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wolchik SA, Wilcox KL, Tein J-Y, Sandler IN. Maternal acceptance and consistency of discipline equally buffers of divorce stressors on children's psychological adjustment problems. Journal of Aberrant Child Psychology. 2000;28:87–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wood JJ, Repute RL, Rosh SC. Divorce and children's adjustment issues at domicile and school: The role of depressive/withdrawn parenting. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2004;35:121–142. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

jonesequilad.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051343/

Share this post