Running Head: REFRAMING FATHERS AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Reframing fathers 1
Running head: REFRAMING FATHERS AND ADOLESCENT OUTCOMES
Reframing Fathers: Parental Inputs About Fathers’ Behavior and their Effects on Adolescent
Outcomes
Sandi Dial
Arizona State University Reframing fathers 2
Abstract
The construct of how others help an individual to reframe an upsetting event has largely been unstudied. The current study aimed to address how others’ reframing of father-child events that upset an adolescent affected the youngster’s behavioral problems and the father-child relationship measures. Using 393 7th graders and their families, reframing items, behavioral outcomes, and father-child relationship measures were included in an extensive survey administered in the families’ homes. Analyses show that: (1) in general, the reframing items were negatively correlated with behavioral outcomes and positively correlated with father-child relationship measures; (2) mothers and fathers reframe fathers somewhat differently, and that this difference affects the child’s report of externalizing behavior; and (3) stepfamilies and intact families also differ in how they reframe the (step-)father’s behavior. Reframing fathers 3
Reframing Fathers: Parental Inputs About Fathers’ Behavior and their Effects on Adolescent
Outcomes
Psychologists have identified coping processes as a prime area of study. There are a number of theories available in the literature that posit how the processes of coping and appraisal function. Coping has been defined as the thoughts or actions, or a combination of the two, which are used in such a way as to manage problems as well as the negative emotions that may accompany these problems (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Kliewer, Sandler, & Wolchik, 1994).
According to Suls and Fletcher (1985), there are two main categories of coping strategies: avoidance and approach coping. Approach coping has been defined as those strategies that aim to deal directly and actively with a problem, and avoidance coping strategies have been defined as passive means of dealing with a problem, e.g., distraction (Suls & Fletcher, 1985). Power
(2004) speculates that these styles of coping are both functional, but the adaptability of the strategy depends largely on the context in which it is used. Avoidance coping has been shown to be adaptive in situations that are unlikely to recur and when it is used in ways that are non- destructive, e.g., distraction (non-destructive) versus drug abuse (destructive), while approach strategies have been shown to be more adaptive in situations that are likely to occur again in the future (Suls & Fletcher, 1985).
Along with these two broad categories of coping, researchers have also differentiated between primary and secondary coping strategies. As defined by Band and Weisz (1988), primary strategies are problem-solving strategies that people can use to change the situation to reduce stress. Secondary strategies include measures to increase the person’s acceptance (i.e., the person changing himself or herself to better fit the situation). Again, research has shown that the manageability and controllability of the situation dictate which strategies are best to use: Reframing fathers 4 situations that are easily manageable and controllable call for the use of primary strategies, and those situations that are less controllable may require the use of secondary coping strategies
(Band & Weisz, 1988). Power (2004) suggests that although coping can be categorized as above, it should not be assumed that coping is a rigid process, as there is a great amount of flexibility in situations. Since no situation is completely controllable or uncontrollable, any given situation is not best handled using only approach or only avoidance strategies, or only primary or only secondary strategies. Situation types are determined by a constant interaction between the person experiencing the event and the event itself (Power, 2004).
The above theories and definitions all relate to the coping processes found in adults. Less numerous are the theories available regarding the coping processes of children. As outlined by
Power (2004), modern theories regarding children’s ways of coping with stress use process models. Process models are models that do not use environmental events, behavior, or physiological changes to define stress; rather, these process models look at an interaction between environmental events, appraisal, and coping processes to define stress. Appraisals have been defined as the meanings or perceptions children and adolescents assign events or situations
(Kurdek & Fine, 1993; Power, 2004). Before children have fully developed their own set of coping mechanisms and problem-solving skills, they are likely to turn to their parents. Parents can help both with the way children appraise stressful situations and with what they do to cope with the stressful situation. Researchers have identified three different conceptual pathways parents can adopt in aiding children with coping and appraisals: a coaching pathway, a modeling pathway, or a contextual pathway (Kliewer, et al., 1994). Parents who engage in the coaching pathway guide their children’s appraisals, suggest specific methods for managing and dealing with the problem, and then reinforce these appraisals and coping strategies (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Reframing fathers 5
Morris, 2001). Parental coaching can aid the child in filling the gap between the coping resources they have and the resources necessary to successfully cope with the problem at hand (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Kliewer, Fearnow, & Miller, 1996). The modeling pathway is less direct: children observe parents’ responses, and these observations affect the way in which the child will later appraise a stressful circumstance. Observing parent responses serves as a vehicle for teaching a child how to interpret stressful situations as well as how to appraise them (Kliewer, et al., 1994).
The contextual pathway examines how the creation of the family environment by the parents can affect how different coping behaviors are learned (Kliewer, et al., 1994).
These pathways may not operate independently in their effects on children. Kliewer, et al.
(1996) found that the use of coaching and modeling interact to affect the child’s coping efforts in different ways: girls will tend to rely more on approach strategies as a result of this interaction and boys tended to engage in more avoidant strategies. This interaction may be more prevalent given the circumstances under which parents are coaching or modeling. Power (2004) claims that parental influence occurs more through coaching and modeling pathways when related to aiding children in appraising situations. There are several different types of appraisals a child might make, and among those are threat appraisals, challenge appraisals, negative cognitive errors, and positive illusions (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Mazur, Wolchik, Virdin, Sandler, & West, 1999; Power,
2004). Sheets, Sandler, and West (1996) have found that the foci of threat appraisals include the categories of threat to self, other-related threat, and loss of desired objects and activities.
Challenge appraisals, which have been shown to be adaptive in adults but have not been researched in children, are defined as seeing a stressful situation as a challenge to be overcome rather than a threat (Power, 2004). Mazur, et al. (1999) have defined negative cognitive errors as appraisals that overemphasize negative aspects of a situation while at the same time Reframing fathers 6 underemphasizing the positive or ambiguous aspects of the same situation. Positive illusions have been defined as a tendency to create an exaggerated positive meaning from a situation
(Mazur, et al., 1999).
Sheets, et al. (1996) found that appraisals change as children age: the older children get, the more diverse the foci of their appraisals are. Power (2004) posits that as children get older they are influenced just as much by why an event is happening, what implications that event has for their future, and what the child can do about the situation as the event itself. Once exposed to a stressful situation, researchers claim appraisal plays an important role in how children handle that situation. According to Power (2004), “children’s short- and long-term adaptation to potentially stressful events is not simply a function of the nature of the events experienced, but of the meaning [appraisals] that children derive from these events” (p. 281).
How parents influence coping and appraisals is still a gray area that has many unanswered questions. Although the way parents influence coping and appraisal is unclear, coping and the family context have been shown to share a strong link (Brown & Harris, 1989;
Forman & Davies, 2003; Kliewer, et al., 1996; Kurdek & Fine, 1993). Brown and Harris (1989) have identified a number of family factors that may reduce the chance of a child making a threat appraisal. Among these family factors are cohesiveness, level of communication (especially with regard to emotion), consistency of schedule, and living in an environment where the children feel safe and secure. Kliewer, et al. (1996) found that within a warm family context, i.e., one embodying the qualities identified by Brown and Harris (1989), children are more likely to seek parental support in the process of coping and appraisals. It has also been found that in these family contexts less maladaptive forms of coping are used by children because processing emotions and negative situations is something that comes more naturally to them (Kliewer, et al., Reframing fathers 7
1994). Forman and Davies (2003) found that adolescent’s appraisals of family security are mediators that can predict whether or not externalizing or internalizing behavior problems will result from family instability. Parenting difficulties have been shown to hinder the ability of parents to influence appraisals of family security, but in overcoming these difficulties parents are likely to provide guidance in the appraisal process through coaching (Forman & Davies, 2003).
In families that have experienced a high number of marital transitions (post-divorce single parent families or stepfamilies), with intact families (biological parents still married) having a transition score of zero, Kurdek and Fine (1993) found that children have been shown to appraise the family climate and parenting style less positively than in those families with lower marital transition scores.
The types of parental suggestions afforded to children have been shown to be affected by family context as well (Kliewer, et al., 1996). Power (2004) terms parents the “life experts” to whom children tend to turn during early and middle childhood. Parental influence on the appraisal process is “potentially one of the greatest socialization influences in the stress and coping area” (Power, 2004, p. 290). However, parents may differentially affect the appraisals their children make. Research has shown that the effect of parental influence may be mediated through the quality of the relationship children have with their parents (Kliewer, et al., 1996;
Vandervalk, Spruijt, De Goede, Meeus, & Maas, 2004). Kliewer, et al. (1996) found that maternal influence is better received in children versus paternal influence, and this may be due to the fact that children tend to rate their relationship with the mother more favorably than their relationship with the father. The same study found that children tend to be more satisfied overall with their relationship with their mothers (Kliewer, et al., 1996). There is also a small body of research available that shows children’s perceptions of stressful events are influenced by parental Reframing fathers 8 coaching (Kliewer, et al., 1994). Parental coaching may act as a reinforcer for certain types of appraisals, and not all coaching has been found to be adaptive. Researchers have found that parents may induce the tendency for children to minimize major events, create too large of an emphasis on minor events, or pass on the “chip on the shoulder” that parent has about a particular issue (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Power, 2004).
Within the processes of appraisals is the sub-process of reframing, and this sub-process has been defined many different ways. Most past research has defined reframing as an activity an adult undergoes on his or her own to more positively reinterpret or re-appraise a stressful or unpleasant situation (Kliewer, et al., 1994; Kliewer, et al, 1996; McKelvey, 2004; Power, 2004).
In emotion regulation research, reframing is defined as “shifting attention away from an emotion eliciting stimulus” (Morris, 2001, p. 8). Reframing has also been categorized as a secondary and active coping strategy (Kliewer, et al., 1996; Power, 2004). Regardless of how it is named, categorized, or defined, this process of appraisal can be undertaken individually or facilitated by another person. Reframing an event positively has been shown to change the coping process.
Kliewer, et al. (1996) found that parents who engage in positive reframing are more likely to suggest active coping strategies to their children. However, only maternal reframing use was correlated with more active coping strategy use in children of both sexes (Kliewer, et al., 1996).
For sons, the father engaging in reframing was viewed as a more passive coping strategy.
McKelvey (2004) found that reframing is associated with lowered stress in the parent in secure attachment parent-child relationships. McKelvey (2004) also observed that reframing is a mediator between parenting stress and attachment with infants. In low stress families, McKelvey
(2004) found that mothers who use more reframing indicated higher scores on mother-child Reframing fathers 9 interaction. This relationship did not hold in higher stress families—there was no difference in quality of mother-child interaction in those who used cognitive reframing and those who did not.
Despite a thorough analysis of the process of an individual engaging in reframing conducted by McKelvey (2004), as well as the findings by Kliewer, et al. (1996), reframing has largely not been researched. The process of an individual engaging in reframing facilitated by another person has been ignored as well. Of particular interest are appraisals and reframing about the actions of the parents themselves. Since there is a tradition of favoring the study of the effects of mothers on their adolescents and little is known about the differential effects of fathers and stepfathers on adolescents, the current study will focus on reframing about the father’s or stepfather’s behaviors. Thus, within the current study, reframing will be defined as the nature of the messages mothers, fathers, and non-parents provide to an adolescent when s/he “is upset or bothered about” the relationship to the step- or intact father “or about the things he says and does.” Reframing, as defined above, is an area of study that has been deemed important by other researchers. As Power (2004) points out, yet to be explored is the process of how parents can affect a child’s attribution in the midst of an upsetting event, and he cites this failure as
“unfortunate” (p. 287). It has also been noted that there is a need to identify the processes that underlie how adolescents represent the family and resulting psychological maladjustment
(Forman & Davies, 2003). Reframing may be a process that underlies how adolescents mentally represent the family. In Kliewer, et al. (1994), it was suggested that future research try to answer
“how children interpret [parental] messages and about how they affect children’s internal emotional experience, their expression of emotion, and their interactions with their parents around stressful situations” (p. 280). Understanding how children interpret parental messages in post-divorce situations has also been stated to be of interest (Sandler, Wolchik, & Braver, 1988). Reframing fathers 10
Reframing is not only important within parent-child relationships, but also in non- parental relationships. In coping research, it has been stated that participating in active coping with an adult who is not a parent could act as a buffer for the impact of stressful events (Kliewer, et al., 1994). A non-parent who the child trusts can be an excellent source of information in terms of reframing. This third party can afford the child a more objective perspective on an unpleasant situation because this third party is further removed from the problem than a parent would be.
Due to this person’s objectivity, he or she may be able to provide a more accurate reframe for how or why this unpleasant circumstance arose. A more accurate reframe can aid the child along a more adaptive path of coping.
There are a number of interesting issues surrounding reframing that arise from the directions for future research suggested by past investigators of coping and appraisal processes.
One area of interest may be to look at what characteristics of reframes can change the way an adolescent feels about himself or herself, or how reframe characteristics can change his or her relationship with the father or stepfather. Some characteristics that may change the feelings the adolescent has in these two areas are whether or not a plausible reason was given for why the father/stepfather acted in the way he did or said the things he said, or whether or not the reframe criticized and condemned versus supported and defended the actions and words of the father/stepfather. Another area that could be explored is what might happen if adolescents are given conflicting parental messages, or reframes, with which to interpret a situation. It is possible that mothers will reframe the father’s behavior differently than the father will reframe the behavior. The father will have a fuller understanding of his intentions, motives, and other extraneous factors (e.g., work-related stress, marital discord) that may have contributed to a reaction or statement that was not well received in the adolescent. Further, past research has Reframing fathers 11 shown that parental use of reframing is viewed differently when engaged in by the mother versus the father (Kliewer, et al., 1996). Due to this finding, it would be interesting to see how differing reframes given by each parent would affect adolescent outcomes. Also of interest would be to see if the reframes about the father afforded to adolescents are different in stepfamilies versus intact families as the dynamics of these family systems are reliably different. In a study by
Kurdek and Fine (1993), family climate was found to be rated less positively in stepfamilies when compared to intact families, so it is possible that reframes afforded to adolescents in these family situations may be qualitatively different (e.g., criticism versus support).
The Current Study
Using the definition of reframing that describes it as the nature of the messages mothers, fathers, and non-parents provide to the adolescent when s/he “is upset or bothered about” the relationship to the step- or intact father “or about the things he says and does,” the following research questions will be explored. First, research question 1 is: how do frequency of reframing communications, frequency of the reframer giving a plausible explanation for the father’s/stepfather’s behavior, type of reframe given (i.e., criticism versus support of the father’s/stepfather’s behavior), adolescent feelings about himself or herself after the reframe, and adolescent feelings about the relationship with the father/stepfather after the reframe, as provided by mother, father and any non-parental reframers, each correlate with the dependent or outcome variables of overall rating of relationship quality between the adolescent and father, as well as adolescent behavioral outcomes? The current study proposes that reframing is generally beneficial, in that it generally improves child outcomes and relationships. Thus, it is expected that the more effectively someone reframes the father for the child (as operationalized by each of the five dimensions of reframing), the fewer child internalizing and externalizing behaviors will Reframing fathers 12 be reported. Similarly, the more effectively someone reframes the father for the child, the better the father-child relationship becomes, as reported by any of the reporters. Research question 2 is how do the types of reframes given by mothers about the father’s behavior compare to the reframes given by the fathers? If there is a difference in the types of reframes given, it is also of interest to see what effect this discrepancy has on the overall relationship quality between adolescent and father/stepfather and the adolescent’s behavioral outcomes. It is expected that the mothers and fathers will reframe the father’s behavior differently, and that when they disagree about how to reframe the father’s behavior, e.g., the mother criticizes the father but the father defends/supports his behavior, that this disagreement will lead to greater behavioral problems in the child, as well as a decrease in the ratings of overall relationship quality. Finally, research question 3 concerns whether or not there is a difference in the nature of reframes afforded to children in intact versus stepfamilies. If there is a difference, how do the reframes differ? Based on the research by Kurdek & Fine (2003) on appraisals of family climate and parenting styles in intact families compared to the same appraisals in families with greater numbers of transitions— in the current study, stepfamilies—it is expected that the stepfamilies and intact families will differ in how they reframe the father’s behavior.
Method
Sample
Sample recruitment was determined by protocol established by the investigators of the
Parents and Youth Study (PAYS). PAYS is a longitudinal study comprised of four waves of measurement. The goal of PAYS is to better understand the effects of fathers and stepfathers on adolescents. Data for the current study will be the data collected in the first wave only. Reframing fathers 13
PAYS recruited participants in two metropolitan areas: Phoenix, AZ and Riverside, CA.
Overall, there were approximately 100 families recruited from each of four family backgrounds
(50 per site): Anglo intact family, Anglo stepfamily, Mexican-American intact and Mexican-
American stepfamily. Ethnicity was limited to only those families in which all three members
(child, mother, and (step-)father) were of the same ethnicity (either Anglo or Mexican
American). “Stepfather” was defined as the male partner of the mother who had occupied the family home for more than one year and adopted a “father-like” role. Marriage was not a requirement for the definition of stepfather.
Due to differing laws regarding contact with school personnel by outside entities, recruitment differed between the two sites. In the Phoenix component, postcard surveys were given in eight different schools to seventh graders in classes selected to eliminate sampling the same student twice. These surveys determined the ethnicity and family structure of the target student. Because informed consent was not given prior to the administration of the postcard survey, the PAYS group employed a bi-lingual school employee to sort the postcards by family type and ethnicities into five stacks and then contact families meeting the participation criteria.
The postcard stacks were defined as follows: the first four were families who fit the profile of one of the four desired groups, and the fifth stack of postcards was of families who did not meet participation criteria. There were a total of 2,459 students (660 Anglo intact, 159 Anglo stepfamily, 1318 Mexican-American intact, and 322 Mexican-American stepfamily) who were eligible based on their postcard data, and from these the PAYS team randomly selected families who would be contacted during a 10-week recruitment period. The school recruiter sent out a letter and a brochure about PAYS to the selected families after they extracted the contact information for these families. After receiving consent from the families to be contacted by ASU Reframing fathers 14
(either via telephone or mail), trained interviewers from ASU followed up with families with the details of PAYS. A total of 640 families were contacted, and of these 204 were both eligible and agreed to participate. Cash incentives were awarded to families for participation.
In Riverside, principal investigators from the PAYS team met with assistant superintendents for the Riverside Unified School District and the San Bernardino City Unified
Schools to summarize the project and its goals. With permission from the assistant superintendents, the principal investigators of the Riverside PAYS team met with principals of
14 middle schools, 6 in from the Riverside district and 8 from the San Bernardino district. All the
Riverside schools agreed to participate, and 6 of the 8 San Bernardino schools agreed to participate.
Two different methods of recruiting were used: school recruiter telephone calls in the San
Bernardino City district, and mailings with postcard replies in the Riverside district. In the San
Bernardino district, emergency contact cards were examined to determine if a student did or did not meet eligibility criteria. For the Riverside district, enrollment data and family contact information were provided to the PAYS staff. These data for each district were screened in the same ways to determine if the family should be contacted to verify eligibility and ask for participation. If the mother, father, and child all had the same last name, it was assumed that this group comprised an intact family. Ethnicity was not reported on the emergency contact forms, so ethnicity was estimated by Spanish surnames. Once presumed eligibility was determined, school recruiters then contacted families to explain the PAYS project and screen for eligibility. If the families agreed to participate and met eligibility requirements, the family information was turned over to PAYS staff for further contacts. Reframing fathers 15
There were 540 families between the two districts who expressed interest in participation, either through the phone calls or returning of the postcards. A total of 192 families both met eligibility requirements and agreed to participate (61 Anglo intact, 47 Anglo stepfamily, 55
Mexican-American intact, and 29 Mexican-American stepfamily).
Measures
There were three different surveys given as part of PAYS: one for the child, one for the mother, and another for the residential father (either biological or stepfather). Each survey contains questions from all the different measures of interest in the overall PAYS project. There are five reframing items per each potential reframer (mother, father, non-parent, which could be a relative, e.g., a grandparent or sibling, or a non-relative) on the adolescent’s survey, and this is the only place where these items appear (see Appendix A). The reframing questions are not considered together as a scale; rather, each question assesses different characteristics of reframing. There are questions assessing frequency of reframing (“When you are upset with your
(dad/stepdad)…how frequently do you and [your mom] talk about him?”), another set of questions regarding whether or not a plausible explanation is given for the father’s/stepfather’s actions (“how often does she [your mom] give you a reason for why he acted the way he did?”), another set about the nature of the reframe given (“is [your mom] more likely to criticize him or to support him for what he said or did?”), and two questions per reframer about how the adolescent feels about himself or herself and the relationship after the reframe (“when you and
[your mom] talk about your (dad/stepdad)’s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel…”). The responses for the relationship feelings range from feeling “a lot worse abour your
(dad/stepdad) or your relationsip with him” to “a lot better about your (dad/stepdad) or your Reframing fathers 16 relationship with him.” The responses for feelings about self after the reframe range from “a lot worse about yourself” to “a lot better about yourself.”
The dependent measures include an Overall Relationship Quality Scale and an adapted version of the Behavior Problems Index (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983; Achenbach & Rescorla,
2001; Peterson & Zill, 1986). The Overall Relationship Quality Scale is a two-item set of questions with high reliability for all reporters (child α = .79, father α = .81, mother α = .79). The items on this scale for the child are “How well do you get along with your (dad/stepdad)?”, with responses ranging from “extremely well” to “not well at all,” and “Tell me what kind of relationship you have with your (dad/stepdad),” with responses ranging from “the worst” to “the best” (see Appendix B for all three versions of this scale (mother, father, and child)).
The Behavior Problems Index (BPI; see Appendix C) is a 32-item scale adapted from the
Achenbach Behavior Problems Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and other scales of child behavior problems. This index will produce internalizing and externalizing scores as well as an overall score for mother and father reports. This scale also has national norms. The reliabilities within the current study are high (internalizing father report α = .76, mother report α
= .74; externalizing father report α = .88, mother report α = .86). Children reported externalizing behavior using an adapted version of the Youth Self Report (YSR, see Appendix D; Achenbach
& Rescorla, 2001; Peterson & Zill, 1986). Eight items from the aggression subscale and four items from the delinquency subscale were selected to assess externalizing. This scale yields high reliability from child report (α = .82).
Internalizing for the child reporter is assessed using depression or anxiety measures rather than the BPI. A set of seven items taken from the Child Depression Inventory (CDI) was used to assess adolescent depression levels (Kovacs, 1992). These seven items correlate highly with the Reframing fathers 17 overall CDI (r = .87), and they were selected using a stepwise regression predicting total scale score. The top eight items were originally selected, but one was dropped in order to increase reliability. Items from the shortened version of the CDI asked how often in the past month the child experienced feelings such as “things bothered me all the time” or “there were some bad things about my looks” (see Appendix E). The reliability of the child report on this scale is moderate (α = .65). The anxiety scale is comprised of six questions taken from the Revised
Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; Reynolds & Richmond, 1979; Reynolds & Paget,
1981). Again, these items were selected using a stepwise regression predicting total scale score with the top seven items being selected. As was the case with the CDI, one item was dropped in order to increase reliability (α = .67). Items used from this scale include such questions as “In the past month you got mad easily” and “In the past month you felt tired a lot” (see Appendix F).
Procedure
Participants were interviewed in the home by a team of three interviewers assigned to that family at the time of consenting to participate in PAYS. All three participants (mother, father, and child) were interviewed simultaneously in different rooms of the home. Each interview was conducted in the participant’s language of choice (either Spanish or English). The interview process took approximately two hours and followed the all-inclusive surveys created for the
PAYS project. Only the data collected in the first wave of data collection (i.e., when the adolescent was in the seventh grade) will be used in data analyses for the current study.
Results
There were five reframing questions each asked about three potential “reframers”: mothers, fathers, and a non-parent. The means, Ns, and standard deviations for each of these five reframing questions for each reframer are provided in Table 1. The N’s are of particular interest Reframing fathers 18 here since they reflect whether the adolescent ever approached that (category of) person for reframing. Thus, mothers, with an N of 284 for frequency of reframing, were the most frequently approached reframers, while the fathers themselves were approached by only N = 164. Also of note are the differences in means for the question of whether the reframer gave a reason for why the father behaved as he did across reframers (mother M = 4.97, father M = 5.33, and non-parent
M = 3.78). Despite these mean differences, the mean values across reframers of the child’s feelings about the father-child relationship (mother M = 3.82, father M = 4.08, non-parent M =
3.67), as well as the child’s feelings about himself or herself (mother M = 3.74, father M = 4.00, non-parent M = 3.63), do not show as marked a difference.
Descriptive statistics for the internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems and father-child relationship outcome measures by reporter are shown in Table 2. It should be recalled that different scales are being used to measure the problem behaviors for the adolescent report versus the mother and father report, which accounts for their different means.
Specifically, both parents were administered an adapted version of the Behavior Problems Index
(Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A., 2001; Peterson, J. L. & Zill, N., 1986) for both the internalizing and externalizing scores, while the adolescent responded to an adapted version of the Youth Self Report for externalizing scores (Achenbach, T. M., 2001; Peterson, J. L. & Zill,
N., 1986). Responses on these scales were coded such that higher scores indicate higher frequencies of the behavioral problems of interest. The child score for internalizing was found by combining standardized scale scores for both depression and anxiety measures, then calculating the mean of these standardized values for the adolescent. Any adolescents with missing data for one scale were excluded in this figure because the definition of internalizing for the current study was the combined report of both depression and anxiety. As with the externalizing measure, Reframing fathers 19 higher scores indicate higher levels of internalizing behaviors. Similar to the internalizing scale score calculations, the overall relationship quality scale (father-child relationship) score was calculated using standardized values due to differences in the range of values possible for the answers to the scale’s two questions. Due to the standardized values for the child report of internalizing and the father-child relationship measure for all reporters, the resulting means for the scales were equal to zero.
Each of the reframing and outcomes variables reported in Tables 1 and 2 were included in each of the subsequent research questions within the current study. The analysis for research question 1, which asked if there were relationships between the reframing questions and the outcomes variables, required correlating the five reframing questions for each reframer (15 items total) with each of the behavior outcome measures and the father-child relationship measure for each of the three reporters (9 items total). The resulting correlations can be found in Table 3.
Rather than review each significant correlation individually, broad patterns of results were identified and will be highlighted here. First, there were a substantial number of correlations that were significant (even in view of the large number – 135 – of correlations computed). Second, virtually every significant correlation was in the expected direction. That is, referring to Table 3, it can be seen that the correlations of reframing questions with behavioral outcomes are all negative, as expected; further, with only two exceptions, the correlations of the reframing items with the father-child relationship measure are positive, as expected. The exceptions are a significant negative correlation between the father’s type of reframe (i.e., apologize vs. defends himself) and the child’s report of father-child relationship (r = -.17, p < .05), as well as between the frequency of non-parent’s reframes and the mother’s report of father-child relationship (r =
-.16, p < .05). Reframing fathers 20
Third, significant correlations of the reframing questions with mother and father reports of child behavior outcomes were sparse; in contrast, for mother and father reports, significant associations of reframing with the father-child relationship measure were comparatively common. Fourth and perhaps most striking in Table 3, the child’s reports of behavior outcomes as well as father-child relationship outcomes were consistently significantly correlated with reframing both across reframing items and across reframers. Fifth, the greatest numbers of significant correlations with all the outcome variables were found for the child’s feelings about the father after mother’s reframe. This reframing question was significantly correlated with the following outcome measures: mother’s report of father-child relationship, father’s reports of child externalizing and father-child relationship, and the child’s reports of internalizing, externalizing, and father-child relationship. Sixth, a similarly large number of significant correlations were found on the outcome variables for the type of the non-parent’s reframe (i.e., criticize vs. support father); significant associations were found with the mother and father reports of father-child relationship, as well as the child’s reports of internalizing, externalizing, and father-child relationship. Finally, the largest correlation in all of Table 3 is one of these correlations just mentioned: the correlation of the type of non-parent’s reframe with the child’s report of the father-child relationship (r = .43, p < .01).
Research question 2 contained two parts. In order to analyze the first part of the research question, probing the difference between mothers’ and fathers’ reframes, a multivariate repeated measures analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. A summary of the mean differences and their F-values is presented in Table 4. As shown, there was a significant multivariate
(simultaneous) difference between the values for mothers and fathers on the five reframing questions (multivariate F(5, 124) = 13.32, p< .001). There were two significant univariate Reframing fathers 21 differences. First, mothers were equally likely to criticize or support the father/step-father’s behavior, while the fathers were more likely to apologize or admit they were wrong. (mother M =
3.20, father M = 2.23; F(1, 128) = 58.75, p < .001). Second, adolescents were more likely to feel good about themselves after father’s reframe (M = 4.00) than after the mother’s reframe (M =
3.82, F(1, 128) = 4.20, p < .05).
The second part of research question 2 investigated whether any difference in parental reframing had a differential effect on the outcome variables. In order to evaluate this question, a series of nine regression analyses were conducted exploring potential moderation effects. In each, the values for the mother reframe and father reframe were combined to create a product term according to the procedure described by Baron and Kenny (1986). In each regression analysis, the variables were entered such that the mother’s reframe and the father’s reframe were partialled when the product term of both variables was examined. Each of the three outcome variables for each of the three reporters was used as the dependent variable, thus nine regression analyses resulted. If a significant t-value for the moderation product term was found, this indicated that the moderation was significant.
Only one of these analyses found a significant moderating effect: parental reframing on the adolescent’s report of externalizing behavior (t = 2.07, p < .05). The plot of the moderation is found in Figure 1. Note that the line labeled “Father Apologizes” is actually for the fathers whose responses are one standard deviation below the mean, the line for “Father Equal
Apologizes and Defends Himself” more accurately represents the fathers whose responses are at the mean, and the line for “Father Defends Himself” truly depicts the fathers whose responses are located one standard deviation above the mean. The striking feature of the plot is that, when father tends toward defending himself while the mother tends toward supporting rather than Reframing fathers 22 criticizing the father/step-father’s behavior (in essence agreeing that the father’s behavior was justified or correct), the greater the child’s report of externalizing problems.
Research question 3 explored possible differences between reframing in stepfamilies
(about the stepfather) and intact families (about the “real” father). Four sets of analyses were conducted to investigate these differences. The first three, one for each reframer, were
MANOVAs conducted so that stepfamilies and intact families could be compared to see if there were differences in the ways the family types reframe the father’s behavior. The findings are summarized in Table 5. For each reframer, a multivariate F was calculated to test for a difference for the set of reframing questions simultaneously. If the multivariate F was significant (or nearly so), then the univariate F-values were interpreted. The multivariate F-value for the mother’s reframes was significant (F(5, 263) = 3.90, p < .01) and for the father’s reframes was nearly significant (F(5, 145) = 1.99, p = .08). The univariate ANOVAs disclosed a significant difference in how often mothers in stepfamilies versus mothers in intact families gave a reason for why the father was behaving the way he did or saying the things he did to upset the adolescent (F(1, 267) = 11.68, p < .001). A significant difference was also found in how the adolescent felt about the father after the mother’s reframe. The univariate F-values comparing father’s reframes across family types yielded a significant difference in the father’s type of reframe (i.e., apologize vs. defend himself) (F(1, 149) = 5.11, p < .05), as well as a significant difference in how the adolescent felt about the father after the father’s reframe (F(1, 149) = 7.90, p < .01). There were no significant differences between family types in terms of the non-parent’s reframing.
The fourth analysis conducted was a comparison of stepfamilies and intact families in terms of the correlations of the reframing questions to the outcome variables used in research Reframing fathers 23 question 1. These findings are summarized in Table 6. Note that there were 135 comparisons made using Fisher’s r-to-z method, so, for practical purposes, only the significant differences are listed in Table 6. As with the results for research question 1, rather than comment here on each significant finding individually, patterns of results will be highlighted. Almost every comparison of correlations with the behavioral outcome measures resulted in a positive Zdifference (the lone exception is the final Zdifference reported for the behavior outcomes), while every correlation with father-child relationship measures resulted in a significant negative Zdifference. The positive Zdifference for the behavioral outcomes indicates that the stepfamilies’ correlation was more negative in magnitude (the expected direction) than the intact families’. The negative Zdifference for the father- child relationship outcomes indicates that the stepfamilies’ correlation was more positive in magnitude (the expected direction) than the intact families’. Thus, for the correlations with the behavioral measures, the stepfamilies’ correlations were always negative, or in the expected direction, while the intact families’ correlations were more often positive than negative. The same pattern applies to the stepfamilies’ correlations with the father-child relationship measure: their correlations with this measure were positive, while the same did not hold true for the intact families.
Discussion
The issue of how others help an individual to reframe an upsetting event was identified as an important area of study because it is a sub-process of appraisals and coping, but has yet to be more fully understood in how it affects the appraisal and coping processes in general and in children specifically. By focusing directly on reframing the actions and communications of the father/step-father that upset the adolescent, and by including three categories of possible reframers of his actions (the father himself, the mother, and any non-parent reframers), the Reframing fathers 24 current study was able to gain information about how others’ assistance in the process of reframing fathers affected adolescent outcomes and overall relationship quality (father-child relationship) with the father/step-father. The current study consisted of three main foci or research questions: 1) how do the five characteristics of reframing measured for each potential reframer (mother, father, and non-parent) correlate with the adolescent’s behavioral outcomes and the father-child relationship as reported by the mother, father, and child; 2) do mothers and fathers/step-fathers differ in how they reframe the father/step-father, and if there is a difference what effect does that difference have on the adolescent’s outcomes; and 3) are there differences in how stepfamilies and intact families reframe the father’s/stepfather’s behavior?
The first interesting finding was the difference in N’s for each reframer. As stated previously, the N’s are indicative of how many children from the sample experienced a given aspect of reframing. In terms of frequency, the N’s revealed that the child approached his or her mother more frequently than the father to reframe. Further, the child approached the non-parent to reframe more frequently than the father as well. Thus, the father was the least often approached reframer, despite the fact that he would be able to reframe his own behavior for the child. This could mean that the child found it less difficult to approach either the mother or non- parent as opposed to going directly to the source of the upsetting event, the father. The low N’s for the father’s reframing could also indicate a less open or communicative relationship between the father and child when compared to the mother or a non-parent.
In analyzing research question 1, the resulting correlations revealed relationships between the reframing questions and the outcomes measures that were overall in the expected directions.
This pattern of significant results revealed two things: first, that the act of reframing tends to result in fewer behavior problems and second, that the reframing items tend to result in an Reframing fathers 25 improved father-child relationship. This pattern could be interpreted a couple of different ways:
(1) that the act of reframing reduced the adolescent’s experience of internalizing and externalizing while it improved the father-child relationship, or (2) that the child, as a result of experiencing fewer internalizing and externalizing behaviors and having a good father-child relationship, was more likely to approach someone to reframe the father’s behavior when it upset or bothered him or her. These interpretations could be functioning jointly. For instance, in the second interpretation possibility, a relative lack of internalizing and externalizing problems and an overall good father-child relationship would be indicative of fewer factors that could potentially interfere with the child seeking the help of a reframer. Behavior problems or a poor father-child relationship could distract the child from the possibility of reframing the father’s behavior. After reframing, the child could have experienced a lessening of any behavior problems that arose during the upsetting event, as well as an improvement in the father-child relationship, both of which would be reinforcing, thus resulting in a greater likelihood that the reframing behavior could occur in future instances when the father’s behavior upsets the child.
Recall that there were two exceptions to this pattern, and these were a significant negative correlation between the frequency of non-parent reframes and the mother’s report of father-child relationship, as well as a significant negative correlation between the father’s type of reframe (i.e., apologize vs. defends himself) and the child’s report of father-child relationship.
The first of these exceptions, the negative correlation of the frequency of non-parent reframes with the mother’s report of father-child relationship, could mean that the mother views the greater frequencies of the non-parent reframes as damaging to the father-child relationship, thus the resulting lower report of father-child relationship. This correlation could also indicate that the child is seeking out a non-parent reframe more often due to a poor father-child relationship. The Reframing fathers 26 second exception, the negative correlation of type of father’s reframe with child’s report of father-child relationship, can also be interpreted few different ways. It could be that the more likely the father is to defend himself for what he has said or done, the more unhappy the child is with the father-child relationship. The opposite of this relationship may also be true: the less happy the child is with the father-child relationship, the more the child will likely be upset with the father in general, thus the father may be acting in a way that is justifiable but, due to the fractured relationship. these actions nonetheless upset the child.
The second aspect of the pattern of results found was a lack of significant negative correlations of the reframing items with mother and father reports of child behavior outcomes, but a contrasting abundance of significant positive correlations of the reframing items with mother and father reports of father-child relationship. The lack of significant correlations could be indicative of the reframing items having a limited effect on decreasing the child’s expression of externalizing and internalizing behavior. Conversely, the reframing items had a more consistently significantly positive effect on the reports of father-child relationship. Because this pattern is consistent, it can be inferred that the overall act of reframing can improve the father- child relationship.
The consistency of significant correlations of the reframing items with the child reports of all outcomes measures was impressive as it was consistent across reframing items and reframers. These findings contribute to the confidence that the act of reframing contributes to improved behavioral outcomes and father-child relationships. Although it could be argued that these results could be due to shared method variance, i.e., the child is reporting on both the reframing items as well as the outcomes measures, the significance across measures, reframing Reframing fathers 27 questions, and reframers leads to increased confidence that these significant correlations are due to an actual relationship between the reframing questions and the outcomes measures.
In addition to the consistency of significant correlations within the child’s report of outcomes measures, there were a large number of rather high correlations of the outcomes measures across reporters with two particular reframing items: the child’s feelings about the father after the mother’s reframe and the non-parent’s type of reframe (i.e., criticize vs. support).
Thus, these two reframing questions had the most robust effect on the outcomes measures when compared to other reframing questions. First, the child may value the mother’s opinions about the father’s behavior, thus leading to improved feelings about the father after the mother’s reframe. The fact that the child may value the mother’s opinion more highly, combined with the better feelings about the father after the mother’s reframe, may lead to more significant decreases in the behavioral outcomes and improvements in the father-child relationship. Second, the non- parent’s type of reframe may be valuable in terms of the outcomes measures because the non- parent can give a more objective view of the father’s behavior. Thus, this objectivity may lead to a general decrease in behavior problems and an improvement in the father-child relationship.
Further, because the non-parent may be more objective in his or her interpretation of the father’s behavior, the child may come away from the reframing experience with the non-parent feeling better about the father, thus leading to a more greatly improved father-child relationship.
Although the analyses of the reframing items for research question 1 are preliminary and are not causal findings, the patterns of results as a whole suggest that children should be encouraged to seek out a reframer when they are upset or bothered by something the father said or did, as it appears the act of reframing tends to decrease the experience of behavior problems and improve the father-child relationship. Reframing fathers 28
Analyses of research question 2 showed that mothers and fathers were significantly different in how they reframe the father’s/step-father’s behavior. In particular, two significant differences were found: first, there was a significant difference in the mother’s and father’s type of reframe (i.e., criticize/apologizes vs. support/defends himself), and second there was a significant difference in how the child felt about himself or herself after mother’s reframes vs. father’s reframes. In the first difference, the fathers were more likely to apologize and admit they were wrong, whereas the mothers were equally likely to criticize or support the father’s actions.
Since the mother is less aware of the factors that may be underlying the father’s behavior, it is expected that she would be equally likely to criticize or support the father’s behavior. In some instances she will understand what is motivating the father’s behaviors, thus supporting him, while in other instances she may be less clear and criticize his behaviors. Second, it was found that the child felt significantly better about himself or herself after father’s reframing than after mother’s reframing. Because the child is engaging in reframing when s/he is upset or bothered by something the father/step-father said or did, the father’s reframing or clarifying his own actions lends itself to helping the child feel better about himself or herself. The father can give the child a more clear explanation about the motivations for acting in a way that upset or bothers the child than the mother can. The clearness of this explanation could allow the child the feel less at fault for how the father/step-father acted, thus allowing the child to feel better about himself or herself. It would be more beneficial to know exactly what the father/step-father says while reframing his behavior for the child, but this is a limitation that will be addressed in greater detail shortly.
Moderation analyses disclosed that mother-father differences in reframing had a moderating affect the adolescent’s report of externalizing behavior. Due to the differential Reframing fathers 29 wording of the questions regarding mother’s and father’s type of reframe (i.e., (mother) criticize vs. (father) apologize or (mother) support vs. (father) defend himself), this comparison may not be completely fair. It was expected that if the mother and father disagreed in the way they reframed the father’s/step-father’s behavior that this discrepancy would create behavior problems for the adolescent. However, data analyses showed an opposite pattern: when the parents agreed with each other in their reframes of the father’s/step-father’s behavior, especially when the father defended himself and the mother supported his behavior, this was associated with more reported externalizing behavior by the adolescent. Because the adolescent is seeking out speaking to either parent when s/he is upset or bothered about something the father/step-father said or did, one possibility is that the adolescent feels “double-teamed” in his or her negative feelings about the father’s behavior when the parents agree that the father is in the right. An alternative explanation focuses on the opposite causal sequence: when the adolescent is demonstrating externalizing behavior problems (“acting out”), this could lead both of the parents to criticize or discipline the adolescent; here, the actions of the parents are justifiable reactions to misbehavior, in their own minds at least.
With regard to research question 3, pertaining to reframing in stepfamilies vs. intact families, it was found that mothers in intact families were giving reasons for the father’s/step- father’s behavior significantly more often than in stepfamilies. The child also tended to report feeling better about their father/step-father relationship after mother’s reframing in intact families than in stepfamilies. There was also a near significant difference showing that mothers in intact families were reframing the father/step-father’s behavior more frequently than in stepfamilies. With the fathers, fathers in intact families were more likely to apologize and admit they were wrong than step-fathers in stepfamilies. Also, adolescents reported feeling better about Reframing fathers 30 their father/step-father and their relationship with him after father’s reframing in the intact families compared to stepfamily children. These findings are congruent with the research by
Kurdek and Fine (2003) that suggests children in stepfamilies tend to appraise parenting styles and the family climate less positively than children from intact families. In an intact family, where it is expected that a child will appraise the parenting styles more positively, it logically follows that the child will be more likely to approach his or her parents with problems. The more confidence the child places in their parents’ ability to parent, the more frequently reframing is likely to occur. The better feelings about the father can be explained in light of the same research, only with regard to the more positive appraisals of family climate. If the child is more likely to be positive about the family climate in general, it is expected that the feelings about the father would be better in general as well.
With regard to the Fisher’s r-to-Z comparisons of correlations for stepfamilies and intact families of the reframing questions with the outcomes measures, the results were noteworthy.
The analyses showed that for the stepfamilies the correlations were more highly in the expected direction than for intact families. Due to the consistency of these results among the significant correlations, it can be inferred that perhaps the act of reframing as a whole is more beneficial for stepfamilies than intact families. Since the step-father is not the real father, these explanations for his behavior might be more important to the child compared to children in intact families because the dynamics of the relationship with a biological father are by their nature different than the dynamics of a relationship with a step-father. Although it was found that reframing is happening less often in stepfamilies when compared to intact families, in instances when reframing does occur it appears to be more greatly beneficial for the adolescent in terms of behavior outcomes and father-child relationship. Similarly to the findings for research question Reframing fathers 31
1, this pattern of results suggests that, especially in stepfamilies, the child should be encouraged to approach someone to reframe the father’s behavior when that behavior is upsetting.
There are several limitations that should be kept in mind when interpreting the current study. First, the closed-ended nature of the reframing questions did not allow for a complete examination of this construct, particularly the content of the reframe. Exactly what did the reframer say? An alternative, albeit more complicated, way to study reframing would be to ask open-ended questions, rather than the fixed-response scale-type questions of the current study.
For example, the child might provide a narrative describing both the nature of the upsetting event and of the nature and content of the reframing that took place after the upsetting event. In addition to the narrative, it would be informative to have the child rate how upsetting the event was and how helpful they felt the reframing was with respect to their interpretations of the upsetting event, as well as some variation of the current items (e.g., did it make you feel better about yourself, and the father-child relationship.) In this way it will be possible to understand what types of paternal behaviors are upsetting the child, how upset they feel after the event, and then what the reframers are saying with regard to the father/step-father’s behavior in order to reframe it. Categorizing the nature of the messages the reframers are affording to the child, based on the child’s descriptions, is a better option than asking questions with preconceived categories in mind, and this method allows for a less biased description of the messages of reframers.
Knowing how beneficial the reframing was will assist in teasing apart how much emphasis to place on the associations between reframing and behavioral outcomes.
These modifications would also remedy another limitation to the current study—the differential wording for the type of reframe given by mothers and non-parents versus fathers.
The mother and non-parent question asks if these reframers are more likely to criticize or support Reframing fathers 32 the father for what he said or did, and the father question asks if he is more likely to apologize and admit he was wrong, or defend himself. While these alternative wordings were necessary in order for the respective questions to make sense, and while the questions are conceptually similar
(justifying our testing of significance), it cannot be denied that the exact wording of the questions is different, and thus potentially non-comparable. Again, asking an open-ended question about what the reframers say about the father’s/step-father’s behaviors would eliminate the problem of differential wording.
Beyond the wording, it could also be argued that with the number of statistical tests performed, alpha inflation, and thus chance, could be the cause of the significant findings.
Efforts were made to reduce alpha inflation in the analyses for research questions 2 and 3 by conducting multivariate tests of overall differences, either between mothers and fathers or between stepfamilies and intact families. Because the multivariate tests in each of these analyses were significant, that indicated that where the univariate tests were significant it was not likely to be due to chance.
Although there are more thorough methods for examining the construct of reframing, the current study was able to show evidence that it is a worthwhile area of research to be pursued further in other studies. The current study supported the claim by Power (2004) that it was unfortunate that yet to be studied is how parents can affect a child’s attribution in the midst of an upsetting event. It is clear from the results of the current study that the reframing items are associated with behavioral and relationship quality outcomes, and that there are differences between parents and family types for what reframing looks like. Reframing fathers 33
References
Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and
Revised
Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M. & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, &
Families.
Band, E. B. & Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children’s perspectives
on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 247-253.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Brown, G. W. & Harris, T. O. (1989). (Eds.), Life events and illness. New York: Guilford.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Forman, E. M. & Davies, P. T. (2003). Family instability and young adolescent maladjustment:
The mediating effects of parenting quality and adolescent appraisals of family security.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(1), 94-105.
Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M. D., Miller, P. A. (1996). Coping socialization in middle childhood:
Tests of maternal and paternal influences. Child Development, 67, 2339-2357.
Kliewer, W., Sandler, I. N., & Wolchik, S. (1994). Family socialization of threat appraisal and
coping: Coaching, modeling, and family context. In F. Nestmann & K. Hurrelmann
(Eds.), Social Support and Social Support in Childhood and Adolescence. (pp. 271-293). Reframing fathers 34
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory. New York: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Kurdek, L. A. & Fine, M. A. (1993). The relation between family structure and young
adolescents’ appraisals of family climate and parenting behavior. Journal of Family
Issues, 14(2), 279-290.
Mazur, E., Wolchik, S. A., Virdin, L., Sandler, I. N., & West, S. G. (1999). Cognitive moderators
of children’s adjustment to stressful divorce situations: The role of negative cognitive
errors and positive illusions. Child Development, 70, 231-245.
McKelvey, L.M. (2004). Examining the effects of coping on the relationship between family
stress and mother-child interactions across time. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64
(12-B), 6358. (UMI No. 3790543).
Morris, A. S. (2001). The role of the family context in the development of children’s
emotional regulation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (10-B), 5598. (UMI No.
9990341).
Peterson, J. L. & Zill, N. (1986). Martial disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior
problems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 295-307.
Power, T. G. (2004). Stress and coping in childhood: The parents’ role. Parenting Science and
Practice, 4(4), 271-317.
Reynolds, C. R. & Richmond, B. O. (1979). Factor structure and construct validity of “What I
Think and Feel”: The Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 43, 281-283.
Reynolds, C. R. & Paget, K. D. (1981). The factor analysis of the Revised Children’s Manifest
Anxiety Scale for Blacks, Whites, males, and females with a national normative sample. Reframing fathers 35
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 352-359.
Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., & Braver, S. (1988). The stressors of children’s postdivorce
environments. In S. A. Wolchik & P. Karoly (Eds.), Children of divorce: Empirical
perspectives on adjustment. New York: Gardner.
Sheets, V., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G. (1996). Appraisals of negative events by preadolescent
children of divorce. Child Development, 67(5), 2166-2182.
Suls, J. & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping
strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 249-288.
Vandervalk, I., Spruijt, E., De Goede, M., Meeus, W., & Maas, C. (2004). Marital status, marital
process, and parental resources in predicting adolescents’ emotional adjustment: A
multilevel analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 25(3), 291-317. Reframing fathers 36
Appendix A: Reframing Items as they Appear on Child Survey (Items 235-249)
235. [ASK IF YES TO MOM IN Q.230. OTHERWISE SKIP TO Q.240] When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how frequently do you and YOUR MOM talk about him? This could be times she brought it up as well as times you brought it up. Use list 28. [CARD 28] = Never [IF NEVER, SKIP TO Q. 240] = Hardly ever = Seldom = Sometimes = Often = Very often = Almost always )) 236. At times like this, when you and your mom have talked about your (dad's/stepdad's) behavior that is upsetting you, how often does she give you a reason for why he acted the way he did? [CARD 28] = Never [IF NEVER, SKIP TO Q. 238] = Hardly ever = Seldom = Sometimes = Often = Very often = Almost always )) 237. When your mom gives you a reason for the things your (dad/step-dad) does that upset you, is she more likely to criticize him or more likely to support him for what he said or did? Now use list 29. [CARD 29] = Very likely to criticize him or what he said or did. = Somewhat likely to criticize him or what he said or did. = She does both equally = Somewhat likely to support him or what he said or did. = Very likely to support him or what he said or did.
238. Look at list 30 and tell me, when you and your mom talk about your (dad/step- dad)'s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 30] = A lot worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = Somewhat worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = No different than before you talked with her. = Somewhat better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = A lot better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
239. Next use list 31. When you and your mom talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 31] = A lot worse about yourself Reframing fathers 37
= Somewhat worse about yourself = No different than before you talked with her = Somewhat better about yourself = A lot better about yourself
)240. [IF YES TO (DAD/STEP-DAD) IN Q. 231 ASK. OTHERWISE SKIP TO 245] When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how frequently do you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about it? This could be times he brought up as well as times you brought up. Look back at list 28 now. [CARD 28] = Never [IF NEVER SKIP TO Q. 245] = Hardly ever = Seldom = Sometimes = Often = Very often = Almost always
241. At times like this, when you and your (dad/step-dad) have talked about his behavior that is upsetting you, how often does he give you a reason for why he acted the way he did? [CARD 28] = Never [IF NEVER SKIP TO Q. 243] = Hardly ever = Seldom = Sometimes = Often = Very often = Almost always
242. When your (dad/step-dad) gives you a reason for the things he does that upset you, is he more likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong, or more likely to defend himself for what he said or did? Look at list 32. [CARD 32] = Very likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong. = Somewhat likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong. = He does both, apologizes and defends himself. = Somewhat likely to defend himself for what he said or did. = Very likely to defend himself for what he said or did. 243. Refer to list 30 again and tell me, when you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 30] = A lot worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = Somewhat worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = No different than before you talked with him. = Somewhat better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = A lot better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
244. Use list 31 again. When you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 31] Reframing fathers 38
= A lot worse about yourself. = Somewhat worse about yourself. = No different than before you talked with him. = Somewhat better about yourself = A lot better about yourself
[SKIP TO PG. 40 IF THEY DO NOT TALK WITH ANYONE ELSE (SEE Q. 232 & Q. 234). IF MULTIPLE OTHERS USE THE ONE THEY TALK TO THE MOST FOR THE NEXT QUESTIONS]
245. When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how frequently do you and (other person) talk about your (dad/step-dad)? This could be times (he/she) brought it up as well as times you brought it up. We're going to use some of those same lists again. So look at list 28. [CARD 28] = Never [SKIP TO PAGE 40] = Hardly ever = Seldom = Sometimes = Often = Very often = Almost always
246. At times like this, when you and (other person) talked about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that are upsetting you, how often does (other person) give you a reason for why your (dad/step-dad) acted the way he did? [CARD 28] = Never [SKIP TO Q. 248] = Hardly ever = Seldom = Sometimes = Often = Very often = Almost always
247. When (other person) gives you a reason for the things your (dad/step-dad) does that upset you, is (other person) more likely to critcize your (dad/step-dad) or more likely to support your (dad/step-dad), for what he said or did? Use list 29. [CARD 29] = Very likely to criticize him or what he said or did. = Somewhat likely to criticize him or what he said or did. = He/she does both equally. = Somewhat likely to support him or what he said or did. = Very likely to support him or what he said or did.
248. Refer to list 30 again. When you and (other person) talk about your (dad/stepdad)'s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 30] = A lot worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = Somewhat worse about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. Reframing fathers 39
= No different than before you talked with (him/her). = Somewhat better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him. = A lot better about your (dad/step-dad) or your relationship with him.
249. Now use list 31. When you and (other person) talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that upset you, does it usually make you feel... [CARD 31] = A lot worse about yourself. = Somewhat worse about yourself. = No different than before you talked with him or her. = Somewhat better about yourself. = A lot better about yourself. Reframing fathers 40
Appendix B: Overall Relationship Quality Items on Mother (Items 196-197), Father (Items 32- 33), and Child Surveys (Items 20-21)
Mother Survey
196. How well does (child) get along with (husband/partner)? Use list 27. [CARD 27] = Extremely well = Pretty well = Just okay = Not too well = Not well at all
197. What kind of relationship does (husband/partner) have with (child)? [CARD 28] = The worst = Very bad = Not too good = Just okay = Good = Very good = The best
Father Survey
32. How well do you get along with (child)? Look at list 4 now. [CARD 4] = Extremely well = Pretty well = Just okay = Not too well = Not well at all
33. What kind of relationship do you have with (child)? Look at list 5. [CARD 5] = The worst = Very bad = Not too good = Just okay = Good = Very good = The best
Child Survey
20. Now look at list 5. How well do you get along with your (dad/step-dad)? [CARD 5] = Extremely well = Pretty well = Just Okay = Not too well = Not well at all Reframing fathers 41
21. Look at list 6 and tell me what kind of relationship you have with your (dad/step- dad)? [CARD 6] = The worst = Very bad = Not too good = Just okay = Good = Very good = The best Reframing fathers 42
Appendix C: Adapted Behavior Problems Index from Mother Survey and Father Survey (Items 62-83 Internalizing and Items 83-94 Externalizing; Identically Worded on Each Survey)
I am going to read statements about behavior problems many children have. As I read each sentence, decide which best describes (child's) behavior over the LAST THREE MONTHS. Look at list 15 for these questions. [CARD 15] (Often True, Sometimes True, Never True) 62. (He/she) had sudden changes in mood or feeling 63. (He/she) felt or complained that no one loved (him/her). 64. (He/she) was rather high strung, tense, and nervous. 65. (He/she) cheated or told lies. 66. (He/she) was too fearful or anxious. 67. (He/she) argued too much. 68. (He/she) had difficulty concentrating, could not pay attention for long. 69. (He/she) was easily confused, seemed to be in a fog. 70. (He/she) bullied or was cruel or mean to others. 71. (He/she) was disobedient at home. 72. (He/she) did not seem to feel sorry after (he/she) misbehaved. 73. (He/she) had trouble getting along with other children. 74. (He/she) was impulsive, or acted without thinking. 75. (He/she) felt worthless or inferior. 76. (He/she) was not liked by other children. 77. (He/she) had a lot of difficulty getting (his/her) mind off certain thoughts (had obsessions). 78. (He/she) was restless or overly active, could not sit still. 79. (He/she) was stubborn, sullen or irritable. 80. (He/she) had a very strong temper and lost it easily. 81. (He/she) was unhappy, sad, or depressed. 82. (He she) talked about killing (him/herself) or tried to kill (him/herself). 83. (He/she) was withdrawn, did not get involved with others.
Keep thinking about the last 3 months. 84. (He/she) broke things on purpose or deliberately destroyed (his/her) own or another's things. 85. (He/she) clung to adults. 86. (He/she) cried too much. 87. (He/she) demanded a lot of attention. Remember we are asking about the past three months. 88. (He/she) was too dependent on others. 89. (He/she) felt others were out to get (him/her). 90. (He/she) hung around with kids who get into trouble. 91. (He/she) was secretive, kept things to (himself/herself). 92. (He/she) worried too much. 93. (He/she) was disobedient at school. Reframing fathers 43
94. (He/she) had trouble getting along with teachers. Reframing fathers 44
Appendix D: Adapted Youth Self Report on Child Survey (Externalizing, Items 257-268)
Again think about the past month and look at list 33. Choose the answer that describes how true each statement was about you. [CARD 33] (Not True, Somewhat True, Very True) 257. In the past month you argued a lot. 258. In the past month you were mean to others. 259. In the past month you destroyed things that belonged to you. 260. In the past month you destroyed things belonging to others. 261. In the past month you disobeyed at school. 262. In the past month you got in many fights. 263. In the past month you hung around with kids who got in trouble. 264. In the past month you lied or cheated. 265. In the past month you physically hurt other people. 266. In the past month you stole at home. 267. In the past month you stole from places other than home. 268. In the past month you had a hot temper or threw tantrums. Reframing fathers 45
Appendix E: Adapted Child Depression Inventory (Items 269-276)
I'd like you to think about the past month. Look at each list. I'll read you these statements and I want you to tell me which statement comes closest to how you have felt. Here's the first one.
269. Use card 34 first. In the past month... [CARD 34] = Things bothered me all the time. = Things bothered me many times. = Things bothered me once in a while.
270. Look at card 35. In the past month... [CARD 35] = I could not make up my mind about things. = It was hard to make up my mind about things. = I made up my mind about things easily.
271. Now use card 36. In the past month... [CARD 36] = I looked OK. = There were some bad things about my looks. = I looked ugly.
272. Look at card 37. In the past month... [CARD 37] = I had trouble sleeping every night. = I had trouble sleeping many nights. = I slept pretty well.
273. Look at card 38. In the past month... [CARD 38] = I did not think about killing myself. = I thought about killing myself but would not do it. = I wanted to kill myself.*
274. Look at card 39. In the past month... [CARD 39] = I did not feel alone. = I felt alone many times. = I felt alone all the time.
275. Look at card 40. In the past month... [CARD 40] = My school work was alright. = My school work was not as good as before. = I did very badly in subjects I used to be good in.
276. Look at card 41. In the past month... [CARD 41] = I could never be as good as other kids. = I could be just as good as other kids if I wanted to. = I was just as good as other kids. Reframing fathers 46
Appendix F: Adapted Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (Items 250-256)
We'd like to know how you have been feeling during the past month. Just tell me yes or no whether you have felt the way I describe. (Response choices are Yes/No) 250. In the past month you got mad easily. 251. In the past month you felt that others did not like the way you did things. 252. In the past month your feelings got hurt easily. 253. In the past month you felt tired a lot. 254. In the past month you worried about what was going to happen. 255. In the past month other peers were happier than you were. 256. In the past month you woke up scared some of the time. Reframing fathers 47
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Reframing Questions by Reframer
Mom Dad Non-Parent Questiona N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD)
Frequency 284 4.27(1.48) 164 4.40(1.51) 205 4.33(1.34)
Reason 277 4.97(1.46) 156 5.33(1.42) 204 3.78(1.73)
Criticize or Support 270 3.06(1.08) 154 2.17(1.10) 184 2.70(1.11)
Feelings about dad and 277 3.82(.99) 153 4.08(.92) 203 3.67(.94) relationship with him after reframing
Feelings about self after 276 3.74(.96) 156 4.00(.91) 204 3.63(.92) reframing aFor exact wording of reframing questions, please reference Appendix A. Reframing fathers 48
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Outcome Measures by Reporter
Mom Dad Child N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD)
Internalizing 393 34.65(3.32) 392 33.93(3.06) 393 0(.88)
Externalizing 393 71.03(6.26) 392 70.73(6.28) 393 16.15(3.86)
Overall Relationship Qualitya 393 0(1.82) 393 0(1.83) 393 0(1.82) aReporters are reporting on the overall relationship quality between the child and the father/step-father.
Table 3 Reframing fathers 49
Correlations of the Reframing Items for All Reframers with Outcome Variables for All Reporters
Mother’s Report Of Father’s Report Of Child’s Report Of
child's child's dad's overall child's child's dad's overall overall internalizing externalizing relationship internalizing externalizing relationship internalizing externalizing relationship behavior behavior with child behavior behavior with child behavior behavior with dad When you are upset with your (dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, r .00 -.01 -.08 -.06 -.12* .00 .03 -.06 -.04 how frequently do you and your mom talk about him? N 284 284 284 283 283 284 284 284 284 How often does she give you a reason for why he acted the way he did? r -.05 -.06 .07 -.13* -.20** .12 -.10 -.17** .25** N 277 277 277 276 276 277 277 277 277 Is she more likely to criticize him or more likely to support him for what he r -.02 -.01 .16** -.05 -.03 .01 -.09 -.02 .11 said or did? N 270 270 270 269 269 270 270 270 270
When you and your mom talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that r -.03 -.08 .17** -.06 -.14* .21** -.19** -.24** .31** upset you, does it usually make you feel (about dad/step-dad)... N 277 277 277 276 276 277 277 277 277 When you and your mom talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that r -.06 -.12* .25** -.03 -.07 .10 -.21** -.17** .30** upset you, does it usually make you feel (about yourself)... N 276 276 276 275 275 276 276 276 276 When you are upset w/ your(dad/step-dad), or bothered by his behavior, how r -.04 -.03 .05 -.01 -.04 .19* -.10 -.23** .21** frequently do you and your(dad/step-dad) talk about it? N 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 164 How often does he give you a reason for why he acted the way he did? r .10 -.01 .16* -.02 -.09 .13 -.22** -.25** .34** N 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 Is he more likely to apologize, or admit he was wrong, or more likely to r -.05 -.04 .00 .00 .05 -.02 .14 .12 -.17* defend himself for what he said or did? N 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 When you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behaviors that upset you, r .02 -.09 .12 -.05 -.10 .19* -.33** -.22** .31** does it usually make you feel (about dad/step-dad)... N 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 153 When you and your (dad/step-dad) talk about his behaviors that upset you, r .00 -.10 .07 -.03 -.12 .14 -.24** -.18* .23** does it usually make you feel (about yourself)... N 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 When you are upset w/ your (dad/step), or bothered by his behavior, how r .06 .11 -.16* .04 .08 -.12 .10 .02 -.10 frequently do you and(other person)talk about your(dad/step)? N 205 205 205 204 204 205 205 205 205 How often does (other person) give you a reason why your (dad/step-dad) r -.02 .01 .15* -.08 -.05 .08 -.02 -.05 .20** acted the way he did? N 204 204 204 203 203 204 204 204 204 Is (other person) more likely to criticize your (dad/step-dad) or more likely to r -.05 -.10 .22** .01 -.01 .22** -.32** -.19** .43** support your (dad/step-dad), for what he said or did? N 184 184 184 183 183 184 184 184 184 When you and (other person) talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that r .03 -.02 .06 -.04 -.05 .11 -.14* -.11 .29** upset you, does it usually make you feel (about dad/step-dad)... N 203 203 203 202 202 203 203 203 203 When you and (other person) talk about your (dad/step-dad)'s behaviors that r .05 .06 -.01 -.01 .01 -.04 -.08 -.04 -.10 upset you, does it usually make you feel (about yourself)... N 204 204 204 203 203 204 204 204 204 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Reframing fathers 50
Table 4
Parental Differences in Reframing
Means
Reframing Questionc Mother Father Fb
How frequently do you talk 4.54 4.56 .01 to this person about your father/stepfather’s behavior?
How often are you given 5.26 5.39 .98 reason for your father/step- father’s behavior?
Does the reframer criticize 3.20 2.23 58.75** or supporta your father/step- father’s behavior?
How do you feel about 4.03 4.09 .59 your father/stepfather and your relationship with him after reframing?
How do you feel about 3.82 4.00 4.20* yourself after reframing? aThe wording for the mother and father questions is different. The mother question asks if she is more likely to criticize or support the father and the father question asks if he is more likely to apologize and admit he was wrong or defend himself. bWithin family analyses are equivalent to matched t-tests. cFor the tests of all five of the mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5,124) = 13.32, p < .01. * significant at .05 level; **significant at .001 level Reframing fathers 51
Table 5
Differences in Reframing by Family Type and Reframer
Moma Intact Step F Question (N= 150) (N = 119)
Frequency 4.55(1.28) 4.25(1.45) 3.27†
Reason 5.32(1.20) 4.77(1.42) 11.68***
Criticize or 2.97(1.05) 3.19(1.10) 2.96 Support
Feelings about dad 3.94(.91) 3.69(1.06) 4.36* and relationship with him after reframe
Feelings about self 3.83(.95) 3.65(.99) 2.28 after reframe
Dadb Intact Step F Question (N = 95) (N = 56)
Frequency 4.66(1.31) 4.45(1.28) .98
Reason 5.43(1.40) 5.36(1.18) .11
Criticize or 2.03(1.00) 2.45(1.22) 5.11* Support
Feelings about dad 4.23(.76) 3.80(1.10) 7.90** and relationship with him after reframe
Feelings about self 4.06(.85) 3.88(1.01) 1.50 after reframe
Non-parentc Intact Step F Question (N = 101) (N = 82)
Frequency 4.42(1.27) 4.39(1.31) .02 Reframing fathers 52
Non-parentc Intact Step F Question (N = 101) (N = 82)
Reason 4.22(1.57) 3.94(1.50) 1.49
Criticize or 2.77(1.02) 2.62(1.21) .83 Support
Feelings about dad 3.83(.92) 3.62(.95) 2.29 and relationship with him after reframe
Feelings about self 3.62(1.00) 3.77(.85) 1.08 after reframe aFor the tests of all five of the mother mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5, 263) = 3.90, p < .01. bFor the tests of all five of the father mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5, 145) = 1.99, p = .08. cFor the tests of all five of the non-parent mean differences simultaneously, the multivariate F(5, 177) = 1.11, p = NS. † significance = .07 *significant at .05 level; **significant at .01 level, ***significant at .001 level Reframing fathers 53
Table 6
Table of Significant Differences in r’s for Stepfamilies vs. Intact Families
Reframing Variable Outcome Variable Reporter r for Intact r for Step Zdifference
Frequency of mother reframe Externalizing Child .08 -.16 1.92*
Is mother more likely Internalizing Mother .14 -.24 3.14** to criticize or support dad?
Is mother more likely Externalizing Mother .10 -.15 2.03* to criticize or support dad?
Feelings about dad and Externalizing Father .01 -.24 2.13* relationship after mother reframe
Feelings about self Externalizing Child -.05 -.28 1.95* After mother reframe
Frequency of father Internalizing Mother .12 -.21 2.01* reframing
Feelings about self Internalizing Father .15 -.27 3.00** After non-parent reframe
Frequency of other Internalizing Mother -.07 .21 -1.98* reframing Reframing fathers 54
Reframing Variable Outcome Variable Reporter r for Intact r for Step Zdifference
Feelings about dad and Father-child Father .07 .30 -1.97* Relationship after mother relationship Reframe
Feelings about dad and Father-child Child .10 .48 -3.46*** Relationship after mother relationship reframe
Frequency of father Father-child Father -.05 .45 -3.19*** reframing relationship
Feelings about self Father-child Mother -.11 .36 -2.87** After father reframe relationship
Feelings about self Father-child Child .06 .42 -2.27* Father reframe relationship
*significant at .05 level; **significant at .01 level; ***significant at .001 level Reframing fathers 55
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Plot of the moderating effects of mother and father reframes on the child’s report of externalizing behavior. Reframing fathers 56
17 r Father Apologizes o i
v 16.5 a h Father Equal Apologizes e 16 B
and Defends Himself g n i 15.5 Father Defends Himself z i l a n r 15 e t x E
14.5 f o t r 14 o p e R
13.5 s ' d l i 13 h C 12.5 1 2 3 4 5 Mother's Reframe of Father's Behavior: Low = Criticize, High = Support Reframing fathers 57 Reframing fathers 58 Reframing fathers 59 Reframing fathers 60 Reframing fathers 61