Does the non-residential parent matter?

Does the non-residential parent matter?On the link between parenting and self-esteem

Kim Bastaits, Koen Ponnet, Dimitri Mortelmans

2

Outline of presentation

1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research

3



4

1. Overview of literature

• Parental divorce (-) well-being child (Amato, 2000; Amato & Keith, 1991; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagen, 1999; Lansford, 2009)

• Mostly focus on residential parent & 1 family type now focus on residential and non-residential parent now focus on different family types

• Mostly negative indicators now positive indicator (self-esteem)

• Most important mediator: parental involvement 3 types (Lamb e.a., 1987):

- Engagement - Availability - Responsibility

5

1. Overview of literature• Involvement of NR parent (+) well-being child

(King, 1994; King & Sobolewski, 2006; Simons e.a., 1994; Stewart, 2003)

quality over quantity

• So focus on parental engagement (Lamb e.a., 1987)

= Parenting style 2 dimensions: support and control (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby

& Martin, 1983)

6



7

2. Research questions

• How does the non-residential parent contribute to the well-being of the child? controlled for parenting style of the residential parent

• Does contact with the NR parent matter? comparison between joint custody and non-residential parents controlled for and interaction with contact with non-residential parent

8

2. Research questions

Parenting style residential parent

Parenting style non-residential parent

Self-esteem child

Background variables of parents and child

Contact with non-residential parent

H1

H2

9



10

3. Method: sample• Preliminary data from “Divorce in Flanders” (DiF)

multi-actor multi-method study

• This research used a subsample of the DiF-data (N=436)- 1 Child between 10 and 18 year (contact with both parents)- 1 parent (with information on both parents)

• Divided into 5 family types1. Married parents (N=138)2. Joint custody (N=91)3. Mother= residential parent & father= non-residential parent

(N=148)4. Father= residential parent & mother= non-residential parent

(N=21)5. Both parents are non-residential (N=5)

Group 4 & 5 are too small to include in our analyses Final sample N=377

11

3. Method: variables• Background variables of both parents (parent reports)

- Age- Educational level (lower secundary or lower, higher secundary,

higher education)- New partner: yes/no?

• Background variables of child (child reports)- Gender- Age- Duration since divorce

• Independent variables (child reports)- Perceived parenting style of both parents

subscale support & subscale control (PSI II by Darling & Toyokawa, 1997)

- Contact with non-residential parent

• Dependent variable (child reports)- Self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, 1965)

12



13

4. Results: descriptive analysis

• Difference in self-esteem?- All children = high self-esteem- No significant difference between family type- Girls have lower self-esteem than boys (except in joint custody)

• Link between parenting style and self-esteem- Support mother & father (+) self-esteem child - No correlation between self-esteem and control mother/father

• Link between contact and parenting style- NR father less support & control than married or co-parent fathers

- more contact with NR father (+) more support NR father- No effect for control NR father

14

4. Results: Regression analysis

Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother

Age father New partner mother

New partner father Education mother 1 Education mother 2

Education father 1 Education father 2

Age child Gender child (ref: boys)

Duration since divorce Contact with father

Support mother 0,165 0,209 0,329 *** Control mother -0,018 0,067 0,046

Support father 0,216 * 0,161 0,270 ** Control father -0,122 -0,002 -0,170 *

R² 0,080 0,056 0,170 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

15


Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,238 * 0 ,079 -0,225

Age father -0,251 * 0,099 0,119 New partner mother 0,271 -0,110

New partner father -0,112 0,120 Education mother 1 0,008 0,303 -0,129 Education mother 2 -0,122 0,371 -0,012

Education father 1 0,219 0,195 -0,005 Education father 2 0,204 0,279 0,059

Age child -0,077 -0,103 0,040 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,328 *** -0,259 * -0,332 **

Duration since divorce -0,222 -0,067 Contact with father 0,135

Support mother 0,281 ** 0,469 *** 0,387 * Control mother -0,005 0,122 0,011

Support father Control father

R² 0,150 0,190 0,093 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

16


Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,193 0,077 -0,158

Age father -0,253 * -0,002 0,086 New partner mother 0,108 -0,267

New partner father 0,017 0,026 Education mother 1 -0,095 0,327 0,055 Education mother 2 -0,188 0,328 0,025

Education father 1 0,199 0,209 0,176 Education father 2 0,205 0,317 0,195

Age child -0,024 -0,121 -0,143 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,295 *** -0,146 -0,236

Duration since divorce -0,165 0,071 Contact with father -0,025

Support mother Control mother

Support father 0,209 * 0,226 0,410 ** Control father -0,115 -0,090 -0,066

R² 0,157 0,034 0,119 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

17


Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,226 * 0,131 -0 ,228


New partner father -0,026 0,096 Education mother 1 -0,038 0,310 -0,119 Education mother 2 0,134 0,359 -0,002


Age child -0,062 -0,050 0,049 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,336 *** -0,243 -0,209


Support mother 0,227 * 0,439 ** 0,362 * Control mother -0,034 0,199 0,089

Support father 0,142 0,196 0,402 ** Control father -0,088 -0,146 -0,158

R² 0,182 0,193 0,211 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

18

Parenting style NR parent *contact with NR parent• No significant effect in regression model• Effect of support NR father stays

4. Results: Interaction effect

Predicted values of self-esteem according to support and amount of contact with the non-residential parent

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

1 2 3 4 5

support father

self-

este

em c

hild

Predicted values of self-esteem according to behavioral control and amount of contact with the non-residential parent

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

1 2 3 4 5

control father

self

-est

eem

ch

ild

19



20

5. ConclusionsDoes the NR parent matter?

• Yes, the NR parent matters:Support NR father (+) self-esteem child why not with other family types (effect disappears in married family)?

• Contact with NR father no (indirect) effect in expected direction (see King, 1994; King & Heard,1999)

In all family types:• Support mother (+) self-esteem child• Control of mother/father:

no effect on self-esteem child

21



22

6. Further researchWhy support father only important if father is

non-residential?

• Conflict hypothesis: conflict higher when parents have more contact lower self-esteem?

- No effect in 3 family types of conflict- Effect of support father does not appear in joint custody & married

families no explanation

• Hidden effect of father-child closeness? - No effect in 3 family types- Effect of support NR father does not disappear no explanation

23

6. Further research• Same sex hypothesis: parents raise boys and girls

differently? Married: support mother (+) self-esteem boysJoint custody: support mother (+) self-esteem girlsR –NR: support mother (+) self-esteem boys & girls

support father (+) self-esteem girls No explanation

• Opposite model? Positive effect of self-esteem child on NR father parenting style (Hawking, Amato & King, 2007)

- Self-esteem child (+) support of NR father ** R²=0,120 (lower than former model R²= 0,211)

- Self-esteem child no effect on control of NR father

24

6. Further research• Joint custody and married type more alike?

not quality above quantity but quantity and then quality? (King, 1994; King & Sobolewski, 2006)

Could be: see interaction effect + no effect in joint custody

Why? quality important with feeling of “abandonment”? Used items from BAS-4 (Boss, Greenberg, & Pearce-McCall, 1990)

- Since the divorce, I find it more difficult to talk to my father about things I need from him (money, time, advice).

Item (-) self-esteem (not significant) Support father (-) item (not significant) Item*support father (-) self-esteem (not significant)

- In both of my parents’ homes, I feel comfortable, like I belong.Item (+) self-esteem*Support father (+) item* Item*support father (+) self-esteem (not significant)

Does the non-residential parent matter?On the link between parenting and self-esteem.

[email protected]

26

3. Method: sample Married

parents Joint-

custody Mother R – father NR

Age mother Mean= 44 42 43 * Age father Mean= 44 44 45 Age child Mean= 14 14 14,5 Duration since divorce Mean= 6,5 8,5 *** Gender child Boys 47,1% 58,2% 48,7% Girls 52,9% 41,8% 51,4% Education mother Lower secundary or

lower 9,4% 11,0% 15,1%

Higher secundary 39,1% 39,6% 41,1% Higher education 51,5% 49,4% 43,8% Education father Lower secundary or

lower 13,0% 9,9% 26,1% ***

Higher secundary 42,8% 41,8% 52,8% Higher education 44,2% 48,4% 21,1% New partner mother No partner 47,0% 56,0% Partner 53,0% 44,0% New partner father No partner 48,8% 34,9% * partner 51,2% 65,1%

*** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

27

4. Results: background variables

Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,193 0,047 -0,150

Age father -0,259 * -0,001 0,088 New partner mother 0,126 -0,130

New partner father -0,059 0,060 Education mother 1 -0,037 0,300 0,032 Education mother 2 -0,175 0,304 0,014


Age child -0,040 -0,193 -0,140 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,290 ** -0,156 -0,365 **

Duration since divorce -0,160 0,005 Contact with father -0,006

Support mother Control mother

Support father Control father

R² 0,093 0,038 0,002 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

28

4. Results: Interaction effectcontact with NR father*parenting style NR father

29

4. Results: Interaction effectgender of child*parenting style mother

Predicted values of self-esteem according to support of the mother and gender of the child (married)

-3,5

-2,5

-1,5

-0,5

0,5

1,5

1 2 3 4 5

support

pre

dic

ted

val

ue

of

self

-es

teem man

vrouw

Predicted values of self-esteem according to control of the mother and gender of the child (married)

-3,5-3

-2,5-2

-1,5-1

-0,50

0,51

1,5

1 2 3 4 5

control

pre

dic

ted

val

ues

of

self

-es

teem man

vrouw

Predicted values of self-esteem according to support of the mother and gender of the child (joint custody)

-3,5

-2,5

-1,5

-0,5

0,5

1,5

1 2 3 4 5

support

pre

dic

ted

val

ues

of

self

-es

teem man

vrouw

Predicted values of semf-esteem accoording to control of the mother and gender of the child (joint custody)

-3,5-3

-2,5-2

-1,5-1

-0,50

0,51

1,5

control

pre

dic

ted

val

ues

of

self

-es

teem man

vrouw

Predicted values for self-esteem according to support of the mother and gender of the child (R-NR)

-3,5

-2,5

-1,5

-0,5

0,5

1,5

1 2 3 4 5

support

pre

dic

ted

val

ues

of

self

-es

teem man

vrouw

Predicted values of self-esteem according to control of the mother and gender of the child (R-NR)

-3,5-3

-2,5-2

-1,5-1

-0,50

0,51

1,5

1 2 3 4 5

control

pre

dic

ted

val

ues

of

self

-es

teem man

vrouw

30

6. Further research: conflict

Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,228 * 0 ,179 -0,166


New partner father -0,023 -0,002 Education mother 1 -0,020 0,345 -0,184 Education mother 2 -0,121 0,371 -0,072


Age child -0,050 -0,066 0,110 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,325 *** -0,253 * -0,172


Support mother 0,219 * 0,408 ** 0,357 * Control mother -0,024 0,217 0,117


Conflict -0,112 -0,129 0,092 R² 0,186 0,188 0,215

*** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

31

6. Further research: closenessStandardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR

Age mother 0,210 0,0334 -0,188 Age father -0,239 * 0,109 0,059

New partner mother 0,239 -0,240 New partner father -0,016 0,134 Education mother 1 -0,051 0,274 -0,121 Education mother 2 -0,130 0,312 -0,051


Age child -0,048 -0,021 -0,014 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,329 *** -0,268 -0,149

Duration since divorce -0,249 0,069 Contact with father 0,185

Support mother 0,176 0,585 *** 0,281 Control mother -0,051 0,175 0,125


Closeness with mother 0,081 -0,246 0,123 Closeness with father 0,091 0,172 -0,376

R² 0,182 0,204 0,197 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

32

6. Further researchOther indicators of well-being

- Positive indicator: satisfaction with life- Negative indicator: psycho-somatic complaints

Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR satisfaction complaints satisfaction complaints satisfaction complaints

Age mother Age father

New partner mother + * New partner father Education mother 1 Education mother 2

Education father 1 Education father 2 + **

Age child - ** Gender child (ref: boys) - *

Duration since divorce Contact with father

Support mother + *** + *** + * Control mother

Support father + ** - * Control father + **

R² 0,2495 0,0318 0,3848 0,0387 0,2334 0,1805 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05

Documents

Does the non-residential parent matter?