Support and Conflict in the Foster Family and Children’s Well-Being: A Comparison Between Foster and Birth Children

Support and Conflict in the Foster Family andChildren’s Well-Being: A Comparison Between

Foster and Birth Children

Mieke Denuwelaere Piet Bracke*

Abstract: Data on 96 foster families with a foster child and a birth child between the ages of 10 and 21 years wereused to analyze the association between support and conflict processes within the foster family and youths’ reportson four indexes of well-being: self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional problems, and behavioral problems. The self-esteem of foster children was more strongly affected by support and conflict processes in the foster family than wasthe self-esteem of birth children in the same family. For birth children as well as for foster children, parental sup-port significantly related to emotional problems. For foster children, but not for birth children, more conflicts withthe foster parents related to more behavioral problems. The results are compared with other studies, and implica-tions for practice are suggested.

Key Words: conflict, father involvement, foster children, parent-child relationships, sibling relations, social support.

Several studies have demonstrated that children infoster care suffer from more mental health problemsthan do children in the normative population (Orme &Buehler, 2001). This high rate of emotional andbehavioral problems among foster children is notsurprising considering the circumstances that oftenlead to a child’s placement in foster care. Until now,most studies on foster care have focused on themental health problems of foster children or on themajor stressors they have experienced prior to theirplacement in a foster family.

Far less is known about the characteristics of thefoster family and the influence they can have on theadjustment of foster children. Yet, the foster familyis the daily context of many foster children. AsOrme and Buehler (2001) stated, ‘‘Given the impor-tant role of foster families, it is interesting to under-stand aspects of the foster family that mightexacerbate behavioral and emotional problems infoster children, as well as aspects of the foster familythat might prevent or ameliorate future problems’’(p. 3). This paper aims to provide insight into theinfluence support and conflict processes may have

on key indexes of children’s well-being for a sampleof foster families in Flanders.

Foster Care for Children in Flanders

A foster family provides a safe environment for chil-dren who cannot live at home (temporarily) becauseof parental problems. Since the constitutionalchanges in Belgium from 1980 and 1988, responsi-bility for youth care transferred to the communitiesand there is no longer a Belgian foster care system.In Flanders, placements in foster families are carriedout by 25 private agencies authorized and subsidizedby the Flemish Community. Most of the placementsresult from a ‘‘special youth care’’ decision by thejuvenile court or by the Committee for SpecialYouth Care Assistance. The committees for specialyouth care or the juvenile court can decide whethera familial situation is problematic for the child andwhether the child needs to be placed in foster care.These voluntary decisions, in accordance with allparties involved, are the domain of the committeesfor special youth care; however, the juvenile courtcan impose an obligatory placement. In special

*Mieke Denuwelaere is a doctoral student at the Department of Sociology, University of Ghent, Korte Meer 5, B-9000 Gent, Belgium ([email protected]).

Family Relations, 56 (January 2007), 67–79. Blackwell Publishing.Copyright 2007 by the National Council on Family Relations.

youth care, all children under the age of 18 years areassisted after a decision from the juvenile court orfrom the Committee for Special Youth Care.

Besides special youth care, there is also foster carefor disabled persons, temporary foster care (maxi-mum 90 days per year) for children younger than 12years (child and family), and psychiatric foster care.Foster care is considered full-time care and is sup-posed to be a temporary arrangement, with theexpectation that the child will return to the parents.However, the length of stay of 30% of the place-ments, within the system of special youth care, hasaveraged 3 years or more. In 2004, there were 3,489foster families in the Flemish Community, of which2,505 (72%) were within special youth care.Although the aim of foster care is to enhance thewell-being of the children in care by providingthem a safe family environment, the hypothesizedimpact of processes within these families upon thefoster children has rarely been empirically evaluated.

Support and Conflict in the Family

Research in the general population has identified sup-port (Gecas & Schwalbe, 1986) and conflict (Crean,2004; Shek, 1998) as critical family processes influ-encing children’s mental health. Cobb (1976)described social support as information leading anindividual to perceive that he or she is cared for,esteemed, and valued by members of his or her socialnetwork. Social support relates to well-being throughits effect on emotions, cognitions, and behavior. Pre-vious research (Andersson, 2005) indicated that, forchildren and adolescents in foster care, a secure sup-portive relationship is important because it enablesthem to enter new situations and relationships witha capacity to trust. Much evidence has accumulateddemonstrating that, in addition to the family,friends are an important support for children andadolescents. Within the family, however, it is alsonecessary to differentiate among the potential sour-ces of support. One line of research on social rela-tions has pointed to the possible differential effectsof support from various sources. Support providedby friends is given more voluntarily and freely,whereas support from family members is governedmore by a sense of obligation and expectation(Dean, Kolody, & Wood, 1990). There is evidencethat support that is less expected and more voluntaryhas a larger effect on the sense of well-being than thesupport expected from relatives (Dean et al., 1990;Horwitz, Reinhard, & Howell-White, 1996).

However, the same people who provide supportcan also be sources of conflict. This has been oftenoverlooked by studies of social support within thefamily context (Crean, 2004). There is evidence thatdepressive symptoms (Forehand et al., 1988), anxi-ety, and the amount of self-esteem (Shek, 1998)within children are related to the levels of conflictwith parents.

Further, some studies have suggested that themental health consequences of support may relatemore to the negative effects of an absence of supportor a presence of conflict than to the positive effects ofthe presence of support (Coyne & Downey, 1991).Others have found that support and conflict are rela-tively independent aspects of social relationships(Crean, 2004). In a study on the attachment betweendivorced people, Madden-Derdich and Arditti (1999)found that conflict and support are distinct familyprocesses, which should be considered separately.

Because of the gap in literature of knowledgeabout foster families, it is not clear whether thesesame processes found in the general population areconceptually meaningful in explaining children’swell-being in alternate family constellations, such asthe foster family. We cannot be sure that the knowl-edge about family relations and well-being in generalis fully applicable to the foster family context,because there are some considerable differencesbetween foster families and nonfoster families thatcould alter the effect of family processes upon well-being. For example, foster children are expected toreside only temporarily in the family. This makesthe relations between the foster child and membersof the foster family ambiguous. On the one hand,foster parents want to provide the foster child a warmand supportive environment; on the other hand,they may not attach in the same manner to the fosterchild as to the birth children because of the expecta-tion that the foster child will return home to theirbiological parents. Second, because foster parent-hood is a nonnormative way of parenting, role ex-pectations are not clear. Moreover, there is evidencefrom adoptive families that relationships in familieswithout two biological parents are characterized bygreater distance and more conflict (Coleman &Ganong, 1997).

Children’s Well-Being

The focus of this paper is the subjective well-being ofyouth in foster families. Subjective well-being is an

Family Relations � Volume 56, Number 1 � January 200768

important aspect of global well-being and refers topeople’s affective and cognitive evaluations of theirlives (Diener, 2000). For the purposes of this study,we focused on four aspects of psychological well-being (subsequently called well-being): self-esteem,self-efficacy, emotional problems, and behavioralproblems. The literature indicates that children infoster care tend to exhibit more internalized emo-tional problems, such as anxiety and depressivesymptoms (McIntyre & Keesler, 1986). Foster chil-dren most commonly display externalized behavioralproblems such as aggressive behavior, self-destructivebehavior, and delinquency (Kerker & Dore, 2006).

The definition of well-being as the absence ofproblems is now generally accepted as unsatisfying(Pollard & Lee, 2003), and many researchers point tothe importance of including also positive aspects ofwell-being, by examining children’s strengths andabilities. The literature on resilience directs attentionto the positive aspects of well-being and focuses onthe strengths of ‘‘at-risk’’ youth by highlighting theircapacity to function despite adversity (Rutter, 1985).Further, self-worth has been identified as a key dimen-sion of resilience for foster care youth (Schofield &Beek, 2005), and research has demonstrated thatself-worth is multifaceted (Gecas & Schwalbe,1986). Specifically, self-esteem indicates the moralaspect of self-evaluation (being good, worthy, etc.),whereas self-efficacy refers to the sense of one’scompetence or effectiveness in dealing with environ-ments (Gecas & Schwalbe). Therefore, the examina-tion of both self-esteem and self-efficacy shouldgive a more nuanced understanding of the relation-ship between family processes and children’s self-worth. In sum, this study took into account not onlynegative aspects of well-being, such as emotionaland behavioral problems, but also positive aspectsof well-being, namely children’s self-esteem andself-efficacy.

The Present Study

The literature highlights the important role of con-flict and support processes within the family for theself-worth and emotional and behavioral problemsof children. Given that one of the main purposes offoster care is enhancing foster children’s self-worthand diminishing their problems, it is crucial tounderstand the processes within a foster family that

may influence children’s well-being. As such, thisstudy addressed certain shortcomings in previousresearch on children in foster care. First, until nowmost research in foster care has relied on perceptionsof the foster mother, seldom including the percep-tions of the foster children themselves or foster fathers(Gilligan, 2000). Recent studies, however, indicatethat family members do not always share perceptionsand that family members experience the same eventsin different ways (Dekovic & Buist, 2005).

Second, we were interested in learning moreabout how the pattern of influence between supportand conflict processes might differ for foster chil-dren and birth children within the same family. Tothe best of our knowledge, this has not been previ-ously considered in foster care research. However,based upon the literature on the effect of normative,expected support among kin, the comparison of fos-ter and birth children was expected to yield findingssuggesting a larger impact of family processes uponfoster children’s well-being compared with birth chil-dren. Moreover, as Lindsey (2001) stated, ‘‘becauseof the conflictual and abusive histories of foster chil-dren, the effects (of poor family functioning) maybe worse for foster children’’ (p. 21).

The aim of this study was to investigate the influ-ence of support and conflict processes within thefoster family upon the self-worth and emotional andbehavioral problems of foster and birth children.We asked the following research questions:

1. Is the amount of support and conflict with other

family members different for foster children and

birth children living in the same family?

2. Do foster children have lower self-worth and

more emotional and behavioral problems than

birth children?

3. To what extent do support and conflict within the

foster family contribute to the self-worth and emo-

tional and behavioral problems for foster children?

Method

Sample and Procedures

The Flemish foster agencies asked all foster familiesin the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium who metthe inclusion criteria to participate in the study.The inclusion criteria were that (a) the families hadat least one foster child between 10 and 21 years of

Support and Conflict in the Foster Family � Denuwelaere and Bracke 69

age, who had stayed for at least 2 months in thisfoster home; (b) the families also had at least onebirth child between 10 and 21 years old, who stilllived at home—both children had to be at least 10years old to be able to fill in a questionnaire bythemselves; (c) there were a foster father and a fos-ter mother in the family; and (d) the foster childwas not handicapped and was placed in the fosterfamily through a special youth care decision. Therewere 245 foster families that met these strict inclu-sion criteria. Four members of each family receiveda questionnaire: the foster father, the foster mother,one foster child who met the criteria, and one birthchild who met the criteria. An accompanying letterexplaining the purpose of the study instructed eachfamily member to complete his or her own ques-tionnaire and to put it in a separate enclosed enve-lope. Because of the anonymity of the familiesinvolved, however, we could not control the answer-ing of the questionnaires within the family. In all,100 families returned all four questionnaires, and 96of those families provided complete answers for allfour family members (i.e., 384 questionnaires).

Outcome Variable Measures

Using the children’s reports, we examined fouraspects of children’s well-being: two aspects of self-worth—self-efficacy and self-esteem—as well asemotional and behavioral problems.

Self-esteem. We measured self-esteem using theself-esteem scale of Rosenberg (1965). In this 10-item scale, subjects rate themselves concerning theirfeelings about their self-esteem. This part of the self-concept refers to the degree to which individuals feelthey are persons of value (Caste & Burke, 2002).Cronbach’s as were .86 for birth children and .85for foster children, pointing to a good internalreliability.

Self-efficacy. Sherer’s self-efficacy test (Shereret al., 1982) is a 17-item scale used to measure thebeliefs subjects hold about their capabilities to pro-duce results by their actions. This competencedimension of the self-concept refers to the degreeto which people see themselves as capable and effi-cacious (Caste & Burke, 2002). Cronbach’s aswere .84 for birth children and .79 for fosterchildren.

Emotional problems. For the assessment of emo-tional problems, we used the most recent version ofthe popular Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach &

Rescorla, 2001). On the Youth Self-Report Form,children indicated on a 3-point Likert scale the fre-quency of problems, with high scores indicatingmore problems. For this study, we used the Anxiety-Depression and Withdrawn subscales as indicatorsof emotional problems. Both subscales had a goodinternal reliability, for the foster child as well as forthe birth child, with a Cronbach’s a of .88 and .84,respectively.

Behavioral problems. Children’s self-reports ontheir behavioral problems were also assessed throughthe Youth Self-Report Form from Achenbach’sChild Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla,2001). Children indicated on a 3-point Likert scalethe frequency of aggressive and delinquent symp-toms, with higher scores indicating more problems.The subscale Aggression as well as the subscaleDelinquency had a good reliability, with Cronbach’sas between .85 and .89.

Independent Variable Measures

Social support. This measure is derived from theSocial Support Questionnaire (Sarason, Levine,Basham, & Sarason, 1983), a widely used 26-itemmeasure of social support. For the purpose of thisstudy, the categories of potential supportive personswere limited to the (foster) father, the (foster)mother, the sibling (who completed the other ques-tionnaire), and a friend. For each potential support-ive person, the respondent could indicate if he orshe could count on this person for giving support in26 situations. The assumption made in this measureis that higher levels of support are reflected ina greater number of situations in which one couldrequest aid from the particular person. The socialsupport scale had a good reliability; for each child’srating of the support from the various family mem-bers and the friends, the Cronbach’s as ranged from.90 to .94.

Parent-child conflict. We measured conflict be-tween parent and child using the Issues Checklist(Prinz, Foster, Kent, & O’Leary, 1979). The fosterchild as well as the birth child completed the IssuesChecklist for mother and father separately. For 27items, the child indicated if he or she had a conflictduring the prior 4 weeks with the mother or withthe father (or both) and how intense this conflictwas on a scale from 1 to 5, with higher ratings indi-cating a more intense conflict. The parents also ratedon the same 27 issues if they had had a conflict with


the foster child or with the birth child (or both) andhow intense this conflict was. Frequency by intensitylevels was calculated by multiplying the number oftimes each issue had been discussed by the intensitylevel of these discussions. Cronbach’s as rangedbetween .85 and .92 for the children and between.89 and .92 for the parents, pointing to a goodreliability.

Sibling conflict. We measured conflict betweenthe siblings using the negativity items of a shortenedversion of the Sibling Relationship Inventory (SRI)from Stocker and McHale (1992). The childrenrated five items of the SRI concerning hostile behav-ior toward the other sibling, such as fighting andteasing, on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5(always). The scale had a good reliability, withCronbach’s as of .76 for foster children’s ratingsand .77 for birth children’s ratings.

Demographic Controls

We calculated the children’s age, as well as the abso-lute age difference between the foster child and thebirth child. A categorical variable (called birth order)was created indicating which sibling was older: thefoster child is older; the birth child is older; or thefoster child and birth child are of the same age. Wealso looked at gender differences and created a gen-der composition variable with four categories: thefoster child and birth child are boys; the foster childand birth child are girls; the foster child is a boy,and the birth child is a girl; or the foster child isa girl, and the birth child is a boy.

Analytic Strategy

Repeated measurement analyses of covariance(ANCOVAs) and a series of regression analyses wereused to answer our research questions. Conflict inthe parent-child relations was rated by the childrenas well as by the parents. Conflicts between the fos-ter child and the birth child were rated by both chil-dren. For social support, we were interested in theperceived amount of support, which only the chil-dren themselves could assess.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The mean age of the foster children in our samplewas 14.5 years (standard deviation [SD] ¼ 3.10),

which differed significantly (p , .01) from themean age of 17 years for birth children (SD ¼2.61). In a majority (70%) of the families, the birthchild was older, and in only 6% were they of thesame age. There was no significant difference in thepercentage of boys and girls in our sample of birthchildren and foster children: 42.6% of our birthchildren were boys, and 48.4% of our foster chil-dren were boys. In 19.6% of our sample, both thefoster and the birth child were boys, 30.4% wereboth girls, and 50% were gender mixed (in 28.3%,the foster child was the girl; in 21.7%, the fosterchild was the boy). The average length the fosterchild was in this foster family was 7.1 years (SD ¼4.96). The foster child was on average 7.2 years oldwhen he or she came to the foster family (SD ¼5.38) and 5.2 years old (SD ¼ 5.23) when he or shewas placed into the care system (i.e., away from thefamily of origin). The mean age for the foster par-ents was 45.7 years (SD ¼ 5.07) for mothers and47.6 years (SD ¼ 4.93) for fathers.

Analyses of Variance

The first aim of this study was to compare fosterchildren and birth children living in the same fosterfamily on the perceived amount of support and con-flict with other family members and on well-being.Because the foster child and the birth child reportedon their experiences within the same foster family,and therefore the data were not independent, weused repeated measurement ANCOVA. We con-trolled for the following potentially confoundingvariables: age of the foster child, gender composi-tion, absolute age difference, and birth order.Table 1 summarizes the means, SDs, and results ofthe univariate F tests.

Foster children and birth children perceived thesame amount of support from their (foster) parents.Controlling for age, gender composition, age differ-ence, and birth order of the sibling group, fosterchildren and birth children reported no difference inthe support they received from each other, and bothchildren perceived a comparable amount of supportfrom their friends. Foster children reported havingmore conflicts with the foster parents thanbirth children, conflicts with the foster mother,F(1.90) ¼ 4.21, p , .05, and conflicts with the fos-ter father, F(1.90) ¼ 4.80, p , .05. This result wasfurther confirmed by the parent data; foster mothersas well as foster fathers reported more conflicts with


the foster child than with the birth child, mother’srating, F(1.90) ¼ 24.46, p , .01, and father’s rat-ing, F(1.90) ¼ 19.59, p , .01. Both children per-ceived an equal amount of conflict within theirrelationship with each other. This cross-informantconsistency heightens the validity of our findings.

There were some interactions between our demo-graphic variables and family process variables. Thedifference in perceived support from the siblingrelated to the birth order of the children, F(1.90) ¼6.08, p , .01. The foster child received more sup-port from the birth child than vice versa when bothfoster and birth children were of the same age. If thetwo children were of a different age, the youngerchild received more support from the older childthan vice versa. There was an interaction effectbetween the difference in perceived support fromfriends and the absolute age difference between fos-ter and birth children, F(1.90) ¼ 4.89, p , .05.

The larger the age difference between the children,the larger the difference in perceived support fromfriends, with birth children reporting more supportthan foster children. The difference in conflicts withthe father was dependent on the gender compositionof the siblings, F(1.90) ¼ 3.23, p , .05. The largestdifferences were found where the foster child andthe birth child were boys. The next largest differencewas when the children were two girls, followed bythe combination of a boy foster child and a girl birthchild. If the foster child was a girl and the birth childwas a boy, the birth child had more conflicts withthe foster father than the foster child did. The sameinteractions were found for the parental report ofconflicts with the children, F(1.90) ¼ 3.60, p ,

.05, for the foster father’s report, and F(1.90) ¼2.90, p , .05, for the foster mother’s report. Hence,it was important to control for these demographicvariables in order to reveal the real differencesbetween foster and birth children.

Both aspects of self-worth, the amount of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and the amount of internal-izing anxiety-depressive symptoms did not differ sig-nificantly between our sample of foster children andbirth children. Foster children were significantlymore withdrawn than the birth children (F(1.90) ¼4.83, p , .05). The foster children had significantlymore externalizing delinquent (F(1.90) ¼ 6.20, p ,

.05) and aggressive (F(1.90) ¼ 17.12, p , .01)symptoms than the birth children.

Unique Effects of Social Support and Conflict WithinEach Family Relation Upon Well-Being

Standard multiple regressions assessed the uniquecontribution of support and conflict of each familymember to the well-being of the children. In orderto examine which aspects of the foster family influ-enced the self-reported well-being of the children,we regressed the child-reported amount of perceivedsupport, the parent-reported amount of conflictwith the child, and the sibling-reported amountof conflict with the child on each child-reportedaspect of well-being (i.e., amount of self-esteem,self-efficacy, internalizing problems, and externaliz-ing problems). Because of the nonindependence offoster children and birth children, and our aim toexamine differential patterns of influence betweenthe two groups, regressions were run separately.

For foster and birth children, the support frommother and the support from father were rather

Table 1. Predictors and Outcome Variables. Means, Stan-dard Deviations, and F test

Foster Child Birth Child

M SD M SD F Sig.

Support froma

(Foster) Mother .79 .02 .82 .02 .72 .40

(Foster) Father .70 .04 .80 .04 3.15 .08

Sibling .67 .06 .58 .05 .41 .52

Friends .73 .03 .85 .02 .28 .60

Conflict with . . .

Siblinga 2.32 .07 2.33 .07 .04 .85

(Foster) Mother

Child’s ratinga .72 .06 .57 .05 4.21 .04

Mother’s ratingb .97 .07 .66 .06 24.46 .00

(Foster) Father

Child’s ratinga .50 .06 .36 .05 4.80 .03

Father’s ratingb .79 .06 .55 .05 19.59 .00

Self-esteema 3.69 .07 3.76 .06 .48 .49

Self-efficacya 3.42 .06 3.55 .05 2.88 .09

Withdrawn behaviora 4.64 .36 3.67 .36 4.83 .03

Anxiety-depressiona 4.37 .36 3.59 .37 2.53 .11

Aggressiona 5.50 .39 3.76 .28 17.12 .00

Delinquencya 3.08 .26 2.36 .19 6.20 .02

Note: aComparisons between ratings of the foster children and ratings of the birth

children on perceived social support, conflict, and well-being, controlling for non-

independence and the covariates, age of the foster child, gender composition, absolute

age difference, and birth order. bRatings of the parent on the amount of conflict

with foster child and with birth child, controlling for nonindependence and the cova-

riates, age of the foster child, gender composition, absolute age difference, and birth

order.


highly correlated (r ¼ .70** for foster children’s rat-ings and r ¼ .66** for birth children’s ratings). Toassess the unique contribution of mother and fatherin the analyses, we controlled for multicollinearityby regressing both variables on each other and usingthe residuals. The same approach was used for con-flict because the ratings of mother and father alsocorrelated highly when the parents reported on theamount of conflict with a particular child (.53 p ,

.01 for conflicts with foster children and .43 p ,

.01 for conflicts with birth children). The correla-tions between these two variables for each individualfamily member were modest (all Pearson correlationcoefficients were lower than r ¼ 2.16); thus, bothsupport and conflict were included in the regressionmodels. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the results of themultiple regression analyses by group (foster chil-dren and birth children, respectively).

Self-Worth

The model explained 30% of the variance in the fos-ter child’s self-esteem and only 18% of the variancein the birth child’s self-esteem, indicating that theself-esteem of foster children was more stronglyaffected by support and conflict processes in the fos-ter family than the self-esteem of birth children inthe same family. The foster father’s support had thestrongest relationship to the foster child’s self-esteem(b ¼ .50, p , .01) and to the foster child’s self-effi-cacy (b ¼ .42, p , .05). More support given by thefoster father related to higher feelings of self-worthand self-efficacy in the foster child. Also, the supportfrom the foster mother was significantly related tothe self-esteem of the foster child (b ¼ .39, p ,

.05). The self-worth of the birth children in oursample did not significantly relate to parental support.The support given by friends was the only significantpredictor of the birth children’s amount of self-esteem(b ¼ .25, p , .05). For both groups of children, thefeeling of self-efficacy was influenced by supportfrom friends (b ¼ .31, p , .01, for birth children;b ¼ .27, p , .05, for foster children). A highernumber of conflicts with the foster mother relatedto less self-esteem for foster children (b ¼ 2.44,p , .05) and to less self-efficacy for birth children(b ¼2.62, p , .01).

Emotional Problems

For birth children, as well as for foster children,parental support was significantly related to

emotional problems, indicating that more supportprovided by the foster parents was related to fewersymptoms of emotional problems. Again, the stron-gest predictor of emotional problems in foster childrenwas the support from the foster father (b ¼ 2.60,p , .01). As for self-esteem, support from friendswas an important predictor for birth children’semotional problems but was not significantly relatedto the emotional problems for foster children. Con-flict with the foster mother was related to emotionalproblems for foster children (b ¼ .58, p , .01). Forbirth children, the emotional problems were notrelated to the amount of conflict with familymembers.

Behavioral Problems

Our model was better at explaining the behavioralproblems of birth children than the behavioral prob-lems of foster children. For birth children, moreparental support was significantly related to fewerbehavioral problems. For foster children, parentalsupport had no significant impact upon behavioralproblems. However, more conflict with the fosterparents related to more behavioral problems forfoster children.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the firstto examine the extent to which conflict and socialsupport in the foster family relate to the well-beingof its children. This study extends previous researchon foster children in several ways. First, the fosterfamily as a social unit was disentangled into its vari-ous subsystems and relationships. Only when therelative contribution of each family member isevaluated, are some processes revealed that wouldotherwise remain unnoticed. Second, based onthe sociology of childhood, which emphasizesthe importance of incorporating the experiences ofchildren themselves into analyses of their well-being(Corsaro, 1997), data were gathered from fosterand birth children. A study design that pays atten-tion to the children’s perceptions is essential to catchthe meaning and significance of family relations(Andersson, 2005). Third, we took into account therole of both the foster mother and the foster father.The majority of studies on foster families excludefoster fathers or do not distinguish between foster


Table2.Standard

Regression

AnalysesofSocialSupportandConflictin

theFosterFam

ilyon

Self-Esteem,Self-Efficacy,EmotionalProblem

s,andBehavioralProblem

sofFosterChildren

Predictors

Self-Esteem

aSelf-Efficacya

EmotionalProblemsa

BehavioralProblemsa

BSE

bsr2

BSE

bsr2

BSE

bsr2

BSE

bsr2

Age

2.03

.03

2.12

.01

2.00

.03

2.04

.00

.00

.01

.07

.00

.01

.01

.11

.01

Gender

2.39

.14

2.30**

.08

2.02

.13

2.02

.00

.13

.07

.20

.03

2.04

.07

2.07

.01

Socialsupportfrom

a

(Foster)Mother

1.62

.70

.39*

.05

1.04

.66

.28

.03

2.75

.34

2.35*

.04

2.50

.34

2.26

.03

(Foster)Father

1.68

.54

.50**

.09

1.28

.52

.42*

.06

21.01

.26

2.60**

.14

2.30

.26

2.20

.02

Sibling

2.17

.24

2.09

.01

2.35

.23

2.19

.03

.15

.12

.15

.15

2.06

.11

.07

.00

Friends

.19

.25

.08

.01

.58

.23

.27*

.07

2.16

.12

2.13

.16

2.08

.12

2.08

.01

Con

flictwith

(Foster)Mother

b2.49

.23

2.44*

.04

2.16

.22

2.16

.01

.32

.11

.58**

.08

.20

.08

.35**

.07

(Foster)Father

c2.37

.19

2.37

.04

.05

.20

.05

.00

.15

.09

.31

.02

.22

.08

.36**

.09

Siblingd

.00

.10

.00

.00

2.10

.09

2.13

.01

2.07

.05

2.16

.02

.12

.05

.03

.00

R2

.30

.25

.36

.19

Adjusted

R2

.21

.16

.28

.09

Uniquevariance

.27

.13

.26

.16

Shared

variance

.03

.12

.11

.03

Fvalue

3.36**

2.63*

4.42**

1.88

Note:B¼

unstandardized

betas;b¼

standardized

betas;sr

2¼

squared

semi-partialcorrelationcoefficient.Gender:Dummycoded

(boys¼

0,girls¼

1).

a Child’srating(self-report).

bMother’srating.

c Father’srating.

dSibling’srating.

*p�

.05.**p�

.01.


Table3.Standard

Regression

AnalysesofSocialSupportandConflictin

theFosterFam

ilyon

Self-esteem

,Self-efficacy,EmotionalProblem

sandBehavioralProblem

sof

Birth

Children

Predictors

Self-esteem

aSelf-efficacya

EmotionalProblemsa

BehavioralProblemsa

BSE

bsr2

BSE

bsr2

BSE

bsr2

BSE

bsr2

Age

.04

.02

.20

.02

2.01

.02

2.07

.00

.00

.01

.01

.00

.00

.01

.10

.01

Gender

2.01

.14

2.01

.01

.00

.11

.00

.00

.21

.06

.33**

.09

2.06

.04

.15

.02

Socialsupportfrom

a

(Foster)Mother

.70

.63

.19

.01

2.07

.51

2.02

.00

2.72

.29

2.37*

.05

2.53

.18

2.42**

.08

(Foster)Father

.96

.53

.32

.03

.29

.43

.11

.00

2.71

.24

2.45**

.07

2.55

.16

2.54**

.11

Sibling

.13

.23

.07

.00

.00

.19

.00

.00

2.22

.11

2.22*

.03

.00

.08

.00

.00

Friends

.86

.38

.26*

.05

.84

.31

.31**

.07

2.58

.18

2.34**

.16

2.16

.12

2.14

.02

Con

flictwith

(Foster)Mother

b2.07

.55

2.03

.00

21.13

.44

2.62**

.06

.21

.25

.19

.08

.07

.05

.17

.02

(Foster)Father

c.13

.62

.05

.00

2.81

.50

2.38

.02

.20

.29

.15

.00

.07

.06

.14

.01

Siblingd

.03

.10

.04

.00

2.02

.09

2.03

.00

2.08

.05

2.18

.02

.02

.03

.06

.00

R2

.18

.24

.34

.32

Adjusted

R2

.09

.16

.27

.24

Uniquevariance

.05

.13

.33

.19

Shared

variance

.13

.11

.01

.14

Fvalue

1.98*

2.90*

4.71**

3.94**

Note:B¼

unstandardized

betas;b¼

standardized

betas;sr

2¼

squared

semi-partialcorrelationcoefficient.Gender:Dummycoded

(boys¼

0,girls¼

1).

a Child’srating(self-report).

bMother’srating.

c Father’srating.

dSibling’srating.

*p�

.05.**p�

.01.


fathers and foster mothers in reporting results(Orme, 2001). Finally, the comparison of foster andbirth children in the same family allows us to ana-lyze whether the same family processes have a differ-ential effect on birth and foster children.

Support, Conflicts, and Well-Being

Several findings emerged that merit further consid-eration. In our study, the birth and foster children’sreports of received support from family membersand friends did not differ significantly. Foster par-ents were evaluated by the foster children as impor-tant support providers. This is in agreement withthe finding from previous studies that children infoster care have largely positive views of their fostercare placement and relations with foster parents,although those relations are imposed on them by thefact of their placement. Foster children did, how-ever, have more conflicts with their (foster) parentsthan birth children. This finding is in line with theevidence from research on adopted children thatparent-adopted child relations are characterized bygreater conflict than are parent-birth child relations(Coleman & Ganong, 1997). Specifically, the fosterchildren in our sample had more withdrawn symp-toms and aggressive and delinquent behavior thanthe birth children. This result confirms findings fromprevious research on the well-being of foster youth(Kerker & Dore, 2006).

Research in the general population has identifiedthe family as an important interaction context thatinfluences children’s sense of well-being throughsupportive and conflictual interactions that occuramong family members. Our study indicates thatthe same family interactions are also conceptuallymeaningful in explaining foster children’s sense ofwell-being. In addition, research in the general pop-ulation has found parental support to be related tochildren’s feeling of self-worth. However, our resultssuggest that in foster families only the foster child-ren’s self-worth is affected by parental support. Theprocess of reflected appraisals explains why parentalsupport may affect children’s self-esteem (Cooley,1902; Mead, 1934). Because of the capacity of roletaking, people see themselves as they think signifi-cant others see them. If children perceive parentalsupport as reflecting positive appraisals, then paren-tal support can influence the self-concept of thechild (Felson & Zielinsky, 1989). But why did wefind an effect of parental support for foster

children’s self-worth but not for birth children’sself-worth? A possible explanation for this surprisingfinding is that the support a foster child receivesfrom his or her foster parents is less normative andless expected than the support a birth child receivesfrom their biological parents. Among kin, thereexists a normative obligation to support a familymember who has provided support (Gouldner,1960). Because family members share a past historyand a potential future of support, support amongkin follows general norms of reciprocity (Sahlins,1965). Foster children, however, do not share a pasthistory with the foster parents, and the relations areassumed to be contemporary. Support provided byfoster parents may be less guided by the uncondi-tional obligatory norms governing support amongbiological kin and might fall between the volunta-ristic norms that characterize friendships and theobligatory norms of parental support to birth chil-dren. There is evidence from research in otherdomains that support that is less expected and lessnormative has a larger effect on well-being than theexpected support from relatives. However, we mustcaution against treating this as an adequate explana-tion for the observed difference between foster andbirth children, because this remains largely an adhoc explanation. Another possibility is that fosterchildren’s self-esteem is more affected by interac-tions with foster parents because of the histories offoster children and their traumatic experiences intheir families of origin (Lindsey, 2001). Literaturesuggests that the relationship between parental sup-port and children’s self-esteem is reciprocal (Gecas &Schwalbe, 1986). Therefore, we must also grant thepossibility that foster children’s self-esteem influen-ces the support provided by foster parents. It may bethat the strong relationship found between parentalsupport and the foster child’s self-esteem is becauseof a greater responsiveness of the foster parents tothe self-esteem of foster children than to the self-esteem of birth children.

For both groups of children, parental supportwas negatively related to emotional problems. Thisfinding is in agreement with previous research onnonfoster children. Parental support, though nar-rower in scope, reflects attachment bonds. Theattachment theory of Bowlby (1969) is heuristic inunderstanding the role of support from adult care-takers for emotional problems. The availability ofa supportive caretaker is a source of comfort andsecurity for the child and hence reduces anxiety.


Insecure attachments contribute to the developmentof a negative internal working model of the self andenhance the development of depressive symptoms.Our findings point to the importance of foster par-ents as supportive caregivers to whom foster childrenmay securely attach.

The family processes incorporated in our studyexplained less variance in the foster child’s behav-ioral problems compared with the explained vari-ance in self-worth and emotional problems. Thissuggests that other variables, not taken up in themodel, may have a large influence on behavioralproblems of foster children. Perhaps, behavioralproblems are more influenced by the traumaticexperiences of the foster children prior to theirplacement in the foster family. Also, because behav-ioral problems are more externalized than self-worthor emotional problems, other family process varia-bles could play a significant role. Research in thegeneral population points to the importance ofparental monitoring and control in diminishingbehavioral problems in children.

A notable finding in our study was the importanceof the role of the foster father for foster children. Thesignificance of the role of the father for the well-beingof children has been found in previous studies in thegeneral population (Crean, 2004). Gilligan (2000)emphasized the neglect in research, as well as in socialwork, of the role of male foster carers. Gecas andSchwalbe (1986) found that fathers had a strongerinfluence on adolescent self-esteem than mothers. Theyspeculated that the typical greater authority of thefather in family relations might make his behaviormore consequential for the child’s self-conception.Could it be that the foster child is more impressedby the authority of the foster father than is the birthchild in the same family? Another possibility is thatthe lesser involvement of the foster father in childsocialization, because he is often away for work,makes his involvements more important and mem-orable in the child’s mind (Gecas & Schwalbe). Formany foster children, the foster father is the firstfather role they are confronted with in their livesbecause many foster children come from mother-only families (Gilligan, 2000). Moreover, fathersmay be more important in influencing esteem-enhancing experiences for foster children outsidethe foster family. Gilligan (2000) described, forexample, how foster fathers provide access to hob-bies for foster children and in this way can boostthe foster child’s self-esteem.

Limitations, Contributions, andFuture Research

Several limitations of this study warrant con-sideration. First, we had a low response rate anda small sample of foster families (N ¼ 96). Thismay be because of the study design and the studypopulation. The findings presented here need to beconsidered as tentative results rather than conclu-sive insights into foster family functioning. Thestrict inclusion criteria of the sample imply that wehave no information on foster families withoutbirth children or foster families with single fosterparents. It would be appealing to see if the findingsof this study could be replicated in these foster fam-ily settings as well. Because the children in ourstudy had to be able to fill in a questionnaire, theminimal age was restricted, and hence our findingscannot be generalized to foster families with smallchildren.

A second shortcoming in the study concernsshared method variance. There is a possibility thatthe correlations between the independent variablesupport and the self-reported dependent measuresare because of the fact that the same child providesinformation on both variables (Sweeting, 2001).Therefore, correlations within the analyses of self-worth and emotional problems must be interpretedwith caution. For the variable conflict, the problemof shared method variance was avoided by using theperceptions of parents or siblings. Finally, becauseof the cross-sectional design of the study, we areunable to draw causal conclusions.

The findings of this study open up some areasfor future research. First, it would be interesting tocompare family relations, their contents, and their ef-fects on the well-being of children with a comparisongroup of nonfoster families. Second, we must see thechild’s progress in foster care from an ecologicalview (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Numerous environ-ments that surround the foster child and the fosterfamily impact the child’s well-being. Key influencesupon a child’s well-being, such as individual charac-teristics, school and peer experiences, leisure-timeactivities and interests, the quality of social work,and the larger social environment (Kelly & Gilligan,2000), were not incorporated in this study. Researchin those areas should supplement this study to pro-vide a more complete vision of the daily experiencesof foster children. A key aspect is, for example, the


foster child’s contact with the birth family. More-over, macrosociological contexts such as the Flemishfoster care system will probably have an influenceupon the functioning of foster families and the well-being of foster children.

Finally, in order to analyze in more detail theway in which foster children evaluate their familyexperiences as compared with birth children, it isessential to know the meaning these children attachto their experiences. Qualitative research designs arebetter suited to deal with those questions and there-fore would be an interesting complement to thequantitative findings reported here.

Implications for Practice and Policy

Our findings have a number of implications forpractice and policy regarding foster children. Thefocus of our study lies in the perceptions of childrenin care. Listening to children in care should haveconsequences for the nature of social work and forthe way in which the social work relationship isdefined and understood (Schofield, 1998). Childwelfare work would be more reflective, and childrenwould be more involved in decision-making pro-cesses concerning their lives (Andersson, 2005;Thomas & O’Kane, 1999), if children were seen asactive participants constructing their own experien-ces. This implies that the competence rather thanthe shortcomings of the children in care must beacknowledged. Defining well-being not only as theabsence of problems but also as focusing onstrengths and abilities of the children in care is a nec-essary first step. Moreover, consulting the childrencan heighten their self-esteem and feelings of self-efficacy, which is an important aspect of resiliencefor children in care (Gilligan, 1997). Thomas andO’Kane demonstrated the importance children at-tach to being involved in, for example, meetingswith social workers.

Second, the study’s focus on day-to-day experien-ces of foster children points to the importance forpractitioners as well as for researchers to movebeyond an emphasis on the past experiences of thechildren and focus instead upon their daily interac-tions within family relations. The emphasis inresearch and social work with children in care onpreplacement experiences is largely because of thestrong reliance on the attachment paradigm (Bowlby,

1969) in explaining the foster children’s well-being(Barth, Crea, John, Thoburn, & Quinton, 2005).A misinterpretation of this theory implies that thechild’s behavior is limited or frozen (Barth et al.,2005). By consequence, research and social workoften miss the more nuanced explanation that eventhough the foster parents’ behavior did not causethe problems, changes in the daily experiences ofthe child in the new foster home may influence thechild’s mental health. The psychosocial approachof Schofield (1998) emphasizes the importance oflooking at the reality of the everyday world of fos-ter children. Interventions and therapies shouldaim more at dealing with the foster child’s well-being in the current, daily context of the fosterfamily. Accordingly, a first step is knowing whetherparenting practices, such as providing support tothe child, have the same effect on foster childrenas on birth children.

Foster parents should become more aware of theinfluence their support, praise, and encouragementcan have on the well-being of the foster child. Fosterfathers, in particular, must be recognized as signifi-cant contributors to the foster child’s well-being.Social work continues, however, to reinforce tradi-tional models of role segregation (Daniel & Taylor,1999), with a minimum role for male foster carers(Gilligan, 2000). Research can help by providinginformation on the way foster children as well as fos-ter fathers themselves evaluate the male role withinfoster care. Service to current foster families can thenbe developed that makes more explicit the aim ofengagement of both foster mothers and fosterfathers. For example, policy could provide moresupport for male foster careers by encouraging pater-nity leave for foster fathers.

Finally, current or potential foster parents findinformation concerning how families functionwhen a foster child is introduced, and how fosterchildren and birth children perceive relations withinthe foster family, very interesting. Foster parentswill probably often ask what contribution they canmake to the well-being of this ‘‘damaged’’ child,what consequences certain interactions with thechild can have, and what consequences the fosterplacement has for their own birth children. Train-ing and support for foster parents in these areas areimportant. Widening the perceptions about thefunctioning of the foster family may contribute tomore effectively helping foster families deal withdaily problems.


References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA school-ageforms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

Andersson, G. (2005). Family relations, adjustment and well-being in alongitudinal study of children in care. Child and Family Social Work,10, 43–56.

Barth, R. P., Crea, T., John, K., Thoburn, J., & Quinton, D. (2005).Beyond attachment theory and therapy: Towards sensitive and evi-dence-based interventions with foster and adoptive families in distress.Child and Family Social Work, 10, 257–268.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London:Hogarth Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for humandevelopment: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22,723–742.

Caste, A., & Burke, P. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80,1041–1068.

Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. PsychosomaticMedicine, 38, 300–314.

Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (1997). Stepfamilies from the stepfamily’sperspective.Marriage and Family Review, 26, 107–122.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:Scribner’s.

Corsaro, W. A. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousands Oaks, CA:Pine Forge Press.

Coyne, J. C., & Downey, G. (1991). Social factors and psychopathology:Stress, social support and coping processes. Annual Review of Psychology,42, 401–425.

Crean, H. (2004). Social support, conflict, major life stressors, and adaptivecoping strategies in Latino middle school students: An integrativemodel. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 657–676.

Daniel, B., & Taylor, J. (1999). The rhetoric versus the reality: A criticalperspective on practice with fathers in child care and protection work.Child and Family Social Work, 4, 209–220.

Dean, A., Kolody, B., & Wood, P. (1990). Effects of social support fromvarious sources on depression in elderly persons. Journal of Health andSocial Behavior, 31, 148–161.

Dekovic, M., & Buist, K. L. (2005). Multiple perspectives within the fam-ily: Family relationship patterns. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 467–490.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness anda proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

Felson, R., & Zielinsky, M. (1989). Children’s self-esteem and parentalsupport. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 727–735.

Forehand, R., Brody, G. H., Slotkin, J., Fauber, R., McCombs, A., &Long, N. (1988). Young adolescent and maternal depression: Assess-ment, interrelations, and family predictors. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 56, 422–426.

Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. (1986). Parental behaviour and adolescentself-esteem. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 37–46.

Gilligan, R. (1997). Beyond permanence? The importance of resiliencein child placement practice and planning. Adoption and Fostering, 21,12–20.

Gilligan, R. (2000). Men as foster carers. A neglected resource? Adoptionand Fostering, 24, 63–69.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

Horwitz, A., Reinhard, S., & Howell-White, S. (1996). Caregiving as recip-rocal exchange in families with seriously mentally ill members. Journalof Health and Social Behavior, 37, 149–162.

Kelly, G., & Gilligan, R. (2000). Issues in foster care: Policy practice andresearch. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Kerker, B., & Dore, M. (2006). Mental health needs and treatment of fos-ter youth: Barriers and opportunities. American Journal of Orthopsychia-try, 76, 138–147.

Lindsey, E. (2001). Foster family characteristics and behavioral and emo-tional problems of foster children: Practice implications for child wel-fare, family life education and marriage and family therapy. FamilyRelations, 50, 19–23.

Madden-Derdich, D., & Arditti, J. (1999). The ties that bind: Attachmentbetween former spouses. Family Relations, 48, 243–249.

McIntyre, A., & Keesler, T. (1986). Psychological disorders among fosterchildren. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 297–303.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.

Orme, J., (2001). Foster family characteristics and behavioral and emo-tional problems of foster children: A narrative review. Family Relations,50, 3–15.

Pollard, E., & Lee, P. (2003). Child well-being: A systematic review of theliterature. Social Indicators Research, 61, 59–78.

Prinz, R. J., Foster, S., Kent, R. N., & O’Leary, D. (1979). Multivariateassessment of conflict in distressed and non-distressed mother-adoles-cent dyads. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 691–700.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factorsand resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 47,598–611.

Sahlins, M. (1965). On the sociology of primitive exchange. In M. Banton(Ed.), The relevance of models of social anthropology (pp. 139–236).London: Tavistock.

Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983).Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal ofPersonality and Social Support, 44, 127–139.

Schofield, G. (1998). Inner and outer worlds: A psychosocial frameworkfor child and family social work. Child and Family Social Work, 3,57–67.

Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2005). Providing a secure base: Parenting chil-dren in long-term foster family care. Attachment & Human Develop-ment, 7, 3–25.

Shek, D. T. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relations between parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent psychological well-being. Journal ofGenetic Psychology, 195, 53–67.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B.,& Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction andvalidation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671.

Stocker, C. M., & McHale, S. M. (1992). The nature and family correlatesof preadolescents perceptions of their sibling relationships. Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 9, 179–195.

Sweeting, H. (2001). Our family, whose perspective? An investigation ofchildren’s family life and health. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 229–250.

Thomas, N., & O’Kane, C. (1999). Children’s participation in reviews andplanning meetings when they are �looked after’ in middle childhood.Child and Family Social Work, 4, 221–230.


Documents

Support and Conflict in the Foster Family and Children’s Well-Being: A Comparison Between Foster and Birth Children