family cohesiveness, flexibility and maternal anger
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 24 November 2014, At: 16:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Journal of Divorce &RemarriagePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjdr20
Family Cohesiveness,Flexibility and Maternal AngerSolly Dreman PhD aa Department of Behavioural Sciences , Ben GurionUniversity of the Negev , P.O. Box 654, Beer Sheva,84105, IsraelPublished online: 12 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Solly Dreman PhD (2003) Family Cohesiveness, Flexibility andMaternal Anger, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 39:1-2, 65-87, DOI: 10.1300/J087v39n01_05
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J087v39n01_05
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Family Cohesiveness, Flexibilityand Maternal Anger:Boon or Detriment
to Children’s Adjustment?
Solly Dreman
ABSTRACT. The present chapter examines the relationship be-tween family structure, as expressed in cohesion and adaptability, aswell as the emotional state–parental anger–with children’s behaviorproblems. Specifically, divorced mothers and one of their adoles-cent children were tested in a multiple respondent design in whichboth mothers and children rated children’s behavior problems. Highlevels of family cohesion and adaptability were predicted to be re-lated to fewer behavior problems. It was also predicted that high an-ger levels in mothers would be associated with more behaviorproblems in children than medium levels, while low levels of angerwere examined post hoc. The predictions with regard to familystructure were confirmed with the highest level of cohesion andadaptability related to the fewest behavior problems, while the low-est level was related to the most behavior problems when mothersrated these problems, as predicted. In contrast, when children per-formed the ratings they indicated the most behavior problems athigh levels of cohesion and adaptability. As for parental anger, aninteraction was found between state-anger and gender. Girls had
Solly Dreman, PhD, is Professor, Department of Behavioural Sciences, BenGurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 654, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel (E-mail:[email protected]).
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 39(1/2) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J087
2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.10.1300/J087v39n01_05 65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
more behavior problems at higher levels of maternal state-anger,as predicted. In contrast, boys were found to have few behaviorproblems at high levels of maternal anger. In both cases this oc-curred whether mothers or children rated behavior problems.There were also respondent differences, with mothers rating theirboys’ behavior problems higher at medium versus low levels ofstate-anger, while boys tended to rate their behavior problems ashigher at low versus high levels of maternal anger. These findingswere explained in terms of adolescent children’s needs for clearrole hierarchies, stability, and parental assertiveness to promote op-timal adjustment. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Docu-ment Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http:// www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by TheHaworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Family structure, anger and children’s adjustment
This study examines the relationship existing between family struc-ture, as expressed in cohesion and adaptability, and the emotionalstate–parental anger–with children’s behavior problems. In earlier theo-retical formulations, Olson, Portner, and Lavee, 1985, perceived the rela-tion between cohesion or adaptability and adjustment as curvilinear, withthe highest and lowest levels of these variables hypothesized to be relatedto poor adjustment in individuals and families. In later formulationsOlson (1997) suggested that nonclinical families do not function in theseextreme ranges. Hence, there should be a positive linear relation betweenfamily cohesion and adaptability with adjustment outcomes. This beingthe case, a recent study conducted in Israel (Dreman & Ronen-Eliav,1997) predicted that higher levels of family cohesion and adaptability, asperceived by divorced mothers, should be related to fewer behavior prob-lems in their children. This was based on the assumption that divorcedfamilies are normal families, undergoing a situationally based life crisis,and therefore higher levels of cohesion and adaptability should be posi-tively related to adjustment in these families.
With regard to anger, a study conducted in Israel (Dreman, 1995), on thesame population of divorced women investigated in the Dreman &Ronen-Eliav study, predicted that high levels of maternal anger would berelated to more behavior problems in children than medium levels of anger.
66 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Higher anger levels were expected to create more behavior problems sinceit has been shown that angry mothers tend to judge children more nega-tively (Dix, Reinhold, & Zambarano, 1990) which leads to negative par-ent-child interaction (Tsemach, 1996). Anger also affects parental relationsresulting in diminished parental cooperation and increased conflict-factorswhich have been shown to negatively affect children’s adjustment in bothdivorced and two-parent families. Another factor that might influence ad-justment is imitation, as postulated in social learning theory (Bandura,1962). The theory predicts that an angry parent serves as a negative rolemodel, directly affecting children’s manifest behavior and adjustment.
As for the lowest level of anger, while it might be assumed that it wouldbe related to fewer behavioral problems in children, alternatively it mightbe associated with suppression or repression of anger by mothers, resultingin more behavior problems. Since there was no clear linear prediction, lowlevels of anger were examined post hoc utilizing an analysis of variance.
In the present study, a multiple respondent design was employed, withboth mothers and children rating children’s behavior problems, in order toobtain different perspectives of children’s adjustment. In addition, chil-dren’s ratings were obtained since research suggests that divorced mothersmay distort such judgments (Dreman & Aldor, 1994). In this instance,mothers who perceive high levels of family cohesion and adaptability andrate themselves as possessing low levels of anger may project these posi-tive feelings on their ratings of children, indicating lower levels of behaviorproblems. Since the mothers investigated in these two studies rated the in-dependent variables family cohesion, adaptability, and maternal anger, aswell as the dependent variable, children’s behavior problems, the chil-dren’s ratings controlled for such respondent bias.
The effects of children’s gender were also examined because researchhas shown that boys in a maternal custody situation display poorer adjust-ment than girls in the postdivorce situation (Zaslow, 1988). One explana-tion is that divorced mothers have difficulties in establishing parentalcontrols and disciplining their male child in the absence of a father figure(Hetherington, 1981; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1985).
Participants were divorced mothers, at least four years past divorce,with custody of their children. This group was chosen so as to measure thelong-term effects of family structure and maternal anger on children’s be-havior problems under relatively stable conditions and not in the crisis pe-riod immediately following divorce. In this respect, the divorce groupselected may proximate normative populations and the relations found be-tween cohesion, adaptability and maternal anger with children’s behaviorproblems may be more generalizable to other family structures such as
Solly Dreman 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
two-parent families. One child between the ages of 11 to 18 years was se-lected for testing in each family unit since there have been few studiesdevoted to adolescent postdivorce adjustment.
METHOD
Sample
Divorced mothers were randomly selected from an inclusive nationalcomputerized list of 14,000 divorced custodial mothers receiving childstipend payments from the National Insurance Institute in Israel. Forconvenience sake a random sample of 2,126 divorced mothers were ap-proached by a letter from the Institute asking for their participation in anational study of coping and adjustment in divorced families. Many ofthe letters were returned because of the mobility of this populationgroup. Still, response rates were 18.5% of letters delivered (393 moth-ers), which compares favorably with other family survey studies con-ducted in Israel (Hornick & Maier, 1989).
A second letter was subsequently sent to mothers of the Jewish faith(85% of all divorcees) who both answered and agreed to participate inthe research (337 mothers). Jewish mothers were selected because theyconstitute the major religious group in Israel, as well as due to the fact thatthere are pronounced cultural differences between the Jewish group andother religious denominations. This letter further explained the purposeof the research and was accompanied by a demographic questionnairesent in an attempt to clarify the present living arrangements and residentmembers of the reconstituted family. Only mothers who had at least onechild between the ages of 6 and 18 years of age were included in the firstwave of the study. Remarried mothers or those who had remarried anddivorced were excluded because we wished to focus on single-parentcustodial households resulting from a first divorce in which the mother wasliving without an adult partner. This resulted in a final sample of 280 cus-todial mothers who agreed to participate in the first wave.
In the second wave, the sample was further reduced since only moth-ers who were four or more years past the divorce event, the stabilizationphase of the divorce process (Herz Brown, 1988), were selected be-cause we wished to focus on the long-term effects of maternal anger. Inaddition, the age range of children was further restricted and only moth-ers who had at least one child between the ages of 11-18 were selected.One child was selected from each household to fill out questionnaires
68 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
(60 girls and 59 boys), with controls for gender, age, and birth order em-ployed. These additional selection criteria, plus a 20% dropout betweenthe first and second waves of the study, resulted in a final sample of 119custodial mothers.
These mothers were similar in ethnicity, education, number of childrenin custody, and other relevant variables to the total sample of divorced Jew-ish mothers. The sample was skewed upwards in terms of age distribution(mothers’ mean age–41.87 years, children’s–14.92 years. Mothers’ meantime since divorce was 8 years 5 months, SD 3 years, 2 months.
METHOD
Measures
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; Spielberger, 1988).The STAXI consists of 44 self-report items. Subjects are initially toldthat the questionnaire inquires about their feelings, attitudes and behav-iors. Two scales measure the experience of anger: state-anger and traitanger. Four scales measure the expression of anger: anger-out, an-ger-in, anger-control, and anger-expression. State-anger, anger-out,and anger-in were the scales employed in the present study. State-angerwas chosen as our measure of the experience of anger since earlier stud-ies (Dreman & Aldor, 1994) showed that this scale affects children’sadjustment in families of divorce. It was also hypothesized thatstate-anger may represent ongoing stressors which directly affect di-vorced mothers in the postdivorce situation such as single-parenting, di-minished socioeconomic standing, and work overload.. The state-angerscale asks subjects to rate the intensity of their angry feelings “rightnow,” on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from “very much so” to “not atall.” An example of such an item is “I feel angry.” On the anger-out andanger-in scales, subjects are asked to rate the frequency of their angryexpressions on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “almost always” to“almost never.” Examples are: anger-out– “When I get mad, I say nastythings”; anger-in–“When I get angry I keep things in.” While the expe-rience of state-anger is an internal state which cannot be directly imi-tated, it might indirectly affect children’s adjustment if it is expressed insuch forms as hostility, or alternatively as increased maternal assertive-ness and/or clearer parent-child role hierarchies. The expression of an-ger scales, represented by anger-out and anger-in, represent overtbehavioral styles which may be directly imitated by children. These an-
Solly Dreman 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
ger expression scales were used in the present study to evaluate their ef-fects on children’s “externalizing” and “internalizing” behaviorproblems (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Scale scores represent thesummated scores of the items within each scale, the state-anger scaleconsisting of 10 items, while the anger-out and anger-in scales eachconsist of 8 items. Alphas reported for adult females in the original stan-dardization of the STAXI (Spielberger, 1988) were .91, .78, and .81, forstate-anger, anger-in and anger-out scales, respectively. The STAXIhas been extensively used in studies of stress and emotion and hasproven reliabilities and validities (Spielberger, 1988). The Hebrew ver-sion of the STAXI (Dreman, in press) was used in testing the Israelisample.
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES III).This scale is a well established instrument in family research (Olson etal., 1985), that consists of 20 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale.An example of an item that measures family cohesion is: “Family mem-bers ask each other for help.” An example of an item measuring adapt-ability is: “Different people act as leaders in our family.” Eachdimension expresses a continuum that consists of four levels, rangingfrom low to high, of cohesion or adaptability. Cohesion ranges from thelowest level, disengaged, through the intermediate levels, separated,connected, to the highest level, enmeshed. Adaptability ranges from thelowest level, rigid, through the intermediate levels, structured, flexible,to the highest level, chaotic. In our study, the intermediate levels ofeach dimension were defined as being at most 1 standard deviationabove or below the mean, the high levels as being more than 1 standarddeviation above the mean, and the low levels as being more than 1 stan-dard deviation below the mean. The frequency distribution of divorcedmothers located in these categories for the cohesion dimension was dis-engaged = 15, separated = 43, connected = 38, and enmeshed = 23. Forthe adaptability dimension the distribution was rigid = 16, structured =43, flexible = 43, and chaotic = 17. The Hebrew version of FACES IIIwas used with these Israeli subjects (Teichman & Navon, 1990).
Child Behavior Check List. The parent form of the Child BehaviorCheck List (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) was used to assess moth-ers’ perceptions of behavior problems “now or in the last 6 months.”Mothers responded to 118 questions on a three-point checklist rangingin scores of 2–very true or often true, 1–somewhat or sometimes true,and 0–not true. These items yielded three scores: a total behavior prob-lem score for all items combined, as well as separate scores for the
70 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
externalizing and internalizing behavior scales. A Hebrew adaptation ofthe Child Behavior Check List (Zilber, Auerbach, and Lerner, 1994)was used to examine the Israeli mothers.
The externalizing behavior problems (e.g., “attacks people”) and inter-nalizing behavior problems (e.g., “likes to be alone”) scales constitutetwo broad dimensions obtained through factor analysis of a pool of be-havioral problem items selected in the original development of the instru-ment by Achenbach and Edelbrock. Each dimension is comprised ofother narrow-band subscales. Externalizing includes two scales–delin-quent behavior and aggressive behavior. Internalizing includes threescales–withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious or depressed. Thetotal behavior problem scale (e.g., “poor peer relations”) includes in addi-tion to the externalizing and internalizing dimensions, three additionalnarrow-band scales–social problems, thought problems and attentionproblems. Therefore, this scale is not identical to the sum of the scores onthe externalizing and the internalizing dimensions, and this fact should beborn in mind when comparing scores on these three scales.
Youth Self-Report for Ages 11-18. The Youth Self-Report (Achenbach &Edlelbrock, 1987) was used to assess children’s perceptions of their ownbehavioral problems “now or in the last 6 months.” Children responded to113 items, identical to those on the Child Behavior Check List. Itemswere also rated on a three-point checklist. Like the Child Behavior CheckList, these items yielded three scores: a total behavior problem score forall items combined, as well as separate scores for the externalizing and in-ternalizing behavior scales. This scale was standardized on children 11years of age and older (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1987), which is thelower age limit of children sampled in the present study.
Although most of the items on the Child Behavior Check List and theYouth Self-Report are identical, there are more items on the Child Behav-ior Check List (118 versus 113). Some of the items on the Child BehaviorCheck List were excluded on the Youth Self-Report because they mightarouse motives of social desirability or resistance if children were askedthese questions (e.g., “Plays openly with his or her sexual organs”).
To enable comparison between the mothers’ reports on the Child Be-havior Check List and the children’s reports on the Youth Self-Report,which had unequal numbers of items, the raw scores on each scale wereconverted into standard or z scores, with a mean of zero and a standarddeviation of 1.00. The sample mean, with gender collapsed, was used tocompute the z scores in order to permit examination of gender differ-ences on each scale.
Solly Dreman 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Because a higher raw score on the Child Behavior Check List orYouth Self-Report indicates more behavioral problems, higher morepositive z scores on any scale are indicative of children with more be-havior problems, and lower more negative scores are indicative of chil-dren with fewer behavior problems.
Procedure
We examined the second wave of a longitudinal study designed to as-sess postdivorce coping and adjustment in divorced families sinceFACES III, the Child Behavior Check List and the Youth Self-Reportwere introduced only in this wave. Subjects were examined, on the av-erage, 1 1/2 years after testing on the first wave was completed. Testingwas done both by mail and home visits by undergraduate studentstrained in testing and interview techniques by a graduate research assis-tant. FACES III was administered as part of a larger mail questionnaire,and The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, Child BehaviorCheck List, and Youth Self-Report, were administered individually bytrained research assistants at the family’s home after the mothers hadcompleted the mail-in questionnaire. Mothers were given the opportu-nity to participate in group meetings conducted in different parts of thecountry in which they discussed their research experience as well asproblems relating to divorce.
RESULTS
Relation Between Cohesion, Adaptability and Behavior Problems
We performed a number of ANOVAS using the Family Adaptability andCohesion Evaluation Scales (cohesion or adaptability) x gender on each ofthe three behavior problem scales to examine the relationship between fam-ily structure and children’s behavior problems.
We found no main or interaction effects for cohesion, adaptability orgender on children’s behavioral problems in these analyses. However, vi-sual comparison of scores on the Child Behavior Check List versus theYouth Self-Report, revealed a consistent tendency for mothers to reportdifferently from their children regarding the extent of behavior problems asa function of cohesion and adaptability.
On the Child Behavior Check List scales, mothers reported the fewest be-havior problems at the highest level of cohesion, i.e., enmeshed, and the most
72 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
behavior problems at the lowest levels of cohesion, i.e., disengaged, as pre-dicted. They also reported the fewest behavior problems at the highest levelof adaptability, i.e., chaos, and the most behavior problems at the lowestlevel of adaptability, i.e., rigid, as predicted. In contrast, children reportedthe most behavior problems at the highest level of cohesion and fewer be-havior problems at the lowest level of cohesion. They also tended to reportthe most behavioral problems at the highest level of adaptability andfewer behavior problems at the lowest level of adaptability.
Because visual inspection revealed a tendency for an interaction be-tween cohesion or adaptability and respondent sources (parent vs. child),gender was collapsed and we performed a number of 4 x 2 ANOVAS (co-hesion or adaptability x respondent source) on each of the three behaviorproblem scales on the Child Behavior Check List versus the YouthSelf-Report.
Cohesion and Children’s Behavioral Problems
A significant cohesion x respondent source interaction was foundon total behavior prblem scores of children on the Child BehaviorCheck List versus the Youth Self-Report, F (3,79) = 4.00, p < .01, seeTable 1. As predicted, mothers with the highest scores on cohesion,i.e., enmeshment, reported the fewest behavior problems, and thosewith the lowest scores, i.e., disengagement, reported the most behav-ior problems (planned contrast-enmeshed versus disengaged–t (111) =1.876, p < .063). On the Youth Self-Report, in contrast, children of moth-ers perceiving enmeshment reported the most total behavior problems,but those with mothers who perceived disengagement reported the fewestproblems (planned contrast–enmeshed versus disengaged–t (81) =�2.187, < .032). Thus parents’ and children’s reports were diametricallyopposed at extreme levels of cohesion.
An interaction also was obtained between cohesion x respondentsource on internalizing behavior problems, F (3,64) = 2.65, p < .056.Mothers who perceived high cohesion, i.e., enmeshment, reported thefewest behavioral problems, but those with low cohesion, i.e., disen-gaged, reported the most problems, t (93) = 2.067, p < .041. On theYouth Self-Report, however, enmeshment was related to the most be-havioral problems reported by children, and disengagement was relatedto lower levels of behavior problems, although these differencesdid not reach statistical significance, t (77) = �.862, p < .391). Acurvilinear relation was evidenced, with extreme levels of cohesion
Solly Dreman 73
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
related to more behavior problems than intermediate levels (plannedcontrast–enmeshed and disengaged versus separated and connected,t (77) = �2.23, p < .029. Children in connected families reported fewerbehavioral problems than those in enmeshed families. These differenceswere significantly lower on the total and internal behavioral problemscales, t (81) = �.2057, p < .032; t (77) = �2.516, p < .014, respectively.
Although children of disengaged mothers reported relatively highrates of behavior problems on the externalizing and internalizing scales,
74 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
TABLE 1. Behavior Problem Means and Standard Deviations (z scores) Re-ported by Divorced Mothers and Their Children as a Function of Family Cohe-sion and Respondent Source
Panel A: Total behavior problem scores
disengaged separated connected enmeshed
CBCL Mean .12 �.07 .03 �.43
SD .78 1.19 .74 .59
YSR Mean �.26 .12 �.19 .56
SD 1.13 .87 1.17 .80
N 13 34 21 15
Panel B: Externalizing behavior problem scores
disengaged separated connected enmeshed
CBCL Mean .47 �.04 .02 �.52
SD .54 1.08 .84 .61
YSR Mean .22 .03 �.25 .32
SD .91 .99 1.05 .88
N 10 30 17 12
Panel C: Internalizing behavior problem scores
disengaged separated connected enmeshed
CBCL Mean .40 �.02 .01 �.29
SD .85 .89 .79 .75
YSR Mean .29 .10 �.17 .71
SD 1.06 .88 1.03 .99
N 10 29 18 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
they reported the fewest number of behavior problems on the total be-havior problem scale. This might seem to be a contradiction because thetotal behavior problem scale includes the sum of the externalizing andinternalizing scales. However, total behavior problem scores also in-clude three additional subscales as well, which might account for the dis-crepancy between the total score and scores obtained on the externalizingand internalizing scales.
Adaptability and Children’s Behavior Problems
A significant interaction was obtained between adaptability x re-spondent source, F (3,79) = 3.43, p < .02, on total behavior problemscores on the Child Behavior Check List versus the Youth Self-Report(see Table 2). Mothers with the highest scores on adaptability, i.e., cha-otic, reported the fewest behavior problems, and those with the lowestscores, i.e., rigid, reported the most behavior problems, as predicted,t (81) = �2.102, p < .039. On the Youth Self-Report, in contrast, chil-dren of mothers who perceived chaotic family patterns reported on themost behavior problems, but those children with mothers perceivingrigid patterns, reported having the fewest total behavior problems.These differences were significant, t (81) = �2.102, p < .039. Again,parents and children’s reports were very different at the extreme levelsof adaptability.
In summary, divorced mothers in highly cohesive and adaptable fam-ilies reported fewer behavioral problems than mothers reported in fami-lies low in these dimensions. This is in accordance with Olson’s revisedmodel of family structure. Children, in contrast, perceived the most be-havior problems when cohesion and adaptability levels are high. Theyreported fewer behavior problems at the lowest levels of these familystructure scales. These trends were particularly strong for total and in-ternalizing problems on the cohesion dimension and for total behaviorproblems on the adaptability dimension. More significant interactionswere obtained for the cohesion scale than for the adaptability scale onchildren’s behavioral problem scores.
Custodial Mothers’ Anger and Children’s Behavior Problems
We performed a number of 3 x 2 ANCOVAS (anger x child’s gender)on each of the three behavior problem scales to examine the relationship
Solly Dreman 75
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
between maternal anger and children’s behavior problems on the differ-ent anger scales for boys versus girls. Maternal anger scores 1/2 standarddeviation or more above the mean, were classified as “high anger,” thosewithin plus or minus 1/2 standard deviation as “medium anger,” and those1/2 standard deviation or more below the mean as “low anger.”
Two ANCOVAS were performed for every anger scale on each of thebehavioral problem scales–total, externalizing and internalizing–one forthe Child Behavior Check List and one for the Youth Self-Report. Onstate-anger, for example, two ANCOVAS, were done on the Total Be-
76 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
TABLE 2. Behavior Problem Means and Standard Deviations (z scores) Re-ported by Divorced Mothers and Their Children as a Function of Adaptabilityand Respondent Source
Panel A: Total Behavior Problem Scores
rigid structured flexible chaotic
CBCL Mean .30 .02 �.18 �.43
SD .94 1.20 .73 .75
YSR Mean �.20 �.10 .12 .65
SD .94 1.09 .93 1.02
N 11 27 36 9
B: Externalizing Behavior Problem Scores
rigid structured flexible chaotic
CBCL Mean .28 .23 �.17 �.56
SD .64 1.23 .75 .49
YSR Mean �.25 .23 �.06 .21
SD 1.03 1.21 .78 .97
N 9 21 31 8
C: Internalizing Behavioral Problem Scores
rigid structured flexible chaotic
CBCL Mean .52 �.23 .05 �.17
SD 1.27 .67 .71 .88
YSR Mean .15 .02 .10 .59
SD 1.15 1.00 .88 1.13
N 10 19 29 10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
havioral Problem scale, two on the Externalizing Behavioral ProblemScale and two on the Internalizing Behavior Problem Scale (see Table 3).Mothers’ age, education and income were used as covariates, sincethey have been found to be related to children’s postdivorce adjustment.
Anger expression: Anger-out, anger-in, and children’s behavior prob-lems. ANCOVA analyses revealed no significant main or interaction ef-fects for maternal anger (anger-out, anger-in) x gender on the differentbehavior problem scales, contradicting our predictions. However, therewas a trend for higher levels of anger-out in mothers to be associated withan increase in total and externalizing behavior problems in both boys andgirls, regardless of whether mothers or children rated behavior problems,as predicted.
Solly Dreman 77
TABLE 3. The Relation Between Custodial Mothers’ S-Anger with Boys’ versusGirls’ Mean z-scores on Total, Externalizing and Internalizing Behavior ProblemScales of the CBCL and YSR (N = 119)
State-anger
Low Med High RowMean
Low Med High RowMean
CBCL YSR
Total Behavioral Problems Total Behavioral Problems
Boys �.217 .313 �.323 �.061 .237 �.402 �.139 �.023
Girls �.339 .045 .965 .052 �.220 .104 .363 .004
CM* �.280 .183 .438 .003 �.110 .112
Externalizing Behavior Problems Externalizing Behavior Problems
Boys �.277 .723 �.268 .051 .313 �.520 -.394 �.062
Girls �.302 �.028 .392 .057 �.250 .178 .400 .039
CM �.290 .325 .122 .039 �.095 1.05
Internalizing Behavioral Problems Internalizing Behavioral Problems
Boys �.287 .068 �.255 �.193 �.233 �.344 .182 �.257
Girls �.136 .102 .937 .168 .031 .351 .467 .231
CM �.214 .089 .474 �.101 .030 .162
*CM = Column MeanStandard deviations (SD’s) ranged from .581 to 1.691, most between .750 to 1.100, thus not vi-olating the assumptions of the analysis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Anger experience: State-anger and children’s behavior problems.The relation between custodial mothers’ state-anger and behavioralproblem scores on the Child Behavior Check List and Youth Self-Re-port are presented in Table 3. These analyses were conducted in order toexamine the hypothesis that maternal anger is related to an increase inmothers’ and children’s reports of behavioral problems in high versusmedium levels of state-anger.
Total behavioral problems: A significant interaction was found onthe Child Behavior Check List between state-anger x gender for totalbehavioral problems, F (2,109) = 5.378, p < .006. Mothers’ state-angerwas positively associated with their ratings of their daughters’ totalbehavior problems, as predicted. A planned contrast showed that thedifference in mean behavior problem scores at high versus low angerlevels was significant t (57) = �3.975, p < .0001. In contrast to ourprediction, however, mothers reported their sons as having the mostbehavioral problems at medium state-anger levels–a planned contrastshowing that sons of mothers with medium, versus low and highstate-anger combined, had significantly more behavior problems,t (52) = 2.197, p < .032. Unexpectedly boys were reported to have thefewest behavioral problems at high state-anger levels.
On the Youth Self-Report, a state-anger x gender interaction ap-proaching significance was found, F (2,79) = 2.437, p < .094–mothers’state-anger being positively associated with daughters’ reports of totalbehavioral problems, as predicted, though the differences between highand low anger did not reach statistical significance. Unexpectedly, sonsreported the fewest behavior problems at medium levels of state-anger,followed by sons of mothers who had high anger levels. Sons reported themost behavior problems when their mothers had low state-anger. Aplanned contrast showed that sons of mothers with low versus mediumlevels of state-anger had significantly more behavior problems on thisscale, t (37) = 1.995, p < .053.
Externalizing behavioral problems: A significant state-anger x genderinteraction was found on the Child Behavior Check List for externalizingbehavior problems, F (2,100) = 3.723, p < .028. As predicted, maternalstate-anger was positively associated with behavior problems in daugh-ters–a planned contrast showing that mothers with high anger reportedtheir daughters having significantly more behavior problems than thosewith low anger levels, t (54) = �2.209, p < .031. In contrast to our predic-tion, however, mothers with medium state-anger levels again reportedtheir sons as having the most behavioral problems, while those with highor low anger levels reported on relatively few problems–medium versushigh and low state-anger combined, t (46) = �3.208, p < .002.
78 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
On the Youth Self-Report, a significant state-anger x gender interactionwas found, F (2,72) = 4.280, p < .018. Mothers’ state-anger levels were posi-tively related to daughters’ reports of externalizing problems, as predicted–daughters of mothers with high anger reporting on significantly more prob-lems than those whose mothers had low state-anger, t (58) = 2.555, p < .013.Unexpectedly, boys reported on the fewest behavior problems at mediumlevels of state-anger, although high anger levels were also associated withfew behavior problems. Also, sons of mothers with low anger scores re-ported on the most behavior problems. A planned contrast showed that sonsof mothers with low versus medium levels of state-anger had significantlymore behavior problems on this scale, t (34) = 2.596, p < .04.
In summary, divorced mothers’ state-anger is associated with moretotal and externalizing behavioral problems for girls, on both the ChildBehavior Check List and Youth Self-Report. For boys in contrast,mothers reported the most behavioral problems at medium levels ofstate-anger, contradicting our prediction. Unexpectedly, sons reportedon the fewest behavior problems at medium levels of maternal state-an-ger and on the most total and externalizing behavior problems at thelowest level of maternal state-anger.
Internalizing behavior problems: Similar trends to those above wereevidenced for internalizing behavioral problems, though they did notreach statistical significance. The only exception was on the YouthSelf-Report where boys reported the most internalizing behavior prob-lems at the highest level, and the fewest behavior problems at the lowestlevel of state-anger.
Gender and Children’s Behavior Problems
Internalizing behavior was the only scale, on either the Child Be-havior Check List or Youth Self-Report, on which a main effect wasobtained for gender, with girls reporting on significantly higher internal-izing problems than boys on the Youth Self-Report, F (1,75) = 4.753,p < .032.
DISCUSSION
The findings of the studies presented (Dreman, 1995; Dreman &Ronen-Eliav, 1997) only partially confirmed our predictions regardingthe effects of maternal anger and family structure on children’s behav-ior problems. It was predicted that high levels of maternal anger wouldresult in more behavioral problems than medium anger levels. High lev-
Solly Dreman 79
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
els of family cohesion and adaptability were expected to be related tofewer behavior problems in children.
While mothers did perceive higher levels of cohesion and adaptabilityas related to fewer behavior problems in children, regardless of gender, chil-dren reported the most behavior problems at the highest levels of cohesionand adaptability, and fewer problems at the lowest levels (Dreman &Ronen-Eliav, 1997). As for parental emotions, while high state-angerwas positively related to more behavior problems for daughters, as pre-dicted, it was related to fewer behavior problems in sons.
Family structure and adjustment. To understand these findings, it isuseful to consider how different observers perceive similar environ-ments. For example, Bernard (1972) reported that husbands and wivesrender very different reports of their marital situation. Similar biasesmay occur when parents and children rate family structure andparenting in relation to children’s behavior problems. These biases couldreflect different locations in the family structure, e.g., superordinate ver-sus subordinate, different frames of reference for adolescents and theirmiddle-aged parents, as well as culturally linked biases. An adolescent,for example, may experience clear parent-child role boundaries and sta-bility, expressed in lower levels of family cohesion and adaptability, assecurity in the face of profound psychological, physiological, and socialchanges that they are undergoing at this developmental stage. This maybe particularly true for adolescent children of divorce, who are alsofaced with the unsettling effects of the divorce process. On the otherhand, a divorced parent who has usually undergone considerable emo-tional turmoil in the divorce process, might perceive high levels of fam-ily cohesion and adaptability as promoting better adjustment in theirchildren. These observations may help explain why parents reportfewer behavior problems in highly cohesive and adaptable families, buttheir adolescent children report high levels in the identical structuralcontexts.
It should be noted that children in connected families reported fewbehavior problems than those in enmeshed families. Dreman andRonen-Eliav (1997), hypothesized that the better adjustment as per-ceived by children in connected families reflects not only parentalwarmth, but also clear family role hierarchies and controls which lead tobetter adjustment in their adolescent children, irrespective of gender.Supporting this is a recent meta-analysis of 47 studies which found thata factor called parental “acceptance-responsibility” explained the larg-est part of the variance between parental behavior and diminished be-havior problems in children (Rothbaum & Weisz, 1944). This factor
80 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
incorporated positive parental control, in addition to emotional close-ness.
Anger and adjustment. With regard to the emotional component, ma-ternal anger, while high state-anger was related to more behavior prob-lems for daughters, as predicted, it was found to be related to fewerbehavior problems in sons. In trying to understand these findings it isinstructive to consider research which shows that boys in maternal cus-tody display poorer adjustment (Camara & Resnick, 1989). In this con-text, it has been suggested that single-parent custodial mothers havedifficulty in establishing parental controls and discipline without a fa-ther figure present, especially in the case of their adolescent sons(Hetherington, 1981). Hence boys in maternal custody may be deprivedof the disciplinary measures and control, associated with fathers, thisdeficit resulting in more behavior problems.
The Dreman (1995) study offers support for this finding since afactor analysis found a factor called “action potential,” representedby such state-anger items as “I feel like banging on the table”; “I feellike hitting someone”–as opposed to a “feelings of anger” factor,represented by such items as “I feel irritated”; “I feel angry.”Mothers who had high scores on the action potential factor had chil-dren with fewer reported behavior problems on both the Child Be-havior Check List and the Youth Self Report. This investigatorsuggested that action potential may represent an internal energywhich is expressed in increased assertiveness and control by thesemothers, in contrast to overtly expressed anger. This might explainthe lower incidence of behavior problems in their boys, even in theabsence of a father figure in the home. Daughters were negatively af-fected by the mother’s experience of high state-anger, as predicted.
In contrast, behavior problems of both boys and girls increased as afunction of maternal anger-out scores, though these trends did not reachstatistical levels of significance. The fact that behavior problems ofchildren increase somewhat as anger-out levels rise may be attributableto the fact that the items rated on this scale, e.g., “When I am angry Islam doors”, represent explicit behaviors demonstrating impulsivenessand loss of control. Such behaviors serve as visible negative role modelswhich are imitated by all children, and hence may evoke more behaviorproblems, irrespective of gender. State-anger anger potential items, onthe other hand, represent only a wish to express aggression. The differ-ential gender effect of this anger scale may be explained by the ability ofdaughters to emphasize with their mothers’ internal distress, while boys
Solly Dreman 81
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
are affected by her external assertiveness, which, unlike anger-out is notan aggressive act.
Family structure, anger, and gender differences. No interaction wasfound between gender and either cohesion or adaptability–both boys andgirls indicating more behavior problems when families were perceived asdisplaying high cohesion and/or adaptability. This was in contrast to theirmothers who reported the lowest incidence of behavior problems at thehighest levels of cohesion and adaptability, as predicted.
The fact that gender did interact with state-anger, resulting in betteradjustment in boys than girls, may be attributable to the fact that the ac-tion potential factor it incorporates is related to assertiveness in the sin-gle-parent mothers. Such maternal assertiveness may enhance themothers’ effectiveness in disciplining their adolescent sons, even in theabsence of a father-figure in the household.
In contrast to earlier findings that boys display worse adjustment inthe maternal custody situation (e.g., Zaslow, 1988), few main effectswere found for gender in the two studies cited. A possible explanation isthat gender differences in divorce tend to become less pronounced asadolescence approaches (Hess & Camara, 1970). One reason is thatgirls display more behavior problems in the heterosexual realm as theyapproach puberty.
Theory, research and intervention. Contemporary theories of stresscontend that cognitive appraisals of crisis events and coping resources me-diate between environmental stressors and adjustment, (e.g., McCubbin &Patterson, 1983; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Olson, 1993; Olson, 1997).Common to these theories is their failure to take sufficient account ofthe mediating role that emotions, such as anger or depression, may playin explaining adjustment. Recent research by Cummings and associatessupports this contention that parental emotions are important in ex-plaining children’s adjustment to stressors and have a causal role inorganizing and directing children’s reactions to events (Cummings,1995; Cummings & Davies, 1994; El-Sheikh & Cummings, 1995). It isalso consistent with a body of research and theory highlighting therole of emotionality in children’s coping with marital conflict (e.g.,Fincham, 1994; Grych & Fincham, 1993; Osborne & Fincham, 1996).
It was suggested that high levels of state-anger in divorced mothersmay be evoked by the ongoing stressors they face in the postdivorce sit-uation such as work overload, single-parenting, and diminished socio-economic standing. Such emotional states could affect both appraisaland coping efforts. To illustrate, an angry mother may make negativecognitive appraisals of her children (see Dix et al., 1990) which could
82 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
affect coping efforts as expressed in parent-child relationships. Suchanger-related parental coping behaviors may ultimately affect theirchildren’s adjustment. Such observations suggest the importance ofemotions as an intervening variable in understanding parental stressmanagement and children’s adjustment.
The above theoretical framework should be treated with caution,however, because of the correlational nature of this divorce study(Dreman,1995). Conclusions regarding causality should be held inabeyance until longitudinal studies which systematically investi-gate ongoing relationships between stress, emotions, cognitive as-sessment, coping and adjustment are conducted.
While the present study implies that the experience of anger may beadaptive in certain family contexts, such conclusions should also betreated with caution since anger might affect adjustment through inter-vening coping variables such as assertiveness. We plan to develop ascale of “maternal assertiveness” in order to investigate if state-anger ispositively correlated with assertiveness in mothers. If higher correla-tions are obtained between such an assertiveness scale and state-angerthan with cohesion or adaptability, this might explain the differentialgender affect obtained for this anger scale. Such research should haveimportant interventive implications since it may provide guidelines toparents on how to more effectively modulate angry behavior.
Conclusions drawn may also be limited by sample considerations sincesubjects in the studies cited were single-parent mothers of the Jewishfaith, over 8 years past the divorce event. In order to determine to thegenerality of our findings future studies must systematically investigateother populations such as two-parent families, different ethnic/religiousgroups, and divorced families at different periods of time since divorce,in order to determine how anger affects adjustment in different popula-tions. Similarly, preadolescent children should be investigated to deter-mine if family structure and anger affect their behavior problems in thesame way as in the present study. With regard to divorce, for example,several lines of research support the notion that marital discord and itsemotional residues, rather than divorce per se, results in poor adjust-ment in children (Emery, 1982; Rutter, 1979). Moreover, children areaffected not only by anger and aggression directed at them, but arealso responsive to the background climate or environment of anger,including parental conflict (Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yar-row, 1981). This suggests that anger may affect children’s adjust-ment in a similar fashion regardless of differing family structuressuch as the single- or two-parent family.
Solly Dreman 83
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Process considerations, such as different time periods in the divorceprocess or different stages of the family life cycle, should be taken intoconsideration when considering the effects of anger or family struc-ture on children’s adjustment. In the only divorce study we are awareof that investigated the relation between cohesion/adaptability and be-havior problems, divorced mothers in highly adaptable (chaotic) fami-lies rated their children as having significantly more behavior problems 10months after divorce, and family cohesion was found to have no signifi-cant effects (Abelsohn & Saayman, 1991). In the Dreman andHagar-Ronen (1997) study, in contrast, family cohesion accounted formore of the variance than did adaptability on reported behavior prob-lems. In the initial stages of the divorce process, the situation is stressladen and family roles are in a state of flux. More structure and stability,represented by lower adaptability scores, may be needed to help thefamily cope. As for long-term adjustment, the findings of our study sug-gest that family cohesion plays a more important role in children’s be-havior problems, as perceived by both parents and children, than doesadaptability.
Cross-cultural studies are also necessary because anger may havedifferent meanings in different cultural contexts, being viewed as ag-gressive and hostile in some cultures and as assertive, positive behaviorin others. As for family structure, Shamgar-Handleman and Bar Yosef(1991) point out that Israelis society is characterized by “familism.”More value is attached to family-related subjects such as cohesivenessand child-centered concerns. The relative influence of family cohesionand adaptability in less familistic societies should be investigated in or-der to see if these structural dimensions affect children’s adjustment ina different fashion than in the findings of the present study.
This study is unique in that while mothers rendered self-reports ofanger, cohesion, and adaptability, children independently reported ontheir own behavioral problems. This research paradigm overcomes re-spondent-bias involved in studies using parental respondents for report-ing on both family structure and/or parenting in relation to children’sadjustment. There is evidence that parental ratings of children’s adjust-ment are influenced by the emotional state of the parent. Mothers withmore negative emotions rate their children’s behavior more negatively(Dix, Reinhold, & Zambarno, 1990, Emery, 1982). Such respondent-bias may have been indicated by our finding that divorced mothers ratedtheir sons’ behavior problems as more severe when they had mediumversus low levels of state-anger, while their sons did the opposite-theangrier mothers projecting their own emotional distress on their chil-
84 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
dren’s behavior problems. Similarly, mothers who rated their familiesas low in cohesion or adaptability may have projected the accompany-ing negative emotional state onto their assessments of children’s adjust-ment which would explain the high ratings of behavior problems bymothers in disengaged and rigid families, compared with those in en-meshed or chaotic families. These findings suggest that children’sself-reports provide another perspective of their adjustment, whichshould be taken into consideration when considering family interven-tion and research strategies.
REFERENCES
Abelsohn, D., & Saayman, G. (1991). Adolescent adjustment to parental divorce: Aninvestigation from the perspective of basic dimensions of structural family therapy.Family Process, 30, 177-191.
Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for Child Behavior Checklist andrevised child behavior profile. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C. (1987). Manual for Youth Self-Report and Profile.Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.
Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In M.R. Jones (Ed.), NebraskaSymposium on Motivation (Vol. 10). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York: BantamCamara, K.A., & Resnick, G. (1989). Styles of conflict resolution and cooperation be-
tween divorced parents: Effects on child behavior and adjustment. American Jour-nal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 560-575.
Cummings, E.M. (1995). Security, emotionality, and parental depression: A commen-tary. Developmental Psychology, 31, 425-427.
Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P. (1995). Children’s emotions as organizers of their reac-tions to interadult anger: A functionalist perspective. Developmental Psychology,31, 677-684.
Cummings, E.M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital conflict. New York:Guilford Press.
Cummings, E.M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1984). Developmentalchanges in children’s reactions to anger in the home. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry, 25, 63-74.
Dix, T., Reinhold, D. P., & Zambarano, R. J. (1990). Mothers’ judgments in momentsof anger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 465-486.
Dreman, S. (in press). The experience and expression anger in a stressful society: Stan-dardization of the STAXI in Israel. Tel Aviv: Ramot Press, Tel-Aviv University (inHebrew).
Dreman, S., & Aldor, R. (1994). Work or marriage? Competence in custodial mothersin the stabilization phase of the divorce process. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,22, 3-22.
Dreman, S. (1995). The experience and expression of anger in divorced mothers: Ef-fects on postdivorce adjustment in children. In C. Spielberger & I. Sarason (Eds.),
Solly Dreman 85
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Stress and Emotion: Anger, Anxiety and Curiosity, Volume 15 (pp. 75-89). NewYork: Hemisphere/Francis.
Dreman, S., & Ronen-Eliav, H. (1997). The relation of divorced mothers’ perceptionsof family cohesion and adaptability to behavior problems in children. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 59, 324-331.
El-Sheikh, M., & Cummings, E.M. (1995). Children’s responses to angry adult behav-ior as a function of experimentally manipulated exposure to resolved and unre-solved conflict. Social Development, 4, 75-91.
Emery, R.E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psy-chological Bulletin, 92, 310-330.
Fincham, F.D. (1994). Understanding the association between marital conflict andchild adjustment: Overview. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 123-127.
Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1993). Children’s appraisal of marital conflict. ChildDevelopment, 64, 215-230.
Herz Brown, J. (1988). The postdivorce family. In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.),The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 371-398). NewYork: Gardner Press.
Hess, R.D., & Camara, K.A. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediatingfactors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35,79-96.
Hetherington, E.M. (1981). Children and divorce. In R.W. Henderson (Ed.), Par-ent-child interaction: Theory, research, and prospects (pp. 33-58). New York: Ac-ademic Press.
Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1985). Long-term effects of divorce and re-marriage on the adjustment of children. Journal of the American Academy of ChildPsychiatry, 24, 518-530.
Hetherington, E.M., Stanley-Hagan, M., & Anderson, E.R. (1989). Marital transitions:A child’s perspective. The American Psychologist, 44, 303-312.
Hornick, Y., & Maier, N. (1989). Nee-tuach shal niv-dakim sha’lo anu b-seker doar[An analysis of non-respondents in a mail survey]. Megamot, 32, 386-400 (in He-brew).
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York:Springer Publishing Company.
McCubbin, H.I., & Patterson, J.M. (1983). The family stress process: The DoubleABCX model of adjustment and adaptation. In H.I. McCubbin, M.B. Sussman, &J.M. Patterson (Eds.). Social stress and the family: Advances and developments infamily stress theory and research (pp. 7-37). New York: Haworth Press.
Olson, D.H. (1997). Family stress and coping: A multi-system perspective. In S.Dreman (Ed.), The family on the threshold of the 21st century: Trends and implica-tions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olson, D.H. (1993). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: Assessing fam-ily functioning. In F. Walsh (Ed.). (2nd edition). Normal family processes (pp.104-137). New York: Guilford Press.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee Y. (1985). Family adaptability and cohesion evalua-tion scales (FACES III). St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.
86 JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Osborne, L.N., & Fincham, F.D. (1996). Marital conflict, parent-child relationships,and child adjustment: Does gender matter? Merrill-Palmer-Quarterly, 42, 48-75.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing be-havior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55-74.
Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation. 1972-1978: New findings, new concepts, newapproaches. Child Development, 50, 283-305.
Shamgar-Handleman, L., & Bar Yosef, R. (1991). Mishpachot b’yeesrael [Families inIsrael]. Jerusalem: Academon–The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
Spielberger, C.D. (1988). Manual for the state-trait anger inventory (STAXI). Odessa,FL: Psychological Resources.
Teichman, Y., & Navon, S. (1990). Ha-arachah mishpachtit: Ha-model ha-circumplexi-Tirgum v-Family assessment: The circumplex model translation and standardiza-tion of FACES III to Hebrew. Psychologia, 2, 36-46 (in Hebrew).
Tsemach, S. (1996). The relationship between state anger of divorced women and dif-ferent areas of functioning after divorce. Unpublished thesis. Beer Sheva: BenGurion University.
Zaslow, M.J. (1988). Sex differences in children’s response to divorce: 1. Researchmethodology and postdivorce family forms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,58, 355-378.
Zilber, N., Auerbach, J., & Lerner, Y. (1994). Israeli norms for the Achenbach ChildBehavior Checklist: Comparison of clinically referred and non-referred children.Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 31, 5-12.
Solly Dreman 87
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Col
orad
o C
olle
ge]
at 1
6:36
24
Nov
embe
r 20
14