Download - Does the non-residential parent matter?
![Page 1: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Does the non-residential parent matter?On the link between parenting and self-esteem
Kim Bastaits, Koen Ponnet, Dimitri Mortelmans
![Page 2: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 3: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 4: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
1. Overview of literature
• Parental divorce (-) well-being child (Amato, 2000; Amato & Keith, 1991; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagen, 1999; Lansford, 2009)
• Mostly focus on residential parent & 1 family type now focus on residential and non-residential parent now focus on different family types
• Mostly negative indicators now positive indicator (self-esteem)
• Most important mediator: parental involvement 3 types (Lamb e.a., 1987):
- Engagement - Availability - Responsibility
![Page 5: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
1. Overview of literature• Involvement of NR parent (+) well-being child
(King, 1994; King & Sobolewski, 2006; Simons e.a., 1994; Stewart, 2003)
quality over quantity
• So focus on parental engagement (Lamb e.a., 1987)
= Parenting style 2 dimensions: support and control (Baumrind, 1971; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983)
![Page 6: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 7: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
2. Research questions
• How does the non-residential parent contribute to the well-being of the child? controlled for parenting style of the residential parent
• Does contact with the NR parent matter? comparison between joint custody and non-residential parents controlled for and interaction with contact with non-residential parent
![Page 8: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
2. Research questions
Parenting style residential parent
Parenting style non-residential parent
Self-esteem child
Background variables of parents and child
Contact with non-residential parent
H1
H2
![Page 9: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 10: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
3. Method: sample• Preliminary data from “Divorce in Flanders” (DiF)
multi-actor multi-method study
• This research used a subsample of the DiF-data (N=436)- 1 Child between 10 and 18 year (contact with both parents)- 1 parent (with information on both parents)
• Divided into 5 family types1. Married parents (N=138)2. Joint custody (N=91)3. Mother= residential parent & father= non-residential parent
(N=148)4. Father= residential parent & mother= non-residential parent
(N=21)5. Both parents are non-residential (N=5)
Group 4 & 5 are too small to include in our analyses Final sample N=377
![Page 11: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
3. Method: variables• Background variables of both parents (parent reports)
- Age- Educational level (lower secundary or lower, higher secundary,
higher education)- New partner: yes/no?
• Background variables of child (child reports)- Gender- Age- Duration since divorce
• Independent variables (child reports)- Perceived parenting style of both parents
subscale support & subscale control (PSI II by Darling & Toyokawa, 1997)
- Contact with non-residential parent
• Dependent variable (child reports)- Self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, 1965)
![Page 12: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 13: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
4. Results: descriptive analysis
• Difference in self-esteem?- All children = high self-esteem- No significant difference between family type- Girls have lower self-esteem than boys (except in joint custody)
• Link between parenting style and self-esteem- Support mother & father (+) self-esteem child - No correlation between self-esteem and control mother/father
• Link between contact and parenting style- NR father less support & control than married or co-parent fathers
- more contact with NR father (+) more support NR father- No effect for control NR father
![Page 14: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
4. Results: Regression analysis
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother
Age father New partner mother
New partner father Education mother 1 Education mother 2
Education father 1 Education father 2
Age child Gender child (ref: boys)
Duration since divorce Contact with father
Support mother 0,165 0,209 0,329 *** Control mother -0,018 0,067 0,046
Support father 0,216 * 0,161 0,270 ** Control father -0,122 -0,002 -0,170 *
R² 0,080 0,056 0,170 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 15: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
4. Results: Regression analysis
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,238 * 0 ,079 -0,225
Age father -0,251 * 0,099 0,119 New partner mother 0,271 -0,110
New partner father -0,112 0,120 Education mother 1 0,008 0,303 -0,129 Education mother 2 -0,122 0,371 -0,012
Education father 1 0,219 0,195 -0,005 Education father 2 0,204 0,279 0,059
Age child -0,077 -0,103 0,040 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,328 *** -0,259 * -0,332 **
Duration since divorce -0,222 -0,067 Contact with father 0,135
Support mother 0,281 ** 0,469 *** 0,387 * Control mother -0,005 0,122 0,011
Support father Control father
R² 0,150 0,190 0,093 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 16: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
4. Results: Regression analysis
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,193 0,077 -0,158
Age father -0,253 * -0,002 0,086 New partner mother 0,108 -0,267
New partner father 0,017 0,026 Education mother 1 -0,095 0,327 0,055 Education mother 2 -0,188 0,328 0,025
Education father 1 0,199 0,209 0,176 Education father 2 0,205 0,317 0,195
Age child -0,024 -0,121 -0,143 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,295 *** -0,146 -0,236
Duration since divorce -0,165 0,071 Contact with father -0,025
Support mother Control mother
Support father 0,209 * 0,226 0,410 ** Control father -0,115 -0,090 -0,066
R² 0,157 0,034 0,119 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 17: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
4. Results: Regression analysis
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,226 * 0,131 -0 ,228
Age father -0,253 * 0,067 0,103 New partner mother 0,241 -0,234
New partner father -0,026 0,096 Education mother 1 -0,038 0,310 -0,119 Education mother 2 0,134 0,359 -0,002
Education father 1 0,191 0,265 0,128 Education father 2 0,177 0,315 0,122
Age child -0,062 -0,050 0,049 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,336 *** -0,243 -0,209
Duration since divorce -0,211 -0,010 Contact with father 0,083
Support mother 0,227 * 0,439 ** 0,362 * Control mother -0,034 0,199 0,089
Support father 0,142 0,196 0,402 ** Control father -0,088 -0,146 -0,158
R² 0,182 0,193 0,211 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 18: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Parenting style NR parent *contact with NR parent• No significant effect in regression model• Effect of support NR father stays
4. Results: Interaction effect
Predicted values of self-esteem according to support and amount of contact with the non-residential parent
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
1 2 3 4 5
support father
self-
este
em c
hild
Predicted values of self-esteem according to behavioral control and amount of contact with the non-residential parent
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
1 2 3 4 5
control father
self
-est
eem
ch
ild
![Page 19: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 20: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
5. ConclusionsDoes the NR parent matter?
• Yes, the NR parent matters:Support NR father (+) self-esteem child why not with other family types (effect disappears in married family)?
• Contact with NR father no (indirect) effect in expected direction (see King, 1994; King & Heard,1999)
In all family types:• Support mother (+) self-esteem child• Control of mother/father:
no effect on self-esteem child
![Page 21: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Outline of presentation
1. Overview of literature 2. Research questions3. Method4. Results5. Conclusions6. Further research
![Page 22: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
6. Further researchWhy support father only important if father is
non-residential?
• Conflict hypothesis: conflict higher when parents have more contact lower self-esteem?
- No effect in 3 family types of conflict- Effect of support father does not appear in joint custody & married
families no explanation
• Hidden effect of father-child closeness? - No effect in 3 family types- Effect of support NR father does not disappear no explanation
![Page 23: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
6. Further research• Same sex hypothesis: parents raise boys and girls
differently? Married: support mother (+) self-esteem boysJoint custody: support mother (+) self-esteem girlsR –NR: support mother (+) self-esteem boys & girls
support father (+) self-esteem girls No explanation
• Opposite model? Positive effect of self-esteem child on NR father parenting style (Hawking, Amato & King, 2007)
- Self-esteem child (+) support of NR father ** R²=0,120 (lower than former model R²= 0,211)
- Self-esteem child no effect on control of NR father
![Page 24: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
6. Further research• Joint custody and married type more alike?
not quality above quantity but quantity and then quality? (King, 1994; King & Sobolewski, 2006)
Could be: see interaction effect + no effect in joint custody
Why? quality important with feeling of “abandonment”? Used items from BAS-4 (Boss, Greenberg, & Pearce-McCall, 1990)
- Since the divorce, I find it more difficult to talk to my father about things I need from him (money, time, advice).
Item (-) self-esteem (not significant) Support father (-) item (not significant) Item*support father (-) self-esteem (not significant)
- In both of my parents’ homes, I feel comfortable, like I belong.Item (+) self-esteem*Support father (+) item* Item*support father (+) self-esteem (not significant)
![Page 25: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Does the non-residential parent matter?On the link between parenting and self-esteem.
![Page 26: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
3. Method: sample Married
parents Joint-
custody Mother R – father NR
Age mother Mean= 44 42 43 * Age father Mean= 44 44 45 Age child Mean= 14 14 14,5 Duration since divorce Mean= 6,5 8,5 *** Gender child Boys 47,1% 58,2% 48,7% Girls 52,9% 41,8% 51,4% Education mother Lower secundary or
lower 9,4% 11,0% 15,1%
Higher secundary 39,1% 39,6% 41,1% Higher education 51,5% 49,4% 43,8% Education father Lower secundary or
lower 13,0% 9,9% 26,1% ***
Higher secundary 42,8% 41,8% 52,8% Higher education 44,2% 48,4% 21,1% New partner mother No partner 47,0% 56,0% Partner 53,0% 44,0% New partner father No partner 48,8% 34,9% * partner 51,2% 65,1%
*** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 27: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
4. Results: background variables
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,193 0,047 -0,150
Age father -0,259 * -0,001 0,088 New partner mother 0,126 -0,130
New partner father -0,059 0,060 Education mother 1 -0,037 0,300 0,032 Education mother 2 -0,175 0,304 0,014
Education father 1 0,232 0,172 0,040 Education father 2 0,254 0,329 0,127
Age child -0,040 -0,193 -0,140 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,290 ** -0,156 -0,365 **
Duration since divorce -0,160 0,005 Contact with father -0,006
Support mother Control mother
Support father Control father
R² 0,093 0,038 0,002 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 28: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
4. Results: Interaction effectcontact with NR father*parenting style NR father
![Page 29: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
4. Results: Interaction effectgender of child*parenting style mother
Predicted values of self-esteem according to support of the mother and gender of the child (married)
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
1 2 3 4 5
support
pre
dic
ted
val
ue
of
self
-es
teem man
vrouw
Predicted values of self-esteem according to control of the mother and gender of the child (married)
-3,5-3
-2,5-2
-1,5-1
-0,50
0,51
1,5
1 2 3 4 5
control
pre
dic
ted
val
ues
of
self
-es
teem man
vrouw
Predicted values of self-esteem according to support of the mother and gender of the child (joint custody)
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
1 2 3 4 5
support
pre
dic
ted
val
ues
of
self
-es
teem man
vrouw
Predicted values of semf-esteem accoording to control of the mother and gender of the child (joint custody)
-3,5-3
-2,5-2
-1,5-1
-0,50
0,51
1,5
control
pre
dic
ted
val
ues
of
self
-es
teem man
vrouw
Predicted values for self-esteem according to support of the mother and gender of the child (R-NR)
-3,5
-2,5
-1,5
-0,5
0,5
1,5
1 2 3 4 5
support
pre
dic
ted
val
ues
of
self
-es
teem man
vrouw
Predicted values of self-esteem according to control of the mother and gender of the child (R-NR)
-3,5-3
-2,5-2
-1,5-1
-0,50
0,51
1,5
1 2 3 4 5
control
pre
dic
ted
val
ues
of
self
-es
teem man
vrouw
![Page 30: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
6. Further research: conflict
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR Age mother 0,228 * 0 ,179 -0,166
Age father -0,228 * 0,063 0,009 New partner mother 0,240 -0,221
New partner father -0,023 -0,002 Education mother 1 -0,020 0,345 -0,184 Education mother 2 -0,121 0,371 -0,072
Education father 1 0,177 0,265 0,061 Education father 2 0,175 0,306 0,144
Age child -0,050 -0,066 0,110 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,325 *** -0,253 * -0,172
Duration since divorce -0,254 -0,005 Contact with father 0,081
Support mother 0,219 * 0,408 ** 0,357 * Control mother -0,024 0,217 0,117
Support father 0,125 0,206 0,475 ** Control father -0,097 -0,134 -0,139
Conflict -0,112 -0,129 0,092 R² 0,186 0,188 0,215
*** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 31: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
6. Further research: closenessStandardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR
Age mother 0,210 0,0334 -0,188 Age father -0,239 * 0,109 0,059
New partner mother 0,239 -0,240 New partner father -0,016 0,134 Education mother 1 -0,051 0,274 -0,121 Education mother 2 -0,130 0,312 -0,051
Education father 1 0,197 0,297 0,291 Education father 2 0,178 0,401 0,170
Age child -0,048 -0,021 -0,014 Gender child (ref: boys) -0,329 *** -0,268 -0,149
Duration since divorce -0,249 0,069 Contact with father 0,185
Support mother 0,176 0,585 *** 0,281 Control mother -0,051 0,175 0,125
Support father 0,109 0,114 0,720 ** Control father -0,079 -0,134 -0,200
Closeness with mother 0,081 -0,246 0,123 Closeness with father 0,091 0,172 -0,376
R² 0,182 0,204 0,197 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05
![Page 32: Does the non-residential parent matter?](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070404/56813bca550346895da4f457/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
6. Further researchOther indicators of well-being
- Positive indicator: satisfaction with life- Negative indicator: psycho-somatic complaints
Standardized estimates Married parents Joint custody Mother R – father NR satisfaction complaints satisfaction complaints satisfaction complaints
Age mother Age father
New partner mother + * New partner father Education mother 1 Education mother 2
Education father 1 Education father 2 + **
Age child - ** Gender child (ref: boys) - *
Duration since divorce Contact with father
Support mother + *** + *** + * Control mother
Support father + ** - * Control father + **
R² 0,2495 0,0318 0,3848 0,0387 0,2334 0,1805 *** p< 0,001 **p<0,01 * p<0,05