University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

(USC Thesis Other)

Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOSTILE FAMILY ENVIRONMENTS AND CHILDREN’S PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT by Martha Acosta Rios A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PSYCHOLOGY May 2005 Copyright 2005 Martha Acosta Rios R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI N um ber: 3 1 8 0 3 6 0 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3180360 Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. DEDICATION Para mi Ama, Apa, Adolfo, Ismaelito, mi abuela, Marcela, and Richard. Les agradezco su amor y apoyo durante toda mi vida, especialmente al lograx esta meta. Also to my closest friends, Jennifer, Josefina, Liz, Mary and Sharon, you have helped me to develop my own sense of perceived support, which has allowed me to believe that I am cared for and loved under all circumstances. To R.M., R Jr., Ph., B.B., & G., thanks for all the times you made me laugh when I needed it the most. To all of you, I dedicate and share this joyous occasion with each and every one of you. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor and mentor, Dr. Gayla Margolin, for her unending support, motivation and encouragement during this challenging process, as well as throughout my graduate school career. I would also like to thank my committee members for their guidance and contributions as well: Drs. Shannon Daley, Frank Manis, Maura O’Keefe and David Schwartz. In addition, I would like to thank all of my lab members for their unconditional support and help with my dissertation. To Richard, thanks for believing in me and providing me with so many types of social support. Your love, encouragement and helpfulness made the struggles and triumphs worthwhile. To my mother and father, thanks for believing in me and loving me unconditionally. To my brothers, Ismael and Adolfo, thanks for supporting me in continuing my education and reaching this goal. To my closest friends, Jennifer, Josefina, Liz, Mary and Sharon, thank you each from the bottom of my heart for struggling through this with me. Your unconditional support and love have been there always. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vii ABSTRACT viii CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER H - METHOD 28 CHAPTER III - RESULTS 49 CHAPTER IV - DISCUSSION 76 REFERENCES 90 APPENDICES 109 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. V LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Hostile Family Composite Variables for Boys and Girls Separately and Combined. Table 2: Intercorrelations for Hostile Family Composite Variables for Boys and Girls Separately. Table 3: Intercorrelations for Hostile Family Composite Variables for Boys and Girls Combined. Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for Social Support Composite Variables for Boys and Girls Separately and Combined. Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations for Moderator Variables for Boys and Girls Separately and Combined. Table 6: Correlations for Parents’ Demographic Variables with Social Support Composites for Boys and Girls Separately. Table 7: Correlations for Parents’ Demographic Variables with Social Support Composites for Boys and Girls Combined. Table 8: Intercorrelations for Social Support Composites for Boys and Girls Separately. Table 9: Intercorrelations for Social Support Composites for Boys and Girls Combined. Table 10: Correlations Between Social Support, Hostile Family Environment and Moderators for Boys and Girls Separately. Table 11: Correlations Between Social Support, Hostile Family Environment and Moderators for Boys and Girls Combined. 32 36 36 39 46 51 52 53 53 55 56 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 12: Intercorrelations for Moderators and Hostile Family Composite for Boys and Girls Separately, Table 13: Intercorrelations for Moderators and Hostile Family Composite for Boys and Girls Combined. Table 14: Hierarchical Regressions: Children’s Perceptions of Social Support as Related to Interactions Between a Hostile Family Environment, Child’s Gender and Child Characteristics R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Plot of high and low dispositional avoid coping as a moderator for the effects of a hostile family environment on children’s perceptions of fathers’ social support. 66 Figure 2. Plot of high and low levels of situational aggressive coping as a moderator of children’s perceptions of fathers’ social support and a hostile family environment. 68 Figure 3. Plot of high and low situational active coping as a moderator of children’s perceptions of fathers’ social support and a hostile family environment. 69 Figure 4. Plot of high and low cognitive ability as a moderator of a hostile family environment and teachers’ perceived social support for boys and girls. 71 Figure 5. Plot of high and low dispositional active coping as a moderator of a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of teachers’ social support. Figure 6. Plot of high and low situational active coping as a moderator of children’s perceptions of teachers’ social support and a hostile family environment. Figure 7. Plot of high and low levels of cognitive ability as a moderator of children’s perceptions of friends’ social support and a hostile family environment. 72 73 75 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. viii ABSTRACT The present study examined the association between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support from family and nonfamily members. Although there is research to document the buffering effects of social support, little is known about the direct influence of a hostile family on children’s perceptions of social support or factors that may moderate this relationship. Thus, children’s coping skills and cognitive ability were also investigated as potential moderators. The sample consisted of 118 two-parent families with a child aged 9-10 (n = 51 girls; n- 67 boys). Parents and children each reported on levels of marital conflict/violence and harsh parenting. Children’s coping skills were measured using both situational and dispositional coping questionnaires. Correlation analyses partially supported the predicted negative relationship between perceptions of social support and a hostile family environment, but only for support from fathers and friends. Regression analyses found that for girls in highly hostile families, higher cognitive ability, greater use of situational active and dispositional avoidant skills were buffers for perceived support from fathers and friends. For boys from highly hostile families, greater use of situational active coping skills was a vulnerability factor for perceived support from teachers. The findings of the present study suggest that children’s own characteristics, specifically their cognitive ability and coping strategies, are important protective factors that can ultimately lessen the impact of a hostile family environment. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. INTRODUCTION Research has consistently indicated that children exposed to one or more types o f family violence (i.e., spouse and/or child abuse) have more socioemotional and behavioral difficulties than children from nonviolent homes (see Trickett, 1998 for review). Yet, even in the context of these hostile family environments, some children are more resilient than others. An important protective factor against the negative outcomes associated with a hostile family environment is social support. Although social support has been extensively researched as a buffer against the negative outcomes associated with a hostile family environm ent, (e.g., Cicchetti & Rizzley, 1981; Rossman, Bingham & Emde, 1997), it is imperative to determine and understand the degree to which children, in the context of a hostile family environment, are connected to significant others in their surroundings. Very little research has focused on the direct association between a hostile family environm ent on children’s perceptions of social support. Furthermore, given the importance of social support as a buffer, investigating moderating variables that affect the direction and/or strength of the relationship between children’s perceptions of social support and a hostile family environment will likely inform interventions directed toward increasing the potential of social support as a buffer. The present study, then, investigates the impact of a hostile family environment, as characterized by marital conflict/violence and harsh parenting, on children’s perceptions of social support from both fam ily and nonfamily members, and explores whether factors such as R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 children’s cognitive ability and children’s coping skills moderate this relationship. Are these children at risk for lowered perceptions of social support? If so, what factors might moderate these children’s perceptions? Children’ s Perceptions o f Social Support within a Hostile Family Environment; Theoretical Framework There are several theoretical perspectives that allow inferences to be made regarding the impact of a hostile family environment on children’s perceptions of social support from both family and nonfamily members. Specifically, theories that address the direct effects of a hostile family environment on children, such as the emotional security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994), as well as theories that discuss the indirect effects of a hostile family environment, such as the spillover hypothesis (Engfer, 1988; Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988) and the compensatory hypothesis (Engfer, 1988; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984), outline a theoretical framework from which to investigate the association between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. Direct effects of marital conflict on children are explained by the emotional security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Within this framework, derived from attachment theory, one of the primary goals of a child is a sense of emotional security within the context of interpersonal relationships. A child’s sense of emotional security can be influenced, positively or negatively, by the parent-child relationship, or more specifically, the parent-child attachment. Attachment, as R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 defined by Bowlby (1973) is the emotional bond between parent and child, with an emphasis on the availability of attachment figures. Children who have parents who are warm, responsive and consistent develop secure attachments, whereas children who do not, develop insecure attachments. Apart from the parent-child relationship, Davies and Cummings (1994) also argue that parents’ marital relationship also impact children’s emotional security. That is, for parents dealing with marital discord, they can be emotionally unavailable or insensitive to children and their needs (Cummings & Davies, 1994). According to Davies and Cummings (1994), emotional security is largely concerned with emotional well-being and the capacity to regulate emotions. Thus, “children who are emotionally secure about their parents’ relationship .. .have confidence in the continuing psychological and physical availability of parents” (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Emotional security also affects children’s negative internal working models, such that as exposure to parental conflict increases, children develop negative internal representations of their parents and the social world. A negative working model of their parents and the social world would likely lead children to perceive a lack of social support from both within and outside their families. The indirect effects of marital conflict on children are conceptualized from a family systems perspective, where all subsystems within the family (e.g., the marital, parent-child, and sibling subsystems) are interrelated and thus have a bidirectional influence on one another (e.g., Belsky, 1981; Lamb, 1976; Minuchin, 1974; Sroufe et R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 al., 1985). Germane to the current study, it is widely accepted that the marital relationship affects family life through the parent-child relationship (Belsky, 1981). Within this explanatory framework, there are several hypotheses that explain how the marital and parent-child relationships are associated. Specifically, parenting behaviors and the marital relationship can be either positively or negatively correlated. The positive association between the marital and parent-child relationships is referred to as the spillover hypothesis (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988; Engfer, 1988). Mood, affect or behavior in one family subsystem (e.g., the marital relationship) is transferred to another subsystem (e.g., the parent-child relationship). Parents who are in marriages that are fulfilling will be attuned to the needs of their children, whereas maritally distressed parents may react negatively toward their children and be less attentive to their children’s needs (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988; Engfer, 1988). In other words, if the marital conflict spills over into the parent-child relationship, children are less likely to be able to receive the support they need from their parents. However, if the parental relationship remains intact, this may buffer children against the negative consequences of parental conflict, such as lack of parental support. In contrast, the compensatory hypothesis (Engfer, 1988; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984) posits that there is a negative association between the marital and parent-child relationship. A parent may compensate for an unhappy marriage by becoming overly involved in the parent-child relationship, in the hopes of R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 experiencing some satisfaction and fulfillment (Engfer, 1988; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984). Alternatively, parents in a happy marriage may view the demands o f parenting a child as an impediment to their happiness and thus react negatively toward the child (Engfer, 1988; Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984). Thus, parents may provide high levels of supportiveness to their children in the context of a conflictua! marriage, or they may be lacking in supportiveness toward their child amidst a happy marital relationship. In their meta-analytic review of the literature, Erel and Burman (1995) found that a larger body of empirical evidence confirms the spillover hypothesis as compared to the compensation hypothesis. Given the negative association hypothesized by the spillover hypothesis, theoretically this suggests the possibility that children from hostile family environments will likely have lower perceptions of parental social support than children from non-conflictual or non-violent homes, especially in light of the high co-occurrence between marital violence and child physical abuse (Apel & Holden, 1998; Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991; Straus et al 1980; Wolfe et al 1985; O'Keefe, 1994). Taken together, both the emotional security hypothesis and the spillover hypothesis address the potential impact of a hostile family environment on children’s perceptions of social support both within and outside the family. Marital conflict may affect parents’ sensitivity to their children’s emotional needs (Egeland & Farber, 1984; Stevenson-Hinde, 1990) or parents may become so overwhelmed with R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 their own situation that they become less available to the child (Hess & Camara, 1979; Hetherington, 1979; Hetherington, Cox & Cox, 1985; Margolin, 1998; Sandler, Wolchik & Braver, 1985; Sandler, Miller, Short & Wolchik, 1989). “Parental conflict may compromise a child’s perceptions of the social world as secure,” (Gamble & Dalla, 1997). Children who are deprived of a supportive parent- child relationship may come to believe that others outside the family are also unwilling or unable to meet their needs for support. For example, in one study, children who reported lower levels of family support also reported lower levels of friendship qualities such as validation/caring, help/guidance and intimacy (Franco & Levitt, 1998). Social Support and Psychosocial Adjustment: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence Understanding the relationship between a hostile family and children’s perceptions of social support is crucial because of the important role of social support in children’s psychosocial adjustment. Theoretically, two competing hypotheses, the buffering and main effect hypotheses (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Vaux, 1988) have attempted to explain the positive effects of social support on children. The buffering hypothesis posits that social support's positive impact comes about as a result of its interaction with an individual's stress level. Only those who are experiencing stressful life events benefit from social support by helping to buffer them from the negative consequences of life's stressors. The main effects hypothesis maintains that social support has an influence on well-being irrespective of stress R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 levels, promoting good psychological and physical health throughout the life span. Overall, researchers have found that children who have at least one supportive relationship in their life, whether it is a parent or non-family member, are better adjusted than children who do not have a supportive relationship in their life (e.g., Jenkins & Smith, 1991; Wagner, Cohen, & Brook, 1996). Parental social support has been linked to the psychosocial adjustment of children in numerous studies. Cauce et al. (1990) found that first graders who reported higher levels of support from parents were judged more self-confident and higher in social adjustment by their mothers than first graders who reported lower levels of parental support. East (1991) similarly found that parental nurturance and support enhances a child's social adjustment. The development of various social competencies (e.g., Roberts & Strayer, 1987) and the child’s success in school and with peers (see review by Cauce, et al., 1990) is also facilitated by emotional support from parents. Support from close family members is linked to higher levels of self esteem for children and adolescents (Levitt, Guacci-Franco & Levitt, 1993; van Aken & Asendorpf, 1997; Wolchik, Beals & Sandler, 1989). In general, parental support promotes psychological and emotional health during childhood and throughout the life span (Mallinckrodt, 1992). Apart from parents, children also benefit from supportiveness from their peers. Supportive friendships help improve children's social skills (Hartup, 1992) and their psychological health (Goodyear, Wright, & Altham, 1989; Youniss & Smollar, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 1985). In addition, children with more supportive friendships have higher self esteem (Barrera et al, 1993; Bemdt & Savin-Williams, 1993; Hoffman, Levy-Schiff, & Ushpiz, 1993; Moren & Eckenrode, 1991), report less loneliness and depression (Licitra-Kleckler & Waas, 1993; Moren & Eckenrode, 1991; Parker & Asher, 1993; Slavin & Rainer, 1990), and have higher academic and social adjustment (Bemdt & Keefe, 1995; DuBois et al., 1992; Dubow & Tisak, 1989). For children with a recent cancer diagnosis (Vami et al, 1994) or whose parents have divorced (Cowen et al., 1990), higher peer support is associated with less internalizing and externalizing problems. Another important source of support for children comes from their relationships with teachers. In fact, several studies have shown that supportiveness from teachers is a buffer against several types of stressors. For example, Dubois et al. (1992) investigated stressful life events, social supports and psychological distress. Those who had high levels of support from teachers and other school personnel had lower levels of psychological distress compared to children with low levels of support. Teachers’ support has also been found to be negatively associated with internalizing and externalizing problems for children with a recent cancer diagnosis (Vami et al., 1994). Particularly relevant to the teacher-student relationship, teacher support has also been found to be positively related to school performance (Cauce et al, 1982). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 Operationalization o f Social Support Much debate surrounds exactly how to measure social support. Some researchers have defined social support as conveying a sense of being cared fop loved or esteemed (Cobb, 1976) or a network of relationships that provide companionship, assistance, attachment and emotional nourishment (Newcomb & Bentler, 1987). Barrera’s (1986) operationalization of social support into three distinct aspects, social embededness, enacted support, and perceived support, perhaps best captures this complex construct. Social embededness involves the assessment of the number of people, relationship type (e.g., family or non-family member), age, and gender of those who constitute a person’s social support network (Newcomb & Bentler, 1987). Enacted support, on the other hand, attempts to quantify supportive behaviors that are provided (Thoits, 1985) by asking the recipient or giver to estimate the number of times they have given or received various supportive behaviors such as informational, instrumental, companionship and esteem support (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Rook, 1987). The last measure of social support, perceived support, measures a person's subjective impression of the availability and willingness of others to provide support, and/or the perception of being loved and cared for (Barrera, 1986). Perceived support is “an aggregate of transactions that have occurred in the relationship” (Cutrona et al., 1990). Despite the various conceptualizations of social support, many studies have found the strongest relationship between social support and distress emerges when R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 10 perceptions of social support are measured rather than enacted support and/or social embededness (Barrera, 1986; Cauce et al., 1990). In the child and adolescent literature, the critical characteristic has been “who” provides the support rather than the different kinds of supportive behaviors they provide (Cauce et al., 1990; Cauce & Srebnik, 1989; Wolchik, 1989), with neither children nor adults differentiating greatly among the types of support provided by a specific person (Cauce et al., 1990; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Wolchik et al., 1989). Specifically, in studies of children, most supportive behaviors load onto a single factor (Bemdt & Perry, 1986; Dubow & Ullman, 1989) or are so highly correlated that they are combined into one scale (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). In general, “children’s and adults’ social support perceptions have been found to reflect a general underlying schema of the social environment as supportive or unsupportive,” (e.g., Anan & Barnett, 1999; Branje, van Aken & van Lieshout, 2002). This is usually referred to as a “sense of support” (Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason 1990) or an aspect of general “relational schemas” (Baldwin, 1992; Lakey & Cassady, 1990; Lakey & Drew, 1997; Pierce, Baldwin & Lydon, 1997). Some research suggests that family characteristics, such as family climate, also influence perceptions of support within the family (Fiese et al., 1999; Branje, van Aken & van Lieshout, 2002). These findings seem to suggest that children from hostile family R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 11 environments will view the support of both family and nonfamily members similarly^ such that family and non-family members will likely both be perceived as unsupportive. Perceptions o f Social Support Across Childhood An understanding of children’s perceptions of social support in a hostile family environment necessitates a review of the literature regarding children’s social support across development and by gender. The Social Convoy Model (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1994) has been used to examine social support across developmental stages. The convoy is defined as the social network of people that provides support to the individual throughout his/her life, and is based on theories of emotional attachment and social roles (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1994). The Social Convoy Model assesses those who are close and important to an individual. During the early years of childhood, the convoy includes mostly family members. At middle childhood, the convoy increases to include more extended family members and in adolescence, there is a significant increase in the proportion of friends (Levitt, Guacci-Franco, Levitt, 1993). The development of a social support network for children begins with the first providers of social support to children, mothers and fathers. Children often identify parents as their primary sources of support (Bryant, 1985; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Sandler, Wolchik & Braver, 1985). Nonetheless, with mothers generally providing the majority of childcare, they are likely to be perceived as being R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 12 more supportive than fathers are. In studies of school age children that differentiate between the supportiveness of mothers and fathers, mothers are consistently perceived as providing more support than fathers (Cauce et al, 1990; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985; Dubow & Ullman, 1989). While some research suggests that fathers’ supportiveness ratings increase with age, most types of support from fathers are still rated less positively than support from mothers (Cauce et al., 1990). Gender differences in perceptions of parents’ supportiveness are also found amongst hoys and girls, such that children generally perceive their same-sex parent to be supportive. Among sixth graders, East (1991) found that girls rated mothers' support more positively than boys did. Although Furman and Buhrmester (1985) also found that girls reported greater intimacy with mothers than fathers, boys reported no differences in intimacy between parents. In another study, boys ages 11 to 19 gave fathers higher support ratings than mothers (Clark-Lempers et al., 1991). As children get older and move into settings outside the home, such as school, peers become an increasingly important part of their social support networks. Early work by Sullivan (1953) hypothesized that by nine or ten, children have a "chum" who listens to them disclose their thoughts and feelings. Empirical evidence supports Sullivan's (1953) early formulations of children's friendships as important sources of social support (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992; Levitt, Guacci-Franco, & Levitt, 1993) and also finds that boys and girls differ somewhat with regard to their supportive relationships with peers. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 13 Buhrmester and Furman (1987) found that fifth grade girls rated one type of social support, intimacy with closest same-sex friend, as high as intimacy with parents, whereas boys rated same-sex friendships as less intimate than parental relationships. In another study, friends' companionship was rated as highly as parents' companionship (Cauce et al., 1990) among 5 to 7 year-old boys and girls. Other research suggests that girls, compared to boys, report greater support from peers (Kinard, 1995), including greater intimacy, affection, and enhancement of worth in their best friendships (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). In addition, girls more than boys, are more likely to seek social support after a stressful life event (e.g., Wolchik, Ruehlman, Braver, Sandler, 1989). As children enter school, children not only begin forming relationships with other peers, but with teachers as well. Cauce et al. (1990) found that children identify teachers as providing many types of support, including informational, emotional, companionship and instrumental. Supportiveness from teachers is rated higher among elementary school children as compared to adolescents (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). Furman and Buhrmester (1985) found that boys, as opposed to girls, perceive more conflict with teachers whereas girls rate teachers as more supportive than boys (Dubow & Ullman, 1989). In sum, the findings described regarding children’s perceptions of social support across childhood suggest the possibility of gender differences in the perceptions of social support from children in hostile family environments. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 14 The Impact o f a Hostile Family Environment on Children’ s Perceptions o f Social Support Since there are very few studies that directly examine social support amidst a hostile family environment, various bodies of research allow us to infer how a hostile family environment might be associated with children’s perceptions of social support from both family and nonfamily members. First, studies that investigate the parenting behaviors of maritally conflicted couples and abusive parents are reviewed. Second, literature that addresses the relationships of children with nonfamily members is presented. Finally, a review of those studies that specifically measure supportiveness amidst a hostile family environment will be reviewed. Hostile Family Environment and Impaired Parenting Much empirical evidence supports the relationship between impaired parenting and a hostile family environment, although most of these studies do not measure supportiveness directly. Relative to non-maritally distressed parents, parents experiencing marital discord show various difficulties in parenting including increased withdrawal, emotional unavailability, rejection, negativity, disagreements over child rearing, and inconsistency and punitiveness in their discipline (Block, Block, & Morrison, 1981; Dickstein & Parke, 1988; Howes & Markman, 1989; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas & Wierson, 1990; Jouriles, Pfiffiier, & O'Leary, 1988; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Margolin, 1998; Miller, Cowan, Cowan, Hetherington, & Clingempeel, 1993). In addition, they are likely to use angry parenting styles, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 15 display less warmth, and be less responsive (Gottman & Katz, 1989). Men who abuse their wives have been found to be physically aggressive toward their children (O’ Keefe, 1994), especially their sons (Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991). Batterers, as reported by their wives, also demonstrate more irritability, less involvement in child rearing, less physical affection and greater reliance on power assertion and physical punishment when disciplining their children (Holden & Ritchie, 1991). Couples experiencing non-violent (Erel & Burman, 1995) as well as violent marital conflict (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991; O'Keefe, 1994) also show evidence of poor parenting. The literature investigating parents who physically abuse their children documents many of the same parenting skills deficits as parents who are in maritally violent relationships. Parents who are physically abusive toward their children are easily annoyed, lack general knowledge of child development and lack appropriate child management skills (Wolfe, 1985). Their parenting practices are characterized as inconsistent, negative and aggressive (e.g., Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991). Parents in families with child physical abuse have unrealistic expectations about their children, react negatively and harshly judge their child’s negative behavior, and lack the problem-solving skills necessitated in child-rearing situations (Azat, 1997; Azar et al., 1984; Chilamkurti & Milner, 1993; Peterson & Gable, 1998). Overall, families in which there is child physical abuse have lower levels of overall parent-child interaction, especially positive parent-child interactions (Lorber, Felton & Reid, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 16 1984). In a study that assessed for children's exposure to both husband-to wife aggression and child abuse potential, there was a positive correlation with higher levels o f controlling, coercive forms of punishment and a negative correlation with positive parenting dimensions, such as structure, sensitivity and consistency (Margolin et al., 2003). The various parenting difficulties extensively documented in the literature are likely to relate negatively to children’s perceptions of parental social support amidst a hostile family environment. Peer Relations among Children exposed to Hostile Family Environments Most studies assessing the friendships of children who have been witnesses or victims of violence have focused on whether children have friends, or who these friends are with little attention to the quality of these relationships, with supportiveness being one aspect of friendship quality (Colarossi & Eccles, 2000; Hartup, 1996). Nonetheless, research in this area does give us some information from which to infer that children from hostile family environments may perceive low levels of support from their peers. There is much empirical evidence that documents the various peer problems among children who have been victims of family violence. Maltreated children are rated as less popular, and more rejected, aggressive, and disruptive by their peers (Bolger et al., 1998; Cicchetti et al., 1992; Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Haskett & Kistner, 1991; Rogosch & Cichetti, 1994; Salzinger, Feldman, Hammer & Rosario, 1993). When interacting with their peers, children exposed to physical abuse R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 17 demonstrate more aggressive and negative reactions (Alessandri, 1991; Hoffman- Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984; Haskett & Kistener, 1991; Howes & Eldredge, 1985; Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989). Maltreated children also have lower levels of empathy and sensitivity toward others and are more likely to interpret interactions with peers as hostile (e.g., Azar, Bames & Twentyman, 1988; Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Fantuzzo, 1990; Klimes-Dougan & Kistner, 1990; Salzinger et al., 1993). Children exposed to marital conflict/violence also demonstrate peer difficulties. They are rejected by their peers (Strassberg et al., 1992), have problematic and negative peer interactions (Graham-Berman & Levendosky, 1998; Gottman & Katz, 1989; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999) and have deviant anger expressions with their peers (Jenkins, 2000). Teacher ratings of peer functioning were lower for children exposed to domestic violence and abuse than a comparison group of children (Dawud-Norsi, Lamb, & Sterberg, 1998). Children’ s Perceptions of Social Support Amidst a Hostile Family Environment Empirical studies that have focused on children’s perceptions of social support within hostile families have, for the most part, investigated the relationship between adjustment and social support, without specifically focusing on how these children perceive their social support environment (e.g., Cichetti & Rizley, 1981; Rossman, Bingham, & Emde, 1997). Nonetheless, there are a limited number of studies that do directly measure the supportiveness of family and nonfamily R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 18 members of children from hostile family environments. First, literature from the area of marital conflict/domestic violence will be presented. Second, literature on abused children will be presented. Blanchard, Molloy and Brown (1992) found that although some children from domestically violent homes mentioned their mother as a source of support during a crisis and right after an incident of domestic violence at home, other children felt their mother was “too stressed” to provide them with the support they needed. These children expressed supportiveness as coming from a caring adult with whom they could talk openly and safely about their situation, identifying neighbors, relatives, teachers and adult domestic violence workers as a good source of support. Nonetheless, although these children expressed a need for support to deal with the violence in their homes, they also expressed feeling that most people would not necessarily be supportive because they either did not understand or want to know about domestic violence (Blanchard, Molloy & Brown, 1992). Rawlings (1993) investigated the social support networks of seventy-one children, half of whom resided in shelters for domestic abuse and the other half were a community comparison group. Although no differences were found in the size of social support networks of witnesses and non-witnesses of domestic violence, children in the non-exposed group were more likely to include their mother, father R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 19 and other family members as part of their support network than children from the exposed group. CMldren in the violence-exposure group were also found to have small social support networks Peer support among children of maritally conflicted families has also been investigated. Wasserstein & La Greca (1996), in a study of peer support and marital conflict, found that peer support was rated relatively very high, although the sample had very low levels of marital discord. The literature on abused children’s perceptions of social support also portrays that children generally perceive low levels of support from family and nonfamily members. In a study of children who were victims of multiple forms of abuse, specifically physical abuse, neglect or sexual abuse, victims were marginally less likely to report support from mothers than non-abused victims were, and boys were more likely than girls to perceive less support from mothers and peers, but not teachers (Kinard, 1995). Abused children also named fewer people in their networks than non-abused children and named significantly less friends than non-abused group (Kinard, 1995). Garbarino and Sherman (1980) reported that children in neighborhoods at high risk for maltreatment had fewer people in their networks and were less likely to play with neighborhood children than children in low risk neighborhoods. Salzinger et al. (1993) found that abused children had fewer reciprocated best friend ratings, suggesting that “abused children may differentiate less clearly between potentially supportive and nonsupportive friends... (leading to) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 20 potentially less supportive (friendships).” On the other hand, Ezzell, Swenson, and Brondino (2000) found that identified physically abused children perceived high levels o f support from family members, peers and teachers, rating all providers close to the total possible score for supportiveness. Nonetheless, families were perceived as providing more support than teachers, while peer support did not significantly differ from teacher or family support. In a study by McCloskey, Figueredo and Koss (1995), higher levels of family violence were associated with less parental support, according to children’s reports. Although the findings are mixed, there is limited empirical support for less family and nonfamily support among children from hostile family environments versus children from non-hostile family environments. Thus, previous theoretical and empirical work on the family and non-family relationships of children within hostile families suggests that children’s perceptions of support from family and nonfamily members will be negatively related to family hostility level. To further understand the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support, individual factors that may moderate this relationship will be explored. Moderators o f a Hostile Family Environment and Children’ s Perceptions o f Social Support Resilience is “manifested competence in the context of significant threats to adaptation or development,” (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Competence is R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 21 evidenced by mastery of developmental tasks or domains of achievement, such as academics or peer acceptance (Masten & Coatsworth, 1995). Within the resiliency literature, a target of investigation has been to determine those factors that enable competence among children who otherwise might be expected to be maladjusted (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). In the context of this work, though, two factors have to be established: first, that children are facing a significant threat, usually defined as either exposure to severe adversity or trauma, or high risk status (e.g., low SES family) and second, that the level of adaptation or development is adequate (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Interestingly, though, children can exhibit competence in one arena, but not in another due to differing child capabilities and contexts (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Studies of resilience in children at risk have identified several individual and contextual factors that are associated with better outcomes, with supportive relationships and good intellectual functioning or good problem-solving skills among the most robust predictors of competence among children (e.g., Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Wyman, Sandler, Wolchik, & Nelson, 2000). That is, good intellectual functioning and/or problems solving skills can help buffer children from the negative consequences of adverse life events. Conversely, though, low intellectual functioning and/or maladaptive coping skills can exacerbate or intensify negative consequences. In keeping within the framework of the resilience literature, the present study investigates children in the context of a significant threat to development, namely, a R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 2 hostile family environment, and seeks to further understand factors that may promote resiliency. There is some evidence to indicate that people who experience stressful life events sometimes have difficulty obtaining the social support they desire and need (DeLongis et al., 1990; Lehman, Ellard & Wortman, 1986; Wortman & Lehman, 1985), suggesting the importance of identifying moderators as they relate to social support. In light of the findings within the resiliency literature, children’s cognitive abilities and their coping skills are hypothesized to be moderators of the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. For children growing up in a hostile family environment, those who have behavioral (i.e., coping skills) as well as intellectual advantages may not be as affected by a hostile home environment than children who do not. IQ has been associated with better outcomes, reflecting “that brain development and associated cognitive development are proceeding normally despite adversity,” (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Conversely, deficient cognitive development can be a vulnerability factor in adverse environments (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). Many studies have found that higher IQ is associated with better psychosocial outcomes in the context of family violence and child maltreatment (Masten, 1999; Hetherington. 1989; Wemer & Smith, 1982; Lynch & Roberts, 1982; Kolbo, 1996). With respect to social support, higher intellectual capabilities are likely to facilitate children’s ability to manage their interpersonal relationships. For R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 3 example, higher intellectual abilities feasibly help children to minimize conflict by appropriately dealing with conflictual situations, such as knowing when and how to elicit support from others. Children with higher levels of intellectual functioning are more likely to evoke positive responses and support from others (Hetherington, 1989, 1991). Thus, there is evidence to suggest that cognitive ability may be a moderator for the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support, such that higher levels of cognitive ability may buffer children while lower levels of cognitive ability may make children more vulnerable within the context of a hostile family environment. Children’s coping skills are another mechanism hypothesized to moderate the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. Coping, as defined by Lazarus and Folkman (1984, p. 141), refers to the “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person.” Empirical studies of coping behaviors have found that generally, active- approach coping, such that the individual is moving toward the stressor, is related to positive adjustment, and avoidance coping, such that the individual is moving away from the stressor, is associated with poorer adjustment (e.g., Causey & Dubow, 1992; Moos, 1990), For example, Sandler, Tein and West (1994) found that active coping moderated the effects of stressful events on conduct problems in children of R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 24 divorce. By directly coping with the problem, these children minimized stress that could potentially harm their interpersonal relationships. The effects of coping strategies on children’s adjustment are also affected by the context within which these coping strategies are employed. Within the context of a hostile family environment, children’s uses of avoidant and active coping skills have been differentially associated with adjustment. For example, children who actively try to intervene in their parents’ marital conflict display higher levels of maladjustment than children who avoid getting involved in their parents’ conflictual interactions (e.g., Grych & Fincham, 1993; O’Brien et al., 1991). The relationship between coping skills and social support has been investigated in several studies. Some studies have found that the way a person copes with problems is associated with the amount of social support he/she receives (Billings & Moos, 1981; Dunkel-Schetter et al., 1987). For example, it is less threatening to offer help to someone who appears to be coping well (Coates, Wortman, & Abbey, 1979). Heller and Swindle (1983) similarly hypothesized that coping skills are likely to facilitate efforts to seek and receive social support. Schreurs and de Ridder (1997) hypothesized four links between social support and coping, specifying the strongest link as that in which social support is dependent on coping. That is, coping responses can influence positive or negative social support outcomes. For example, avoidant coping could increase stress levels, thus possibly leading to more negative social interactions and a loss of social support (Sandler, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 25 Miller, Short & Wolchik, 1989), whereas adaptive coping responses can facilitate 'the receipt of social support. As Silver, Wortman and Crofton (1990) state, “it is important to consider behaviors of the support recipient that may elicit responses that are supportive.5 5 As such, it is hypothesized that coping behavior will act as a moderator between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. Since the coping literature continues to debate the merits and disadvantages of both dispositional and situational coping measures, this study will utilize both types of coping measures. Whereas dispositional measures of coping operationalize coping as a trait-like characteristic or a general coping style, situational measures of coping measure situation specific coping strategies. Both measures of coping may potentially provide us with more information about children in highly hostile families than either measure alone. The present study will specifically examine active, avoidant and aggressive coping skills given their importance within the literature investigating hostile family environments. Summary o f Present Study The present study is designed to examine how a hostile family environment, characterized by marital conflict/violence and harsh parenting, is associated with children’s perceptions of social support of family and non-family members. While a community sample may not produce the high levels of marital conflict associated with an identified sample, it provides the opportunity to research social support in an R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 6 intact family environment. That is, identified families usually involve one or more family members residing elsewhere, thus disrupting their accessibility to social support. In addition, most studies fail to measure harsh parenting despite the high rates of co-occurrence between exposure to marital conflict/violence and child physical abuse, (Apel & Holden, 1998; Jouriles & LeCompte, 1991; Straus et al 1980; Wolfe et al 1985; O'Keefe, 1994). Since the present study will look at two- parent homes, a wide spectrum of family violence will be investigated within the same study. To summarize, the present study will investigate children’s perceptions of social support in the context of a hostile family environment, characterized by marital conflict and harsh parenting. The specific hypotheses are as follows: (1) Children from hostile homes, characterized by both marital conflict/violence and harsh parenting, will have lower perceptions of social support across family and non-family members than children from non-hostile families. More specifically, children from hostile families will perceive lower levels of support from mothers, fathers, teachers and best friends than children from non- hostile family environments. Gender differences will also be explored given the empirical evidence that suggests that boys and girls differ in their perceptions of social support. (2) Children’s cognitive ability will moderate the relationship between perceived support and a hostile family environment. That is, higher cognitive ability R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. will buffer the effects of a hostile family environment on children's perceptions of social support from family and nonfamily members. This hypothesis will be examined separately for each type of social support, but no hypotheses axe offered for the differential effects of the different types of social support. (3) Lastly, children’s coping skills will moderate the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support from family and nonfamily members. That is, greater use of active coping skills will buffer the effects o f a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. Greater use of avoidant coping and aggressive coping skills will exacerbate the effects o f a hostile family environment on children’s perceptions of social support. These hypotheses will be examined separately for each type of social support, but no hypotheses are offered for the differential effects of the different types of social support. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. ■ 28 METHOD Participants Families («=118) within the Los Angeles area were recruited for the Family Studies Project, a 3-year longitudinal study examining the effects of both family and community violence on family processes and children’s adaptation. Data for the present study were collected as part of the Year 1 assessments. The following criteria were required for participation in the Project: (a) Two-parent families with a 9 or 10-year-old child (b) Both parents and child residing in same home (c) Parents must be biological parents or have lived with the child for three or more years (d) Parents and child agree to at least one laboratory visit For Year One, all families received one hundred dollars for their participation in a four-hour lab meeting, plus a twenty-dollar bonus for being on time for their first scheduled meeting. Families were also invited to participate in the completion of two weeks of structured “daily diaries” at home for which they were compensated additionally. The 118 children in this study included 51 girls and 67 boys, with a mean age of 9.97 years (SD=.59) for girls and 9.95 years (XZ>=.63) for boys. Parents’ ages ranged from 26 to 53 years for mothers (M=38.54,SD=5.9l) and 24 to 60 years for fathers (M=40.94, SD=6.79). Parents had been married an average of 12.15 years (SD=5.51), with a range of 1 to 30 years of marriage. Couples’ joint ethnicities were R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 29 23% Caucasian, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 21% African-American, 8% Asian and the remaining 27% of couples were multi-ethnic. Families in this study had, on average, 2.84 children (SD=l .46), with a range of 1 to 8 children. Mothers’ and fathers’ educational levels ranged from less than a high school education to graduate school (M=14.28, £D=2.49 for mothers; M=14.14, £0=2.51 for fathers). Couples’ average combined yearly income was $67,623, with 13% of couples having incomes less than $25,000; 25% had incomes between $25-$50,000 and 62% had incomes over $50,000. Forty-five percent of mothers were employed full-time, 25% were employed part-time, and 30% were unemployed. For fathers, 80% were employed full-time, 6 % were employed part-time, and 14% were unemployed. Analyses revealed no significant differences between boys and girls on the demographic variables. Procedures Families spent four to five hours in the laboratory completing a computerized battery of assessments. Graduate research assistants also administered several interviews to each parent. Children completed a computerized battery of assessments with the help of a graduate research assistant who read all questions and answer choices aloud. A graduate research assistant also interviewed each child. The present study analyzed a subset of the battery of assessments within the larger project. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 30 Measures Predictor Variable: Hostile Family Environment Composite Score Marital Conflict. The Domestic Conflict Index (Appendix A; DCI) assesses conflict between partners (Margolin, Burman, John & O'Brien, 1990; Margolin, John & Foo, 1998). It is a 61-item inventory of marital conflict behaviors that contains items assessing the incidence and frequency of physical aggression, emotional abuse, and anger between partners and includes all of the items from the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979). There are 56 items that assess for physically abusive behaviors (e.g., "pushed, grabbed or shoved spouse," "kicked, bit, or hit spouse with fist"), emotionally abusive behaviors (e.g., "frightened spouse," "tried to prevent spouse from seeing/talking to family and friends, r ) and anger (e.g., "screamed or yelled at your spouse," "insulted or swore at your spouse"), with the remaining items measuring constructive resolutions to conflict. Good internal consistency and test- retest reliability are reported in Margolin et al., (1998). Partners indicated (a) whether the behavior had ever occurred in the relationship with the partner and (b) whether it had ever occurred in front of their child. If an item was endorsed as having happened sometime in the relationship, the respondent also reported the number of times the behavior had occurred in the previous year using six categories, including "not at all" (0), "once" (1), "2-5 times per year" (2), "6-12 times per year" (3), "2-4 times per month" (4) and "more than R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 31 once a week” (5). To score the DCI, the six categories were assigned a score between 0 and 5, capturing how often that particular behavior occurred over the past year. Given the under-reporting associated with marital aggression (Margolin, 1987), marital conflict scores were generated by choosing the highest total score reported by husbands and wives on themselves or their partners on a subset of the items tapping anger, physical abuse, and emotional abuse that had occurred in the past year. Thirty-five DCI items were chosen to reflect those behaviors that parents’ reported as likely having been witnessed by their child. Internal consistency, assessed on this sample through Cronbach’s alpha, was .92 for husbands and .93 for wives. Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 1 under the categories of marital conflict - wife and husband. DCI interparental conflict scores in the past year for both husbands and wives were summed and standardized to form one score that was part of a hostile family environment. Analyses revealed no significant differences between boys and girls on either mothers’ or fathers’ DCI interparental conflict scores. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges for Hostile Family Composite Variables for Bovs and Girls Separately and Combined. Hostile Family Composite Variables Girls in = 51) Boys (n = 67) Overall_(« = 118) M SD M SD M SD Range Marital Conflict (husband) 19.67 14.98 20.33 15.99 20.04 15.50 0-82 Marital Conflict (wife) 22.96 16.16 26.02 18.78 24.70 17.69 0-74 Marital Conflict - Mother (child report) 2.72 3.46 2.85 3.93 2.79 3.72 0-17 Marital Conflict - Father (child report) 1.96 2.71 1.79 3.08 1.86 2.92 0-18 Harsh Parenting -Mother (Child Report) 5.22 5.63 7.57 7.06 6.55 6.56 0-30 Harsh Parenting - Mother (Self-Report) 10.06 8.46 10.02 7.04 10.04 7.65 0-37 Harsh Parenting - Father (Child Report) 4.77 5.80 5.49 5.12 5.18 5.41 0-25 Harsh Parenting - Father (Self-Report) 7.16 7.12 8.32 6.86 7.82 6.97 0-31 33 Marital conflict was also measured using the Conflict Tactics Scale, Form R (Appendix B; CTS-R; Straus, 1979). The CTS-R is a 15-item questionnaire assessing four types of conflict tactics: reasoning, verbal aggression, physical aggression and severe aggression. The CTS-R has high internal consistency and good inter-rater reliability (Straus, 1979). Children are asked to report how often their parent has utilized a specific conflict tactic when having an argument with the other parent in the past year, for both mothers and fathers separately. This instrument is scored on a 4 point scale, including “never” (0), "once" (1), "a few times" (2), and “a lot” (3). In order to obtain a score for each parent on their conflict behavior tactics toward their spouse, items measuring both verbal and physical aggression were added together. Cronbach’s alpha was .75 for mothers and .75 for fathers for the current sample. Boys’ and girls’ families did not differ significantly on either mother or father CTS-R scores. Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations and ranges for the CTS-R under the categories of marital conflict- mother (child report) and marital conflict - father (child report). Mothers’ and fathers’ CTS-R Conflict Behavior scores were also summed and standardized to form another score that is part of the hostile family environment measurement. Harsh Parenting. The hostile family environment composite also included harsh parenting, measured using the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (Appendices C& D; CTSPC; Straus, et al, 1998). The CTSPC measures physical aggression, psychological aggression and nonviolent modes of discipline by parents (Straus et R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 34 al., 1998) as reported by both children and their parents. A modified version of the CTSPC was used for the present study. The original CTSPC has been shown to have adequate reliability and validity (Straus, et al.. 1998). This instrument is scored on a 7 point scale, including “never” (0), "once" (1), "twice" (2), "3-5 times" (3), "6-10 times per month" (4), "11-20 times" (5), and “20+ times” (6). For the present study, the physical aggression (e.g., “shook your child;” “spanked your child on the bottom with your bare hand”) and psychological aggression (e.g., “swore or cursed at your child;” “shouted, yelled or screamed at your child”) scales were summed together for a total abuse scale for mothers and fathers separately. Sums were derived for mother’s report on herself, child’s report on mother, father’s report on himself and child’s report on father. In the current sample, Cronbach’s alphas for mother’s report on herself was .82, for the child’s report on the mother was .76, for father’s report on himself was .82, and for the child’s report on the father was .73. T-tests indicated a significant difference between boys and girls for CTSPC mothers’ score based on child reports, £(116) = -2.00,£< .05, such that boys reported higher levels of harsh parenting from mothers than girls (see Table 1). Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 1, labeled as harsh parenting - mother/father (child or self-report). These multi informant reports on harsh parenting were summed and standardized to form the last measurement of a hostile family environment. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 35 Hostile Family Environment Composite. The hostile family environment composite included measures of both marital conflict/violence and harsh parenting from the perspectives of both parents and their children. Parents5 perspectives on their own marital conflict were obtained from both wife and husband using the DCI. The GTS- R conflict behavior scores for both mothers and fathers, as reported by the child, served as the children’s perspective on marital conflict. For harsh parenting, parent and child perspectives were obtained using the self-reported CTSPC. CTSPC scores include mother and father self-reports, as well as children’s reports on mothers and fathers. Table 2 presents the intercorrelations between the variables standardized and summed to form the hostile family environment composite for boys and girls separately and Table 3 presents the data for boys and girls combined. Overall, the measures of marital conflict and harsh parenting were significantly and moderately correlated with each other, thus subsequently collapsed into the hostile family environment composite. No significant differences were found for boys and girls on the hostile family environment composite. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 36 Table 2. Intercorrelations for Hostile Family Composite Variables for Boys and Girls Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Sum of Marital Conflict (parents’ report) 2. Sum of Marital Conflict (cMld’s report) .43** .15 .28* .44** .65** .76** 3. Sum of Parent-Child Conflict (all reporters) 4. Hostile Family Composite .35** .79** .35** .19** .71** .80** Note. Girls’ reports (n=51) are expressed above the diagonal; boys’ reports (n=67) are expressed below the diagonal. **p < .01, *p < .05, ap < .10 Combined. Measure 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 1. Sum of Marital Conflict (parents’ report) 2. Sum of Marital Conflict (child’s report) .33** 3. Sum of Harsh Parenting .35** .17 (parents’ report) 4. Sum of Harsh Parenting .15 4 4 ** 31** (child’s report) 4. Hostile Family Composite .73** .77** .60** .61** - * * p < .01, *p< .05, & p< .10 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 37 Outcomes - Children’s Perceptions o f Family and Non-Family Social Support Perceived Social Support. Children’s perceived social support was obtained from two sources for mothers’ and fathers’ support (the Harter Social Support Scale for Children and the Family Assessment Measure), from two sources for peer support (the Harter Social Support Scale for Children and the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment), and from the Harter Social Support Scale for Children, alone, for teacher support. The Harter Social Support Scale for Children (Appendix E; HSSS) measures children's perceptions of perceived social support from parents, teachers, classmates, and close friends (Harter, 1985). More specifically, the scale measures social support in the form of positive regard experienced by children from the sources identified above. The present study used an adapted version of the scale in which items about parents were asked separately for both mothers and fathers. The original HSSS has been demonstrated to have adequate reliability and validity (Harter, 1985). The parent subscales include items that address the extent to which mothers and fathers understand, listen, and accept their children as they are. The teacher subscale measures the teacher's helpfulness, caring and fairness. Finally, the close friend subscale asks the child whether they have a close friend who they can talk to about their problems, who understands them and who spends time with them. The scale was constructed in a "structured alternative format" in order to normalize children's responses and minimize social desirability. Each child is asked to pick R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. which of two statements is most like him/her (e.g., "Some kids have parents who treat their child like a person who really matters BUT Other kids have parents who don't usually treat their child like a person who really matters"). Once they have picked which statement best reflects them, then they are asked to rate how true it is of them (e.g., "Really true for me" or "Sort of true for me"). Each item is scored on a four point scale, with four indicating high social support for that item (e.g., “Really true that my parents treat me like a person who matters”). Separate subscale scores for mother, father, close friend, and teacher were generated by summing across all six items per subscale. For the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .75 for HSSS mothers’ subscale, .63 for HSSS fathers’ subscale, .74 for HSSS friends’ subscale and .60 for HSSS teachers’ subscale. Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations and ranges for all of the subscales of the HSSS. No significant differences were found for boys or girls on any of the HSSS subscales. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 9 Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Social Support Composite Variables for Bovs and Girls Separately and Combined. Social Support Composite Girls Boys Overall Variables____________ (n - 51) (n ~ 67) (n = 118) M SD M SD M SD Range HSS Mother 22.18 3.06 22.46 2.29 22.34 2.64 10-24 FAM (Mother-Child) 10.24 1.67 10.06 1.40 10.14 1.52 4-12 HSS Father 21.65 2.94 22.36 2.13 22.05 2.52 12-24 FAM (Father-Child) 9.78 1.51 9.87 1.46 9.83 1.48 6-12 HSS Friend 21.59 2.71 19.99 3.77 20.68 3.43 11-24 IPPA, Peer 34.96 7.09 32.12 6.83 33.35 7.06 12-45 HSS Teacher 21.29 3.45 21.27 2.58 21.28 2.98 7-24 Note. HSS = Harter Social Support Scale, FAM = Family Assessment Measure. IPPA = Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 40 Another measure of children’s perceptions of social support was obtained using the Family Assessment Measure brief dyadic versions (Appendix F; FAM), 14-item self-report questionnaires that assess the relationship between mother-child and father-child (Skinner, Steinhaure, & Santa-Barbara, 1995). More specifically, the FAM measures seven key dimensions: affective expression, involvement, communication, role performance, values, norms, and task accomplishment. The FAM, brief version, correlates .94-.97 with the longer FAM versions. The FAM has good test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity (Skinner, Steinhaure, & Santa-Barbara, 1995). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree. The following three items each from the mother-child and father-child FAM brief versions were selected that measured supportiveness from parents: “When I ’ m upset, I know my mother/father really cares ”; “When I have a problem, my mother/father helps me with it”; and “ My mother/father is available when I want to talk to her/him ”, These items were chosen to reflect the perception of social support used in the present study, which is characterized as conveying a sense of being cared, loved or esteemed (Cobb, 1976) or a network of relationships providing attachment, companionship, assistance, and emotional nourishment (Newcomb & Bentler, 1987). Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 4. Items from the mother-child and father-child FAM brief versions were R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 41 summed and standardized to form another measurement of social support from mothers and fathers. There were no significant differences for boys and girls on either the mother-child or father-child FAM item scores. The last measure of children’s perceptions of social support was obtained via the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment. The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Appendix G; IPPA) is a 28-item self-report parent scale and a 25-item self-report peer scale that measures the affective/cognitive dimensions experienced toward parental and peer attachment figures (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). More specifically, the IPPA measures the levels of trust, communication, and alienation in relation to parents and peers. For purposes of the current study, only the peer scale was examined. The IPPA, peer scale, demonstrates high test-retest reliability, high internal consistency, and good convergent validity (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale: almost never or always never, seldom true, sometimes true, often true and almost always, or always true. Nine items from the IPPA that measured supportiveness from peers were selected (e.g., “I can count on my friends when I need to get something off my chest" and “My friends listen to what I have to say’’ .). T- t ests indicated a significant difference between boys and girls on the IPPA item scores, such that females reported higher levels of peer attachment/support than boys, r(l 16)= 2.20, p < .05. Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 4. Items from the IPPA were summed and standardized to form another measure of social support from friends. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 2 Social Support Composites. Perceived social support composite scores for mothers, fathers, friends, and teachers were created using a multi-instrument approach. Items from the HSSS, the FAM - Dyadic Brief Version and the IPPA were standardized and summed to form the perceived social support composite scores. For mothers, the correlation between the Harter mother subscale and the FAM mother items was r = .28 (p< .01). The Harter mother subscale and the FAM mother items were subsequently collapsed into the perceived mother social support composite by standardizing and summing these scores. For fathers, the Harter father subscale and the FAM father items correlated at r= .38 (p< .001) and standardized and summed together to form the perceived father social support composite. For friends, the correlations between the Harter best friend subscale and the IPPA peer items were r= .27 (p< .01) and subsequently collapsed into the perceived friend social support composite. The perceived teacher social support composite was comprised of only the Harter teacher subscale. Analyses revealed a significant difference for boys and girls on the perceived friend social support composite only, such that girls reported higher levels of perceived support from friends than boys, t( 116)= 3.04,p < .05 (M= .48, SD = 1.40 for girls; M = -.39, SD = 1.64 for boys). Moderators Coping Skills Situational Coping. The Social Coping Interview (Appendix H; SCI; Margolin, 2000) was administered to assess children's situational social problem R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 43 solving skills. Children were presented with various hypothetical situations involving conflict with peers. The SCI was modeled after the Alternative Solutions Test (Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff, Ezekowitz, & Wells, 1988), situations used by Goodman and colleagues (Goodman, Bar foot, Frye & Belli, 1999) as well as scenarios used by Dodge and colleagues (Dodge, Bates & Pettit, 1990). Children were presented with four hypothetical peer conflict situations: scenario A involved another child taking a magazine they were using; scenario B involved being teased by another child; scenario C involved not being invited to a friend’s birthday party; and scenario D involved being "accidentally ” bumped into by another student. Graduate research assistants read each scenario aloud and then asked children to describe, "What would you do, say or think in this situation?" and prompted twice for up to three responses (i.e., “ Is there anything else you would do, say or think? ”). For each response, children were asked to rate the effectiveness of the response on a five-point scale from “not at all” (0) to “very” (4). Children were also asked to rate the likelihood they would do each response on a four-point scale from “no” (0) to “yes” (4). Finally, children were asked, "How often have you been in this situation or one like this?" rated on a five point scale from “never” (0) to “all the time” (4). Children’s responses were audiotaped for later coding. Children’s open-ended responses were divided into thought units that represented only one discrete coping strategy. For example, the response, “ I ’ d push them and go tell the teacher, ” would be divided so that the first part of the phrase R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 44 would be coded as physical aggression and the last part of the phrase as instrumental social support. Strategy types or codes for children’s responses to each situation were determined after extensive reviews of previous literature and included those codes with empirical support (Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff, Ezekowitz and Wells, 1986; Curry and Russ, 1985; Ebata and Moos, 1991; Elwood, 1987; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; O’Brien, Margolin and John, 1995; Stark, Spirito, Williams and Guevremont, 1989; Stone and Neale, 1984; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds and Wigal, 1989; Weisz, McCabe, and Dennig, 1994). The final coding book used to code the responses represented several categories, including self-assertion, cognitive coping, nonintervention, and aggressive coping. A team of undergraduate students was recruited to transcribe and code the children’s responses. Coder training and assessment of reliability followed procedures recommended by Margolin et al. (1998b). Two undergraduate research assistants coded each child’s responses while simultaneously listening to the audiotaped interviews, in addition to having a hardcopy of the transcription. Coding pairs were systematically rotated so that reliability could be assessed on all combinations of coders. Coders meet for weekly training meetings to train in the use of the coding system, and their interrater reliability was checked using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). After ICCs of .8 or higher were obtained, the coders were allowed to code the data set, with weekly assessments of reliability and coder meetings to prevent drift. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 5 The present study analyzed a subset of the coded data. These data were collapsed into three categories for the present study: situational active coping, situational avoidant coping, and situational aggressive coping. The situational active coping subscale included the following coping codes: self-assertion, cognitive coping, and nonconffontational coping. The situational avoidant coping subscale was comprised of the avoidant and distraction coping codes. The situational aggressive coping subscale included the following coping codes: demands, spiteful behavior, and verbal and physical aggression. Table 5 presents the means, standard deviations and ranges for each subscale. No significant differences were found for boys and girls on any of the coping categories used in the present study. Inter-rater reliability for each subscale was calculated, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of .61 for the situational active coping subscale, .68 for the situational avoidant coping subscale and .95 for the situational aggressive coping subscale. The frequencies for each subscale were converted to logits for all analyses, as recommended by Mosteller and Tukey (1977) for the analysis of counted fractions. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Moderator Variables for Bovs and Girls Separately and Combined. Moderator Variables Girls (n = 51) Boys (n = 67) Overall (n - 118) M SD M SD M SD Range Cognitive Ability 10.63 3.01 11.13 2.97 10.92 2.98 4.50-18.50 Dispositional - Active Coping 2.72 0.58 2.64 0.58 2.68 0.58 1.58-3.84 Dispositional - Avoidant Coping 2.58 0.53 2.68 0.49 2.64 0.51 1.50-3.83 Situational -- Active Coping 6.19 2.55 5.44 2.87 5.76 2.75 1.00-13.50 Situational - Avoidant Coping 0.51 0.84 0.59 0.91 0.56 0.88 0-4 Situational - Aggressive Coping 1.45 1.63 1.50 1.79 1.48 1.72 0-6.50 4 ^ Ch 47 Dispositional Coping. The Children's Coping Strategies Checklist (Appendix I; CCSC; dispositional form) is a self-report inventory of children’ s coping behaviors (Ayers, 1991; Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994). This measure assesses children’s general coping preferences, without reference to a specific stressor, by asking children to rate how often they typically used coping strategies when faced with problems in general over the past month, including “never” (0), “sometimes” (2), “often” (3) and “most of the time” (4). This 60-item instrument yields four coping subscales: Active (e.g., “You did something to solve the problem ’), Avoidance (e.g., “You tried to stay away from things that made you feel upset ’), Distraction (e.g., “watch TV") and Support Seeking (e.g., “You talked to someone who could help you figure out what to do”). Sandler et al. (1994) reported that the original measure possesses adequate validity and reliability. Children's general coping styles were evaluated using a modified version of the CCSC and only the active and avoidant coping subscales were used for the present study. Cronbach’s alpha for the CCSC active subscale was .91 and .74 for the CCSC avoidant subscale in the current sample. Means, standard deviations and ranges are presented in Table 5. Analyses revealed no significant differences for boys and girls on either the CCSC avoidant or active coping subscales. These measures of situational and dispositional coping will be investigated as moderators of a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support from family and non-family members. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 8 General Cognitive Ability The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - 3rd Edition, Vocabulary and Block Design subtests (Appendix J; WISC-III) was administered as a measure of general cognitive ability (Wechsler, 1991). The Vocabulary subtest is a measure of expressive vocabulary, requiring the child to give the meaning of various words. The Block Design subtest is a measure of spatial ability in which children are asked to make copies of modeled or printed two-dimensional geometric patterns using two- colored blocks. The Vocabulary and Block Design subtests were chosen because they are the most highly correlated with the Verbal and Performance Scale scores, respectively (Wechsler, 1971). The scaled scores for the Vocabulary and Block Design subtests were averaged to represent a measure of children’s general cognitive ability. The mean, standard deviation and range is presented in Table 5, with no significant differences found for boys or girls on the average score o f the Vocabulary and Block Design subtests combined. General cognitive ability will be another moderator examined of a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support from family and non-family members. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 9 RESULTS Overview Hypothesis 1. To test Hypothesis 1. that children from hostile homes will have lower perceptions of social support across family and non-family members than children from non-hostile families, correlations were computed for boys and girls combined and separately. Hypothesis 2. To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, that the social support perceptions of children from hostile family environments will be moderated by children’s cognitive ability and children’s coping skills, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were computed. Correlations Between the Demographic Variables and the Perceived Social Support Composites Table 6 presents correlations between the demographic variables and the perceived social support composites for boys and girls separately, and table 7 presents the data for boys and girls combined. For boys only, significant correlations were found between mothers’ age and mothers’ and teachers’ perceived social support, fathers’ education and fathers’ perceived social support, and child’s age and mothers’, friends’ and teachers’ perceived social support. There were no other significant correlations for boys. For girls, there were no significant correlations between the perceived social support composites and any of the demographic variables. As such, all regression analyses controlled for the following significant R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 0 demographic variables: mothers’ age, fathers’ education and child’s age. Intercorreiations Between the Perceived Social Support Composite Variables Table 8 presents intercorreiations between the perceived social support composite variables for boys and girls separately and table 9 presents the data for boys and girls combined. Results indicated moderate to high significant correlations for boys and girls. For girls, all of the perceived social support composite variables were significantly positively correlated with each other except for teachers’ and friends’ perceived social support. For boys, all of the perceived social support composite variables were significantly positively correlated with each other except for friends’ and mothers’ perceived social support. Overall, for both boys and girls, perceptions of social support were significantly positively correlated with each other, such that a child’s perception of social support appears to generalize across both family and non-family members. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 6. Correlations for Parents’ Demographic Variables with Social Support Composites for Bovs and Girls Separately. Parents’ Demographic Variables Perceived Social Support Composites Mom Age Dad Age Mom Educ Dad Educ. Mom Employ. Dad Employ. # Yrs. M arried # Children Childs’ Age Couple Income Boys.(« = 67) Mother SS -.28* -.10 -.06 -.03 -.15 -.09 -.17 -.11 -.26* .11 Father SS -.03 .11 -.03 O O * -.11 -.02 -.05 -.03 -.12 .12 Friend SS .02 .08 -.15 .04 -.12 .19 -.11 -.12 -.25* -.05 Teacher SS Girls (n = 51) -.33** -.21 -.23 -.08 .10 .07 -.16 -.11 -.27* .05 Mother SS -.05 -.17 -.02 .17 .10 .04 .07 .01 .09 .05 Father SS -.02 -.09 .01 .27 .03 -.14 .05 -.02 -.01 .19 Friend SS -.04 -.17 .17 .26 -.14 -.06 .07 -.01 .12 .16 Teacher SS .09 .05 .08 .21 .06 -.07 .00 -.05 -.04 .07 Note. SS -Perceived Social Support Composite. Edue. = Education. Employe Employment *'•><•01, > < .0 5 , > < .1 0 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 7. Correlations for Parents’ Demographic Variables with Social Support Composites for Bovs and Girls Combined. _____________ Parents’ Demographic Variables Perceived Social Support Mom Dad Mom Dad Mom Dad # Yrs. # Childs’ Couple Composites Age Age Educ. Educ. Employ. Employ. M arried Children Age Income Mother SS -.16 -.14 -.04 .09 -.03 -.02 -.05 -.05 -.08 .08 Father SS -.03 .01 -.01 .28** -.03 -.09 .00 -.03 -.07 .16 Friend SS .00 -.02 -.01 .13 -.15 .11 -.04 -.05 -.11 .04 Teacher SS -.12 -.08 -.06 .10 .08 .00 -.08 -.08 -.15 .06 Note. SS =Perceived Social Support Composite. Educ. = Education. Employ- Employment **p<. 01, *p < .05, V < .10 on to 53 Table 8. Intercorreiations for Social Support Composites for Bovs and Girls Separately. Perceived Social Mother Father Friend Teacher Support Composites SS______ SS_______ SS_______ SS Mother SS .80** .38** .53** Father SS .57** .39** .68** Friend SS .08 .37** .25 Teacher SS__________.35** .37** .33**____________ Note. Girls’ reports (w=51) are expressed above the diagonal; boys’ reports (n=6T) are expressed below the diagonal. SS = Perceived Social Support Composite. **p<.0l, *p < .05, ap < .10 Table 9. Intercorreiations for Social Support Composites for Bovs and Girls Combined. Perceived Social Mother Father Friend Teacher Support Composites SS______ SS_______ SS_______ SS Mother SS Father SS .69** Friend SS .21* .33** Teacher SS_________ .45** .53** .27** Note. SS = Perceived Social Support Composite. **/><.01, *p< .05, a/> < .10 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 54 Correlations between Perceived Social Support., a Hostile Family Environment and the Moderators Table 10 presents associations between the hostile family composite and the perceived social support composites separately by child gender, and Table 11 presents the correlations for boys and girls combined. There were no significant correlations between any of the perceived social support composites and the hostile family composite for boys or girls separately. When boys and girls were combined, fathers’ and friends’ perceived social support was significantly negatively correlated with the hostile family composite, partially supporting the first hypothesis. Associations between the perceived social support composites and the moderators were also examined and are presented in Table 10 (separate for boys and girls) and Table 11 (boys and girls combined). For girls, friends’ perceived social support was significantly positively correlated with dispositional active and avoidant coping. For boys, mothers’ perceived social support was significantly negatively correlated with situational avoidant coping; fathers’ perceived social support was significantly positively correlated with children’s cognitive ability; and friends’ perceived social support was significantly positively correlated with dispositional active and avoid coping. When boys and girls were combined, significant positive correlations emerged for dispositional active coping and mothers’, fathers’ and friends’ perceived social support and for dispositional avoidant coping and friends’ perceived social support. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 10. Correlations Between Social Support. Hostile Family Environment and Moderators for Bovs and Girls Girls (n = = 51) Boys (n = 67) Measure Mother SS Father SS Friend SS Teacher SS Mother SS Father SS Friend SS Teacher SS Hostile Family Composite -.14 -.23 -.25 -.12 -.16 -.24 -.21 .05 Cognitive Ability .04 .09 .08 .17 .17 .25* .12 -.05 Dispositional- Active Coping .24 .25 .60** .17 .22 .16 .27* -.03 Dispositional- Avoid Coping .04 -.01 .40** -.14 .14 .10 .26* -.02 Logit of Situational Active Coping .07 .13 .05 .01 .12 .18 .06 .05 Logit of Situational Avoid Coping .04 .08 .16 .09 -.27* -.05 .00 -.11 Logit of Situational Aggressive Coping .08 -.14 -.03 -.06 a. ^ a .07 -.09 -.08 .04 Note. SS = Perceived Social Support Composite. **p< .01, *p < .05, p < .10. KJ\ K M 56 Table 11. Correlations Between Social Support. Hostile Family Environment and Moderators for Bovs and Girls Combined. Combined (n = 118) Measure Mother SS Father SS Friend SS Teacher SS Hostile Family Composite -.15 -.20* -.21* -.02 Cognitive Ability .10 .18 .08 .06 Dispositional - Active Coping .23* .19* .40** .07 Dispositional - Avoid Coping .09 .05 .27** -.08 Logit of Situational- Active Coping .09 .15 .09 .03 Logit of Situational- Avoid Coping -.12 .02 .03 -.01 Logit of Situational- Aggressive Coping .05 -.12 -.06 -.03 Note. SS = Social Support Composite. **/><.01, *p< .05, * p< .10 Table 12 presents intercorreiations on all of the moderators and the hostile family composite by gender and table 13 presents the data for boys and girls combined. For boys and girls, dispositional active and avoidant coping were significantly positively correlated, a finding replicated by several other researchers with regard to the CCSC (e.g., Sandler, Tein & West, 1994), in which children are hypothesized to be using many types of coping strategies overall when faced with R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 12. Intercorreiations for Moderators and Hostile Family Composite for Bovs and Girls Separately. Measure 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Hostile Family Composite - -.06 -.22 .08 -.01 .04 .10 2. Cognitive Ability -.20 - -.17 -.16 .05 .28* -.10 3. Dispositional - Active Coping -.09 .01 - .51** .08 -.08 -.08 4. Dispositional - Avoid Coping -.08 -.19 .66* - .14 -.20 -.11 5. Logit of Situational - Active Coping -.19 -.06 .15 .19 - -.22 -.51** 6. Logit of Situational - Avoid Coping .05 .26* -.17 -.13 -.23 - .04 7. Logit of Situational - Aggressive Coping .28* .03 -.17 -.15 -.70** -.01 “ Note. Girls’ reports (n-51) are expressed above the diagonal; boys’ reports (n=67) are expressed below the diagonal. ** p < .01, *p < .05, ap< .10 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 13. Intercorreiations for Moderators and Hostile Family Composite for Bovs and Girls Combined. Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Hostile Family Composite - 2. Cognitive Ability -.15 - 3. Dispositional - Active Coping -.15 -.08 - 4. Dispositional - Avoid Coping -.02 -.17 0 0 . 5. Logit of Situational - Active Coping -.12 -.03 .13 .16 _ 6. Logit of Situational - Avoid Coping .07 .28** -.14 -.15 -.24* - 7. Logit of Situational - Aggressive Coping .21* -.02 -.13 -.13 -.63** .01 **p < m , *p < .0 5, & p < .10 00 59 stressors. Children’s cognitive ability and situational avoid coping were also significantly positively correlated with each other for both boys and girls. Finally, for both boys and girls, situational aggressive and active coping were also significantly negatively correlated with each other. Regression Analyses on Children9 § Perceptions of Social Support as Related to Interactions between a Hostile Family Environment, Child Gender, and the Moderators (Cognitive Ability and Coping) Separate regression analyses were run to examine 2-way and 3-way interactions between hostile family environment, child gender and children’s cognitive ability on each of the four social support variables. Another set of regressions was run to examine 2-way and 3-way interactions between hostile family environment, child gender and children’s dispositional (active and avoid) and situational coping (active, avoid and aggressive) on the four social support variables. Regressions were performed with the main effects entered in the first step, all of the two-way interactions entered in step two and the three-way interaction entered in step three. Interactions were calculated by first standardizing and then multiplying the variables to avoid multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). All analyses were done controlling for the following demographic variables, which were found to significantly correlate with children’s perceptions of social support in the present study: mothers’ age, fathers’ education and child’s age. Additionally, logits of the situational (SCI) coping subscales were used for the regression analyses. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 60 Table 14 presents the regression analyses results for the moderators of children’s cognitive ability and dispositional and situational coping. No significant 3- way interactions predicted mothers’ perceived social support. For fathers’ perceived social support, there were significant 3-way interactions between hostile family environment, child gender and the following moderators: dispositional avoid coping, and situational aggressive and active coping. For friends’ perceived social support, there was a significant 3-way interaction between hostile family environment, child gender and children’s cognitive ability. Finally, for teachers’ perceived social support, the following two-way interactions were significant: hostile family environment and cognitive ability, and hostile family environment and dispositional active coping. In addition, there was also a significant three-way interaction between hostile family environment, child gender and situational active coping for teachers’ perceived social support. All significant two and three-way interactions were probed according to the procedures described in Aiken and West (1991). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 14. Hierarchical Regressions: Children’s Perceptions of Social Support as Related to Interactions Between a Hostile Family Environment Child’s Gender and Child Characteristics Mothers’ SS Fathers’ SS Friends ’ SS Teachers’ SS P t P t P t P i m Steu 1: Main Effects Hostile Family Composite (HFC) -.16 ■1.70a -.20 -2.17* -.17 -1.83a -.02 -.16 Child Sex (Sex) -.02 -.27 .08 .85 -.28 -3.13** -.02 -.24 IQ .08 .73 .03 .29 .00 .02 .01 .11 Sten 2: Two-Way Interactions HFC X IQ -.06 -.66 -.02 -.16 .13 1.38 -.20 -2.12* HFC X Sex -.05 -.51 .00 .00 .02 .25 .00 -.01 IQ X Sex .04 .44 .08 .90 .02 .17 -.10 -1.08 Sten 3: Three-Wav Interaction HFC X Sex X IQ .02 .23 .03 .36 .20 2.10* .14 1.43 Disnositionai Active Cooing HFC -.13 ■1.44 -.17 -1.923 -.11 -1.32 -.01 -.08 Child Sex .00 -.04 .09 1.05 -.25 -3.04** -.02 -.19 Dispositional Active Coping .20 2.16* .17 1.93a .36 4.38** .05 .52 ON Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Step 2; Two-Way Interactions HFC X D ispositional Active Coping -.15 HFC X Sex -.08 Dispositional Active Coping X Sex -.07 Step 3: Three-Wav Interaction HFC X Sex X Dispositional Active .14 Dispositional Avoid Coping Step 1: Main Effects HFC -.16 Child Sex -.03 Dispositional Avoid Coping .08 Step 2: Two-Wav Interactions H FC X D ispositional Avoid Coping -.10 HFC X Sex -.05 Dispositional Avoid Coping X Sex .04 Step 3: Three-Wav Interaction HFC X Sex X Dispositional Avoid . 15 1.54 .04 .43 .06 .64 .19 1.98* -.88 -.03 -.34 -.04 -.47 .02 .22 -.69 -.07 -.69 -.14 -1.56 -.11 -1.10 1.42 .16 1.65 .11 1.27 .03 .29 -1.713 -.19 -2.16* -.15 -1.78a -.02 -.21 -.29 .07 .79 -.31 -3.72** -.01 -.14 .88 .08 .90 .33 3.87** -.09 -.94 -1.09 .11 1.17 .00 .04 .16 1.69a -.54 .01 .07 .04 .43 .04 .43 .39 .02 .24 -.06 -.72 .06 .66 1.61 .21 2.35* .02 .28 .05 .49 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Situational Aggressive Coping Step 1: Main Effects HFC -.18 Child Sex -.02 Situational Aggressive Coping . 12 Step 2: Two-Way Interactions HFC X Situational Aggressive Coping . 14 HFC X Sex -.07 Situational Aggressive Coping X Sex -.03 Step 3: Three-Wav Interaction HFC X Sex X Situational Aggressive -.15 Situational Active Cooing Step 1: Main Effects HFC -.16 Child Sex -.01 Situational Active Coping .06 Step 2: Two-Way Interactions HFC X Situational Active Coping -.01 HFC X Sex -.05 Situational Active Coping X Sex -.02 Step 3: Three-Wav Interaction HFC X Sex X Situational Active .06 -1.95* -.19 -2.09* -.17 C S o C O 1 -.01 -.15 -.27 .08 .90 -.28 -3.13** -.02 -.23 1.32 -.04 -.49 -.01 -.11 -.01 -.09 1.44 .02 .20 -.02 -.22 .09 .91 -.75 -.01 -.13 .02 .15 .02 .16 -.35 .02 .17 -.03 -.29 .04 .41 -1.49 -.27 -2.79** -.11 -1.10 -.15 -1.47 -1.68* -.19 -2.07* -.17 -1.80* -.01 -.14 -.13 .09 1.03 -.28 -3.10** -.02 -.21 .69 .13 1.43 .02 .27 .02 .21 -.10 .02 .16 -.09 -.87 -.19 -1.78* -.49 .01 .05 -.02 -.20 -.02 -.21 -.15 .01 .09 .01 .09 .03 .26 .52 .30 2.91** .21 1.93a .35 3.34* os u > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Situational Avoid Capias Step 1: Main Effects HFC -.15 -1.65 -.19 -2.15* -.17 -1.87s -.01 -.14 Child Sex -.01 -.09 .08 .93 -.28 -3.18** -.02 -.21 Situational Avoid Coping -.13 -1.35 -.05 -.57 .05 .55 -.02 -.24 S tep 2: Two-Wav Interactions HFC X Situational Avoid Coping .06 .58 .08 .83 .15 1.57 .07 .75 HFC X Sex -.05 -.52 -.02 -.20 -.01 -.09 .03 .32 Situational Avoid Coping X Sex -.10 -.99 -.02 -.18 -.07 -.71 -.08 -.84 Step 3: Three-Wav Interaction HFC X Sex X Situational Avoid -.18 -1.803 -.12 -1.25 .08 .86 -.11 -1.04 Note. All analyses were done controlling for the following demographic variables: Fathers’ education level, mothers’ age and child’s age. The logits of the situational coping subscales were used in the analyses. HFC = Hostile Family Composite. **B<.01, *j>< .05, ap < .10 £ 6 5 Fathers * Perceived Social Support Dispositional Avoid Coping. Figure 1 depicts the simple slopes of the lines predicting fathers’ perceived social support from a hostile family environment at high (operationalized as one standard deviation above the mean) and low (operationalized as one standard deviation below the mean) levels of dispositional avoid coping. Only one slope tested as significantly different from zero. The slope of the relationship between dispositional avoid coping and fathers’ perceived social support was significantly positive at higher levels of a hostile family environment for girls (/?= .81 , t = 2 .4 9 , p= .0 2 ). As shown in Figure 1, at values that represent high levels of a hostile family environment for girls, greater use of dispositional avoid coping skills was related to greater perceived social support from fathers. For the remaining slopes, the results were nonsignificant. For females from a low hostile family environment, the relationship between dispositional avoid coping and fathers’ perceived social support was nonsignificant and negative, with greater use of dispositional avoid coping skills associated with lower perceived social support from fathers (fi = -.46 ,t~- 1.42 , p = .16 ). The relationship between dispositional avoid coping and fathers’ perceived social support was a nonsignificant positive relationship for boys from low hostile families and a nonsignificant negative relationship for boys from high hostile families {fi =.24, t =.76 , p= .45, for boys from low hostile family environments; /?= -.13 , t =-.38 , p~.7\, for boys from high R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 66 hostile family environments) with apparently similar levels of perceived support form fathers at both higher and lower use of dispositional avoidant coping skills. Figure 1. Plot of high and low dispositional avoid coping as a moderator for the effects of a hostile family environment on children’s perceptions of fathers’ social support. -1 0 1 Dispositional Avoid Coping in SD from mean ............ Females, Hi Hostile Fares, p=.01 ™ ,““ ‘M ales, Low Hostile Fam * ■ * " M ales, H i Hostile Fam Situational Aggressive Coping. The three-way interaction between a hostile family environment, child gender and situational aggressive coping is presented in Figure 2. The relationship between situational aggressive coping and perceived levels of fathers’ social support was marginally significant for boys from low hostile family environments (J3- -.69 , t - -1.96, p - .052). That is, as use of situational aggressive coping skills increases, children perceived lower support from fathers. For the remaining slopes, none significantly differed from zero. For females from high hostile family environments, there was a nonsignificant negative R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 67 relationship such that greater use of situational aggressive coping skills was associated with less perceived social support from fathers ( J 3 ~ - 3 5 , t = -1.29 , p= .20 ). For girls from a low hostile family environment and boys from a high hostile family environment, the relationship between situational aggressive coping and perceived social support from fathers was also nonsignificant and positive, with greater use of situational aggressive coping skills associated with more perceived support from fathers (/?= .29, t = 1.01 , p - .32, for girls from low hostile family environments; fi= .53, t = 1.48 , p - .14 , for boys from high hostile family environments ). Overall, the slopes of the lines predicting fathers’ perceived social support for boys and girls from high and low hostile family environments at high and low levels of situational aggressive coping indicate relationships between these variables of varying directions and magnitude, although none of the slopes tested as significantly different from zero. The results suggest that at least for boys from a low hostile family environment, the association between situational aggressive coping and fathers’ social support is stronger. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 6 8 Figure 2. Plot of high and low levels of situational aggressive coping as a moderator of children’s perceptions of fathers’ social support and a hostile family environment. £ 5 -2 s s Situational Aggressive Coping in SD from mean “ ■■■■■•Females, Hi Hostile Fam 'Males, Low Hostile Fam, p=.052 - - Males, H i Hostile Fam Situational Active Coping. Figure 3 depicts the simple slopes of the lines predicting fathers’ perceived social support from a hostile family environment. There were two significant slopes. The slopes of the relationship between situational active coping and fathers’ perceived social support were significantly positive at higher levels of a hostile family environment for girls and significantly positive at lower levels of a hostile family environment for boys (/? = .5 8 , t = 2.18 , p~ .03, for girls from high hostile family environments; (3 = 1.03 , t = 2.28 , p= .03, for boys from low hostile family environments). That is, at values that represent high levels of a hostile family environment for girls, fathers’ perceived social support was higher with greater use of situational active coping skills. For males, at values that represent R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 69 low levels of a hostile family environment, greater perceived social support from fathers was also related to greater use of situational active coping skills. For the remaining slopes, none tested as significantly different from zero. For both girls from a low hostile family environment and boys from a high hostile family environment, the relationship between situational active coping and fathers’ social support was nonsignificant and negative (J3 = -.30, t = -.90 ,_p= .37, for girls from low hostile family environments; /?= -.46, t = -1.21, p= .23, for boys from high hostile family environments ), with greater use of situational active coping skills associated with less perceived support from fathers. Figure 3. Plot of high and low situational active coping as a moderator of children’s perceptions of fathers’ social support and a hostile family environment. ■ 8 -1 0 1 Situational Active Coping in SD from mean Females, H i Hostile Fam, p=.03 Females, Low Hostile Fam 'Males, Low Hostile Fam, p=.03 Males, H i Hostile Fam R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 70 Teachers? Perceived Social Support Cognitive Ability. The graph of the simple slopes of the lines predicting teachers’ perceived social support from a hostile family environment at high and low levels o f children’s cognitive ability is presented in Figure 4. The slopes of the lines for children from high and low hostile families go in opposite directions such that children with high cognitive ability from high hostility homes perceive less support from teachers versus children from low hostility homes. For children from a high hostile family environment, the relationship between cognitive ability and teachers’ perceived social support was negative and nonsignificant {fi —.23 , t =-1.49, p=.14) negative, such that girls with high cognitive ability reported less perceived social support from teachers. For children from a low hostile family environment, the relationship between cognitive ability and teachers’ perceived social support was also positive and nonsignificant (fi= .20, t= 1.43 , p - .16), with high cognitive ability associated with higher perceptions of social support from teachers. Overall, the slopes of the lines predicting teachers’ perceived social support from high and low hostile family environments, at high and low cognitive ability levels, exhibit relationships between these variables that vary in direction and magnitude, although none of the slopes tested as significantly different from zero. Nonetheless, the slope of the line for children from a high hostile family appears steeper than the slope of the line for a low hostile family, suggesting that the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 71 relationship between cognitive ability and teachers5 perceived social support may be stronger for children from high hostile families. Figure 4. Plot of high and low cognitive ability as a moderator of a hostile family environment and teachers’ perceived social support for bovs and girls. .S I ■ 8 .& £ i I & !r ^ 2 H 0.6 - -0.4 -1 0 1 Cognitive Ability in SD from mean H I Hostile Family a Lo Hostile Family Dispositional Active Coping. In Figure 5, the graph of the simple slopes of the lines predicting teachers’ perceived social is presented. For children from high hostile families, there was a positive and significant relationship between dispositional active coping and teachers’ perceived social support (fl = 3 l , t =2.03 , p=.Q5). That is, greater use of dispositional active coping skills is associated with higher perceptions of social support from teachers. For children from low hostile families, there was a nonsignificant and negative relationship, such that greater use of dispositional active coping skills was related to less perceived support from teachers ('fi=-.17, t =-1.22, p - .23). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 2 Figure 5. Plot of high and low dispositional active coping as a moderator of a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of teachers’ social support. 1 % 0-8 £ t, i f GJ i « H -1 0 1 Dispositonat Active Coping in SD from mean ■“■ ‘■"■"■■•H I Hostile Family, p=.05 «Lo H ostile Fam ily Situational Active Coping. The three-way interaction between a hostile family environment, situational active coping and child gender for teachers’ perceived social support is presented in Figure 6. There were two significant slopes. The slope of the relationship between situational active coping and teachers’ perceived social support was significantly positive at lower levels of a hostile family environment and significantly negative at higher levels of a hostile family environment for boys (/?= .86, t = 3.09 , p= .00, for boys from low hostile family environments; /? = -.68, t = -2.88 , p = .01, for boys from high hostile family environments). That is, at values that represent low levels of a hostile family environment, boys who reported higher social support from teachers also reported greater use of active coping skills. And, at values that represent high levels of a R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 73 hostile family environment, lower perceptions of teachers’ social support were associated with greater use of situational active coping skills. The remaining slopes were nonsignificant. For females from both high and low levels of a hostile family environment, the relationship between situational active coping and teachers’ social support were nonsignificant and positive for a highly hostile family and negative for a low hostile family (J3 = .09, t = .52 , p= .60, for females from high hostile family environments; /?= -.05, t = -.23 , p= .82, for females from low hostile family environments) with apparently little divergence in perceived social support of teachers’ across both greater and less use of situational active coping skills. Figure 6. Plot of high and low situational active coping as a moderator of children’s perceptions of teachers’ social support and a hostile family environment. 1 0 1 Situational Active Coping in SD from mean Females, H i Hostile Fam ■Males, Low Hostile Fam, p=.01 Females, Low Hostile Fam Males, H i Hostile Fam, p=.01 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 74 Friends ’ Perceived Social Support Cognitive Ability. The simple slopes of the lines predicting children’s perceptions of friends’ perceived social support from a hostile family environment at high and low levels of children’s cognitive ability are presented in Figure 7. For females from a high hostile family environment, the relationship between friends’ perceived social support and cognitive ability was marginally significant (fi = .51, t = 1.73, p = .09 ). That is, higher cognitive ability was associated with greater perceived social support from friends for females from a high hostile family environment. The remaining slopes were nonsignificant. For females from a low hostile family environment, the relationship between friends’ perceived social support and cognitive ability was nonsignificant (/?=-.43 , t = -1.49, p= . 14 ), with higher cognitive ability being associated with less perceived social support from friends. For boys from a low hostile family environment, the relationship between friends’ perceived social support and cognitive ability was nonsignificant and positive (ft = .10, t = .33 , p~ .74 ), with the graph of the line suggesting similar levels of perceived friends’ perceived social support across both high and low cognitive ability. Finally, for boys from a high hostile family environment, again the relationship between friends’ perceived social support and cognitive ability was nonsignificant {ft = -.28, t = -.72 , p= .47 ), with higher cognitive ability being associated with less perceived social support from friends. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 75 Overall, the results suggest that at least for girls from higher hostile family environments, the link between cognitive ability and friends’ perceived social support is stronger than for girls in less hostile family environment, whereas very little differences are observed between boys from high and low hostile family environments. Figure 7. Plot of high and low levels of cognitive ability as a moderator of children’s perceptions of friends’ social support and a hostile family environment. s® oa .§ I li I a « s Oh K) % I ft, -1 0 1 C ognitive Ability in SD from the mean 'Females, H i Hostile Fam Females, Low Hostile Fam ■Males, Low Hostile Fam Males, H i Hostile Fam R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 76 DISCUSSION This study investigates the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. Furthermore, to extend the findings of previous literature, this study investigates whether certain characteristics of the child moderate this relationship. In line with the emotional security hypothesis (Davies & Cummings, 1994) and the spillover hypothesis (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988; Engfer, 1988), there was some evidence to support the hypothesis that a hostile family environment “spills over" into the parent-child relationship (e.g. with regard to parental supportiveness) and that a negative working model of parents and the social world (i.e. according to the emotional security hypothesis) is associated with lowered perceptions of support from nonfamily members as well. Data from this study also indicated that children’s perceptions of social support appear to generalize across both family and nonfamily members, supporting the conceptualization of social support perceptions as an aspect of general “relational schemas,” (Baldwin, 1992; Lakey & Cassady, 1990; Lakey & Drew, 1997; Pierce, Baldwin & Lydon, 1997). Finally, in the context of research on resiliency, children’s IQ and coping skills were found to moderate the relationship between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support under certain conditions. Perceptions o f Parental Social Support Partial support was found for the hypothesized negative association between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. A R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 7 significant and negative bivariate association occurred between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of fathers5 social support. Higher levels of family hostility were associated with lower levels of children's perceptions of their fathers’ social support. This finding concurs with other findings in the literature. Several studies have documented that children from hostile family environments are less likely to include their father as part of their social support network (Rawlings, 1993); they report less parental support (McCloskey, Figueredo & Koss, 1995) and name fewer people in their network (Garbarino & Sherman, 1980; Kinard, 1995). In addition, fathers within hostile family environments tend to have poor parenting skills, such that they withdraw and are emotionally unavailable, and show inconsistent, negative and aggressive parenting (e.g., Block, Block & Morrison, 1981; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Margolin, 1998; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991). These difficulties in parenting conceivably lead children to perceive less support from their fathers. Conversely, the bivariate association between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of their mothers’ social support was nonsignificant, although the direction of the correlation did go in the expected direction (i.e. a negative correlation). The fact that a hostile family environment was not associated with children’s perceptions of their mothers’ social support may be due to findings that, in general, mothers are perceived to be more supportive than fathers (Cauce et al., 1990; Dubow & Ullman, 1989; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). In fact, some R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 78 research suggests that children from hostile family environments either mention their mother as a source of support or report high levels of supportiveness from their mothers (Blanchard, Molloy & Brown, 1992; Ezzell, Swenson & Brondino, 2000). A better understanding of the link between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of parental support was obtained through the moderation analyses. When bivariate associations between children’s perceptions of parental social support and the moderators (i.e., children’s cognitive skills and coping abilities) were examined, there were some significant findings. For boys, cognitive abilities were significantly positively correlated with fathers’ perceived social support and children’s situational avoidant coping skills were significantly and negatively correlated with mothers’ perceived social support. An examination of the moderation analyses indicated that for perceived supportiveness of fathers, several moderation analyses were significant, whereas for mothers, there were no significant findings. For children in high hostility homes, both dispositional avoidant coping skills and situational active coping skills served as buffers for fathers’ perceived social support. More specifically, girls who reported an overall avoidant coping style and girls who spontaneously reported the use of active coping skills when faced with peer interpersonal problems reported higher levels of perceived social support from fathers. In other words, in the context of a hostile family environment, girls who R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 79 reported higher social support from their fathers also reported greater use of these coping skills. There is literature to suggest that men, in general, avoid face-to-face discussions of conflict (Mackey & O’Brien, 1998), withdraw during conflictual interactions (Margolin et al., 1989) and use denial (Canary, Spitzberg & Semic, 1998). It could be that fathers may reinforce their daughters for use of their (father’s) own coping style preferences for dealing with stressors, thus appearing to be more supportive. Although there is research to suggest that girls’ preferred coping is through use of emotion-focused strategies rather than problem-focused strategies (see review by Fields & Prinz, 1997), fathers may find it difficult to convey supportiveness toward a daughter who is relying on emotion-focused strategies to cope with a stressor. That is, fathers may feel ill equipped to help their daughters cope with their emotions. Yet, in the context of girls’ use of avoidant or active coping skills, fathers may feel more efficacious in their role as a supportive parental figure. Alternatively, it is likely that girls are not sharing their problems with their fathers, either due to avoidance or resolution of the problem. As such, daughters may not be finding themselves in situations that might lend themselves to feeling less support from their fathers, hi fact, Margolin, Gordis and Oliver (2004) found that fathers who display hostility toward their wives tend to withdraw in problem- oriented discussions with their children. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 0 Coping skills were also found to be associated with children’s social support perceptions from low hostile families as well. Specifically, for boys from low hostile family environments, perceptions of fathers’ social support were higher when their use of situational active coping was higher. That is, when faced with conflicts with peers, boys who used more active coping skills perceived higher levels of perceived social support from fathers. Fathers from low hostile family environments may have more interpersonal resources and be more attuned to their children’s problems compared to fathers from high hostile homes, whose parenting difficulties have been extensively documented (e.g., Block, Block & Morrison, 1981; Grych & Fincham, 1990; Margolin, 1998; Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991). Although speculation, these fathers may listen more to their children and their problems, be more invested in helping their children learn the coping skills necessary to handle these problems and reinforce their children for their use of appropriate coping strategies. Again, these parental behaviors hypothetically translate into children perceiving their fathers as being more supportive. Finally, the interaction between a hostile family environment and situational aggressive coping skills was significant for perceptions of fathers’ social support. More specifically, when the interaction was probed, there was a marginal finding such that boys from low hostile family environments who reported a high level of aggressive coping responses with their peers perceived less support from their fathers. By definition, fathers from low hostile families are less aggressive. Any use R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 81 of aggression to solve problems is likely undervalued and seen as ineffective by these fathers, values that they may be conveying to their sons. Again, as speculated above, fathers from low hostility environments may be more invested in helping to teach and reinforce their children in the use of appropriate problem-solving and coping skills, and supporting their children in these situations. In sum, findings show that a hostile family environment and parental social support are modestly associated, specifically for perceived support from fathers only. In addition, children’s coping skills moderated the relationship between a hostile family environment and fathers’ perceived supportiveness. The lack of findings for mothers may be partially explained by some studies that suggest that father-child relations, compared to mother-child relations, are more sensitive to the effects of marital conflict (Brody et al., 1986; Jouriles & Farris, 1992; Margolin et al, 1996). Because mothers are said to compartmentalize their family relationships, mothers’ social support may be distinct from hostility in other family domains. Nonfamily Perceptions o f Social Support Within this study, perceptions of support from nonfamily members, namely friends and teachers, were also investigated. A significant bivariate association for a hostile family environment and perceived support was found for perceived support from friends, only, such that family hostility was related to lower perceptions of support from friends. This finding is similar to previous findings that children from hostile family homes are rated as less popular, more rejected and more aggressive by R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 82 their peers (Bolger et al., 1998; Cicchetti et al, 1992; Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1994; Haskett & Kistner, 1991; Rogosch & Cichetti, 1994; Salzinger, Feldman, Hammer & Rosario, 1993) and have problematic and negative peer interactions (Graham- Berman & Levendosky, 1998; Gottman & Katz, 1989; Stocker & Youngblade, 1999). The fact that the bivariate association between a hostile family environment and perceived support from teachers was nonsignificant may be explained by the qualitatively different relationship children have with peers compared to teachers. Children are likely to receive more emotional support in their relationships with peers as compared to teachers, whereas teachers provide higher levels of informational and instrumental support (e.g., Malecki & Demaray, 2003). As such, the types of support children receive from teachers versus friends are qualitatively different, and in all likelihood, have a differential impact on children’s perceptions of social support. The effects of the moderators on children’s perceptions of nonfamily support were examined through correlations and regression analyses. For both boys and girls, dispositional active and avoid coping skills were positively associated with friends’ perceived social support. Further regression analysis indicated significant effects for both friends’ and teachers’ perceived social support. For children in high hostile families, cognitive ability had buffering effects for girls’ perceptions of friends’ social support. A significant interaction occurred such that cognitive ability moderated the relationship between a hostile family R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 83 environment and children’s perceptions of friends’ social support. More specifically, there was a marginal finding for perceived support from friends such that girls from high hostile families with high cognitive abilities reported more social support from friends. Girls, in general, have been found to have better verbal skills than boys (see review by Halpem & LaMay, 2000). As such, verbal or cognitive ability skills may be a more effective buffer for girls than boys in the context of interpersonal relationships. Girls’ friendships are likely predicated more on verbal skills as evident by higher levels of intimacy, whereas boys’ friendships are characterized more by shared interests and activities (e.g., Duane, 1998; Ray & Cohen, 1996). Interestingly, greater reported use of situational active coping skills was a vulnerability factor for boys’ perceptions of teachers’ social support amidst a hostile family environment. Boys who used higher levels of active coping skills when dealing with conflicts with peers perceived less social support from teachers in the context of a hostile family environment. In contrast, boys from low hostile family environments, who also used higher levels of active coping skills when faced with peer conflicts, perceived more social support from their teachers. Research has shown that teachers tend to report higher levels of aggressive behavior in boys from hostile families than boys from non-hostile families (e.g., Haskett & Kistner, 1991, Hoffman-Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984, Trickett, 1993). This perception may bias teachers from accurately perceiving boys positive coping efforts at solving interpersonal conflict, and impact their supportiveness toward these children from R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 84 high hostile homes. On the other hand, boys who come from low hostile families may not have to overcome a biased perception of being aggressive. Hypothetically, teachers may more accurately perceive their behaviors, thus reinforcing, and being supportive of their positive coping efforts with regard to peer conflict. Similarly, the two-way interaction between a hostile family environment and children’s cognitive abilities was significant, such that the slopes of the lines are going in opposite directions in the context of a high or low hostile family environment. That is, children from low hostile family homes with higher cognitive abilities report higher perceptions of teachers’ social support. Conversely, children from high hostile family homes with higher cognitive abilities perceived lower levels of teacher support. Again, as speculated above, teachers’ may be more focused on these children’s negative behaviors and interpreting all of their behaviors with this bias in mind. In addition, despite their resources, children may still be perceiving support from outside the family (i.e. from teachers) as negatively as within the family (i.e., less perceived social support from fathers) in accordance with a negative working model of the world (Davies & Cummings, 1994). Further findings indicated that for perceived supportive from teachers, greater use of dispositional active coping was a buffer for children from high hostile family environments. At high levels of a hostile family environment, children who used more dispositional active coping skills reported more perceived support from teachers. This finding is different from the three-way interaction discussed above in R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 85 two ways. First, this finding deals with dispositional active coping, or in other words, children’s report of use of active coping skills when confronted with problems in general, rather than in specific reference to peer conflict. Second, this finding holds for both boys and girls. As mentioned earlier, since children from hostile families tend to be more aggressive than children from non-hostile families (e.g., Haskett & Kistner, 1991, Hoffinan-Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984, Trickett, 1993), use of appropriate coping skills, rather than aggressive skills, is likely highly reinforced and praised by teachers. Teachers are likely to be supportive of the efforts children make to attempt to resolve their problems on their own. To summarize, the effects of a hostile family environment had some influence on the perceived support of nonfamily members. There was a direct link between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of friends’ social support, but not teachers. Further regression analyses, though, indicated that cognitive skills and coping skills were buffers and vulnerability factors under certain conditions in the context of hostility within the family. Limitations Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the methodology of this study does not allow for a determination of the direction of effects. Although theory and empirical findings guided the current investigation, the current findings should be interpreted in light of the probable bidirectional influences between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support. For R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 86 example, children's perceptions of more parental social support may lead to more positive interactions with their parents. This in turn may result in not having to manage and/or discipline their children as much, thus allowing parents more opportunities to interact with their children in a supportive manner, with this cycle continuing back and forth. Second, the current study did not consider other equally important sources of social support (e.g., siblings, extended family members, and other important supportive adults children themselves may have identified). Third, although perceptions of social support were measured, no assessment was obtained regarding children’s satisfaction with their social support. Merely because a relationship is perceived as supportive does not necessarily preclude it from being conflictual in nature as well (e.g., Crittenden, 1985; Wellman, 1981). Fourth, the low variability of children’s social support perceptions is likely a result of the age range used in this study, nine and ten year olds. At this age, making fine distinctions between supportive and nonsupportive relationships may be somewhat difficult given children’s cognitive level and less exposure to interpersonal relationships in comparison to adolescents who show an increased involvement with others outside the family, namely peers. Strengths Despite the limitations, this study contributes to the body of literature on children and social support. While it has been widely established that social support buffers children from the negative outcomes associated with hostile family R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 87 environments (e.g., Cicchetti & Rizziey, 1981; Rossman, Bingham & Emde, 1997), little research has focused on understanding the direct link between a hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support, much less variables that may moderate this relationsMp. Cutrona et a l (1990) suggests that perceived support is “an aggregate of transactions that have occurred in the relationship” (Cutrona et al., 1990). Thus, whereas perceptions of social support likely have a basis in the on-going interactions between children and others in their lives, these interactions are only as good as how children perceive them to be. This study also utilized both a dispositional and situational assessment of coping skills, with evidence that both of these measures give us more information than either one alone. The use of dispositional and situational measures of coping skills identified several problems and debates within the coping literature. Whereas dispositional measures of coping operationalize coping as a trait-like characteristic or a general coping style, situational measures of coping measure situation specific coping strategies. In the present study, for example, within the dispositional measure of coping, skills presumably negatively related to each other (i.e., active and avoid coping) were found to be significantly correlated to each other, but in the positive direction. Across measures, the same coping skills were often correlated with each other but in the unexpected direction (e.g., avoid coping). Although it is assumed that these measures of coping are measuring the same construct, in fact they appear to be relatively distinct measure of coping, each with their own advantages and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 88 disadvantages. Although labor intensive and specific to only one stressor, situational coping measures allow for a more in depth analyses of how coping changes over time and prediction of outcomes specifically relevant to that stressor (Dunkel- Schetter, Folkman & Lazarus, 1987). General coping measures are better suited to evaluating the outcomes associated with cumulative stressors (Dunkel-Schetter, Folkman & Lazarus, 1987), with the same responses and lack of reference to a specific stressor likely leading to different meanings and interpretations by children. Nonetheless, both measures of coping appear to provide us with more information about children in highly hostile families than either measure alone. In addition, unlike other research, this study measured a hostile family environment from the perspectives of both the child and parents, in addition to measuring social support from both within and outside the family. Conclusions A hostile family environment and children’s perceptions of social support were modestly associated, with this relationship holding not only within the family, but also generalizing to outside the family. More precisely, in the context of a hostile family environment, children perceived less support from fathers and friends only. Moderation analyses identified both buffers and vulnerability factors for children in the context of a highly hostile family. High hostile family environments are not as strongly associated with lowered perceptions of social support for girls who have higher cognitive ability, report greater use of active coping skills when faced with R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 89 peer conflicts, and report greater use of avoidant skills in general. For boys, the relationship between a highly hostile family and lowered perceptions of social support is exacerbated by greater use of active coping skills when handling conflicts with peers. These findings suggest that merely being in a hostile family environment does not equate to less perceived social support for children, but rather, specific conditions can lead to more and/or less perceived support. Identification of moderators, such as those in the present study, is essential to the development of effective interventions. Children bring their own characteristics that interact with their environment. In fact, boys from highly hostile family homes used less active coping skills compared to boys from low hostility homes. Thus, intervening to help children develop a repertoire of coping skills and nurturing children’s cognitive abilities can help increase the perceived support children can obtain from significant others in their lives, subsequently, buffering them from the negative outcomes associated with highly hostile families. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 90 REFERENCES Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Alessandri, S. M. (1991). Play and social behavior in maltreated preschoolers. Development & Psychopathology, 3(2), 191-205. Aiian, R. M., & Barnett, D. (1999). Perceived social support mediates between prior attachment and subsequent adjustment: A study of urban African American children. Developmental Psychology, 55(5), 1210-1222. Antonucci, T. €., & Akiyama, H. A.(1994). Convoys of attachment and social relations in children, adolescents, and adults. In F. Nestmann & K. Hurrelmann, Klaus (Eds.), Social networks and social support in childhood and adolescence, (pp. 37-52). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal o f Family Psychology, 12(A), 578-599. Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal o f Youth & Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454. Ayers, T.S. (1991). The Children’ s Coping Strategies Checklist. Azar, S. T. (1997). A cognitive behavioral approach to understanding and treating parents who physically abuse their children. In D. A. Wolfe, & R. J.McMahon (Eds.), Child abuse: New directions in prevention and treatment across the lifespan. Banff international behavioral science series, vol. 4 (pp. 79-101). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Azar, S. T., Bames, K. T., & Twentyman, C. T. (1988). Developmental outcomes in physically abused children: Consequences of parental abuse or the effects of a more general breakdown in caregiving behaviors? Behavior Therapist, 11(2), 27-32. Azar, S. T., Robinson, D. R., Hekimian, E., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Unrealistic expectations and problem-solving ability in maltreating and comparison mothers. Journal o f Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 52(4), 687-691. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 91 Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461-484. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173- 1182. Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14,413-445. Barrera, M., Chassin, L., & Rogosch, F. (1993). Effects of social support and conflict on adolescent children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fathers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 602-612. Belle, D. (1989). Children's social networks and social supports: The ecology of children's social support networks. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Belsky, J. (1981). Early human experience: A family perspective. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 3-23. Bemdt, T.J, & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312-1329. Bemdt, T.J., & Hestenes, S.L. (1996). The developmental course of social support: Family and peers. In L. Smolak & Michael L. (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology o f eating disorders: Implications fo r research, prevention and treatment (pp.77-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bemdt, T.J., & Perry, T. B. (1986). Children’s perceptions of friendship as supportive relationships. Developmental Psychology, 22, 640-648. Bemdt, T.J., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1993). Variations in friendships and peer- group relationships in adolescence. In P. Tolan & B. Cohler (Eds.), Handbook o f clinical research and practice with adolescents (pp. 203-219). New York: Wiley. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 92 Blanchard, A., Molloy, F,, & Brown, L. (1992). Western Australian children living with domestic violence: A study o f the children’ s experiences and service provision. Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University School of Social Work (as cited in Domestic violence in the lives of children: The future of research and intervention, pp. 219-234.) Block, J.H., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement-disagreement in child-rearing orientations and gender-related personality correlates in children. Child Development, 4 9 ,1163-1173. Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69(4), 1171-1197. Branje, S. J. T., van Aken, M. A. G., & van Lieshout, C. F. M. (2002). Relational support in families with adolescents. Journal o f Family Psychology, 16(3), 351-362. Brody, G. H., Pellegrini, A. D., & Sigel, I. E. (1986). Marital quality and mother- child and father-child interactions with school-aged children. Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 291-296. Bryant, B. K. (1985). The neighborhood walk: Sources of support in middle childhood. Monographs o f the Society fo r Research in Child Development, 50(3), 122. Buhrmester, D. (1998). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, & A. F. Newcomb (Eds.), The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development: SRCD study group on friendship and development, Nov 1992; Chapters are based on presentations made at the aforementioned study group, (pp. 158- 185). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1987). The development of companionship and intimacy. Child Development, 58(4), 1101-1113. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 93 Canary, D. I., Spitzberg, B. H., & Semic, B. A. (1998). The experience and expression of anger in interpersonal settings. In P. A. Andersen, & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook o f communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts, (pp. 189-213). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press, Inc. Caplan, Weissberg, Bersoff, Ezekowitz, & Wells. (1986). The Middle School Alternative Solutions Test (AST) Scoring Manual. New Haven: Yale University. Cauce, A.M., & Srebnik, D.S. (1989). Peer networks and social support: A focus for preventive effects with youth. In L.A. Bond & B.E. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion in the schools (pp. 235-254). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cauce, A.M., Reid, M., Landesman, S., & Gonzales, N. (1990). Social support in young children: Measurement, structure and behavioral impact. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, & G.R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 64-94). New York: Wiley. Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology, 21(1), 47-59. Chilamkurti, C., & Milner, J. S. (1993). Perceptions and evaluations of child transgressions and disciplinary techniques in high- and low-risk mothers and their children. Child Development, 64(6), 1801-1814. Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S.L. (1995). A developmental perspective on child abuse and neglect. Journal o f the American Academy o f Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 541-565. Cicchetti, D., Lynch, M., Shonk, S., & Manly, J. T. (1992). An organizational perspective on peer relations in maltreated children. In R. D. Parke, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes o f linkage.; family-peer relationships: Modes o f linkage (pp. 345-383). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cichetti, D., & Rizley, R. (1981). Developmental perspectives on the etiology, intergenerational transmission, and sequelae of child maltreatment. New Directions fo r Child Development, 11, 31-55. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 4 Ciark-Lempers, D.S., Lempers, J.D., & Ho, C. 91991). Early, middle and late adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with significant others. Journal o f Adolescent Research, 6, 296-315. Coates, D., Wortman, C.B., & Abbey, A. (1979). Reactions to victims. In I.H. Fireze, D. Bar-Tel & J.S. Carroll (Eds.), New approaches to social problems (pp. 21- 52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cobb, S. (1976). Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 38, 300-314. Cochran, M. M., & Brassard, J. A. (1979). Child development and personal social networks. Child Development, 50(3), 601-616. Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357. Colarossi, L. G., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). A prospective study of adolescents' peer support: Gender differences and the influence o f parental relationships. Journal o f Youth & Adolescence, 29(6), 661-678. Cowen, E. L., Pedro-Carroll, J. L., & Alpert-Gillis, L. J. (1990). Relationships between support and adjustment among children of divorce. Journal o f Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 31(5), 727-735. Crittenden, P. M. (1985). Social networks, quality of child rearing, and child development. Child Development, 56(5), 1299-1313. Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital confict: The impact o f family dispute resolution. New York: Guilford Press. Curry, S. L., & Russ, S. W. (1985). Identifying coping strategies in children. Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology. Special issue: Childhood Vulnerability: Families and Life Stress: I, 14(1), 61-69. Cutrona, C.E., Cohen, B.B., & Ingram, S. (1990). Contextual determinants of the perceived supportiveness of helping behaviors. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 7, 553-562. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 95 Davies, P. I., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 387-411. Davies, P. T., Harold, G. T., Goeke-Morey, M. C., & Cummings, E. M. (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs o f the Society fo r Research in Child Development, 67(3), vii-viii. Dawud-Noursi, S., Lamb, M.E., & Sternberg, K J, (1998). The relations among domestic violence, peer relationships and academic performance. In C. Feiring, M. Lewis (Eds.) Families, Risk and Competence (pp. 207-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dickstein, S., & Parke, R. (1988). Social referencing in infancy: A glance at fathers and marriage. Child Development, 59, 506-511. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250(4988), 1678-1683. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Development, Special issue: Children and Poverty, 65(2), 649-665. DuBois, D.L., Felner, R.D., Brand, S., Adan, AM., & Evans, E.G. (1992). A prospective study of life stress, social support and adaptation in early adolescence. Child Development, 63, 542-557. Dubow, E.F., & Tisak, I. (1989). The relations between stressful life events and adjustment in elementary school children: The role of social support and social problem solving skills. Child Development, 6 0 ,1412-1423. Dubow, E.F., & Ullman, D.G. (1989). Assessing social support in elementary school children: The survey of children’s social support. Journal o f Child Clinical Psychology, 18, 52-64. Dunkel-Schetter, C., Polkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1987). Correlates of social support receipt. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 71-80. East, P.L. (1991). The parent-child relationships of withdrawn, aggressive and sociable children: Child and parent perspectives. Merrill-Paimer Quarterly, 37,425-444. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 96 Easterbrooks, M.A., & Emde, R.N. (1988). Marital and parent-child relationships: The role of affect in the family system. In R.A. Hinde & J.S. Hine (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 83-103). New York: Oxford Press. Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal o f Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 33-54. Egeland, B.s & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its development and changes over time. Child Development, 55(3), 753-771. Elwood, S. W. (1987). Stressor and coping response inventories for children. Psychological Reports, 60(3, Pt 1), 931-947. Engfer, A. (1988). The interrelatedness of marriage and the mother-child relationship, hi R.A. Hinde & J.S. Hine (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 104-118). New York: Oxford Press. Erel, O., & Burman, B. (1995). The linkage between marital quality and the parent- child relationship: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132. Ezzell, C.E., Swenson, C.C., & Brondino, MJ. (2000). The relationship of social support to physically abused children’s adjustment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 641-651. Fantuzzo, J. W. (1990). Behavioral treatment of the victims of child abuse and neglect. Behavior Modification, Special Issue: Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(3), 316-339. Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A.M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123. Fields, L., & Prinz, R. J. (1997). Coping and adjustment during childhood and adolescence. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(8), 937-976. Fiese, B.H., Sameroff, A.J., Grotevant, H.D., Wamboldt, F.S., Dickstein, S., Fravel, D.L. et ah (1999). The stories that families tell: Narrative coherence, narrative interaction and relationship beliefs. Monographs o f the Society fo r Research in Child Development, 64, 1-162. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 97 Franco, N., & Levitt, M.J. (1998). The social ecology of middle childhood: Family support, friendship quality, and self-esteem. Family Relations, 47, 315-321. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016- 1024. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 6 3 ,103-115. Gamble, W., & Dalla, R. (1997). Young children’s perceptions of their social worlds in single- and two-parent Euro- and Mexican-American Families. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 357-372. Garbarino, J., & Sherman, D. (1980). High-risk neighborhoods and high-risk families: The human ecology of child maltreatment. Child Development, 51(1), 188-198. Goldberg, W.A., & Easterbrooks, M.A. (1984). The role of marital quality in toddler development. Developmental Psychology, 20, 504-514. Goodman, S.H., Barfoot, B,, Frye, A.A., & Belli, A.M. (1999). Dimensions of marital conflict and children’s social-problem solving skills, Journal o f Family Psychology, 13(1), 33-45. Goodyear, I.M., Wright, C., & Altham, P.M. (1989). Recent friendships in anxious and depressed school age children. Psychological Medicine, 19, 165-174. Gottman, J.M., & Katz, L.F. (1989). The effects of marital discord on young children's peer interaction and health. Developmental Psychology, 25, 373- 381. Graham-Bemian, S.A., & Levendosky, A.A. (1998). The social functioning of preschool-age children whose mothers are emotionally and physically abused. Journal o f Emotional Abuse, 1, 59-84. Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 98 Grych, J.H., & Fincham, F.D. (1993). Children’s appraisals of marital conflict: Initial investigations of the cognitive contextual framework. Child Development, 64, 215-230. Guzder, J., Paris, J., Zelkowitz, P., & Marchessault, K. (1996). Risk factors for borderline psychology in children. Journal o f the American Academy o f Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(1), 26-33. Halpem, D., & LaMay, M. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12(2), 229-246. Harter, Susan (1985). Manual for the Social Support Scale fo r Children. Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67(1), 1-13. Hartup, W.W. (1992). Friendships and their developmental significance. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Contemporary issues in childhood social development (pp. 175-205). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haskett, M. E., & Kistner, J. A. (1991). Social interactions and peer perceptions of young physically abused children. Child Development, 62(5), 979-990. Heller, K., & Swindle, R.W. (1983). Social networks, perceived support, and coping with stress. In R. Felnder, L.A. Jason, J.N. Moritsugu, & S. Farber (Eds.). Preventive Psychology: Theory, research and practice (pp. 87-103). New York: Pergamon Press. Hess, R D., & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal o f Social Issues, 25(A), 79-96. Hetherington, E. M. (1979). Divorce: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 34(10), 851-858. Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60(1), 1-14. Hetherington, E.M. (1991). Families, lies and videotapes. Journal o f Research in Adolescence, 1, 323-348. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Hetherington, E.M., Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1985). Long-term effects of divorce and remarriage on the adjustment of children. Journal o f the American Academy o f Child Psychiatry, 24, 518-530. Hoffman, M.A., Levy-Schiff, R., & Ushpiz, V. (1993). Moderating effects of adolescent social orientation on the relation between social support and self esteem. Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 22, 23-31. Hoffman-Plotkin, D., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). A multimodal assessment of behavioral and cognitive deficits in abused and neglected preschoolers. Child Development, 55(3), 794-802. Holden, G.W., & Ritchie, K.L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311-327. Howes, C., & Eldredge, R. (1985). Responses of abused, neglected, and non maltreated children to the behaviors of their peers. Journal o f Applied Developmental Psychology, 6(2-3), 261-270. Howes, P., & Markman, J.J. (1989). Marital quality and child functioning: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development, 6 0 ,1044-1051. Magliata, J., & Doyle, N. (1984). Enhancing social support for parents of developmentally disabled children: Training in interpersonal problem solving skills. Mental Retardation, 22, 4-11. Jenkins, J. (2000). Marital conflict and children's emotions: The development of an anger organization. Journal o f Marriage & the Family, 62(3), 723-736. Jenkins, J.M. & Smith, M.A. (1991). Marital disharmony and children’s behavior problems: Aspects of poor marriage that affect children adversely. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry^ 32, 793-810. Jouriles, E. N., & Farris, A. M. (1992). Effects of marital conflict on subsequent parent-son interactions. Behavior Therapy, 23(3), 355-374. Jouriles, E. N., & LeCompte, S. H. (1991). Husbands' aggression toward wives and mothers' and fathers' aggression toward children: Moderating effects of child gender. Journal o f Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 190-192. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 Jouriles, E.N., & LeCompte, S.H. (1991). Husbands' aggression toward wives and mothers’ and fathers' aggression toward children: Moderating effects of child gender. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 190-192. Jouriles, E.N., Pfiffiier, L.J., & O’ Leary, K.D. (1988). Marital conflict, parenting, and toddler conduct problems. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 197-206. Katz, L. F., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Buffering children from m arital conflict and dissolution. Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology, 26(2), 157-171. Kaufman, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Effects of maltreatment on school-age children's socioemotional development: Assessments in a day-camp setting. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 516-524. Kinard, E.M. (1995). Perceived social support and competence in abused children: A longitudinal perspective. Journal o f Family Violence, 10,73-98. Klimes-Dougan, B., & Kistner, J. (1990). Physically abused preschoolers' responses to peers' distress. Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 599-602. Kolbo, J. (1996). Risk and resilience among children exposed to family violence. Violence and Victims, 1 1 ,113-128. Lakey, B., & Cassady, P.B. (1990). Cognitive processes in perceived social support. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 337-343. Lakey, B., & Drew, J.B. (1997). A social-cognitive perspective on social support. In G.R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I.W. Sarason, & B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook o f social support and personality: The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 107-140). New York: Plenum Press. Lamb, M. E. (1976). Effects of stress and cohort on mother- and father-infant interaction. Developmental Psychology, 12(5), 435-443. Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Levitt, M. J., Guacci-Franco, N., & Levitt, J. L. (1993). Convoys of social support in childhood and early adolescence: Structure and function. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 811-818. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 Licitra-Kleckler, D.M, & Waas, G.A. (1993). Perceived social support among high- stress adolescents: The role of family mid peers. Journal o f Adolescent Research, 5(4) 381-402. Lorber, R., Felton, D. K., & Reid, J. R. (1984). A social learning approach to the reduction of coercive processes in child abusive families: A molecular analysis. Advances in Behaviour Research & Therapy, 6(1), 29-45. Lynch, M. & Roberts, J. (1982). Consequences o f child abuse. London : New York : Academic Press. Mackey, R. A., & O'Brien, B. A. (1998). Marital conflict management: Gender and ethnic differences. Social Work, 43(2), 128-141. Malecki, €., & Demaray, M. (2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 231- 252. Mallinckrodt, B. (1992). Childhood emotional bonds with parents, development of adult social competencies, and availability of social support. Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 39(4), 453-461. Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners: How do we identify them? Journal o f Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 77-84. Margolin, G. (1998). Effects of domestic violence on children. In P.K. Trickett & C J. Schellenbach (Eds.). Violence against children in the family and community (pp. 57-102). Washington, DC: APA. Margolin, G. (2000). The Social Coping Interview, Unpublished instrument, University of Southern California. Margolin, G., Burman, B., & John, R. S. (1989). Home observations of married couples reenacting naturalistic conflicts. Behavioral Assessment: Special Issue: Coding Marital Interaction, 11(1), 101-118. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E.B. (2000). The effects of family and community violence on children. Annual Review o f Psychology, 51, 445-479. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R.S., & O’Brien, M. (1990). The Domestic Conflict Index. Unpublished instrument, University o f Southern California. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., Medina, A. M., & Oliver, P. H. (2003). The co occurrence of tmsband-to-wife aggression, family-of-origin aggression, and child abuse potential in a community sample: Implications for parenting. Journal o f Interpersonal Violence. Special Issue: Children and Domestic Violence, 18(4), 413-440. Margolin, G., Gordis, E. B., & Oliver, P. (2004). Links between marital and parent- child interactions: Moderating role of husband-to-wife aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 753-771. Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1997). Children's exposure to marital aggression: Direct and mediated effects. In G. Kantor & J. Jasinski (Eds.), Out o f darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence ( pp. 90-104). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc; Thousand Oaks, CA, US : Sage Publications, Inc, 1997 xi, 332. Margolin, G., John, R. S., & Foo, L. (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for husbands' emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal o f Family Violence, 13(4), 315-344. Margolin, G., John, R. S., Ghosh, C. M., & Gordis, E. B. (1996). Family interaction process: An essential tool for exploring abusive relations. In D. D. Cahn, & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 37-58). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Margolin, G., Oliver, P. H., Gordis, E. B., O'Heam, H. G., Medina, A. M., & Ghosh, C. M. et al. (1998). The nuts and bolts of behavioral observation o f marital and family interaction. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 1(4), 195-213. Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999). Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Development & Psychopathology, 11(1), 143-169. Masten, A.S., Sc Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205- 220. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Masten, A.S., Best, K.M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study o f children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology?, 2, 425-444. McCloskey, L.A., Figueredo, A.J., & Koss, M.P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 6 6 ,1239- 1261. Miller, N. B., Cowan, P.A., Cowan, C.P., Hetherington, E.M., & Clingempeel, W.G. (1993). Externalizing in preschoolers and early adolescents: A cross-study replication of a family model. Developmental Psychology, 29, 3-18. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families & family therapy. Oxford, England: Harvard U. Press. Moos, R. H., & Swindle, R. W. (1990). Person-environment transactions and the stressor-appraisal-coping process. Psychological Inquiry, i(l), 30-32. Moren, P.B., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Gender differences in the costs and benefits of peer relationships during adolescence. Journal o f Adolescent Research, 6, 396-409. Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. (1977). Data analysis and regression : A second course in statistics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Neighbors, B., Forehand, R., & Me Vicar, D. (1993). Resilient adolescents and interparental conflict. American Journal o f Orthopsychiatry, 63(3), 462-471. Newcomb, M.D., & Bentler, P.M. (1987). Loneliness and social support: A confirmatory hierarchical analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 520-535 O'Brien, M., Margolin, G., & John, R. S. (1995). Relation among marital conflict, child coping, and child adjustment. Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology, 24(3), 346-361. O'Brien, M., Margolin, G., & John, R. S., & Krueger, L. (1991). Mothers’ and sons’ cognitive and emotional reactions to simulated marital and family conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 692-703. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 O'Keefe, M. (1994). Linking marital violence, mother-child/father-child aggression, and child behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 63-78. Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and loneliness. Developmental Psychology, 29, 611 -621. Peterson, L., & Gable, S. (1998). Holistic injury prevention. In J. R. Lutzker (Ed.), Handbook o f child abuse research and treatment.; handbook of child abuse research and treatment, issues in clinical child psychology (pp. 291-318). New York, NY, US: Plenum Press. Pierce, T., Baldwin, M.W., & Lydon, I.E. (1997). A relational schema approach to social support. In G.R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I.W. Sarason, & B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook o f social support and personality: The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology (pp. 19-47). New York: Plenum Press. Rawlins, C. (1993). The social networks of children of battered women. Poster presented at the 1993 Biennial Meeting o f the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, Louisiana. Ray, G. E., & Cohen, R. (1996). Children's friendships: Expectations for prototypical versus actual best friends. Child Study Journal, 26(3), 209-227. Roberts, W. L., & Strayer, I. (1987). Parents' responses to the emotional distress of their children: Relations with children's competence. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 415-422. Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (1994). Illustrating the interface of family and peer relations through the study of child maltreatment. Social Development. Special Issue: From Family to Peer Group: Relations between Relationships Systems, 3(3), 291-308. Rook, K.S. (1987). Social support versus companionship: Effects on life stress, loneliness, and evaluations by others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 521 1132-1147. Rossman, B., Bingham, R., Emde, R. (1997). Symptomatology and adaptive functioning for children exposed to normative stressors, dog attack and parental violence. Journal o f the American Academy o f Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1089-1097. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Salomon, A., & Strobel, M. G. (1997). Social network, interpersonal concerns and help-seeking in primary grade school children as a function of sex, performance and economic status. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(3), 331-347. Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Hammer, M., & Rosario, M. (1993). The effects of physical abuse on children's social relationships. Child Development, 64(1), 169-187. Sandler, I. N., Miller, P., Short, J., & Wolchik, S. A. (1989). Social support as a protective factor for children in stress. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports.; children's social networks and social supports. Wiley series on personality processes (pp. 277-307). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Sandler, I, Tein, J., & West, S. (1994). Coping, stress and the psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 1744-1763. Sarason, LG., Pierce, G.R., & Sarason, B.R. (1990). Social support and interactional processes: A triadic hypothesis. Journal o f Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 495-506. Schreurs, K. M., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (1997). Integration of coping and social support perspectives: Implications for the study of adaptation to chronic diseases. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(1), 89-112. Silver, R. C., Wortman, C. B., & Crofton, C. (1990). The role o f coping in support provision: The self-presentational dilemma of victims o f life crises. In B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view. Wiley series on personality processes (pp. 397-426). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Skinner. H.A., Steinhauer, P.D., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1995). Family Assessment Measure-Ill Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Slavin, L.A., & Rainer, K.L. (1990). Gender differences in emotional support and depressive symptoms among adolescents: A prospective analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 407-421. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Sroufe, L. A, (1985). Generational boundary dissolution between mothers and their preschool children: A relationship systems approach. Child Development. Special Issue: Family Development, 56(2), 317-325. Stark, L. J., Spirito, A., Williams, C. A., & Guevremont, D. C. (1989). Common problems and coping strategies: I. findings with normal adolescents. Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, 17(2), 203-212. Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment within family systems: An overview. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11(3), 218-227. Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital conflict and parental hostility: Links with children's sibling and peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(4), 598-609. Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminary results. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46(4), 892- 906. Strassberg, Z., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1992). The longitudinal relation between parental conflict strategies and children's sociometric standing in kindergarten. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(4), 477-493. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 41(1), 75-88. Straus, M., Gelles, RJ & Steinmetz, S.K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American Family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Strauss, M., Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 249-270. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Thoits, P.A. (1985). Social support and psychological well-being: Theoretical possibilities. In LG. Sarason & B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 51-72). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Tobin, D. L.. Holtoyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. & Wigal, I. K. (1989), The hierarchical factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 13(4), 343-361. Trickett, P. K. (1998). Multiple maltreatment and the development of self and emotion regulation. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2(1), 171-187. Trickett, P.K. (1993). Maladaptive development of school-aged, physically abused children: Relationship with the child rearing context. Journal o f Family Psychology, 7,131-147. van Aken, M. A. G.» & Asendorpf, J. B. (1997). Support by parents, classmates, friends and siblings in preadolescence: Covariation and compensation across relationships. Journal o f Social & Personal Relationships, 14(1), 79-93. van Aken, M. A. G., & Asendorpf, J. B. (1997). Support by parents, classmates, friends and siblings in preadolescence: Covariation and compensation across relationships. Journal o f Social & Personal Relationships, 14(1), 79-93. Vami, I. W., Katz, E. R., Colegrove, R., & Dolgin, M. (1994). Perceived social support and adjustment of children with newly diagnosed cancer. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 15(1), 20-26. Vaux, A. (1988). Social support: Theory, research and intervention. New York: Praeger. Wagner, B. M., Cohen, P., & Brook, J. S. (1996). Parent/adolescent relationships: Moderators of the effects of stressful life events. Journal o f Adolescent Research, 11(3), 347-374. Wasserstein, S. B., & La Greca, A. M. (1996). Can peer support buffer against behavioral consequences of parental discord? Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology, 25(2), 177-182. Wechsier, (1991). The Weschler Intelligence Scale fo r Children. 3rd Edition. Wellman, B. (1981). Applying social network analysis to the study o f support. In B. Gottlieb (Ed.). Social networks and social support (pp. 171-200). Beverly Hills: Sage. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Wemer, E.E., & Smith, R.S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible; A study o f resilient children. New York: McGraw-Hill. Whipple, E. E., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress in physically abusive families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(3), 279-291. Wolchik, S. A., Beals, J., & Sandler, I. (1989). Mapping children's support networks: Conceptual and methodological issues. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children's social networks and social supports. Wiley series on personality processes (pp. 191- 220). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Wolchik, S. A., Braver, S. L., & Sandler, I. (1985). Maternal versus joint custody: Children's postseparation experiences and adjustment. Journal o f Clinical Child Psychology. Special Issue: Childhood Vulnerability: Families and Life Stress: I, 14(1), 5-10. Wolchik, S.A., Ruehlman, L., Braver, S.L., & Sandler, I. (1989). Social support of children of divorce: Direct and stress buffering effects. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(4), 485-501. Wolfe, D.A. (1985). Child-abusive parents: An empirical review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 462-482. Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children o f battered women: The relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 53(5), 657-665. Wyman, P.A., Sandler, I., Wolchik, S., & Nelson, K. (2000). Resilience as cumulative competence promotion and stress protection: Theory and intervention. In D. Cicchetti, J. Rappaport, et al., (Eds.), Promotion of wellness in children and adolescents, (pp. 133-184). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of American, Inc. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago, IL, US: University of Chicago Press. Zimet, G., Dahlem, N., Zimet, S., & Farley, G. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A Domestic Conflict Index id# __________ _ Margolin, G., Burman, B., John, R. S., & O’ Brien, M. (1990) University of Southern California No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood, or tired, or for some other reason. People have many different ways of expressing frustration, annoyance, or hostility with one another. Attached you will find a fist of some things that you and your partner may have done. You will find that some of these items apply, while others do not. Please be sure to consider all items, even if they seem extreme. First, decide if this behavior has ever occurred (Section A). If the behavior has never occurred in the history of your relationship, circle “No” under “Ever” and go on to the next question. If the behavior has occurred, indicate whether or not it happened in front of your child (Section B). Next, indicate how frequently this behavior occurred within the last year (regardless of child’s presence) (Section C). Section A Section B Section £ From one year ago until today... Have you: Ever? In front of your child? 0 per year 1 per year 2-5 per year 6-12 per 2-4 per >1 per week 2. insulted or swore at your spouse :v .y \ ~ |j No Yes~H~No Maybe Yes if □ r ___ i Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■•-Vt • .; . ■ \ ' ■ . -o •. i-O ' * - ’■ t •ii ' .'.i .. ■ i'.i1 i ■ .; _ ; Nc ■ ■ ■ ' r A I - ‘ " - t i : :..: • ■ -.’! -.. " t No \ J . I - C * :-Id ” ... m : ‘ .1 ; ; . v„ Ic.-lM-g ex.; „-Jtv ■ ’ .- ■ ' ■ ■ '■ : ; . .1 . .'iV ; i v;-j No 110. been angry if your spouse told you that you were I using too much alcohol or drugs _ _ ______ , ■ ' i * ■ ‘ / « - 4- -v i* »* ■ * r , jh t . c * * •* *' * \ } i ; i. :- " i : - j , i i ' y o n s o u i : ; , ^ ■-!,,- I, ■ \. . '- ■ ,! No No fv n No Yes V O '1 t i p i lyiaybi 1 1 i • ' v. Maybv Y . - IlNo Nrvrc r i f l l i l l Maybe N O ly .'O i' at v , j , . J N o IV '.ayvo , ii ^ _ V i}5 , , “ o 1 f v ■ / ji- YSslp" T 21 o ; 'V |{ 3v':-: " ' __________ L . ________ ves _ _ No iVcwoe ' v . ''sc : \o v,a vbo \ Z y s giM gMga 16. insulted o r! 18. told your spouse that he/she could not work, go to ■ * „ • : ' C - ■ • ' ■ ■ ’■ ' ■ - ■ • > f , . , : . ; - . ; V M ., ■ .. ' j ; - " F I : ■ . ' ■ ? O il'O i" . school nr on to other self-imornvement activities i! ) * ' ■ ' \'-'i‘ ' ■ ' ■ * • ' h(-'l. .-'• > [}{ '! f K c Yes ^ No .Vl-jycf ; 'Jr. '■'cs ,j ho N U -*./ho ’ I. \jc Yos J No N-r:ybo Y : " N O f t )r ,-y Q C No Maybe Yes j! N o _No No 'Vs Yes illSfiitjli! | 'or: V -i.., . 1 . : . 1 'X r ‘ ■ 'ii' hfcn ,r ■ ■ . '.* 'i't ; !i N .-' • »; i I * <i“' is' / » * I i\ r.** \* » , ,T r 24. tried to turn family, friends, or children against your spouse ______ _______ _ v hs ' No V.ayo" “ No M O No Yer. ,: No viavno '7 os ■ ' N.-_Jiloyhw v Yes |p to Maybe Yes Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ ■ i • ■ • v . •. c ;.o\ ’v t l r i : /•.) ! o. / ■ ■ ■ ' / . sru-'i*. j> ; j i ■ 36. threatened to hit your spouse or throw something at ■ ; r ■ • .■ • ■ j, “1 '!■ ' ■ I , \> U i j i i a i g 1 I -If, ■ . i ;>n‘i : ■ j I, (ii! .« ■ ! 'U 1 ■ ■ ■ " ! . ! ' ■ ■ ■ ■ , M - ! j ! ! ■ in .; ”■ v " -'1 'J r . y&$* m Y 'i No Yes No h/ic'yhc Y.'!. St s Yes No ■ S W i M No ye" « N '° M ayor- N O v es No Yu ■ Ao wes ; No ■vayoo No v ,/sv > No V :, VC ! ' ■ '!y vayne •':!.: No Yos No fv -'yre'. • \ o Yes No iV aybr Y '> ;- N t> '' e:> No j V 7 - No Yes No Maybe Yes A C - ve*j Nc V ytK -: ^e ? N iC Maybe hr v es .vio < 1 /S y b '' '• ' r . •/or- No Maybe7 -\. M e Yes A O ’ ' •^jr. V~f \ w , No Meyb.- No Ytr. ! No- N., i WSM Yes I No Muyi.-e V \lr. Yfri No U.tybc y.-.j ■ v ie Yes No Mayb";s _Ni. ''£ ! ■ } _ No i/eyyoc. ‘' ■ : h i l, !!i r « Hr Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48. hit your spouse, or tried to hit your spouse, with something No Yes No Maybe Yes v t»i- J v'„- " v ' ■ ■ y . j Nr- , No vi-oyoc v -:; ■ . r \ -ii- Ypo || \i.. h r - . ■ E v - v e5 !i Nr- \Znyt.* | 54. coerced your spouse to engage in sexual practices U c L il'i H’ •/:»■ 0 -. F No Yes || No Maybe Yes J J j! \ « - 1 56. physically prevented your spouse from leaving an || No Yes || No Maybe Yes arg I argument or blocked his/her exit .l(j! saw fesT " '* ’ ’ 58. showed respect for ycut partnci’s feelings about an || No Yec ;; 'Jo v ayh : issue I •'Jr. * 'O . j' .'J;': -v .r'y O :. '£ r ■ > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In this section, you will answer the same types of questions about your spouse. Again, you will find that some of these items apply, while others do not. Please be sure to cons der all items, even if they seem extreme, Section Section Section rrom one year ago until today... 0 | 1 per I 2-5 6-12 2-4 I >1 per per year per per per week Has your spouse: Ever? In front of your child? u. been angry when you told him/her that No Yes No Maybe Yes vss .vayh£_ I j: V .., V ry'hc Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16. insulted or shamed you in front of others No Yes No Maybe Yes M N i N --- Maybe y „ ■ . i i m a 18. told you that you could not work, go to school, or go to other self-improvement activities No Yes No Maybe Yes so Yu4 ’ K-- Maybe' 20. had an extramarital affair No Yes No Maybe Yes §V. No Maybe vce 22. made threats to leave the relationship No Yes No Maybe Yes ''In 'Y'f> Meyer' ^ 24. tried to turn family, friends, or children against you No Yes No Maybe Yes i ; ■ . -'.u 'ii : ■ > '■ '-? ; U i:. '■ J k . v** No ‘ v c \-» 'So V la^l.;.;: y No Maybe Yes ■ > v .y ; y .v : - ; . ^ cjyp ,;> : 1 3 ? [ ’ F'~ 1 No MayDe'/c'. '■ i .-I ■ ■ . ■ ■ " ... '1 - ',K ■'.ill1 .' - ■ 1 No Yes !‘ 0 Ye„ Sx Maybe 'f-x. S '.-'i Meyue v e. 1 ' . 30; c5itici^fj~^^~3 ^ ^ IirZ Z 3 I 3 ~ r -■ ■ ■ " . I'-'. ’ ■ -i'i. • ' 1 ■ i : ■ ■ * i, , y-*v: 34. ridiculed you '' o Yes ' ; Xo Yc.l I \ i< Ye;-’ \ ■ '! ■ : v cs \ . Ho v c .j V;> " .V j Maybe No Mayoc ' ■' o Maybe v ss :jv.-._ Maybn Y r> : i Me Maybe Y e-:- :* v O Maybe V | ----------- ■ \r-~~ ™ M " j B I B B f . . j 36. threatenea to hit you, or throw something 1 at you, in anger | ~37."push6/r{s rabbid, cr"shoved you .............j 38. slapped y o u ...... ~ S I1 No Yes ; •'!.> ''os; No Yes ! \ii No Maybe Yes M a/v v'es No Maybe Y'e« ivi> May1 .)*. '■ > r L B l l L ~,. » „w \ iisitfi iSSSIIi aw aii ^ T J 40. burned you |1 No Yes No Maybe Yes 1 i Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 shaken you 42. thrown, smashed, hit, or kicked something __^ _ _ _ : j 4 * » lw l. ^ w li J I w t/J ltiU N O ‘\> ' No Yes No : v i _ - 5 y ! .• - ' w ... No Maybe Yes No ’'os ' i p i tiswil d s s 44. thrown, or tried to throw you, bodily No Yes No Maybe Yes 4£ thrown an object at you * 0 Ye: 'M o Mayhe 46. choked or strangled you No Yes No Maybe Yes ; icked, bit or hit you with a fist ! ’.•> 'O ,:' No Vtayhe'-'es- 48. hit you, or tried to hit you, with something No Yes No Maybe Yes '-u '-'c, M o ■ v ,.iybe v(w t n ® 50. threatened you with a knife or gun No Yes No Maybe Yes 'I f; i> '„ : s O F/ovhe v 'r! ; i 52. used humiliation to make you have sex No Yes No Maybe Yes M o 'iA No N r'y ;,.-: v(;;; 54. coerced you to engage in sexual practices you did not ,„w ant _ ............. _ _ _ No Yes No Maybe Yes K;> Miay',-eVrv., H i S S ® S ! #8)1 S 8 1 II H U 56. physically prevented you from leaving No Yes ■ lS o Ye: No Yes No Maybe Yes i N-. fca/n: ’ m o s im ^ m No Maybe Yes H E an argument or blocked your exit 1 58 choweu respect for your feelings about an issue 53. suggested 4 compromise to a c ■ 1 ■ ‘ ■ No .tyiaybc v iB lliS S llllll §lWi8| 60. aqreed io a solution you suggested No Yes No Maybe Yes No Yus fro Mpyfre v :r> ■ R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I 5 5 •£ & 'a b a o o 0 1 •g R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 119 o « 1 = 4 m > P •a a 8 2 1 ■ 3 *S R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. s R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. % .2 "So V 2 a, H a, o o 0 1 •8 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ________ APPENDIX H_______________________ _ __________ Social Coping Interview - Child “Now, for this part I’ll be asking things about you, and about things that have happened to you. I want you to tell me things that are really true about you, not about someone else. Some things might be easy and fun for you to tell me. Other things might seem a little hard or embarrassing to tell me, but it’s really OK to tell me those things. This isn’t like school. There are no right or wrong answers. I just want to learn more about you and other kids your age, and you can help me a lot with this. Other kids have given me all kinds of answers to these questions. After each question I ask you, I will want you to do some brainstorming. Do you know what brainstorming means? Brainstorming means coming up with as many examples, or ideas, as you can think of. So if I asked you to brainstorm about different kinds of animals, what would you say? (Have the child list several kinds animals.) Yes, that’s brainstorming. I’ll be asking you to come up with as many different examples, or ideas, as you can think of, about dealing with certain situations. I’ll tell you when it’s time to brainstorm. Are you ready to begin? i-o K > Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Situation A_____________________________ ________ “I want you to imagine yourself in the follow ing situation: You’re in your school library reading a magazine. You leave your seat to get a drink of water, and while you’re away, another student comes by and takes your m agazine. You return and see the student sitting dow n, with your m agazine in his/her hands." 1. “What would yen do. say, or think to deal with the situation?” (READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”) *A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be, or in other words, how well do you think this would work out? 0 = Not at all 2 = Som ew hat 4 = Very **B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)? 0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3= Yes Responses * Effectiveness ** A) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 B) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response) 0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time N J U 3 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Situation B_______________________ _ “ Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine: You’re outside your classroom, waiting for school to begin, and another student starts teasing you and calling you names." 1 . “What would you do. sav. or think to deal with the situation?” (READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”) *A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be? 0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very **B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)? 0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood A) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 B) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response) 0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time to 4 ^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Situation C “Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine: You hear about a birthday party that your friend is having this weekend, but you haven’t been invited. Later, when you see your friend, he/she says nothing about the party. It is clear that you are not invited.“ 1. “What w o u ld you do. sav. or th in k to d eal with th e situ a tio n ?” (READ P R O M P T UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with die situation?”) *A) H ow effective w ou ld (READ RESPONSE) be? . 0 = N ot at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very **B) I f th is really h ap p en ed , w ou ld y o u (READ RESPONSE)? 0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Y es 3 = Yes Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood A) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 B) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 Q 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response) 0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time 01 Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ________ Situation D____ ___________________ _ _ _____ ______ “ Now I’m going to give you another situation to imagine: You’re at school having lunch. Another student walks by and bumps into you. Two minutes later, the same student walks by and bumps into you again. This time you’re sure that it wasn’t an accident."_______ ___________ 1. “What would you do, say, or think to deal with the situation?” (READ PROMPT UP TO 2 TIMES FOR 3 RESPONSES: “Anything else you would do, say, or think to deal with the situation?”) *A) How effective would (READ RESPONSE) be? 0 = Not at all 2 = Somewhat 4 = Very **B) If this really happened, would you (READ RESPONSE)? 0 = No 1 = Probably Not 2 = Probably Yes 3 = Yes Responses * Effectiveness ** Likelihood A ) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 B) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 C) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 2. “How often have you been in this situation, or one like this?” (Circle response) 0 = Never 1 = Almost never 2 = Sometimes 3 = A lot of times 4 = All the time to o s 127 Q Z. e R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 128 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Intra-familial child sexual abuse: The experience and effects on non-offending mothers

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mediator between family-of-origin aggression and marital aggression

PDF

Parental frequency and satisfaction with children's daily activities

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

Effects of parenting style and ethnic identity on European American and Asian Indian adolescents' academic competence and self esteem

PDF

An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample

PDF

Determining competent/resilient outcomes across multiple domains in sexually abused and nonabused females

PDF

Intergenerational conflict, family functioning, and acculturation experienced by Asian American community college students

PDF

Childhood videotaped neuromotor and social precursors of schizophrenia: A prospective investigation

PDF

Family functioning, intergenerational conflict, and psychological symptomology of Asian American college students

PDF

Emergent literacy: A sense of becoming and being literate in Latino families

PDF

A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

PDF

Interfaith family process and the negotiation of identity and difference

PDF

A comparative study of the family processes of youth of Mexican descent who have dropped out of high school and those who have remained in school

PDF

Factors influencing the interpretation of novel words as adjectives in 4-year-old Spanish -speaking children

PDF

Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Intergenerational social support and the psychological well-being of older parents in China

PDF

Filial expectations and social exchange patterns among older Taiwanese parents and their adult children

PDF

Insights into the nature of phonological and surface dyslexia: Evidence from a novel word learning task

PDF

Interviews with children: how they perceive psychotherapy

Asset Metadata

Creator Rios, Martha Acosta (author)

Core Title Hostile family environments and children's perceptions of social support

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical,psychology, social,sociology, individual and family studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Daley, Shannon (committee member), Manis, Franklin (committee member), O'Keefe, Maura (committee member), Schwartz, David (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-341501

Unique identifier UC11335741

Identifier 3180360.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-341501 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180360.pdf

Dmrecord 341501

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rios, Martha Acosta

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA