HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Fam Psychol. 2015 February ; 29(1): 39–48. doi:10.1037/fam0000043.

Mediation and Moderation of Divorce Effects on Children’s

Behavior Problems
Jennifer Weaver and
Department of Psychology, Boise State University

Thomas Schofield
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University
Author Manuscript

Abstract
Using data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, we examined
children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems from age 5 to age 15 in relation to
whether they had experienced a parental divorce. Children from divorced families had more
behavior problems compared with a propensity score-matched sample of children from intact
families according to both teachers and mothers. They exhibited more internalizing and
externalizing problems at the first assessment after the parents’ separation and at the last available
assessment (age 11 for teacher reports, or age 15 for mother reports). Divorce also predicted both
short-term and long-term rank-order increases in behavior problems. Associations between divorce
and child behavior problems were moderated by family income (assessed before the divorce) such
that children from families with higher incomes prior to the separation had fewer internalizing
problems than children from families with lower incomes prior to the separation. Higher levels of
Author Manuscript

pre-divorce maternal sensitivity and child IQ also functioned as protective factors for children of
divorce. Mediation analyses showed that children were more likely to exhibit behavior problems
after the divorce if their post-divorce home environment was less supportive and stimulating, their
mother was less sensitive and more depressed, and their household income was lower. We discuss
avenues for intervention, particularly efforts to improve the quality of home environments in
divorced families.

Keywords
divorce; internalizing and externalizing behavior problems; longitudinal study

In today’s world, divorce is a normative event, affecting approximately half of all marriages
Author Manuscript

in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Many of the children caught up in the experience of
divorce exhibit difficulties in functioning, including frequent behavior problems and
deficiencies in academic performance, even years following the event (Amato, 2001, 2010;
Amato & Keith, 1991; Lansford et al., 2006; Wood, Repute, & Rosh, 2004). Parental divorce
does not affect all children to the same extent, however. Some children ride out the
dissolution of their family relatively unscathed, whereas others continue to show difficulties
in behavioral and psychological adjustment (Amato, 1994, 2000, 2001; Hetherington, 1989,
1999; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Lansford, 2009). The developmental psychopathology
framework (Davies & Cicchetti, 2004; Sroufe & Rutter, 1984) informs this investigation of
 Weaver and Schofield Page 2

why some children function better than others following parental divorce. This framework
Author Manuscript

focuses on studying processes over time in development, stresses the importance of

individual trajectories of adjustment to adverse events (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell,
2000), and focuses attention on risk and protective factors that can affect these trajectories.
Drawing on these concepts of risk and protection, we examined why some children function
better than others following parental separation. We model longitudinal trajectories of
behavior problems in a sample of children whose parents separated and a matched control
sample of children in continuously married families and examine both mediators and
moderators of the hypothesized association between parental divorce and behavior problems.

Adaptation over Time

Understanding patterns of adaptation is an important aspect of the developmental
psychopathology model (Cummings et al., 2000) and researchers have frequently used
Author Manuscript

growth-curve modeling to investigate how children adapt to their parents’ divorce over time
in terms of absolute change, or change in mean levels over time. Lansford et al. (2006)
examined trajectories of children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems from 1
year prior to 3 years following parental separation, using a group matched on ethnicity,
gender and socioeconomic (SES) status as a comparison. They found that separation/divorce
was related to trajectories of increasing internalizing and externalizing problems, though
there was some evidence of pre-divorce differences in externalizing problems. Using a
similar multi-level modeling approach, Magnusen and Berger (2009) also observed that
experiencing family status transitions, such as into a single-mother or step-father family, was
associated with increases in behavior problems over time. Magnuson and Berger also found
that individuals in divorced families differed from individuals in intact families in systematic
ways leading to selection biases. Longitudinal associations between divorce and children’s
Author Manuscript

adjustment were also found in several other studies (Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale, & McRae,
1998; Ge, Natsuaki, & Conger, 2006; Strohschein, 2005). In sum, prior research shows that
divorce is associated with changes in child behavior problems, though these findings are
tempered by selection effects and preexisting differences between children in divorced
families and children in intact families. The current study contributes to this literature by
modeling absolute change in child behavior, while controlling for selection effects through
propensity score-based matching, which is rare in studies of divorce (Frisco, Muller, &
Frank, 2007).

In addition to modeling children’s adjustment to divorce as a trajectory representing absolute

change in behavior problems, an alternative is to model relative changes in their behavior
over time, using children’s own pre-divorce behavior as a control. This approach allows for
Author Manuscript

an examination of whether children of divorce exhibit a change in their rank-ordering of

behavior problems relative to other children. Although studies which control for predivorce
characteristics of the child are comparatively rare, including pre-divorce measures of child
behavior in analyses of divorce effects is particularly critical, given the evidence supporting
a selection perspective on divorce effects (Amato, 2000; Clarke-Steward & Brentano, 2006).
Essentially, this perspective argues that some children show difficulties in functioning prior
to divorce, and therefore the purported effects of divorce might be eliminated if children’s
level of functioning prior to the divorce were taken into account (Videon, 2002; Allison &

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 3

Furstenberg, 1989; Hetherington, 1999). Indeed, many researchers who have adopted this
Author Manuscript

approach report that controlling for pre-divorce differences reduces or eliminates divorce
effects (Cherlin, Church-Lansdale & McRea, 1998; Størksen et al, 2005). If pre-divorce
differences are not controlled for, even longitudinal data cannot effectively speak to the
causal effect of divorce (Sun & Li, 2001). The present study contributes to this literature by
modeling both trajectories of absolute change in children from divorced and intact families,
as well as relative change, controlling for pre-divorce behavior.

Moderating the Effects of Divorce: Risk and Protective Factors

According to Amato (2000, pg. 1272), “Protective factors act like shock absorbers and
weaken the links between divorce-related events and people’s experience of stress, and
hence the extent to which divorce is followed by negative emotional, behavioral, or health
problems.” In selecting protective and risk factors, we drew from Garmezy’s (1985)
Author Manuscript

tripartite model of protective factors, which includes (a) dispositional characteristics of the
child, (b) family characteristics, and (c) extrafamilial contexts. We limited our focus to the
first two areas, considering how their effects might buffer children from the effects of
divorce. Within the domain of dispositional attributes we examined child intelligence as a
potential moderating factor; within the domain of family characteristics we examined
positive parenting as a protective factor and higher family income prior to the divorce as a
potential buffer.

Child intelligence has often been identified as an important protective factor for children
experiencing adversity (Rutter, 2006). For example, Hawaiian children in Werner’s (1993)
study of resilience coped more effectively with extreme poverty when they had higher levels
of intelligence. In a similar manner, more intelligent children may be better equipped
Author Manuscript

cognitively to handle the challenges presented by a parental divorce. They may be better able
to understand why their parents are separating and to reason about possible benefits of
divorce for their parents and perhaps themselves. Although intelligence is frequently studied
in research on child resilience, it is rarely considered as a protective factor for children of
divorce. In one study, Katz and Gottman (1997) did find that children’s intelligence partially
buffered them from the negative effects of marital conflict and dissolution in terms of peer
relations and academic achievement. In the present study, we extend Katz and Gottman’s
work by looking at the relation between child intelligence and post-divorce adjustment over
a longer and later age period rather than the 3-year period from age 5 to age 8 they observed.

Positive parenting, including being sensitive and responsive to the child’s needs, is likely to
protect children from the negative fallout associated with parental divorce because it
increases the child’s sense of stability and security in the parent-child relationship and can
Author Manuscript

strengthen the child’s coping abilities when faced with the challenges of parental separation
(Amato, 2000; Hetherington, 1999; Kelly & Emery, 2003; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000).
Wolchik and colleagues (2000) reported that maternal acceptance of the child moderated
post-divorce stress and predicted fewer internalizing and externalizing problems in children
aged 8–12. However, this study lacked a comparison group of intact families, and the
researchers were not able to model longitudinal associations between parenting and child
adjustment. These limitations are addressed in the current study.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 4

Adults have more trouble adjusting to divorce if they have less income (Amato, 2000; Booth
Author Manuscript

& Amato, 1991; Duffy, Thomas & Trayner, 2002). Extending this finding to children of
divorce, one might expect that children from families with higher incomes prior to the
divorce would be less affected by their parents’ separation than children whose families had
fewer monetary resources, because they would be less likely to experience stresses from
poor housing, education, neighborhoods, and communities. The current study further
contributes to this research area by testing for moderating effects of these three factors.

Processes Linking Divorce and Children’s Problem Behaviors

A focus on process is an important aspect of the developmental psychopathology approach,
and for this reason we examine four post-separation processes, or mediators, through which
divorce might lead to problems in children’s adjustment: family income, mother’s depressive
symptoms, mother’s sensitivity to the child, and the quality of the home environment.
Author Manuscript

Family income is likely to decline after a divorce (Fields, 2003), and parents with limited
resources generally experience greater stress and have less energy to devote to their children
and the children are more likely to have mental health difficulties (Barrett & Turner, 2005).
Parents are also likely to provide less sensitive care to their children following a divorce and
may experience more depressive symptoms as well (Whiteside & Becker, 2000). In addition,
the environment in the home of a divorced family may be less supportive of children’s
development (Poehlmann & Fiese, 1994), because parents are distracted and distressed and
unable to provide the same level of cognitive and social stimulation. Each of these factors
may offer a pathway through which divorce could result in adjustment difficulties in children
following a divorce.

The Current Study

Author Manuscript

In the current study we modeled children’s trajectories of problem behaviors assessed by

multiple informants from age 5 to age 15. We sought to model the effects of a variety of
protective factors to identify dispositional or family characteristics that characterize children
who fare better or worse following divorce. Lastly, we examined the processes that link
parental divorce with problem outcomes. This study is particularly unique in the literature on
divorce for several important reasons. First, unlike many studies of divorce effects (e.g.
Cherlin at al., 1991; Morrison & Cherlin 1995; Robbers et al., 2011) we took a quasi-
experimental approach to our analyses, using propensity score matching to attain a sample
of divorced and intact families. Secondly, we analyzed the effects of divorce from multiple
perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of the potential effects on children’s
adjustment: we modeled trajectories of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems to
Author Manuscript

determine if divorce related to the intercept or slope of problem behaviors; we modeled rank
order changes in problem behaviors by taking into account children’s pre-divorce level of
problem behaviors; and divorced and intact families were compared at the assessment
immediately before the divorce and again at the assessment immediately following the
divorce to examine the short-term effect of divorce, to complement the long-term effect of
divorce addressed by the first two approaches. Lastly, longitudinal assessments of family
characteristics make our findings particularly informative, as we were able to test for both
moderation (using pre-divorce assessments) and mediation (using post-divorce assessments)

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 5

To our knowledge, nowhere in the literature have such comprehensive analyses been
Author Manuscript

undertaken in a single study.

The following specific hypotheses were tested:

1. We anticipated that, on average, children from divorced families would

have more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems than children
from intact families (Ge, Natsuaki, & Conger, 2006; Lansford et al., 2006;
Strohschein, 2005). We hypothesized that this difference would be evident
in a higher mean number of behavior problems and a sharper increase in
problems following parental separation, even after accounting for the
child’s pre-divorce behavior problems.

2. Divorce effects will be moderated by several protective factors related to

child and family characteristics. We anticipated that more intelligent
Author Manuscript

children and children with sensitive mothers would be buffered from the
negative consequences of divorce. Finally, we anticipated that children
from more affluent families prior to the divorce would be less affected by
their parents’ separation because they had experienced less stress and
strain in their pre-divorce family.

3. Divorce effects will be mediated by family and parental characteristics

including post-divorce custodial parent income, post-divorce maternal
sensitivity and depressive symptoms, and the quality of the post-divorce
home environment.

Method
Author Manuscript

Participants
Participants were the families in the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. These families were
recruited in 1991, shortly after their child’s birth, from hospitals at 10 sites across the United
States (Little Rock, AR; Irvine, CA; Lawrence, KS; Boston, MA; Philadelphia, PA;
Pittsburgh, PA; Charlottesville, VA; Morganton, NC; Seattle, WA; and Madison, WI).
Specific recruitment procedures are detailed more thoroughly by the NICHD Early Child
Care Research Network (ECCRN) (2005). When infants were 1 month old, 1,364 mothers
completed a home interview and became part of the initial study sample. This sample
included a substantial proportion of low education parents (30% had no more than a high
school degree), ethnic minority families (13% were African American compared with the
national proportion of 12%), and the mean income level was the same as the U.S. average
Author Manuscript

($37,000).

Procedures and Variables

Detailed measures of family demographics, maternal behaviors, and children’s
characteristics and adjustment were obtained from multiple informants beginning when
children were 1 month of age and continuing until they were 15 years old. Assessments were

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 6

conducted when children were 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 24, 36, 42, 46, 50, and 54 months old, in
Author Manuscript

Kindergarten and grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and at ages 14 and 15 years.

Marital status variables—Children’s experience of a parents’ divorce was determined

from information collected from mothers at multiple time points. Mothers reported on their
current marital arrangements when children were 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 24, 36, 42, 46, 50, and 54
months old, in Kindergarten (M = 5.10 years) and grades 1 (M = 6.45 years), 2 (M = 7.39
years), 3 (M = 8.42 years), 4 (M = 9.32 years), 5 (M= 10.6 years), 6 (M = 11.36 years), and
7 (M = 12.5 years), and at ages 14 and 15 years. Of the original sample of 1364 children,
355 families were lost to attrition before the children were 15 years old resulting in a 73.4%
retention rate in the study (N = 1009 at age 15). Families who remained in the study until
age 15 did not differ significantly in minority status from families who failed to continue,
but they were more likely to be considered above the poverty line according to their income-
to-needs ratio, χ2 (1, N= 1273) = 27.25, p < .001; to have an older mother, r(1362) = .14, p
Author Manuscript

< .001; and to have a mother with more years of education, r(1361) = .14, p < .001.

For analyses, the entire sample was examined for reports of divorce. Of the original sample
(N = 1364), 770 mothers (56.5% of the original sample) reported being continuously
married at available time points and 260 (19.1%) mothers began the study married at 1
month and subsequently reported a separation or divorce. The remaining 334 families who
began the study at one month were excluded either because they reported cohabitating with a
partner (N = 153, 11.2%); were widowed or single parents at the first assessment(N = 150,
11%), reported an ambiguous change from married to partnered/living together (N = 18;
1.3%) began the study separated (N = 11, 0.8%), or had extensive missing data on the
marital status variable (N=2, 0.1%).
Author Manuscript

These 260 families comprised the divorced sample for all analyses; the distribution of
children’s ages at the time of separation is presented in Table 1.

Propensity to divorce and selection of a matched control group—To reduce

selection effects relating to divorce, we created a score reflecting a couple’s propensity to
divorce by combining covariates of divorce into a composite score (Rosenbaum & Rubin,
1983). Six variables that previous research had shown to co-vary with divorce were analyzed
for inclusion: mother’s age, father’s ethnicity, couple’s socioeconomic status, couple’s
marital conflict, mother’s depression, and mother’s parenting stress. Socioeconomic status
(SES) was defined as the average of five standardized indicators collected at the first
assessment: mother’s education, father’s education, father’s employment status, mother’s
employment status, and family’s income-to-needs ratio. When divorce status was regressed
Author Manuscript

onto these six variables using logistic regression, all six showed unique predictive effects:
Exp (b) = .937, p < .001 for mother’s age, Exp (b) = 2.26, p < .001 for father’s ethnicity, Exp
(b) = .668, p = .003 for couple’s socioeconomic status, Exp (b) = 1.38, p < .001 for couple’s
marital conflict, Exp(b) = 1.02, p = .040 for mother’s depression, and Exp (b) = 1.02, p = .
029 for mother’s parenting stress. Therefore, the propensity score was created by saving the
predicted probability of divorce based on the logistic regression of divorce status onto these
six predictors. A high score represented a high probability of divorce (young age of mother,
low SES, African American father, high marital conflict, high maternal depression, and high

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 7

maternal parenting stress); propensity scores ranged from .07 to .78; M = .30, SD = .13. We
Author Manuscript

then selected a sample of 260 intact married families (from the total sample of 770) matched
to the separated/divorced sample by propensity scores. Each of the 260 separated/divorced
families was manually matched to the intact family that was their nearest neighbor on the
propensity variable, with matching beginning at the families who had the highest propensity
to divorce (without replacement). Of these matches, 95% were within .10 on the propensity
score. The maximum distance between matched families required to match the final 5% of
the sample was .15.

Child outcomes—Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems: Mothers completed

age-appropriate versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach 1991, 1992)
when children were 24 months, 36 months, 54 months, in Kindergarten, in grades 1, 3, 4, 5,
and 6, and age 15. Teachers completed the Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior
Checklist (TRF; Achenbach, 1991) each year beginning when children were in Kindergarten
Author Manuscript

through grade 6. These instruments are recognized as highly reliable and valid measures of
children’s behavior problems (Achenbach, 1991; 1992).

Moderator variables—Pre-divorce family income to needs: family’s income-to-needs

ratio from each assessment point, averaged across the pre-divorce assessments (M = 3.79;
SD= 2.63, average correlation across assessments was r = .85). Averaging across all
available pre-divorce assessments produces an estimate that is not only representative of a
longer period of time (and therefore a more accurate representation of persistent economic
stress) but is also much more reliable.

Pre-divorce maternal sensitivity: Observations of mothers’ sensitivity when interacting with

their children were obtained eight times between age 6 months and grade 6. Videotapes of
Author Manuscript

mother-child interactions involving play scenarios and problem-solving tasks were made at
each of the study’s 10 sites and sent to a single site for central coding, with coders blind to
other information about the families. Rating scales were designed to capture the mother’s
emotional and instrumental support for the child’s engagement with the task activities as
well as collaborative interactions between mother and child. Individual ratings were
combined at each age to represent maternal sensitivity in the interaction tasks. In order to
maintain an age-appropriate measure of the construct, maternal sensitivity indicators
changed somewhat over time, to reflect a developmentally appropriate measure of the same
construct at each time point. Inter-coder reliability was established by having two coders
assess approximately 20% of the tapes, randomly drawn from each assessment period.
Additional details regarding coding procedures, training and reliabilities is available in
NICHD ECCRN (1999, 2003 and 2006). For assessments at 6, 15, 24, and 36 months,
Author Manuscript

sensitivity scores reflected the sum of three 4-point ratings: sensitivity to the child’s non-
distress signals, positive regard, and intrusiveness (reversed); these scores were recoded (by

multiplying each by ) to 7-point scales to make them comparable to observational scales

obtained at later time points. The sensitivity score at 54 months and in grades 1, 3 and 5 was
computed as the sum of three 7-point ratings: supportive presence, respect for autonomy, and
hostility (reversed). For tests of moderation, mothers’ average sensitivity from all pre-
divorce assessments were used (M = 16.75; SD = 2.03, average correlation across

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 8

assessments was r = .46). Averaging across all available pre-divorce assessments produces
Author Manuscript

an estimate that is a more accurate representation of persistent maternal sensitivity) and is

more reliable (α = .79).

Child’s IQ: Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence scores when the child was in grade
4; observed values ranged from 71 to 145 (M = 107.44; SD= 13.84).

Mediator variables—Post-divorce home environment: The HOME Inventory (Caldwell &

Bradley, 1984) was used to measure the quality and quantity of stimulation and support
available to children at home. Information for the HOME Inventory was gathered when
children were 54 months old and in grades 1 and 3. At 54 months, the HOME Inventory for
Early Childhood was administered. In grades 1 and 3, the Middle Childhood HOME
Inventory was completed. For each assessment, a HOME total score was computed, with
higher scores denoting greater stimulation and support. To test whether this variable was a
Author Manuscript

mediator of divorce effects, we used an average from all post-divorce assessments (M =

41.29; SD = 5.11, average correlation across assessments was r = .64), (α = .84).

Post-divorce maternal depression: Mothers’ depression was assessed using the CES-D scale
(Radloff, 1977) when children were 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months old, in grades 1, 3, 5, and
6, and at age 15. To examine whether mothers’ depression mediated associations between
divorce and children’s behavior problems, we used an average from all post-divorce
assessments of depressive symptoms (M = 9.48; SD = 6.88, average correlation across
assessments was r = .55). Averaging across all available post-divorce assessments produces
an estimate that is more representative of the average home environment, and is more
reliable.

Post-divorce maternal sensitivity: To examine whether maternal sensitivity mediated

Author Manuscript

associations between divorce and children’s adjustment, we used mothers’ summed

sensitivity scores from all post-divorce assessments (M = 16.71; SD = 2.01, average
correlation across assessments was r = .48).

Post-divorce family income to needs ratio: The family’s income-to-needs ratio was
computed as the ratio between total family income and the poverty threshold for each year
the data were collected. The household income of the custodial parent was computed and
averaged across post-divorce assessments to create the post-divorce income variable (M =
3.81; SD = 2.84, average correlation across assessments was r = .82).

Data analytic strategy—We used Mplus Version 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2006) to estimate
models using full-information maximum likelihood estimation (missingness was less than
Author Manuscript

11% for every cell of the covariance matrix). Analyses focused on both absolute change as
well as relative change. Absolute change refers to changes in mean level over time, whereas
relative change refers to shifts in rank order (Caspi & Bem, 1990). It is possible for one of
these types of change to be present without the other. Therefore, to establish whether divorce
is associated with either absolute change or relative change, we assess both separately. We
also wanted to address whether divorce was associated with either short-term effects, or

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 9

long-term change. Consequently, three approaches were followed to assess the effect of
Author Manuscript

parental divorce on children’s adjustment.

First, models identifying latent intercepts and linear and quadratic slopes were fit to each of
the four child outcomes (standardized into T-scores) to model absolute change in children’s
behavior problems from kindergarten through sixth grade (teacher report) and eighth grade
(mother report). For example, the intercept of teacher externalizing was a latent factor with
loadings of 1 onto each assessment (kindergarten – grade 6). The linear slope of teacher
externalizing was a latent factor with loadings of −6 onto the kindergarten assessment, −5
onto the assessment at first grade, −4 onto the assessment at second grade, and so on. The
quadratic slope of teacher externalizing was a latent factor with loadings of 36 onto the
kindergarten assessment, 25 onto the assessment at first grade, 16 onto the assessment at
second grade, and so on. Growth models were centered at the last available timepoint (grade
6 for teacher reports, age 15 for mother reports), allowing us to examine their adjustment in
Author Manuscript

adolescence. This specification meant that the event of parental divorce temporally preceded
the intercept, and occurred at some point either before or during the measured slope. This
also means that differences in the intercept associated with divorce represent a conservative
test, as the intercept is as temporally distant from the event of parental divorce as the data
allow.

Second, rank-order change in children’s behavior problems was modeled by regressing

mother-reported internalizing and externalizing problems from the most distal post-divorce
assessment (age 15) onto mother-reported problems from the assessment immediately
preceding the divorce (within 24 months of divorce for 98% of families). We also pulled one
family at random from the propensity-matched never-divorced pool and used their data from
the same timepoint as the family who experienced divorce. This allowed us to create a age-
Author Manuscript

matched control group. Because teacher-reported outcomes were available only from
kindergarten through sixth grade, these analyses of relative change were conducted only for
mother-reported problems.

Third, divorced and intact families were compared at the assessment immediately before the
divorce and again at the assessment immediately following the divorce (within 12 months of
divorce for 98% of families) to examine the immediate short-term effect of divorce, rather
than the long-term effect addressed by the first two approaches.

Moderators were tested by entering the variable representing divorce, the hypothesized
moderator (centered), and the product of the moderator and divorce. Mediation of divorce
was assessed by entering each hypothesized mediator into a regression analysis that allowed
the estimation of the indirect path from divorce status to child outcomes via the mediator.
Author Manuscript

Results
Descriptive Analyses
Associations between Divorce and Child Problems—The first set of analyses tested
associations between divorce and the intercept and slope for each child outcome. Divorce
status was related to the intercept for all four outcomes but was not related to the slopes.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 10

Children from divorced families had more internalizing problems at grade 6 reported by
Author Manuscript

teachers, b = 2.23, p = .008, more internalizing problems at age 15 reported by mothers, b =

1.70, p = .014, more externalizing problems at grade 6 reported by teachers, b = 3.56, p < .
001, and more externalizing problems at age 15 reported by mothers, b = 2.59, p < .001.
Specifically, at the last available assessment, teachers and mothers rated the behavior
problems of children from divorced families approximately one-fifth of a standard deviation
higher than the problems of children from intact families. Model fits were all acceptable,
with RMSEA values ranging from .034 to .043 and TLI values ranging from .934 to .986.

The second set of analyses tested the effect of divorce in a framework that modeled relative,
or rank order change, rather than absolute change. Rank-order stability refers to the
consistency of the relative ordering of individuals over time and provides an indicator of the
extent to which participants maintain their relative position in a group over time (Caspi &
Bem, 1990). Mother-reported internalizing at age 15 was regressed onto divorce status and
Author Manuscript

pre-divorce mother-reported internalizing, and mother-reported externalizing at age 15 was

regressed onto divorce status and pre-divorce mother-reported externalizing. The fit of this
model was acceptable, χ2 = 9.65, df = 5, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .043. Divorce predicted rank-
order increases in internalizing, β = .10, SE = .04, p = .011 and externalizing, β = .10, SE
= .04, p = .011.

Third, comparison of children from a matched sample of intact and separated/divorced

families at the assessment immediately before the parents’ separation showed no significant
differences in mother-reported internalizing problems, mother-reported externalizing
problems, teacher-reported externalizing problems, or teacher-reported internalizing
problems. However, comparison of intact and separated/divorced families at the first
assessment following the parents’ separation showed significant increases in mother-
Author Manuscript

reported internalizing problems, β = .09, p = .036, mother-reported externalizing problems,

β = .12, p = .013, teacher-reported externalizing problems, β = .16, p < .001, and teacher-
reported internalizing problems, β = .14, p = .001.

Moderators of Divorce Effects

Pre-divorce income to needs ratio: Family income before the divorce moderated the effect
of divorce on the intercept of teacher-reported child externalizing problems, χ2 = 72.11, df =
38, TLI =.966, RMSEA = .043; b = −.58, SE = .28. Among divorced families, children from
families with higher incomes prior to the separation had less internalizing problems than
children from families with lower incomes prior to the separation. Income was not a
significant moderator of divorce effects on the other child outcomes or on child outcome
slopes.
Author Manuscript

Mother’s pre-divorce sensitivity: Mother’s sensitivity toward the child moderated the
effect of divorce on the intercept of teacher-reported externalizing problems, χ2 = 59.62, df
= 31, TLI =.973, RMSEA = .036; b = −.80, SE = .30. Moderation was also evident for the
quadratic slope of mother-reported child internalizing problems, b = .005, p = .001, mother-
reported child externalizing problems, b =.003, p = .022, and teacher-reported child
internalizing problems, b = .009, p = .031. In each instance, mother’s sensitivity functioned

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 11

as a protective factor buffering the effect of divorce (i.e., there were fewer problems or
Author Manuscript

problems decreased more rapidly). When graphed (Figures 1–2), results for mother-reported
internalizing and externalizing reflected that maternal sensitivity was most protective during
middle to late childhood..

Child’s intelligence: The child’s IQ moderated the effect of divorce on the intercept of
teacher-reported child internalizing problems, χ2 = 62.19, df = 31, TLI =.986, RMSEA = .
043; b = 1.23, SE = .60, and the linear slope of teacher-reported child externalizing
problems, χ2 = 51.79, df = 31, TLI =.975, RMSEA = .049; b = −.16, SE = .08. Moderation
was also evident for the quadratic slope of mother-reported child internalizing problems, b
= .006, p = .016, and mother-reported child externalizing problems, b = .005, p = .018. In
each instance, IQ functioned as a protective factor; that is, the association between divorce
and high levels of behavior problems was weaker for more intelligent children (Figures 3–4).
Author Manuscript

Mediators of Divorce Effects

Associations between mediators and child problems: In a preliminary analysis to confirm
that divorce predicted the selected mediator variables, we computed associations between
divorce status and the 4 mediators. Divorce was associated with home environment = [r] −.
42, maternal depression = .25, maternal sensitivity = −.34, and family income-to-needs = .26
(all assessed post-divorce, all significant at p < .01). We then tested for mediation by
examining the significance of indirect paths (employing bootstrapped confidence intervals;
MacKinnon, 2008). Fit for these mediation models was good, with RMSEA values ranging
from .023 to .053, and TLI values ranging from .983 to .937. Results for mediation analyses
are presented in Table 2. For example, teacher reported internalizing was partially mediated
by post-divorce family income, maternal depression, and maternal sensitivity. Home
environment fully mediated the association between parental divorce and teacher-reported
Author Manuscript

internalizing problems, as evidenced by the nonsignificant main effect of parental divorce

when home environment was included in the model. When all these mediators were tested
simultaneously, only the post-divorce home environment remained significant. Across the
four child outcomes, family income mediated once, maternal depression and home
environment mediated three times, whereas maternal sensitivity mediated four times.

Discussion
In this study we analyzed children’s longitudinal adjustment to their parents’ divorce in
terms of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems rated by teachers and mothers,
modeled processes by which divorce leads to increases in behavior problems, and identified
protective factors that moderate the effects of divorce on children’s adjustment.
Author Manuscript

As predicted, children from divorced families had significantly more behavior problems than
peers from intact families, and these problems were evident immediately after the separation
and later on, in early and middle adolescence. This is an important finding, because many
studies and reviews of divorce have concluded that children return to typical functioning
after the first two years following the divorce (Amato, 1994, 2001; Hetherington, 1999;
Kelly & Emery, 2003). Our results suggest that divorce effects can be quite persistent,
consistent with findings from two other longitudinal studies of children’s adjustment

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 12

trajectories (Cherlin et al., 1998, VanderValk, Spruijt, de Goede, Maas, & Meeus, 2005).
Author Manuscript

Associations were small in size, but were in line with results of meta-analyses reported in
the literature (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991). Effects were evident both at home as
reported by mothers and at school as reported by teachers, suggesting that the observed
differences were not the result of setting or informant bias.

Divorce did not lead to a faster increase in behavior problems. However, children from
divorced families did increase in their rank order of behavior problems in a relative change
model that took into account behavior problems immediately prior to the divorce. This
finding indicates that, relative to the rest of the sample, children from divorced families
increased in their ranking of behavior problems. Thus, for example, a child from a divorced
family may go from a relative rank of 7 in the sample to a ranking of 5 post-divorce. It is
rare in studies of divorce for researchers to control for children’s pre-divorce problems, and
this is an important contribution made by the current study.
Author Manuscript

Analysis of moderators of divorce effects revealed that children were more likely to exhibit
externalizing behavior problems after their parents’ separation if they came from families
that had fewer financial resources before the separation. Thus, having greater family income
prior to the divorce appeared to buffer children from the negative consequences of divorce.
For children with lower incomes, the experience of stress due to family financial woes, lack
of educational and community resources, and perhaps neighborhood crime exacerbated
children’s difficulty adjusting to the divorce. Few researchers have analyzed pre-divorce
family income as a specific risk factor for children, instead focusing on the loss of resources
post-divorce (Gadalla, 2009; Fischer, 2007). This is another contribution made by the
present study, and it suggests that child advocates should make children from low-income
families a particular focus for intervention aimed at helping children adjust to divorce.
Author Manuscript

We also found that mother’s pre-divorce sensitivity buffered the overall effect of divorce on
children’s externalizing problems reported by teachers. It also decreased children’s divorce-
related internalizing problems reported by teachers and internalizing and externalizing
problems reported by mothers. These findings extend the results of previous research and the
current study showing that good parenting after divorce has positive effects for children by
suggesting that mothers’ good parenting before the divorce also predicts better and more
rapid adjustment for children.

Another protective factor was children’s intelligence. If children had higher IQ scores, this
buffered the effect of divorce on internalizing problems reported by teachers and the rate of
decrease in teacher-reported externalizing behaviors. Previous research has indicated that
child intelligence buffers children from negative effects of divorce (Guidubaldi &
Author Manuscript

Duckworth, 2001; Hetherington, 1989; Katz & Gottman, 1997; Kraynak, 1997; Wallerstein
& Kelly, 1980), although the present study suggests that intelligence, and maternal
sensitivity as well, may not be sufficient to fully inoculate children from problems
associated with divorce, as children at age 15 still evinced behavior difficulties.

Analysis of mediators of divorce effects revealed that children were more likely to exhibit
behavior problems after the divorce because their post-divorce home environment was less

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 13

supportive and stimulating, their mother was less sensitive and more depressed, and their
Author Manuscript

household income was lower. Other studies have also shown that good parenting after
divorce has positive effects for children (Amato, 2000; Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, & West,
2000; Ruschena, Prior, Sanson, & Smart, 2005; Wolchik, Wilcox, Tein, & Sandler, 2000). In
the present study, the quality of the home environment was a particularly strong, consistent,
and independent mediator of internalizing problems, suggesting that after parents separate
their children are likely to become anxious, withdrawn, and depressed because their daily
living becomes more chaotic, their daily routines fall by the wayside, and their parents
provide less emotional support and fewer avenues for cognitive and social stimulation
(Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Poehlmann & Fiese, 1994). This finding indicates that divorce
itself may not be as detrimental for children as the circumstances that accompany it and
suggests a possible avenue for intervention—helping divorced parents provide a supportive
and stimulating home environment. This kind of intervention is more feasible than
Author Manuscript

increasing maternal sensitivity, decreasing maternal depression, or increasing post-divorce

household income.

The findings from this study hint that although individual and family characteristics may
indeed be protective earlier in a child’s life, the effects of divorce may still remain years
following the event. Overall, the picture that emerges from this research is one of complex
associations between divorce, pre- and post-divorce family and home characteristics, and
children’s behavior problems over time. In general, the quality of the home environment
following divorce offers a positive and concrete avenue for intervention efforts. Additionally,
the associations between divorce and problem behaviors may be less severe for more
intelligent children and children of more sensitive mothers, but such children would also
likely benefit from therapeutic programs.
Author Manuscript

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The present investigation had a number of strengths. It was based on a large sample of
families drawn from ten locations across the United States and included a substantial
proportion of low education parents and ethnic minority families. Importantly, the sample
was not selected on the basis of divorce status. Rather, the families were followed over time
from infancy through adolescence and data were collected both prior to and following a
naturally occurring family transition. Assessments were made at multiple time points by
multiple informants. Analyses were strengthened by the use of multi-level modeling
techniques and a quasi-experimental approach that allowed each child to act as his/her own
control. Using a matched sample of intact families for comparison purposes and controlling
for parents’ propensity to divorce reduced potential selection effects.
Author Manuscript

However, the study had limitations. Because children could not be randomly assigned to
divorcing parents, findings are necessarily correlational. It is possible that other, unexplored
variables could account for observed associations. Furthermore, due to the longitudinal
nature of the study, attrition was an issue in the study and the sample that completed the
study was not identical in risk factors to those who began the study. This may have
implications for the longitudinal interpretation of our findings. A particularly important
limitation was our lack of information about fathers’ behavior following parental separation.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 14

These children all remained with their mothers following separation, and data were not
Author Manuscript

collected from non-resident fathers. Furthermore, this study was limited by a lack of
information on contextual details, such as the family structure following divorce and the
details of custody and living arrangements. Additionally, although at recruitment the sample
was not queried regarding sexual orientation, it is assumed that the sample represents
heterosexual couples, thus limiting our ability to generalize to children experiencing
separations in same-sex couples. Continued study of individual differences in children’s
adjustment to parental separation is clearly necessary if we are to fully understand the
processes of adjustment to divorce and provide support for children who experience it.

References
Achenbach, TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT:
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1991.
Author Manuscript

Achenbach, TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/2–3 and 1992 Profile. Burlington:
University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry; 1992.
Allison PD, Furstenberg FF Jr. How marital dissolution affects children: Variations by age and sex.
Developmental Psychology. 1989; 25:540–549.
Amato PR. Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce. Future of Children: Children and
Divorce. 1994; 4:143–164.
Amato PR. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family.
2000; 62:1269–1287.
Amato PR. Children of divorce in the 1990’s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis.
Journal of Family Psychology. 2001; 15:355–370. [PubMed: 11584788]
Amato PR, Keith B. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin. 1991; 110:26–46. [PubMed: 1832495]
Amato PR. Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and
Family. 2010; 72:650–666.
Author Manuscript

Barrett A, Turner RJ. Family structure and mental health: The mediating effects of socioeconomic
status, family process, and social stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2005; 46:156–169.
[PubMed: 16028455]
Booth A, Amato PR. Divorce and psychological stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1991;
32:396–407. [PubMed: 1765629]
Caldwell, B.; Bradley, R. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. Little Rock, AR:
University of Arkansas at Little Rock; 1984.
Caspi, A.; Bem, DJ. Personality continuity and change across the life course. In: Pervin, LA., editor.
Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 1990. p.
549-575.
Cherlin AJ, Chase-Lansdale PL, McRae C. Effects of parental divorce on mental health throughout the
life course. American Sociological Review. 1998; 63:239–249.
Cherlin AJ, Furstenberg FF, Chase-Lansdale PL, Kiernan KE, Robins PK, Morrison DR, Teitler JO.
Longitudinal studies of effects of divorce on children in Great Britain and the United States.
Science. 1991; 252:1386–1389. [PubMed: 2047851]
Author Manuscript

Clarke-Steward, KA.; Brentano, C. Divorce: Causes and Consequences. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press; 2006.
Cummings, EM.; Davies, PT.; Campbell, SB. Developmental psychopathology and family process:
Theory, research, and clinical implications. New York: Guilford Publications; 2000.
Davies PT, Cicchetti D. Toward an integration of family systems and developmental psychopathology
approaches. Development and Psychopathology. 2004; 16:477–481. [PubMed: 15605621]
Duffy ME, Thomas C, Trayner C. Women’s reflections on divorce: 10 years later. Health Care for
Women International. 2002; 23:550–560. [PubMed: 12418977]

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 15

Fields, J. Current Population Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2003. Children’s living
arrangements and characteristics: March 2002; p. 20-547.
Author Manuscript

Fischer T. Parental divorce and children’s socio-economic success: Conditional effects of parental
resources prior to divorce, and gender of the child. Sociology. 2007; 41:475–495.
Frisco ML, Muller C, Frank K. Parents’ union dissolution and adolescents’ school performance:
Comparing methodological approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007; 69:721–741.
[PubMed: 20300482]
Gadalla TM. Impact of marital dissolution on men’s and women’s incomes: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 2009; 50:55–65.
Garmezy, N. Stress resistant children: The search for protective factors. In: Stevenson, J., editor.
Recent research in developmental psychopathology. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1985.
Ge X, Natsuaki MN, Conger RD. Trajectories of depressive symptoms and stressful life events among
male and female adolescents in divorced and nondivorced families. Development and
Psychopathology. 2006; 18:253–273. [PubMed: 16478562]
Guidubaldi, J.; Duckworth, J. Divorce and children’s cognitive ability. In: Grigorenko, EL.; Sternberg,
RJ., editors. Family environment and intellectual functioning: A life-span perspective. Mahwah,
Author Manuscript

NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. p. 97-118.

Hetherington EM. Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers and survivors. Child Development.
1989; 60:1–14. [PubMed: 2649320]
Hetherington, EM. Should we stay together for the sake of the children?. In: Hetherington, EM., editor.
Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1999. p. 93-116.
Hetherington, EM.; Kelly, J. For better or for worse. New York: Norton; 2002.
Katz LF, Gottman JM. Buffering children from marital conflict and dissolution. Journal of Clinical
Child Psychology. 1997; 26:157–171. [PubMed: 9169376]
Kelly JB, Emery RE. Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives.
Family Relations. 2003; 52:352–362.
Kraynak AR. The relationship of children’s intellectual ability and adjustment to parental divorce.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 1997; 57(12-B):
7758.
Krishnakumar A, Buehler C. Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review.
Author Manuscript

Family Relations. 2000; 49:25–44.

Lansford JE. Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2009;
4:140–151. [PubMed: 26158941]
Lansford JE, Malone PS, Castellino DR, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Trajectories of internalizing,
externalizing, and grades for children who have and have not experienced their parents’ divorce or
separation. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20:292–301. [PubMed: 16756405]
Lengua LJ, Wolchik SA, Sandler IN, West SG. The additive and interactive effects of parenting and
temperament in predicting adjustment problems of children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology. 2000; 29:232–244. [PubMed: 10802832]
MacKinnon, DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis
Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
Magnusen K, Berger LM. Family structure states and transitions: Associations with children’s well-
being during middle childhood. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2009; 71:575–591. [PubMed:
20228952]
Author Manuscript

Morrison DR, Cherlin AJ. The divorce process and young children’s well-being: A prospective
analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1995; 57:800–812.
Muthén, LK.; Muthén, BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 4th. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2006.
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child care and child development: Results from the
NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. New York: Guilford; 2005.
Poehlmann JA, Fiese BH. The effects of divorce, maternal employment, and maternal social support on
toddlers’ home environments. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 1994; 22:121–135.
Radloff L. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population.
Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement. 1977; 1:385–401.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 16

Robbers SCC, Bartels M, Toos van Beijsterveldt CEM, Verhulst FC, Huizink AC, Boomsma DI. Pre-
divorce problems in 3-year-olds: a prospective study in boys and girls. Social Psychiatry and
Author Manuscript

Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2011; 46:311–319. [PubMed: 20213327]

Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DR. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal
effects. Biometrika. 1983; 70:41–55.
Ruschena E, Prior M, Sanson A, Smart D. A longitudinal study of adolescent adjustment following
family transitions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005; 46:353–363. [PubMed:
15819644]
Rutter, M. The promotion of resilience in the face of adversity. In: Clarke-Stewart, A.; Dunn, J.,
editors. Families count: Effects on child and adolescent development. New York: Cambridge
University Press; 2006. p. 26-52.
Sroufe LA, Rutter M. The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development. 1984;
55:17–29. [PubMed: 6705619]
Størksen I, Røysamb E, Moum T, Tambs K. Adolescents with a childhood experience of parental
divorce: a longitudinal study of mental health and adjustment. Journal of Adolescence. 2005;
28:725–739. [PubMed: 16291507]
Author Manuscript

Strohschein L. Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family.
2005; 67:1286–1300.
Sun Y, Li Y. Marital disruption, parental investment, and children’s academic achievement: A
prospective analysis. Journal of Family Issues. 2001; 22:27–62.
U. S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC: Author; 2004. Detailed tables: Number, timing and duration of
marriages and divorces, 2004. from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div/
2004detailed_tables.html [Retrieved July 16, 2009]
VanderValk I, Spruijt E, de Goede M, Maas C, Meeus W. Family structure and problem behavior of
adolescents and young adults: A growth-curve study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2005;
34:533–546.
Videon TM. The effects of parent-adolescent relationships and parental separation on adolescent well-
being. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002; 64:489–503.
Wallerstein, JS.; Kelly, JB. Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New
York: Basic Books; 1980.
Author Manuscript

Werner EE. Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai Longitudinal Study.
Development and Psychopathology. 1993; 5:503–515.
Whiteside MF, Becker BJ. Parental factors and the young child’s post-divorce adjustment: A meta-
analysis with implications for parenting arrangements. Journal of Family Psychology. 2000; 14:5–
26. [PubMed: 10740679]
Wolchik SA, Wilcox KL, Tein J-Y, Sandler IN. Maternal acceptance and consistency of discipline as
buffers of divorce stressors on children’s psychological adjustment problems. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology. 2000; 28:87–102. [PubMed: 10772352]
Wood JJ, Repute RL, Rosh SC. Divorce and children’s adjustment problems at home and school: The
role of depressive/withdrawn parenting. Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 2004; 35:121–
142. [PubMed: 15577278]
Author Manuscript

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Moderation of maternal sensitivity on mother-reported internalizing
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Moderation of maternal sensitivity on mother-reported externalizing
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Moderation of child IQ on mother-reported externalizing
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Weaver and Schofield Page 20
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
Moderation of child IQ on teacher-reported externalizing
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Mean Levels of Child Problems for Children in Separated Versus Intact Families

Mother rated Mother rated Teacher rated Teacher rated

internalizing externalizing internalizing externalizing
n of children
Age of whose parents Mean for: Mean for: Mean for: Mean for:
Child separated
(years) during this age Separated Intact Separated Intact Separated Intact Separated Intact
Weaver and Schofield

0–3 78 51.46 49.59 53.12 50.81 - - - -

3–6 78 47.38 46.72 52.32 50.01 48.92 46.3 52.76 48.45
6–9 48 49.69 47.65 49.77 46.90 51.42 48.97 53.82 49.36
9–12 37 49.12 47.57 48.15 44.70 51.64 49.81 53.22 48.84
12–15 19 48.22 45.71 48.15 43.58 - - - -

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

Page 21
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Unstandardized Effect Sizes From Models Testing For Mediation of Parental Divorce

InternalizingT ExternalizingT InternalizingM ExternalizingM

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
Model Path Path Path Path Path Path Path Path
Unmediated model 0.22* - 0.26* - 1.70* - 2.59* -
Weaver and Schofield

Mediated by post-divorce family income 0.20* 0.02* 0.09 0.02 0.41 0.46 0.37 0.43

Mediated by post-divorce maternal depression 0.20* 0.02* 0.13 0.06 0.78 0.93*A 1.88* 0.73*A
Mediated by post-divorce maternal sensitivity 0.18* 0.04* 0.20* 0.06*A 1.38* 0.43* 1.66* 0.96*
Mediated by post-divorce home environment 0.12 0.09*A 0.16* 0.10*A 1.28 0.42 1.11 1.46*A

Note. T = teacher report, M = mother report,

A
indirect path remains significant in simultaneous multiple mediation model,
*
p < .05.

J Fam Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 October 05.

Page 22