The Role of Family Stressors and Parent Relationships on Adolescent Functioning REX FOREHAND, PI-LD.,MICHELLE WIERSON, M.S., AMANDA McCOMBS THOMAS, M.S., LISA ARMISTEAD, B .S., TRACY KEMPTON, B.S., AND BRYAN NEIGHBORS, B.S.

Abstract. This study examined the association between cumulative family stressors (divorce, interparental conflict, maternal depression) and adolescent functioning as well as the protective role of the parent-adolescent relationship as perceived by the adolescent when family stressors are present. Two hundred and thirty-one adolescents, their mothers, and their social studies teachers served as the subjects. Results indicated that, as family stressors increased, adolescent functioning deteriorated. Furthermore, a positive parent-adolescent relationship as perceived by the adolescent was associated with less deterioration in all areas of functioning. The role of the relationship in protecting the adolescent supported both a stress buffering model and a main effect model. J . Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 1991, 30, 2:316-322. Key Words: family stressors, adolescence, buffers. The role of the family in adolescent functioning has received increasing attention in recent years. Traditionally, adolescence has been viewed as a time when family becomes less important and peers become more important. However, Csikszentmihalyi and Larson (1984), among others, have noted that the family continues to serve an important role during adolescence (i.e., a safe environment for rest and rejuvenation). When the family is disrupted or stressful, there can be detrimental outcomes for the adolescent. Three types of family stressors often occur in families and have been examined frequently in the literature: parental divorce, interparental conflict, and maternal depression. Parental divorce has been associated with an increase in adolescent behavior problems and a decrease in academic performance (e.g., Allison and Furstenberg, 1989). Similarly, interparental conflict has been related to these same areas (see Emery, 1982, for a review) as have maternal depressive symptoms (see Forehand et al., 1987, for a review). Some recent efforts have turned toward delineating the relative influence of these family variables. For example, Forehand et al. (1988) found that marital conflict was more detrimental to adolescent functioning than was parental divorce. In another comparative investigation, Fendrich et al. (1990) found that both interparental conflict and parental depression were detrimental for children and adolescents; however, they concluded that depression was the more significant risk factor. Thus, at this time, the evidence suggests that each of the three family factors delineated above is associated with poorer adolescent functioning. Furthermore, there is some preliminary evidence to indicate that the three variables are not Accepted November 7 , 1990. All authors are at the University of Georgia. This project was supported, in part, by the William T . Grant Foundation and the University of Georgia’s Institute for Behavioral Research. Reprint requests to Dr. Forehand, Psychology Department, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. 0890-8567/91/3002-0316$03.OO/OO 1991by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

316

uniform in their influence. The first question posed in the current study goes beyond the existing data and examines additive, rather than individual and relative, influences of family stressors on young adolescents. There are some data to suggest that, as the number of stressors increase, adolescent functioning deteriorates. For example, in the most direct test of cumulative stress on adolescent functioning, Simmons et al. (1987) examined five change or stress variables: transition to junior high, pubertal change, early dating, geographic mobility, and major family disruption. These investigators found that, as the number of changes in an adolescent’s life increased, functioning and grades deteriorated. Others (e.g., Masten et al., 1988; Compas et al., 1989) also have found that an increase in the number of stressors in children’s and adolescents’ lives is associated with poorer functioning in a variety of areas. While the findings just delineated are important, they fail to specifically address the role offamily stressors; the events that were included as stressors in each of the investigations were not restricted to one area (e.g., family or school) of the adolescent’s life. While the identification and study of all stressors for adolescents is important, this prevents conclusions from being reached about the family per se and its role. Thus, one purpose of the current study was to examine if the functioning of adolescents is related to the number of family stressors experienced. In terms of the importance of the family’s role, it is possible that the effects of stressors may not be additive. For example, one stressor within the family domain may have a sufficiently negative impact on functioning such that additional stressors contribute little. However, more in keeping with the evidence to date, the authors’ hypothesis is that stressors will have an additive negative influence on multiple areas of adolescent functioning. The second question examined in this investigation concerned the study of a potential moderator of the relationship between family stressors and adolescent functioning. Clinically, one would hope that moderators could be identified that would reduce the impact of parental divorce, conflict, and depression on adolescents. The variable that appears to J.Arn.Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 30:2,March1991

ADOLESCENT FUNCTIONING

have the most support, at least in the divorce area, is the parent-adolescent relationship. Hess and Camara (1979) and Wierson et al. (1989) found that a good parent-adolescent relation reduced the negative impact of divorce on children and adolescents. What has not been identified in the literature is how the parent-adolescent relationship acts to preserve adolescent functioning. Cohen and Wills (1985) have proposed that social support may operate as a main effect model, producing a positive effect regardless of stress level, or as an interactive or buffering model, producing a positive effect only under high levels of stress. Dubow and Tisak (1989) recently examined whether social support and problem-solving ability operated as the main effect or as interactive models in the relation between stressful life events and preadolescent children’s functioning. The results indicated that the conclusion depended on the outcome measure examined. For example, for children’s competent behaviors, a main effect model operated; whereas, for grade point average, an interactive or stress buffering model operated. In a similar fashion, the current study examined whether the parent-adolescent relationship operates as a main or an interactive model, if either, when the association between family stressors and adolescent functioning in multiple areas is examined. Furthermore, whether the mother-adolescent and father-adolescent relationships operate in the same or different manner (i.e., main effect model vs. interactive model) for adolescent functioning or whether different processes were present according to parental gender were examined. For the most part, fathers have been ignored in the literature and, as a consequence, little is known about their role in adolescent functioning. The present study will provide information on this issue. Three areas of functioning were examined in this study: Externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and academic performance. The first two areas were selected because they represent “broad-band,” commonly examined, dimensions of problem behaviors (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1978). The third area was selected because school performance is an important dimension of young adolescents’ functioning (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi and Larson, 1984) and is a measure shown to be sensitive to environmental stressors (Simmons et al., 1987). Finally, it is important to note that the study relied upon data collected in the school setting. This reduced the bias that may have been operative if the study had relied on parent or adolescent report data about adolescent functioning. However, by utilizing school data, the authors had a conservative test of the questions posed, i.e., the influence of family stressors and buffers was examined in a secondary setting (school) rather than in the primary setting in which they occurred (home).

Method Subjects

The subjects were 23 1 young adolescents, their mothers, and their social studies teachers. There were 120 males and 1 1 1 females, who ranged in age from 11 yrs., 1 mo. to 15 yrs., 1 mo. (mean = 13 yrs., 1 mo.). One hundred and J . Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 30:2,March 1991

thirty were from intact families in which both biological parents resided in the home and 101 were from recently divorced (i.e., less than 12 months) homes. All adolescents from divorced families were in the custody of and resided with their mothers. As approximately 45% of the adolescents resided with the mother only and as some mothers did not work, the mothers’ educational level, rather than socioeconomic status, was examined. Each mother was assigned an educational level ranging from 1 (graduate degree) to 7 (less than 7 years of education). The range was 1 to 6 (mean = 2.80). Measures Parental marital status. Marital status was determined by maternal report. In order to form a homogeneous group, only parents whose divorce had occurred in the past 12 months were included in this group. By using this time period, the divorce is sufficiently recent to qualify as a current stressor. (The frequency of paternal visitation with the adolescent in the divorced families was ascertained by the mother completing a one-item question in which she indicated on a 6-point scale how often the father visited the adolescent: 1 = daily, 2 = 2 to 3 times per week, 3 = weekly, 4 = 2 to 3 times per month, 5 = monthly, and 6 = less than monthly. The mean was 3.58, range 1 to 6, standard deviation 1.45.) O’Leary-Porter Scale (OPS). The OPS is a 10-item parent-completed scale developed to assess the frequency of overt parental conflict that occurs in the child’s presence (Porter and O’Leary, 1980). The 10 items are rated by a parent along a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “very often” to “never.” Total OPS scores can range from 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating greater conflict. Porter and O’Leary (1980) reported that the test-retest reliability of the OPS over a 2-week period was 0.96. The correlation between the OPS and the Marital Adjustment Test was found to be 0.63. In the current sample, mothers completed the OPS. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The BDI consists of 21 items that are answered by choosing one of four statements that reflect the level of depressive symptomatology (Beck, 1967). Higher scores indicate more depression. The BDI has been found to have adequate reliability and validity (e.g., Beck et al., 1988). Mothers completed the BDI. Conflict Behavior Questionnaire (CBQS).The CBQ consists of 75 dichotomous (yes-no) items assessing communication-conflict behavior between a parent and adolescent (Prinz et al., 1979). Internal consistency has been demonstrated, with computations of the coefficient alpha above 0.88 (Prinz et al., 1979); adequate discriminant validity data on the CBQ also have been reported (Prinz et al., 1979). The short form of the CBQ, developed by Robin (1984, pers. commun.), was utilized in the present study. This form was constructed through item analysis of the CBQ, yielding 20 items that correlated most highly with overall CBQ scores. The short form has been shown to have a correlation of 0.96 with the long form (Robin, 1984, pers. commun.). Higher scores indicate a poorer relationship. In this study, adolescents completed the short form of the CBQ separately 317

FOREHAND ET AL.

with regard to their mother and to their father. Revised Behavior Problem Checklist (RBPC).The RBPC (Quay and Peterson, 1987, unpublished manuscript) is an 89-item scale developed to obtain adult ratings of child behavioral deviance. Two of the six factors of the teachercompleted RBPC were utilized in this study: conduct disorder, representing externalizing problems, and anxietywithdrawal, representing internalizing problems. Quay and Peterson (1987, unpublished manuscript) have presented extensive reliability (e.g., mean test-retest reliability across subscales of 0.67, mean interrater reliability across subscales of 0.64) and validity (e.g., discrimination between clinic-referred and normal groups of children) data. The adolescent’s social studies teacher completed the RBPC because most children were in middle school (grades 6 through 8) and all students took a social studies class. All adolescents had been in social studies at least 3 months before the teacher completed the RBPC. Grade point average. A grade point average (GPA), based on the most recent grades in English, science, mathematics, and social studies, was calculated by assigning numbers ranging from 4 (denoting an A) to 0 (denoting an F) in each subject and then calculating an average. Procedure

The announcements (newspaper, radio, flyers distributed to adolescents) used to recruit subjects indicated that a study regarding parent-adolescent relations was being conducted and instructed interested parties to phone the experimenter for more information. In addition, courthouse records were examined for divorces finalized in the past year in which there was a young adolescent. Eligible mothers were mailed letters describing the project and inviting them to obtain more information by calling the experimenter. When contacted, the experimenter first determined whether the potential subjects were eligible for the study according to such factors as the adolescent’s age and the parent’s marital status (i.e., two biological parents married or divorced within the past 12 months). If the mother and adolescent were eligible, the experimenter then described the project. For those eligible parties who wished to participate, a data-collection session at the university was scheduled for the mother and adolescent. The mother was asked to bring the adolescent’s most recent report card. Upon their arrival at the session, the experimenter explained the project individually to each mother-adolescent dyad after which the subjects were given consent forms to read and sign. A release-of-information form was signed by the mother and adolescent, enabling the social studies teacher to complete the questionnaires concerning the adolescent. Grades were copied from the report card. The mother and the adolescent were then administered a series of questionnaires presented in a randomized order. For purposes of the present study, only the mother’s OPS, marital status, BDI, and the adolescent’s CBQ were relevant. Subsequently, a packet of questionnaires, which included the RBPC, was sent to the adolescent’s social studies teacher, who was requested to complete the forms and return them to the principal investigator in an enclosed envelope. A reminder

318

letter and subsequent phone calls were used to prompt teachers to respond. Approximately 90% of the teachers returned the RBPC. For adolescents whose teacher did not complete and return the measure, the parent-adolescent dyad was dropped from the current analyses. Design

A 3 x 2 factorial design was used for the first set of the analyses. The independent variables were number of family stressors and gender of adolescent. Family stressors were parental divorce during the past year, high interparental conflict, and high parental depression. Based on prior research (Forehand et al., 1988), a cutoff score of 30 on the OPS was used to distinguish high (below 30) from low (30 and above) interparental conflict families. Based on cutoff scores proposed by Burns (1980), a mother was assigned to the high depression group if her score on the BDI was above 16 and to the low depression group if her score was 16 or below. Adolescents potentially could be exposed to zero to three family stressors. Initial group assignment indicated that 73, 98, 50, and 10 subjects were exposed to 0, 1, 2, and 3 stressors, respectively. As the number exposed to three stressors was viewed as too small for data analysis purposes, particularly when the gender factor was included in the analyses, these subjects were dropped from the study, resulting in a final sample of 221. (It should be noted that the sample involved in this project appeared to be representative of the catchment area [e.g., 30% rural, primarily middle to lower middle class] except that the number of divorced families was overrepresented because of the recruiting procedures used to attract this sample [i.e., contacting families after examining courthouse records] and the sample was primarily Caucasian.)

Results The initial analyses were conducted to examine the relation between number of family stressors and adolescent functioning. A 3 X 2 analysis of variance, with group (Number of stressors experienced: 0, 1, or 2) and adolescent gender serving as independent variables, was performed on each of the three variables: Externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and GPA. The data for the group effect are presented in Figure I . As is evident, as the number of stressors increased, adolescent functioning decreased in all areas (i.e., more externalizing and internalizing problems, lower GPA). The analysis for externalizing problems revealed a main effect for gender, F(1,215) = 10.67, p < 0.01, and group, ~ 0.01, butnotasignificantinteraction. F(2,215) = 5 . 4 1 , < The former effect resulted from males displaying more externalizing problems than females (3.83 vs. 1.51). For the group effect, Newman-Keuls tests indicated that the group experiencing two stressors had significantly more (p < 0.05) teacher-reported externalizing problems than the groups experiencing zero or one family stressor. For internalizing problems, only the group factor was significant, F(2,215) = 14.15, p < 0.01. Newman-Keuls tests indicated that the group experiencing two family stressors reported more (p J . Am. Acad. Child Adolesc.Psychiatry,30:2, March1991

ADOLESCENT FUNCTIONING

Number o f Family Stressors

M e

a

4

S

3

n C 0

r

2

e S i.

o

i

2

o

TCD

i

TAW

2

0

1

2

GPA

FIG. 1. Relation between number of family stressors and adolescent functioning for externalizing problems (TCD), internalizing problems (TAW), and grades (GPA).

< 0.05) internalizing problems than the group experiencing one stressor, which in turn reported more (p < 0.05) problems than those experiencing no family stressors. For GPA, only the group factor was significant, F(2,12) = 8.75, p < 0.01. Newman-Keuls tests indicated the groups experiencing one and two family stressors had significantly lower (p < 0.05) GPAs than those experiencing no family stressors. The next set of analyses was conducted to examine if a positive adolescent perception of the parent-adolescent relationship served as either a main effect or buffering social support system. Multiple regression analyses were utilized in these analyzes. Initially, demographic variables (gender and age of adolescent, mother’s educational level) were entered so that the independentcontributionof the remaining variables beyond that of the demographic variables could be examined. Subsequently, number of family stressors, the mother-adolescent relationship, and the father-adolescent relationship also were entered to examine the main effects of these variables. Finally, two interaction terms (number of family stressors x mother-adolescent relationship and J.Am.Acad.ChildAdolesc.Psychiatry,30:2,March1991

number of family stressors x father-adolescent relationship) were entered to examine the stress-buffering hypothesis. The results are summarized in Table 1. For externalizing problems, the father-adolescent relationship supported a main effects model, while the mother-adolescent relationship supported a main effects model for GPA. In both cases, as the relationship became more positive, adolescent functioning improved. For internalizing problems, there was a family stressor by father-adolescent relationship interaction, supporting a stress-buffering model. In order to examine the interaction, a median split was performed on the fatheradolescent relationship within each stress level (0, 1, or 2 stressors). The data, which are depicted in Figure 2, indicate a good father-adolescent relationship moderates the association between family stressors and internalizing problems.

Discussion The present results provide substantial support for the first question posed: As the number of stressors increased, adolescent functioning deteriorated. In all cases the occur319

FOREHAND ET AL.

TABLE1. Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Examining Main and Stress-Buffering Models of the Parent-Adolescent Relationshiu Predictinn Adolescent Functioninn

Predictor Variables Step 1: demographics Adolescent gendeP Adolescent age Mother educationc Step 2: main effects Family stressors Mother-adolescent relationship Father-adolescent relationship Step 3: interactions Family stressors X Mother-adolescent relationship Family stressors X Father-adolescent relationshb

Externalizing Problems Internalizing Problems GPA Cumulative Regression Cumulative Regression Cumulative Regression RZ Coefficients. t value R2 Coefficients t value R2 Coefficients t value 0.07

- 2.49

0.18

0.04

-0.03 0.41

- 3.48** - 1.04 1.27

0.85 0.05 0.31

1.78 0.63 3.93**

- 0.16 0.00 0.57

-0.35 -0.24 2.76**

0.36 0.08 0.05

4.52** 1.47 1.07

-0.17 -0.03 0.00

-2.46* -2.33* -0.87

0.26

0.19

0.19

1.38** -4.74 -4.75**

0.24

0.16

0.18

0.14 -0.02 -0.22

0.05

0.42

0.03

0.52

0.11

0.88

0.15

1.91*

-0.03 0.00

1.87 -0.10

Unstandardized regression coefficients. * For gender, boys coded as 1 and girls as 2. For mother’s education, scores could range from 1 (graduate degree) to 7 (less than 7 years of education). * p < .05, ** p < .01. a

rence of two family stressors was associated with poorer functioning than zero stressors. Furthermore, for all outcome measures, one stressor was associated with a level of functioning between zero and two stressors. Thus, the accumulation of divorce, interparentalconflict, and depression is related to difficulties in adolescence. Furthermore, the difficulties experienced by adolescents are not limited to one area of functioning but, at least in the school setting, are evident in externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and academic performance. One apparent question concerns how these stressors operate to negatively influence adolescent functioning. Previous research has suggested the following: Divorce distracts parents from using appropriate parenting practices (e.g. , monitoring, discipline) (Patterson, 1986); interparental conflict models aggression (Emery, 1982), disrupts parenting (Emery, 1982), and/or leads to rejection of children (Fauber et al., 1990); and maternal depression leads to inconsistent, more imtable, and/or less energetic parenting (Forehand et al., 1987). Obviously, for the three stressors, the same or different mechanisms may operate in influencing adolescent functioning. While this study was not designed to answer questions about mechanisms of operation, it does suggest that there are cumulative effects for the three stressors regardless of the mechanisms in effect for any one stressor. Future work will need to examine if the cumulative influence results from one or more mechanisms. The results suggest that boys and girls do not react differently to family stressors. This finding is compatible with some of the recent literature. For example, Hetherington (1990) recently noted that gender differences in response to divorce are more likely to occur in the preadolescent than adolescent years. Furthermore, Simmons et al. (1987) noted that boys are more sensitive to stressors than girls during 320

the preadolescent years; whereas, the pattern reverses in the adolescent years. It may well be that early adolescence is a transition point in which boys and girls are equally susceptible to stressors. The results pertaining to the second question are rather complex. The adolescent perception of the parent-adolescent relationship was a significant variable in all three areas of adolescent functioning; however, as in the Dubow and Tisak (1989) study, the data support both a main effect model and an interactive model. Different models appear to operate depending on the gender of the parent and the area of functioning examined. First, the adolescent perception of the father-adolescent relationship exerted an influence in the behavioral areas, while the adolescent perception of the mother-adolescent relationship was related to the cognitive area (GPA). This suggests that most of the literature, which has ignored the role of fathers, may have failed to include an important source of influence on children and adolescents. Clearly the present results indicate that inclusion of father data is important when studying family influences on adolescents. Second, the adolescent perception of the father-adolescent relationship had a main effect on externalizing problems, while the mother-adolescent relationship had a main effect on the adolescent’s GPA. These findings suggest that, for these two areas of functioning, the parental relationship with the adolescent is important regardless of the number of family stressors experienced. Thus, the adolescent perceived father-adolescent relation may serve to prevent externalizing problems, and the adolescent perceived motheradolescent relation may enhance academic performance in families, independent of the number of stressors experienced. Substantial data are available to indicate that externalizing problems of children and adolescents are higher in father-absent than father-present families (see Atkeson et J.Am.Acad. ChildAdolesc.Psychiatry, 30:2,March1991

ADOLESCENT FUNCTIONING

-- poor f s ~ l e s c e nrelation t

-

good fatheFadolexent relation

/

/.

/

T A

w

I

0

2

Number o f Family Stressors FIG. 2. The role of the father-adolescentrelationshipin moderating the associationbetween family stressors and adolescent internalizingproblems (TAW).

al., 1982, for a review), suggesting that the father’s role may be particularly important in terms of preventing or managing this type of behavior. On the other hand, mothers still are primarily responsible for running the household (Montemayor, 1982), including assisting with schoolwork; thus, a mother’s relationship with her adolescent may be particularly important in terms of grades obtained. In contrast to the support just noted for the main effect model, some support also was found for the interactive or stress-buffering model, as an adolescent perception of a better father-adolescent relation moderated the negative influence of family stressors on teacher-reported internalizing problems of adolescents. These results indicate that the father-adolescent relationship becomes more important in terms of minimizing internalizingproblems as the number of stressors increases. Thus, adolescent difficulties, such as anxiety and depression, may be minimized under conditions of family stress by a good relationship between father and adolescent. Previous research (Montemayor and Hanson, 1985) suggests that the mother-adolescent interaction is more conflictual than the father-adolescent interaction. Consequently, in a time of family stress, an adolescent may rely more on her/his relationship with the father than mother for J.Am.Acad.ChildAdolesc.Psychiatry,30:2,March1991

reassurance and security, which then offsets internalizing problems. A good parent-adolescent relationship has been viewed as a protective factor against family stressors. However, it should be noted that alternate explanations are equally plausible. For example, a third variable may cause both good adolescent functioning and a positive parent-adolescent relationship. Or, adolescent problem behavior may lead to parental conflict or depression and a poor parent-adolescent relationship. While the current findings are certainly compatible with the authors’ views about the role of the parentadolescent relationship, caution should be exercised in reaching conclusions as the data are correlational in nature. Furthermore, generalization of the findings to other populations (e.g., different socioeconomic groups, different stressors) should be done with caution. It is important to emphasize again that the present study represents a conservative test of the questions posed, as functioning was assessed in the school rather than in the home. Nevertheless, support was obtained for the role of cumulative family stressors and the role of the adolescent’s perception of the parent-adolescent relationship as a buffer in adolescent functioning. Thus, in conclusion, researchers

32 1

FOREHAND ET AL.

and clinicians need to consider the cumulative role of family stressors and the role of a positive relationship between adolescent and parent, particularly the often neglected father, in countering such stressors. By focusing on the parentadolescent relationship within a therapeutic context, the stress of the family difficulties may be reduced for the adolescent and her/his functioning may not deteriorate or may improve.

References Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978), The classification of child psychopathology: a review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychol. Bull., 85:1275-1301. Allison, P. D. & Furstenburg, F. F. (1989), How marital dissolution affects children: variations by age and sex. Developmental Psychology, 25:54&549. Atkeson, B. M., Forehand, R. L. & Rickard, K. M. (1982), The effects of divorce on children. In: Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. 5 , eds. B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin. New York: Plenum, pp. 225-281. Beck, A. T. (1967), Depression: Causes and Treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. -Steer, R. A. & Garbin, M. G. (1988), Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clincial Psychology Reviews, 8:77-100. Burns, D. D. (1980), Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. New York: William Morrow. Cohen, S. & Willis, T. A. (1985), Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull., 98:31&357. Compas, B. E., Howell, D. C., Phares, V., Williams, R. A. & Giunta, C. T. (1989), Risk factors for emotionaUbehavioral problems in young adolescents: a prospective analysis of adolescent and parental stress and symptoms. J . Consult. Clin. Psychol., S7:732-740. Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Larson, R. (1984), Being Adolescent. New York Basic. Dubow, E. F. & Tisak, J. (1989), The relation between stressful life events and adjustment in elementary school children: the role of social support and social problem-solving skills. ChiMDev., 60:14121423.

Emery, R. E. (1982), Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychol. Bull., 92:31&330. Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M. & Wierson, M. (1990),

322

A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: the role of disrupted parenting. Child Dev., 61:1112-1 123. Fendrich, M., Warner, V. & Weissman, M. M. (1990), Family risk factors, parental depression, and pscyhopathology in offspring. Developmental Psychology, 26:WSO. Forehand, R., McCombs, A. & Brody, G. (1987), The relationship between parental depressive mood states and child functioning. Advances in Behavior Reseaarch Therapy, 9: 1-20. --Long, N., Brody, G . & Fauber, R. (1988), Early adolescent adjustment to recent parental divorce: the role of interparental conflict and adolescent sex as mediating variables. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol., 56:624-627. Hess, R. D. & Camara, K. A. (1979), Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequence of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 35:79-96. Hetherington, E. M. (1990, March), Studying family transitions: families, lives, and videotapes [Presidential Address]. The Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta, GA. Masten, A. S . , Garmezy, N., Tellegen, A., Pellegrini, D. S . , Larkin, K. & Larsen, A. (1988), Competence and stress in school childen: the moderating effects of individual and family qualities. J . Child Psychol. Psychiatry, 29:745-764. Montemayor, R. (1982), The relationship between parent-adolescent conflict and the amount of time adolescents spend alone and with parents and peers. Child D E V . ,53:1512-1519. -Hanson, E. (1985), A naturalistic view of conflict between adolescents and their parents and siblings. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5:23-30. Patterson, G . R. (1986), Performance models for antisocial boys. Am. Psychol., 41:432-444. Porter, B. & O’Leary, K. D. (1980), Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. J . Abnorm. Child Psychol., 8:287-295. Prinz, R. J., Foster, S . , Kent, R. N. & O’Leary, K. D. (1979), Multivariate assessment of conflict in distressed and nondistressed mother-adolescent dyads. J . Appl. Behav. Anal., 12:691-700. Simmons, R. G., Burgeson, R., Carlton-Ford, S. & Blyth, D. A. (1987), The impact of cumulative change - in early adolescence. Child Dev., 58:122c1234. Wierson. M.. Forehand. R.. Fauber. R. & McCombs. A. (1989). ,. Buffering young male adolescents against negative parental divorce influences: the role of good parent-adolescent relations. Child Study Journal, 19: 101-1 15. I

,

I

,

J . Am.Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 30:2, March1991