2
10
2653
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/af6b78a14a5b4d8e349c47d08dcae717.pdf
7a323b86a0ae53f373377577de7fc120
PDF Text
Text
Young Unmarried Mothers’ Relationships and Their Effects on Parental Self-Efficacy
Kara Newby,
1,
MS
Ellen Abell,
1The
Ohio State University,
Abstract
The nature and quality of the residential and parenting supports experienced by a young, unwed mother can vary considerably.
Analyses of data from 40 such mothers, collected through quantitative and qualitative methods, examines whether the
generational structure and dyadic quality of their co-residential and co-parenting situations affect their parental self-efficacy.
Findings indicate that the generational structure of a mother's co-parenting and co-residential relationships was consequential
for her parental self-efficacy, but that the quality of the co-parenting relationship was a key aspect of her self-efficacy,
independent of its generational structure.
Background and Purpose
• Short term grandmother support is associated with the mother finishing school and with increased cognitive stimulation for the child
(Cooley & Unger, 1991).
• Prolonged grandmother presence is associated with lower maternal responsiveness toward the child, poorer individuation for the mother
in her relationship with the grandmother, and poorer parenting quality (Cooley & Unger, 1991; Wakschlag, et al, 1996).
Self-efficacy beliefs represent a potent variable for explaining variation in parenting effectiveness (Coleman & Karraker, 1997).
• Parental self-efficacy is linked with parental competence, contributes both directly and indirectly through parental behavior to child
adjustment, and may be an indicator of risk for parental competence and child functioning (Jones & Prinz, 2005).
Thus, questions arise about the nature and quality of the co-parenting environments in which adolescent mothers raise their children. How
are parenting roles and expectations for the mother negotiated and supported in the co-parenting relationship and what are the
consequences of these co-parenting interactions for the young mother’s developing sense of herself as a parent?
The purpose of this study was to examine parenting self-efficacy as an outcome variable affected by the structure of the relational contexts
in which young, unmarried mothers parent their children and dependent upon the quality of the co-parenting relationship. Specifically, we
asked:
• Is the generational structure of mothers’ co-parenting arrangements consequential for their parental self-efficacy?
• Is the quality of mothers’ co-parenting relationship (amount of symmetry) consequential for their parental self-efficacy?
• Is the relationship between co-parenting relationship quality and parental self-efficacy independent of the generational structure of
the co-parenting relationship?
Finally, we were interested to know whether support could be found in the qualitative descriptions of young, unmarried mothers' early
parenting experiences for any of the four pathways proposed by self-efficacy acquisition theory (Bandura, 1982), and, if so, whether
differences in parental self-efficacy would be seen as a result.
Methods
Sample
40 mothers who had given birth as adolescents or young unmarried adults
• 85% African-American; 15% Caucasian -- 53% reported an income > $14,000
• Mothers’ average age at the time of the interview = 24.1 yrs (range = 14 to 42 yrs )
• Mothers’ average age at the time of the birth of their first child = 17.8 yrs (range = 11 to 26 yrs)
• Average time since the mother gave birth to her first child = 5.3 yrs (range = 2 months to 17 yrs)
Co-residence and Co-parenting Structures
• Co-residence – defined in terms of who the mother reported living with
• Co-parenting – defined in terms of who the mother identified as her primary co-parenting partner
• Intragenerational arrangements -- living or parenting with someone of the mother's same generational age (e.g., husband, boyfriend, or a
relative/friend about her same age)
• Intergenerational arrangements -- living or parenting with someone of an older generation than that of the mother (e.g., a parent, grandparent, or a
relative/friend of the same generation as the mother's parent)
• Single -- the living or parenting arrangements of some of the participants at the time of the interview
Quantitative Measures
• Parental self-efficacy -- Parenting Self-Agency Scale (Dumka, et al, 1996), a 10-item questionnaire on which the parent rates herself on a 5-point likerttype scale
• Co-parenting relationship quality -- Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7) (Hunsley, et al, 2001). A 7-item scale assessing dimensions of dyadic functioning
on a 6-point scale
Qualitative Data Analysis
• During tape-recorded focus group sessions, mothers shared descriptions of their co-parenting relationships.
• A grounded theory method was used, with open, axial and selective coding (LaRossa, 2005).
• Five reliable categories were established into which 257 statements were coded: (1) Who supports the mother. (2) How the mother is supported. (3)
Conflict/ disagreement. (4) Where mother learned to parent. (5) Showing/teaching. Inter-rater reliabilities ranged from .68 to .84.
2,
PhD
Francesca Adler-Baeder,
2Auburn
University
Results
Discussion and Limitations
Parental Self-Efficacy and Co-residential and Co-parenting Status
• Neither co-residential nor co-parenting status at the time of birth explained significant variance in current
parental self-efficacy, nor did current co-residential status.
• In contrast, parental self-efficacy scores were significantly different for mothers by co-parenting situation at
the time of the interview, F (2, 36) = 6.01, p = .006. Post hoc analyses showed that mothers who identified
intergenerational co-parenting arrangements were more likely to have significantly lower parental self-efficacy
scores.
• Because of the wide variability among mothers in the number of years since first birth (range = 2 months
to17 years), ANCOVAs were conducted using time since first birth as a covariate (see Table 1). The addition of
the covariate resulted in a significant F value for the relationship between parental self-efficacy and both coresidential and co-parenting status at first birth.
• Mothers who, at first birth, lived in an intergenerational arrangement reported higher current parental selfefficacy, F (2, 29) = 3.71, p = .037. Interestingly, mothers who identified having a co-parenting partner of the
same generation at first birth also reported higher current parental self-efficacy, F (2, 30) = 3.51, p = .043. In
these analyses, the covariate itself was significant, suggesting that the number of years away from having given
birth as an adolescent or a young unmarried woman contributed significantly to the variance in explaining the
relations between initial co-parenting or co-residential statuses and current parenting self-efficacy.
Self-Efficacy and Dyadic Symmetry
• Scores reflecting the dyadic symmetry of the co-parenting relationships ranged from 14 to 38 and were
positively associated with parental self-efficacy and family income. A regression model examining whether
symmetry in the current co-parenting relationship significantly contributed to parental self-efficacy was fit,
controlling for the effects of years since first birth.
• Over and above the significant effect of years since first birth (β = .37, p < .05), dyadic symmetry significantly
contributed to the variance in parental self-efficacy (β = .37, p < .05).
• A second regression model examined whether these results would obtain subsequent to the addition of coparenting status (which was entered as a dummy variable). Dyadic symmetry continued to contribute
significantly to parental self-efficacy independent of the effects of the structure of the co-parenting
relationship. Furthermore, this model accounted for 42% of the variance in predicting parental self-efficacy.
Qualitative Analysis
• Key findings indicate that when mothers were not constrained to identify one co-parenting partner, they
spoke of their co-parenting situations such that it was clear that there could be support from a variety of
sources, and that this support was often fluid.
• Mothers spoke mainly about two general types of support: instrumental (i.e. child care, transportation,
financial) and emotional support. Eighteen (or 44 %) of the mothers spoke during the interview of some kind of
conflict with their co-parent or with different support figures. Some spoke of isolated while others spoke of a
bitterness or conflict that was still resonating. Several of the mothers spoke about how it was especially hard to
have authority over their child while they might have disagreements with their own parents, particularly if they
are living with their parents (the child’s grandparents).
• Differences were also discerned in the way that high and low self-efficacy mothers spoke about conflict.
Mothers with higher self-efficacy confirmed their struggles with co-parents but seemed able to step back and
take a broader perspective on the conflict.
• Finally, there was a large difference between the high and low self-efficacy mothers in terms of showing
and teaching. None of the mothers lower in self-efficacy had any coded statements about their co-parents or
support figures showing or teaching them how to parent. In contrast, a majority of the mothers who were
higher in self-efficacy spoke of the way that their co-parent showed them how to parent.
Parental Co-residential and Co-parenting
Status (At the time of First Birth)
Parental Co-residential and Co-parenting
Status (At the time of the Interview)
60%
80%
70%
50%
Intragenerational
Arrangement
60%
Intragenerational
Arrangement
40%
Intergenerational
Arrangement
50%
Intergenerational
Arrangement
40%
30%
30%
Single
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Co-Residential
Co-Parenting
2
PhD
Co-Residential
Co-Parenting
• Findings indicate that the generational structure of a mother's co-parenting and co-residential relationships were
consequential for her parental self-efficacy, but that the quality of the co-parenting relationship was a key aspect of her selfefficacy, independent of its generational structure. A mother's evaluation of the symmetry in her primary co-parenting
relationship predicted her parenting self-efficacy, and qualitative data reinforced these findings.
• Mothers spoke of the tension between trying to live in a house where they were both a daughter to a mother as well as a
mother--where the power structure was pre-determined. For mothers lower in self-efficacy, conflict centered on issues of
authority and autonomy, and mothers perceived these issues as demeaning their role as a parent, affecting the mother's
confidence in her parenting role.
• However, regardless of who the co-parenting partner is, when a mother perceives there to be more consensus and cohesion,
she may feel as though she is being validated in her parenting role by co-parenting partner, and she may then be more likely
to feel confident in this role.
The results of this study have implications for future educational or intervention programs:
• First, parenting programs cannot assume that there is one co-parent with the mother, such as a husband. Co-parenting
situations are often fluid. Parenting programs should emphasize the importance of the co-parent, while also empowering the
mother to maintain her own autonomy as a new mother. There are clear benefits to focusing on building healthy co-parenting
relationships, regardless of whether they are a traditional or not.
• Second, intergenerational co-residence is often a necessary arrangement for getting basic parenting needs met. Current
findings suggest that quality rather than structure is important in co-parenting relationships. Parenting education can focus
on relationship education and dyadic skills training for both the mother and her support figures, such as conflict management
and communication, while also conveying the importance for mentoring and supporting mothers.
Limitations
It is important to note that these findings cannot show directionality of effects. It is not clear whether low self-efficacy drives a
less cohesive relationship or if a less cohesive relationship actually affects the mothers’ judgments about herself as a mother. It
may be that a less efficacious mother stays away from an intragenerational relationship if she does not feel confident in other
relationship areas as well, or that a less efficacious mother elicits more “taking-over behaviors" from her co-parenting partner.
Further studies will be needed to address these questions as the body of research linking parental self-efficacy and effective
parenting continues to grow (Jones & Prinz, 2005). The contribution of the present study, however, is in highlighting how the
generational structure and interactional quality of young mothers' interpersonal contexts play a role in the formation and
development of their sense of themselves as efficacious parents.
References
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self- efficacy and parenting quality: Findings and future applications.
Developmental Review, 18,
47-85.
Cooley, M. L., & Unger, D. G. (1991). The role of family support in determining developmental outcomes in children of teen
mothers.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 21, 217-234.
Dumka, L. E., Stoerzinger, H. D., Jackson, K. M., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). Examining of the cross-cultural and cross-language
equivalence
of the parenting self-agency measure. Family Relations, 45, 216- 222.
Hunsley, J., Best, M., Lefebvre, M., & Vito, D. (2001). The seven-item short form of the dyadic adjustment scale: Further evidence for
construct validity. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 325-335.
Jones, T., & Prinz, R. (2005). Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: A review. Clinical
Psychology Review,
25(3), 341-363.
LaRossa (2005). Grounded Theory Methods and Qualitative Family Research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837-857.
Wakschlag, L. S., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Not just "Ghosts in the nursery": Contemporaneous
intergenerational
relationships and parenting in young relationships and parenting in young African- American families.
Child Development, 67, 2131- 2147
Weaver, C., Shaw, D., Dishion, T., & Wilson, M. (2008). Parenting self-efficacy and problem behavior in children at high risk
for early
conduct problems: The mediating role of maternal depression. Infant Behavior & Development, 31(4), 594-6
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
2010 conference materials
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ncfr-2010-materials
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Young Unmarried Mothers' Relationships and Their Effects on Parental Self-Efficacy
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Kara Newby, Ellen Abell, Francesca Adler-Baeder
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
young-unmarried-mothers-relationships-and-their-effects-parental-se
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
Nov-10
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/8dd41412649adc8e34200f99e38f97fc.pdf
4eb08b9968e1c8457f91da07a8e679d2
PDF Text
Text
Custody Arrangement
Decisions among Divorcing or
Separating Parents
Jaimee L. Hartenstein &
Dr. Mindy Stafford Markham,
Kansas State University
�Literature Review
• Types of custody arrangements
–Shared vs. sole custody
• Factors related to shared physical
custody
�Literature Review
• Effects of custody arrangements
• Determination of custody
arrangements
–Legal system vs. among parents
�Purpose of Study
• Investigate how parents make
custody decisions
�Research Question
• How do divorcing or separating
parents determine the custody
arrangements for their children?
�Methodology
• Secondary data analysis of previous
grounded theory study
�Participants
• 30 participants met criteria
• 15 participants were interviewed
twice
�Data Analysis
• Constant comparative analysis
techniques
�Results
• Four themes emerged:
–No court involvement (N=13)
–Arrangement decided by couple to
be included in divorce decree (N=10)
�Results
• Four themes emerged:
–Court ordered arrangement (N=4)
–Custody changed over time (N=18)
�Implications
• No universal arrangement
• Provide assistance to families with
the decision making process
�Future Research
• Decision making process
–Involvement of children
• Impact of use of resources
�References
Amato, P.R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
62, 1269-1288.
Bauserman, R. (2002). Child adjustment in joint-custody versus sole-custody arrangements: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 91-102.
Bauserman, R. (2012). A meta-analysis of parental satisfaction, adjustment, and conflict in joint custody and
sole custody following divorce. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 53(6), 464-488. doi:
10.1080/10502556.2012.682901
Berg, E. (2003). Effects of closeness to custodial parents and nonresidential parents on adolescent self esteem.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 40, 69-86.
Braver, S. L., Ellman, I. R., Votruba, A. M., & Fabricius, W. V. (2011). Lay judgments about child custody after
divorce. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(2), 212-240. doi: 10.1037/a0023194
Cancian, M., & Meyer, D. R. (1998). Who gets custody? Demography, 35, 147-157.
Carlson, M. (2006). Family structure, father involvement and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 68, 137-154.
Coley, R, & Medeiros, B. (2007). Nonresident father involvement and delinquency. Child Development, 78, 132147.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Demo, D. H., & Fine, M. A. (2010). Beyond the average divorce. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Donnelly, D., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Who has joint custody? Class differences in the determination of custody
arrangements. Family Relations, 42(1), 57-60.
Dunlop, R., Burns, S., and Berminghan, S. (2001). Parent child relations and adolescent self image following
divorce. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 117-134.
�References
Emery, R. E. (2012). Renegotiating family relationships: Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York:
Guilford Press.
Fox, G. L., & Kelly, R. F. (1995). Determinants of child custody arrangements at divorce. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 57, 693-708.
Hetherington, E. M. (1999). Should we stay together for the sake of the children? In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.),
Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage (pp. 93-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinds, P., Vogel, R., & Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997). The possibilities and pitfalls of doing secondary analysis of a
qualitative data set, Qualitative Health Research, 7, 408-424.
Ingoldsby, B.B., Smith, S.R., & Miller, J.E. (2004). Exploring family theories. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.
Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic violence:
Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022-1053. doi:
10.1177/1077801205278043
Juby, H., Le Bourdais, C., & Marcil-Gratton, N. (2005). Sharing roles, sharing custody? Couples’ characteristics
and children’s living arrangements at separation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 157-172.
Kelly, J. B. (1988). Longer-term adjustment in children of divorce: Converging findings and implications for
practice. Journal of Family Psychology, 2(2), 119-140.
�References
Kelly, J. B. (1993). Developing and implementing post-divorce parenting plans: Does the forum make a
difference? In C. Depner & J. Bray (Eds), Nonresidential parenting: New vistas in family living (pp. 136-155).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kelly, J. B. (1994). The determination of child custody. Children and Divorce, 4(1), 121-142.
Kelly, J. B. (2002). Psychological and legal interventions for parents and children in custody and access disputes:
Current research and practice. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 10, 129-163.
Kelly, J. B. (2004). Family mediation research: Is there empirical support for the field. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly, 22, 3-35. doi: 10.1002/crq.90
Kelly, J. B. (2007). Children’s living arrangements following separation and divorce: Insights
from empirical
and clinical research. Family Process, 46, 35-52.
King, V., & Soboleski, D. (2006). Nonresident father’ contributions to adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 68, 537-557.
Maccoby, E.E., Buchanan, C. M., Mnookin, R. H., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1993). Postdivorce roles of mothers and
fathers in the lives of their children. Journal of Family Psychology, 7(1), 24-38.
Maccoby, E.E., Depner, C.E., & Mnookin, R.H. (1990). Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 52, 141-155.
Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Mahoney, M. (2006). The law of divorce and relationship dissolution. In M.A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.),
Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 533-552). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
�References
Markham, M. S., & Coleman, M. (2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Divorce mothers’ experiences
with coparenting. Family Relations, 61, 586-600. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00718.x
Menning, C. (2006a). Nonresident fathering and school failure. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 1356-1382.
Menning, C. (2006b). Nonresident fathers’ involvement and adolescents’ smoking. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 47, 32-46.
Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. The
Yale Law Journal, 88, 950-997.
Nielsen, L. (2011). Shared parenting after divorce: A review of shared residential parenting research.
Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 52, 586-609. doi: 10.1080/10502556.2011.619913
Smyth, B. M. (2009). A 5-year retrospective of post-separation shared care research in Australia. Journal
of Family Studies, 15(1), 36-59.
Thorne, S. (1994). Secondary analysis in qualitative research: Issue and implications. In J. M. Morse (Ed.),
Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 263-279). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2013). Commuting between two parental
households: The association between joint physical custody and adolescent wellbeing following divorce.
Journal of Family Studies, 19(2), 139-158.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
2013 conference materials
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ncfr-2013-materials
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Young Adults' Socialization Narratives after Parental Divorce
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Mick Cunningham, PhD; Kelly Skillingstead
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
young-adults-socialization-narratives-after-parental-divorce
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
November 2013
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/24ace43784d2f13f12f600bd575133a6.pdf
f97e25088cb456a8ff261cb292ab89ea
PDF Text
Text
Young Adults with Serial
Unions: Effects on
Psychosocial Health
Jennifer Pearce-Morris, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University - Kingsville
�Increase in Serial Unions
Young adults are more likely to experience
serial unions
97% greater odds of serial cohabitation
between early 1990s and early 2000s
9.2 to 19.8 remarriages per 1,000 divorced &
widowed between 1960 and late 1990s
Sources: Casper & Bianchi, 2002; Cohen & Manning, 2009; Lichter & Qian, 2008; Lichter, Turner, & Sassler, 2010
�Research Question
How do serial unions impact subsequent
psychosocial well-being in young adulthood?
“Serial unions” = multiple cohabitations and
marriages
�Why Have Serial Unions Increased?
Contradictory U.S. culture
Committed unions, especially marriage, are still
highly valued
Relationships expected to be personally fulfilling
Unions more fragile, and more of them
Sources: Cherlin, 2004; Cherlin, 2009
�Theory for Negative Effects
Breakups bring new life changes that must be
coped with
Loss of a daily partner
Economic resources decline
Residential move
Purpose in life shifts
Multiple breakups implies multiple periods of
stress related adjustment
Sources: Amato, 2000; Bierman, Fazio, & Milkie, 2006; Coombs, 1991; George, 1993; George, 1989
�Young Adults With Serial Cohabitations
More likely to come from disadvantaged
backgrounds (low SES, single parent)
Report lower relationship satisfaction
More likely to divorce
Psychosocial outcomes?
Sources: Cohen & Manning, 2010; Lichter & Qian, 2008; Lichter, Turner, & Sassler, 2010; Teachman, 2003;
Vennum, Lindstrom, Monk, & Adams, 2013
�Older Adults with Serial Marriages
Psychological distress increases for 2nd & 3rd
divorces, exponentially
Substance abuse higher in 3rd marriages
Greater anxiety, substance abuse, & lower mental
health for those in 2nd marriages compared to 1st
(controlling for earlier psychosocial health)
Sources: Barrett, 2000; Dupre & Meadows, 2007
�Older Adults with Serial Marriages
Limited:
Few focus on psychosocial outcomes
Older adults
Ignore the rise in serial cohabitations
�Current Study’s Contributions
Recent cohort of young adults
Broad array of psychosocial outcomes (perceived
stress, depression, heavy alcohol use)
Hypothesis: More unions will be associated with
worse psychosocial well-being
�Method
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health (Wave IV; controls from Wave I)
Ages 24 to 34
N = 14,800
�Serial Unions
A count of all cohabitations & marriages
2/3 of married individuals had a marriage
preceded by cohabitation (union only counted
once)
Truncated at 6 or more
�Perceived Stress – 4 item scale
How often in the past 30 days…
Feel confident in your ability to handle personal problems?
Felt things were going your way?
Felt difficulties were piling up so high you could not over
come them?
Felt unable to control the important things in life?
1 = never through 5 = very often
Alpha = 0.72
�Depression – 10 item scale
How often in the past 7 days…
Felt sad
Felt depressed
Could not shake off the blues
1 = never or rarely through 4 = most of the
time or all of the time
Alpha = 0.84
�Heavy Alcohol Use – 3 item scale
How many days in the past 12 months…
Drank alcohol
Drank 5 or more drinks in a row
Were drunk or “very high” on alcohol
1 = none through 7 = every day or almost
every day
Alpha = 0.88
�Controls
Age
Gender
Race
Parents’ education
Family structure during adolescence
Respondent’s income during Wave IV
Currently in a union during Wave IV
�Analytic Strategy
OLS regression
Test for linearity
Weighted data
�Table 1. Total Number of Unions for
Young Adults (IV)
Number of Unions
Percent
Zero
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six or more
Total
16.9%
48.6%
21.5%
8.0%
2.9%
1.2%
0.9%
100.0%
�Table 1. Total Number of Unions for
Young Adults (IV)
Number of Unions
Percent
Zero
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six or more
Total
16.9%
48.6%
21.5%
8.0%
2.9%
1.2%
0.9%
100.0%
�Table 2. Effect of Serial Unions on
Psychosocial Well-Being (Unstandardized)
Perceived Stress
Depression
Heavy Alcohol Use
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1
Number
of unions^2
Model 2
0.06***
0.06***
0.01
0.02**
0.02
0.18***
(0.01)
Number
of unions
Model 2 Model 1
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.03)
(0.02)
0.02***
0.01**
0.02
-0.03**
-
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.01)
(0.01)
2.12***
2.56***
1.59***
1.79***
2.50***
3.96***
(0.02)
R-Square
-
Constant
-
(0.15)
(0.01)
(0.09)
(0.04)
(0.32)
0.0092
0.0893
0.0138
0.0872
0.0021
0.1278
�Table 2. Effect of Serial Unions on
Psychosocial Well-Being (Unstandardized)
Perceived Stress
Depression
Heavy Alcohol Use
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1
Number
of unions^2
Model 2
0.06***
0.06***
0.01
0.02**
0.02
0.18***
(0.01)
Number
of unions
Model 2 Model 1
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.03)
(0.02)
0.02***
0.01**
0.02
-0.03**
-
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.01)
(0.01)
2.12***
2.56***
1.59***
1.79***
2.50***
3.96***
(0.02)
R-Square
-
Constant
-
(0.15)
(0.01)
(0.09)
(0.04)
(0.32)
0.0092
0.0893
0.0138
0.0872
0.0021
0.1278
�Table 2. Effect of Serial Unions on
Psychosocial Well-Being (Unstandardized)
Perceived Stress
Depression
Heavy Alcohol Use
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1
Number
of unions^2
Model 2
0.06***
0.06***
0.01
0.02**
0.02
0.18***
(0.01)
Number
of unions
Model 2 Model 1
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.03)
(0.02)
0.02***
0.01**
0.02
-0.03**
-
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.01)
(0.01)
2.12***
2.56***
1.59***
1.79***
2.50***
3.96***
(0.02)
R-Square
-
Constant
-
(0.15)
(0.01)
(0.09)
(0.04)
(0.32)
0.0092
0.0893
0.0138
0.0872
0.0021
0.1278
�Figure 1. Predicted Score on Depression
by Number of Unions
2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Zero (0) One (1) Two (2) Three (3) Four (4) Five (5) Six + (6)
Number of Unions
Note: Groups significantly different at the p < .05 level: (0,1,2,3,4 < 5,6) (1 < 2,3,4,5,6)
�Table 2. Effect of Serial Unions on
Psychosocial Well-Being (Unstandardized)
Perceived Stress
Depression
Heavy Alcohol Use
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1
Number
of unions^2
Model 2
0.06***
0.06***
0.01
0.02**
0.02
0.18***
(0.01)
Number
of unions
Model 2 Model 1
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.03)
(0.02)
0.02***
0.01**
0.02
-0.03**
-
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.01)
(0.01)
2.12***
2.56***
1.59***
1.79***
2.50***
3.96***
(0.02)
R-Square
-
Constant
-
(0.15)
(0.01)
(0.09)
(0.04)
(0.32)
0.0092
0.0893
0.0138
0.0872
0.0021
0.1278
�Figure 2. Predicted Score on Heavy Alcohol
Use by Number of Unions
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
Zero (0) One (1) Two (2) Three (3) Four (4) Five (5) Six + (6)
Number of Unions
Note: Groups significantly different at the p < .05 level: (0 < 1,2,3,4,5) (1 < 2,3,4,5) (2 < 3)
�Discussion
Serial unions are associated with worse
psychosocial well-being
Greater perceived stress
Depression
Heavier alcohol use
�Implications
Presence of serial unions will likely increase
Coping techniques for multiple breakups
Counseling for individuals and couples coping with
stressors related to serial unions
Test for clustered unions
�References
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 1269-1287.
Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of high- and low-distress
marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 621–638.
Amato, P. R., & Kane, J. B. (2011). Life-course pathways and the psychosocial adjustment of young
adult women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73, 279-295.
Barrett, A. E. (2000). Marital trajectories and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41,
451-464.
Bierman, A., Fazio, E. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). A multifaceted approach to the mental health
advantage of the married: Assessing how explanations vary by outcome measure and unmarried
group. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 554-582.
Blekesaune, M. (2008). Partnership transitions and mental distress: Investigating temporal order. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 70, 879-890.
Brown, S. L. (2005). How cohabitation is reshaping American families. Contexts, 4, 33-37.
Bumpass, L. & Lu, H.-H. (2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family contexts in
the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.
Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Continuity and change in the American family. Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 66, 848–861.
Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today.
New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
�References
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis
for the behavioral sciences (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Cohen, J. & Manning, W. (2009). Estimates and correlates of serial cohabitation. Bowling Green
Center for Family & Demographic Research. Working Paper Series #2009-04.
Cohen, J. & Manning, W. (2010). The relationship context of premarital serial cohabitation.
Social Science Research, 39, 766 – 776.
Coombs, R. H. (1991). Marital status and personal well-being: A literature review. Family
Relations, 40, 97-102.
Dupre, M. E. & Meadows, S. O. (2007). Disaggregating the effects of marital trajectories on health.
Journal of Family Issues, 28, 623-652.
Dush, C. M. K., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for
subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607–627.
Edin, K. & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before
marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press.
George, L. K. (1989). Stress, social support, and depression over the life course. In K. S.
Markides & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Aging, stress, and health (pp. 241 – 267). Chichester,
U.K.: Wiley.
George, L. K. (1993). Sociological perspectives on life transitions. Annual Review of Sociology,
19, 353 – 373.
�References
Harris, K. M., Halpern, C. T., Whitsel, E., Hussey, J., Tabor, J., Entzel, P., & Udry, J. R. (2009).
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design. Retrieved from
http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.
Kaplan, H. B., Robbins, C., & Martin, S. S. (1983). Antecedents of psychological distress in
young adults: Self-rejection, deprivation of social support, and life events. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 24, 230-244.
Lichter, D. T., Batson, C. D., & Brown., J. B. (2004). Welfare reform and marriage promotion:
The marital expectations and desires of single and cohabiting mothers. Social Service
Review, 78, 2 - 25.
Lichter, D. T., & Qian, Z. (2008). Serial cohabitation and the marital life course. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 70, 861 – 878.
Lichter, D. T., Turner, R. N., & Sassler, S. (2010). National estimates of the rise in serial
cohabitation. Social Science Research, 39, 754 – 765.
Liu, R. X., & Chen, Z. (2006). The effects of marital conflict and marital disruption on
depressive affect: A comparison between women in and out of poverty. Social Science
Quarterly, 87, 250-271.
Manning, W. D. (2010). Trends in cohabitation: Twenty years of change, 1987-2008. (FP-1007), National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from
http://ncfmr.bgsu.edu/pdf/family_profiles/file87411.pdf.
Mastekaasa, A. (2006). Is marriage/cohabitation beneficial for young people? Some evidence on
psychological distress among Norwegian college students. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 16, 149-165.
�References
Meadows, S. O., Brown, J. S., & Elder, G. H. Jr. (2006). Depressive symptoms, stress, and
support: Gendered trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth &
Adolescence, 35, 89-99.
Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Stability and Change in Family
Structure and Maternal Health Trajectories. American Sociological Review, 73, 314-334.
Modecki, K. L. (2009). “It’s a rush”: Psychosocial content of antisocial decision making. Law
and Human Behavior, 33, 183-193.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Reid, M. R., Mackinnon, L. T., & Drummond, P. D. (2001). The effects of stress management on
symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection, secretory immunoglobulin A, and mood in
young adults. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 51, 721-728.
Royston, P. (2005). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227-241.
Sassler, S. (2010). Partnering across the life course: Sex, relationships, and mate selection.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 557-575.
Schoen, R., Landale, N. S., & Daniels, K. (2007). Family transitions in young adulthood.
Demography, 44, 807-820.
Scott, M. E., Schelar, E., Manlove, J., & Cui, C. (2009). Young adult attitudes about
relationships and marriage: Times may have changed, but expectations remain high.
Child Trends Research Brief #2009-30.
Smock, P. J. (2004). The wax and wane of marriage: prospects for marriage in the 21st century.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 966 – 974.
�References
Solomon, B. J., Campero, J., Llamas, J., & Sweetser, C. B. (2012). Psychosocial
contributors to delinquent decision making: Toward a conceptual framework for
adolescent female offending. Women & Criminal Justice, 22, 265-288.
Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premarital cohabitation, and the risk of
subsequent marital dissolution among women. Journal of Marriage and Family,
65, 444 – 455.
Vennum, A., Lindstrom, R., Monk, J. K., & Adams, R. (2013). “It’s complicated”: The
continuity and correlates of cycling in cohabiting and marital relationships. Journal of
Personal and Social Relationships. doi:10.1177/0265407513501987
Waite, L. J. (1995). Does marriage matter? Demography, 32, 483-507.
Wheaton, B. (1990). Life transitions, role histories, and mental health. American
Sociological Review, 55, 209-223.
Williams, K., Sassler, S., & Nicholson, L. M. (2008). For better or for worse? The
consequences of marriage and cohabitation for single mothers. Social Forces, 86, 14811511.
�Table 3. Descriptive Statistics
M
Married respondents with a marriage
preceded by cohabitation %
SD
68.27
Dependent Variables
Depression (1 - 4)
1.61
0.47
Heavy alcohol use (1 - 7)
2.52
1.44
Perceived stress (1 - 5)
2.21
0.75
�Table 3. Descriptive Statistics – Cont’d
M
SD
Controls
Currently in a union during Wave IV %
59.83
Age in Wave IV (24 - 34)
28.34
Female %
49.32
Race %
White
67.33
Black
15.87
Hispanic
12.03
Other race
4.77
1.86
�Table 3. Descriptive Statistics – Cont’d
M
SD
Parents’ education (1 - 4)
2.53
0.95
Household income in adulthood (1 - 12)
7.95
2.69
Family structure in adolescence %
Two biological parents
55.65
Married step family
12.89
Cohabiting family
2.59
Single parent family
22.74
Other family structure
6.12
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
2013 conference materials
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ncfr-2013-materials
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Young Adults with Serial Unions: Effects on Psychosocial Health
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Jennifer Pearce-Morris
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
young-adults-serial-unions-effects-psychosocial-health
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
November 2013
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/a30ccaa4b94b6992a80cd24829a3b3b3.pdf
64fdd20b9c521d16ef5d4be6ef49b797
PDF Text
Text
Young Adult Children’s Filial
Obligation: A Comparative
Study between the United
States and South Korea
Presented by:
Kwang Man Ko
Woosang Hwang
Injee Kim
�NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
2
�NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
3
�Why filial obligation?
• Increasing life expectancy and more aging parents
U.S. Census Bureau
• Supporting parents over a longer period of time
• Children’s motives towards supporting their parents
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
4
�Why filial obligation?
• Filial obligation
normative and societal beliefs and attitudes
towards adult children’s responsibility
to meet parents’ needs
o Instrumental support
o Emotional support
• “Normative” & “Societal”
influenced by family context
influenced by cultural context
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
5
�Why parent-child relationship?
• Better relationship with parents
More likely to support
• Parent’s gender
Mother-child: closer
Father-child: contextual
Adult attachment theory
Worth finding out how differently parent’s
gender affects the association between parent-child
relationship quality and filial obligation
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
6
�Why culture?
• Different cultures? Different filial obligation!
Individualism vs. Collectivism
I think
WE think
• Increasing Asians in U.S. (mainly immigration)
• Worth finding out how local Asian cultures affect
filial obligation, and the difference between
American culture and Asian culture
NCFR 2015
Empirical Research Reports
7
�Why young adult children?
• May feel less filial obligation
Developmental stage to develop autonomy and
independence
• May feel more filial obligation
Reciprocity – Social Exchange Theory
Less resources to repay
• Worth finding out young adult children’s
attitudes towards filial obligation
College students of interest
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
8
�NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
9
�Research Questions and Hypotheses
RQ1. How do American and Korean young adult
children feel differently about filial obligation?
• H1a. Instrumental support
Korean young adults > American counterparts
• H1b. Emotional support
Korean young adults > American counterparts
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
10
�RQ2. Does the parent-child relationship quality affect
filial obligation in both American and Korean young
adult children?
• H2a. Mother-child R.Q. → Instrumental support
• H2b. Mother-child R.Q. → Emotional support
• H2c. Father-child R.Q. → Instrumental support
• H2d. Father-child R.Q. → Emotional support
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
11
�Hypotheses
Instrumental Emotional
support
Support
Hypothesis
American
H1a H1b
S. Korean
American Mother-Child
H2a H2b
Relationship
Quality
S. Korean
American
H2c H2d
S. Korean
NCFR 2015
Father-Child
Relationship
Quality
Ko, Whang, & Kim
Higher
Higher
Predict
Predict
─
─
12
�What makes us different
• Mother-child relationship vs. father-child relationship
• Causal relations between the two types of P-C
relationship quality and the two types of filial
obligation.
• Surveys in both mainland America and South Korea
• Young adult children attending college
Taken together, our work is different
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
13
�NCFR 2015
Empirical Research Reports
14
�Participants
Syracuse University
Sample
Yonsei University-Wonju
179
Size
(n=447)
268
19.9
Age
(mean)
22.6
24% / 76%
Male/Female
42% / 58%
European American (49%),
African American (17%),
Asian (13%), Hispanic (12%)
Race &
Ethnicity
Asian (=Korean) (100%)
$6,723/mon
Family income
(mean)
$5,650/mon
(6,202,500KRW)
Currently married (55%),
Divorced/separated (31%)
Parent marital
status
Currently married (93%),
Divorced/separated (4.5%)
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
15
�Measures
Filial Obligation (2 DVs)
• Filial Obligation Scale (Ohta & Kai, 2007)
• financial support, physical aid, & emotional support
Instrumental support (α= .81 (A); .85(K))
Emotional support (α= .72 (A); .76(K))
Parent-Child Relationship Quality (2 IVs)
• Parent-Child Closeness Scale (Buchanan, et al., 1991)
Mother-child relationship (α= .94 (A); .86(K))
Father-child relationship (α= .89 (A); .89(K))
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
16
�Analysis Plan
Independent t-test (H1)
Hierarchical linear regression (H2)
• Two DVs – two separate models
• Step 1: control variables
• age, gender, race, birth order, family income,
parental martial status, parental financial support
• Step2: independent variables
• Mother-child relationship quality
• Father-child relationship quality
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
17
�NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
18
�Hypotheses & Results
Instrumental Emotional
support
Support
Hypothesis
American
H1a H1b
S. Korean
American Mother-Child
H2a H2b
Relationship
Quality
S. Korean
American
H2c H2d
S. Korean
NCFR 2015
Father-Child
Relationship
Quality
Ko, Whang, & Kim
Higher
Higher
Predict
Predict
─
─
19
�H1 – Partially Supported: WHY
Instrumental support
1. Korean children → much likely to be raised and
educated to take care of their parents.
2. Both higher collectivism and poorer social
support system → filial obligation in Korea
3. American respondents → more burden for the
word “duty, responsibility” of questionnaire.
Emotional support
1. Little resources of the young adult children
→ focusing on emotional rather than instrumental
2. Emotional ties → important family solidarity
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
20
�H2 – Partially Supported: WHY
Mother-child relationship quality
1. American young adult children → likely to perceive
the relationship quality and instrumental support as
different dimensions
2. Korean young adult children → likely to perceive
instrumental and emotional support together towards
the idea of “Obligation”
Father-child relationship quality
1. Not a significant predictor in both samples
•
•
NCFR 2015
Relatively less stronger emotional ties
Mother → more likely to be attachment figure
Ko, Whang, & Kim
21
�Filing gaps
• Different attitudes to two types of obligation among
young adult children
Similar levels of emotional support in two
culturally different groups, but not instrumental
support
Keeping emotional connections, reserving
instrumental support
• Same attitudes to the association between fatherchild relationship quality and filial obligation among
young adult children in both groups
NCFR 2015
Ko, Whang, & Kim
22
��Kwang Man Ko
Woosang Hwang
Injee Kim
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
2015 conference materials
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ncfr-2015-materials
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Young Adult Children's Filial Obligation: A Comparative Study between the United States and South Korea
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Kwang-
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
young-adult-children-s-filial-obligation-comparative-study-between-
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
November 2015
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/83de363772e5361a2f33e39d66daec78.pdf
76f0fda8fd19e83f8dc6a99f537e4d28
PDF Text
Text
You did WHAT?! The airing of marital laundry
By Nancy Gonzalez, CFLE
Posted by Nancy Gonzalez | May 24, 2012
Every now and then, I am reminded that being a student of the family
sciences guarantees me absolutely no edge over anyone in the general
population in dealing with family problems of my own. I have a little bit
of an advantage in putting things in context, but at Casa Gonzalez, we
have all the same drama.
Last month, something happened that was so unpredictable and
outrageous that at the end of the day, the only redeeming thought I had
was “Well, at least I can get a blog out of it.” I’m going to share it,
because it’s such a good example of how even those who work in my
field have just as many misunderstandings as anyone else.
It began about two weeks previously with a stray comment I made to
my husband. We were talking about how everything in print, on film, or
on audio is becoming available online. And it’s happening so fast. We
have hundreds of books in our home. Many of the classics with no copyright entanglements have been on
the web for a while already. Check Project Gutenberg or Google books. It’s incredible. I don’t know if there
are many paper versions of the classics sold anymore. Entire libraries are as close as your laptop. It’s a
wonderful time to be alive.
However, there are those of us who like an oldfashioned book. I love reading NCFR journals on paper. I
have a hard time curling up with a laptop. Likewise, for audio, I don’t like the iPod and earbud existence.
Sometimes I like to have my music fill the room as I’m puttering around the house. This is where the
problem began. That throwaway comment about this new digitized world was, “Someday soon, everything
we own will be ‘up on the cloud.’” That’s what did it.
My husband George had the day off. He is an IT geek. Bad combination. I never know when some new
contraption is going to come into the house and upgrade me, whether I want to or not. I got home from work
and found several plastic bags on the front porch, waiting for the garbage. The contents were starting to
poke through the bags, and I noticed a corner of a CD jewel case. I pulled it out. It was the empty container
for one of my CDs. Quickly I started tearing through the bags. Four kitchen sized garbage bags were full of
my empty CD cases.
I was furious! I knew immediately what had happened. George had taken all of my CDs and scanned them
in and uploaded them to “the cloud.” I don’t want them on the cloud! I want my CDs just the way they
were, thank you very much! He was ready to hear me exclaim how grateful I was that he spent the day
performing a service that people pay money for. I have never really known what a “conniption” is, but I
assure you, I had one.
�Fast forward—he has since matched up the CDs with their jewel cases and everything is back the way it
was. In fact, it’s better now that everything has a duplicate on the cloud—wherever that is.
The point I’m making is that I have had the occasional complaint over the years that he’s “not spontaneous”
and he “doesn’t surprise me” or he “can’t anticipate what I want.” He tried. He really did. I said “everything
would be on the cloud someday” and what he heard was “I want everything up on the cloud someday.”
What I saw, as soon as I regained my composure, is that he had spent an entire day working on something
spontaneous, to surprise me, and he tried to anticipate what I wanted. And for the first 10 minutes, I
couldn’t connect those dots. I hurt him, and I was sorry.
What I really want, and it’s taken me awhile to realize it, is someplace where there is very little change—in
my home. I have gotten to the point in my life where spontaneous surprises are everywhere. When I walk
through our front door, I want stability. Everyone else can live on the cloud. I’ll be listening to my hand crank
Edison phonograph.
Share your thoughts
Posted by Anonymous | July 2, 2012 1:57pm.
Hi Nancy,
I hear you. My husband and I are both techies but there is just something about the crispy clean pages of a real
book and the physical touch of a real CD that makes things seem more real. I think there is a place in between all of
that. I also love how technology has freed us. I use an app called GoodReads to keep track of my books now and
this little app has a scanner on it so I can just snap a photo of my book and it tells my GoodReads friends what I am
reading. That is pretty cool.
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
N equals 1 blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
n-equals-1
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Hello! I'm NCFR's blogger, Nancy Gonzalez. I am the former director of public affairs for NCFR<em>.</em> I have a Master's in Family Life Education from the University of Minnesota, and I'm a Certified Family Life Educator. I'm married to a great guy named George, a software engineer, and mother to our college age son, Eric. Our family also consists of a Border Collie named Beau and two calico kitties, Shelley and Shirley. I knew I wanted to study families at age 16. My blog is entitled <em>"The N = 1 Experiment"</em> to emphasize that my "findings" are anecdotal and therefore are my "1 person reflections." The topics I write about are based on the family studies field, my own family, current events, memoir and humor. Its contents are my opinion and my responsibility alone and not the official position of NCFR as an organization. I invite your comments!</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization. </em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
You did WHAT?! The airing of marital laundry
Description
An account of the resource
Last month, something happened that was so unpredictable and outrageous that at the end of the day, the only redeeming thought I had was "Well, at least I can get a blog out of it."
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Nancy Gonzalez, CFLE
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
you-did-what-airing-marital-laundry
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
May 24, 2012
-
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
TCRM paper archive
Description
An account of the resource
Early stage scholarly work presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology workshop
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
tcrm-archive
Hyperlink
A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet.
URL
<a href="https://learning.ncfr.org/pluginfile.php/1775/mod_folder/content/0/tcrm_1977_wilikinson.pdf?forcedownload=1" target="_blank">https://learning.ncfr.org/pluginfile.php/1775/mod_folder/content/0/tcrm_1977_wilikinson.pdf?forcedownload=1</a>
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Yes Virginia, propositions can be derived from systems theory.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
tcrm_1977_wilikinson
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<p>This document is available in the <a href="https://learning.ncfr.org/mod/folder/view.php?id=1021" target="_blank">NCFR Learning Center</a>, listed as the file named <i>tcrm_1977_wilikinson.pdf</i>. </p><p>Please note that this resource is available only to active NCFR members, and you must log in to access it.</p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wilikinson, M.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1977
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/7baa4795755ddc909fe74917991073c4.pdf
bbc7c0c4c2bedbeb0429d89a203c2c69
PDF Text
Text
Writing as Inquiry for Student
Understanding in Human Development
and Family Studies
DR. KELLY MUNLY
PENN STATE ALTOONA
DR. GRESILDA TILLEY-LUBBS
VIRGINIA TECH
2016 NCFR ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
�The Value of Writing as Inquiry
Writing as a tool for self-understanding and
transformation
Self-knowledge as a stable platform for academic
exploration and engagement with the field
Diverse methods, including Creative Alternative
Processes (CAP)
�Sample Course Content: Person-Centered Care
Brooker* defined Kitwood’s person-centered care as
consisting of four elements that spell VIPS:
Valuing people with dementia and those who care for
them (V)
Treating people as individuals (I)
Looking at the world from the perspective of the person
with dementia (P)
A positive social environment in which the person living
with dementia can experience relative wellbeing (S)
*What is person-centred care in dementia? Clinical
Gerontology 2004 13; 215-222
�Sample CAP Empathy Activity
to Support Person-Centered Care
�Sample CAP Activity: About Henry (Munly,
Tilley-Lubbs, & Sheusi, 2016)
�Sample CAP Activity: About Me (Munly, TilleyLubbs, & Sheusi, 2016)
�Sample Writing as Inquiry Activity:
Complete Your Own Concentric Circle Model
How does it make you feel to model yourself in this
way?
How do you feel when comparing your model with
Henry’s?
�Discussion
How could you design applications of Creative
Alternative Processes to enhance your lesson plans
and support “multilogicality,” or understanding
“multiple perspectives in all dimensions” of one’s life
(Kincheloe & Sternberg, 2008, p. 138)?
How can we implement “writing as inquiry” to resist
the “banking concept of education” in typically
hierarchical educational contexts (Freire, 1970, p.
53)?
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
2016 conference materials
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ncfr-2016-materials
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Writing as Inquiry for Student Understanding in Human Development and Family Studies
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
writing-inquiry-student-understanding-human-development-and-family-
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
November 2016
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/12d66169f4656aa4642478f0cfa0ef1f.pdf
19172c1e1bcf20c70903e9cb43d6c835
PDF Text
Text
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
-MESSAGE ON WORLD WATER DAY
22 March 2012
Over the coming decades, feeding a growing global population and ensuring food
and nutrition security for all will depend on increasing food production. This, in turn,
means ensuring the sustainable use of our most critical finite resource – water.
The theme of this year’s World Water Day is water and food security.
Agriculture is by far the main user of freshwater. Unless we increase our capacity to use
water wisely in agriculture, we will fail to end hunger and we will open the door to a
range of other ills, including drought, famine and political instability.
In many parts of the world, water scarcity is increasing and rates of growth in
agricultural production have been slowing. At the same time, climate change is
exacerbating risk and unpredictability for farmers, especially for poor farmers in lowincome countries who are the most vulnerable and the least able to adapt.
These interlinked challenges are increasing competition between communities and
countries for scarce water resources, aggravating old security dilemmas, creating new
ones and hampering the achievement of the fundamental human rights to food, water and
sanitation. With nearly 1 billion people hungry and some 800 million still lacking a safe
supply of freshwater, there is much we must do to strengthen the foundations of local,
national, and global stability.
Guaranteeing sustainable food and water security for all will require the full
engagement of all sectors and actors. It will entail transferring appropriate water
technologies, empowering small food producers and conserving essential ecosystem
services. It will require policies that promote water rights for all, stronger regulatory
capacity and gender equality. Investments in water infrastructure, rural development and
water resource management will be essential.
We should all be encouraged by the renewed political interest in food security, as
evidenced by the high priority given to this issue by the agendas of the G8 and G20, the
emphasis on the nexus of food, water and energy in the report of my Global
Sustainability Panel, and the growing number of countries pledging to Scale Up
Nutrition.
On this World Water Day, I urge all partners to fully use the opportunity provided
by the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. In Rio, we need to connect
the dots between water security and food and nutrition security in the context of a green
economy. Water will play a central role in creating the future we want.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
United Nations
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
united-nations
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
World Water Day 2012
Description
An account of the resource
For more information on Water Day, click here
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
world-water-day-2012
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
March 21, 2012
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/aa904efc5865dbe75ec2d3c592999e37.pdf
8f2e673e41abf24224d79ffc89d69d34
PDF Text
Text
Working with the military
By Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Ph.D.
Posted by Nancy Gonzalez | March 05, 2012
Since 2000, it has been my honor to lead the Military Family
Research Institute at Purdue University. This was an experience I
never expected to have, but I have found it to be among the most
meaningful and intellectually engaging of my career. Today, the
institute is actually misnamed because we now carry out not just
research but also outreach with and for military families, working
closely with military and community organizations.
We often receive calls from colleagues who are eager to learn
about working with the military, and so in this article I share some
suggestions. Some of these were presented at a recent meeting of
the Society for Social Work Research.
Go back to the books
There is a good chance that many of the research questions or intervention ideas you are thinking of
have already been thought of by others. Because research about military families tends to wane
between conflicts, the most recent research relevant to your question may have been published soon
after the most recent largescale conflict (the first Gulf War in the 1990s). Considerable research on
military families is published in technical reports rather than peerreviewed literature (because it is
funded by military contracts), and thus you must search the "gray" literature as well as the traditional
scientific literature (the Defense Technical Information Center is a very important source). Before you
conclude that your idea really is new, make sure you scan the environment very carefully.
Remember the old adage that "Fools Rush in Where Angels Fear to
Tread"
It can be easy to find flaws in prior research or intervention efforts. For example, many reports have
recently criticized existing military programs for lacking sufficiently rigorous evaluation protocols. In at
least some of these cases, there were good reasons that evaluation activities were limited, such as
legal restrictions on appropriate use of funds. You should always assume that your predecessors were
smart, thoughtful people who wanted to do a good job. If you can find out about the constraints they
faced, you will have a much better chance of improving on their effort.
Never forget that it's not about you or your program
Military folks have an important mission to carry out for the country. They are completely funded by
taxpayer dollars and they expect accountability. They work with academics to find better ways to fulfill
their mission, not because they are trying to help us publish articles, conduct randomized trials of a new
intervention, or train students. If they learn of a resource that they think will help them fulfill their mission
�better, cheaper, or faster, they need to pursue that option even if it means withdrawing support from
existing projects.
Every day, military members are in harm's way around the world. Even in European cities on "regular"
deployments, service members have been targets of lethal violence. Combat deployments are
decreasing as troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan, but deployments for peacekeeping, natural disasters,
training, and many other purposes continue. Thus, the children, partners, parents, and other people
who love military members will continue to watch, wait, and worry. Over the past decade, we have
added millions of men and women to the veteran population, and the costs of caring for the service
connected illnesses and injuries of these individuals will not peak for several decades. As educators,
scholars, and practitioners, we are obligated to pay attention to this new demographic group. I am
proud to be among many wonderful colleagues around the world who are doing this work and we at
MFRI are eager to collaborate with students and faculty who share our interest in gathering and
analyzing data, strengthening programs, and educating new colleagues.
This blog post appeared as the lead article in the Spring 2012 NCFR Report Focus on Military
Families
Professor Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth is Associate Dean, College of Health and Human
Sciences and the Director, Center for Families and the Military Family Research Institute at
Purdue University
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
NCFR community blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ncfr-community-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Insights and musings on all things related to family science. We hope you'll join the conversation.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Working with the military
Description
An account of the resource
Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, one of NCFR's experts on military families, shares her wisdom on working with the military.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Ph.D.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
working-military
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
March 05, 2012
-
https://archive.ncfr.org/files/original/5f26a405255588a65f87744267878715.pdf
c5deed542c3e8e824c12514a9ad54c40
PDF Text
Text
Working with other professionals and participants is
critical
Leigh Leslie, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Maryland, College Park & Donna Sollie,
PhD, Assistant Provost, Auburn University
Posted by Robert Hughes | September 24, 2015
“While we support all of these recommendations, we would encourage
a more collaborative and cocreated approach among feminist
researches, practitioners, and those whose lives we seek to enhance.
In other words, policy makers, therapists, educators, and community
members should not be our audience; they should be our partners. This
is, we believe, at the heart of what it would mean for work to have
catalytic and transgressive validity that promotes social change. We
would suggest that before being undertaken, feminist researchers could
make clear the challenge or change to the status quo they hope to
effect through their study. For example, is this work intended to inform
immigration policy, highlight the limited services for female veterans,
improve housing conditions for lowincome mothers and their children,
or substantiate the need for sexual assault programs on college
campuses? It would also seem important to identify the collaborations
which inform this research. For example, are female veterans and
service providers part of a team examining the current state of access
to needed health services for female veterans, and how have they been
part of the collaboration that generated the research questions and
method? On the back end of the research we not only can write about
the praxis we hope will occur but also can work with our partners to try
to implement it. Both identifying the intended change and then applying
the knowledge generated in a transformative way can be facilitated
when collaborating with these practitioners and community members.”
National Council on Family Relations | 1201 West River Parkway · Suite 200 · Minneapolis, MN 55454 · 888.781.9331
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | © 2017. All rights reserved.
Web design by Gorton Studios
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
JFTR Blog
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
jftr-blog
Description
An account of the resource
<p>The <a href="https://www.ncfr.org/jftr" target="_blank"><em>Journal of Family Theory and Review</em></a> (JFTR) Blog is designed to facilitate the exchange and sharing of the thoughtful discussions of issues regarding family theory, integrative ideas, and methods. Family scholars, media and the general public are invited to participate in rigorous, thoughtful conversations.</p>
<p>The team members managing this blog are <a href="mailto:hughesro@illinois.edu">Robert Hughes, Jr.</a>, the journal's digital scholarship editor; Libby Balter Blume, editor of JFTR; and Natalie D. Hengstebeck and Jeremy B. Kanter, JFTR Digital Scholarship Board members.</p>
<p>You can also find JFTR on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/jftrpage" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/jftr_ncfr" target="_blank">Twitter</a>.</p>
<p><em>The views expressed in this blog may not represent the views of the entire NCFR organization.</em></p>
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Working with other professionals and participants is critical
Description
An account of the resource
We would encourage a more collaborative and co-created approach among feminist researches, practitioners, and those whose lives we seek to enhance.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Leigh Leslie, PhD, Associate Professor, University of Maryland, College Park & Donna Sollie, PhD, Assistant Provost, Auburn University
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
working-other-professionals-and-participants-critical
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
September 24, 2015