Woon Kyung Lee
Young Sun Joo- 1Department of Child Development and Intervention, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea
- 2School of Social Welfare, Myongji University, Seoul, South Korea
Objective: Previous research has shown that adolescents in single-mother households are at heightened risk for adjustment problems. However, limited studies have investigated the mechanisms leading to adolescent problem behaviors in single-mother households. To address this research gap, this study applied the Family Stress Model to examine how single mothers’ material hardship is linked to adolescent problem behaviors, focusing on the mediating roles of mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness. The moderating role of adolescent school connectedness in the relationships between mother-adolescent closeness and school connectedness and between mothers’ depression and school connectedness was also investigated.
Materials and methods: The study analyzed data from 1,384 adolescents and their single mothers who participated in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study at Wave 6. The associations between study variables were analyzed using structural equation modeling by decomposing the direct, indirect, and total effects of material hardship on adolescent problem behaviors. School connectedness’s interactions with mother-adolescent closeness and mothers’ depression were also examined.
Results: Results showed a significant indirect relationship between material hardship and adolescent problem behaviors through sequential mediation of mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness. Mothers’ depression also significantly mediated the relationship between material hardship and problem behaviors. Lastly, school connectedness moderated the relationship between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ internalizing behaviors. The association between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ internalizing behavior was weaker for adolescents with higher levels of school connectedness.
Conclusion: The results indicate the important indirect effect of economic strain on adolescents’ problems behaviors in single-mother households, which has been less emphasized compared to the effects in earlier childhood. High rates of material hardship and adolescent problem behaviors in single-mother families call for multifaceted interventions focusing on family processes and protective factors, including school environment.
Introduction
The number of single-parent families with children under the age of 18 has increased sharply during the past few decades in the United States. There were approximately 10.5 million single-parent households in 2021, compared to 1.5 million in 1950 (United States Census Bureau, 2022). A recent study indicates that among countries where census data are available, the rate of single-parent households is highest in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2019). As the number of single-parent families has increased, many studies have examined children’s and adolescents’ developmental outcomes in single-parent (especially single-mother) families. For example, multiple studies indicate that adolescents living in single-mother households are at heightened risk for adjustment problems, including internalizing issues—difficulties directed primarily inward (Loeber and Burke, 2011)—such as depression and anxiety (Barrett and Turner, 2005; Amato, 2010; Turner et al., 2013; King et al., 2018), as well as outwardly directed externalizing issues, such as earlier initiation of substance use (Donovan and Molina, 2011), greater likelihood of engaging in delinquency (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Thomas et al., 1996), and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder (Daryanani et al., 2016).
Unlike early research that reflected concerns about single-parent households, recent research indicates that the family structure itself is not the dominant influence on adolescents’ developmental outcomes (Cohen et al., 2015). Many children in single-parent families develop into well-adjusted adults (Solomon-Fears, 2014), and in general, recent studies report more multifaceted elements of single parenthood, including both resilience and risk factors, compared to earlier research (Taylor and Conger, 2017). Nevertheless, some risk factors associated with single-parent families have consistently emerged as predictors of adolescents’ problem behaviors. For instance, high rates of material hardship (Amato, 2000), single parents’ depression (Compas and Williams, 1990), and less optimal parenting behaviors (e.g., low involvement and monitoring, and harsh discipline) are key risk factors for adolescent problem behaviors in single-parent families (Laursen, 2005). Although examining the main risk factors for adolescents’ problem behaviors is very important, identifying specific mechanisms underlying family processes that include those risk factors is necessary to explain the formation and progression of adolescents’ problem behaviors (Restifo and Bögels, 2009; Childs et al., 2020). Nevertheless, few studies have explored family processes in single-parent households to understand adolescent problem behaviors (e.g., Turner et al., 1991; Taylor et al., 2010).
Specifically, the higher poverty rate of single-parent households compared to two-parent households is a major risk factor linked to children’s developmental outcomes (Weinraub and Kaufman, 2019). Conger et al. (1994) proposed the Family Stress Model (FSM), which explains adolescents’ problem behaviors through family processes that originate with parents’ economic burden. Particularly, considering that female-headed single-parent households are more likely to be impoverished compared to male-headed households and that financial problems are a major stressor in single-mother households (Weinraub and Kaufman, 2019; United States Census Bureau, 2022), applying the FSM to examine single-mother families’ processes that lead to adolescents’ problem behaviors could provide valuable insights.
This study extends previous studies that have employed the FSM, examining the potentially protective role of adolescent school connectedness in the family processes that lead to adolescent problem behaviors. School connectedness is students’ experience of belonging and engagement in school, which is an important protective factor for adolescent’s healthy development (Bond et al., 2007; Monahan et al., 2010). Family and school are two important institutions for adolescents, providing emotional and social resources for healthy development. According to ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006), interactions between the two institutions are conceptualized as a “mesosystem,” which refers to relationships among two or more immediate settings. Although studies considering the role of other institutions in investigating families’ effects on children’s and adolescents’ outcomes are scant (Parcel et al., 2010), some research has indicated the joint (i.e., not merely additive) effect of the two institutions on development. For example, one study revealed the compensating effect of school on behavioral problems for children from families with lower socioeconomic resources (Domina, 2005). Additionally, the influence of family violence on adolescents’ peer aggression is mitigated when adolescents have a stronger sense of belonging in school (Valido et al., 2021). With few previous studies examining moderating effects within the FSM, this study focuses on the moderating role of adolescents’ school connectedness in the paths to their problem behaviors to determine the impact of other important environmental factors on the development of adolescents in single-mother families.
Applying the FSM: The indirect association between single mothers’ material hardship and adolescent problem behaviors
The FSM (Conger et al., 1994, 2010) delineates how parents’ emotional distress related to economic hardship can impact children’s developmental outcomes. The model indicates that economic pressure (e.g., inability to pay monthly bills) is not only a family’s objective condition but also a factor that affects parents and children psychologically (Conger and Donnellan, 2007). Instead of focusing on economic hardship’s direct effect on children’s adjustment, the FSM posits comprehensive family processes, such as parents’ emotional and behavioral functioning, as mediating mechanisms. Specifically, parents’ economically influenced emotional distress (e.g., depression and anxiety) can significantly disrupt their ability to maintain positive and nurturing parent–child relationships. Less adaptive behaviors such as harsh and uninvolved parenting in turn can lead to children’s emotional and behavioral problems and impaired competence (Conger et al., 2010).
Empirical studies testing the FSM have demonstrated that it is a valid heuristic model that can be applied to families with children in diverse developmental stages (e.g., Mistry et al., 2002; Parke et al., 2004; Benner and Kim, 2010). Research has indirectly linked parents’ experience of economic hardship to behavioral problems of children in early and middle childhood via parents’ emotional distress, couples’ conflicts, and harsh parenting behaviors (Linver et al., 2002; Solantaus et al., 2004; Neppl et al., 2016; Sosu and Schmidt, 2017). Studies targeting families of adolescent children with reports from both mothers and fathers (regardless of family structure) have also demonstrated the significant indirect effect of economic hardship on adolescents’ behavioral problems through family processes (Benner and Kim, 2010; Ponnet, 2014; Landers-Potts et al., 2015; Ponnet et al., 2016; Diggs and Neppl, 2018). Empirical evidence for the FSM’s validity has also been established across diverse family contextual backgrounds. For example, economic pressure’s indirect effects on internalizing and externalizing problems have been reported in samples with various ethnic backgrounds, such as families of African, Chinese, and Mexican origin, as well as in samples with diverse geographic backgrounds (Benner and Kim, 2010; Ponnet, 2014; Landers-Potts et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2015; White et al., 2015; Ponnet et al., 2016; Simons et al., 2016).
However, most studies applying the FSM to explain adolescent behavioral problems have targeted two-parent families or included parents regardless of their gender (Yoder and Hoyt, 2005; Wadsworth et al., 2013; Ponnet, 2014; Sun et al., 2015; Ponnet et al., 2016; Diggs and Neppl, 2018), with little focus on diverse family structures. Additionally, although some studies have explored stress processes in single-mother families, most of them targeted single mothers of younger children (Brody and Flor, 1997; Mistry et al., 2002; Scaramella et al., 2008), while fewer studies (e.g., Kim and Brody, 2005; Turner et al., 2013) have focused on identifying how family processes in single-mother households are linked to adolescents’ adjustment.
Adolescents’ healthy development is important in itself, but preventing and mitigating adolescents’ adjustment problems is significant, as such problems can affect individuals throughout adulthood. Although few empirical studies have assessed how single mothers’ economic hardship is linked to adolescent problem behaviors via mental health and parent-adolescent relationships, previous studies that have examined parts of the FSM support the viability of the current study’s research model. Previous research indicates that on average, single mothers tend to suffer from higher levels of stress compared to married mothers (Cairney et al., 2003). Specifically, financial problems are the main stressor for single mothers and significantly impede their psychological functioning (Kim and Brody, 2005; Kotwal and Prabhaker, 2009). For example, studies have showed that single mothers’ financial hardship is associated with their current and chronic depressive symptoms (Brody and Flor, 1997; Brown and Moran, 1997; Kim et al., 2018).
Several studies have also reported the mediating role of parenting behaviors or parent-adolescent relationships in the relationship between mothers’ mental health problems and adolescents’ behavioral problems (e.g., Cummings and Davis, 1994; Johnson and Greenberg, 2013), although they did not focus on single mothers. Single-mother status itself may not be associated with insufficient functioning as parents (Turner et al., 1991), but single mothers’ emotional difficulties (e.g., depression and anxiety) are associated with less optimal parenting behaviors, such as low levels of authoritative and involved parenting, punishment, physical abuse, and neglect (Eamon and Zuehl, 2001; Leinonen et al., 2002). In addition, the quality of parenting behaviors and parent-adolescent relationships have consistently been found to be strong predictors of adolescent problem behaviors (Soenens et al., 2006; Johnson and Greenberg, 2013). Specifically, instead of focusing on the disruptive parenting behaviors indicated as mediators between parents’ and children’s maladjustment in FSM, this study focused on the mediating role of the mother-adolescent closeness between single mothers’ depression and adolescents’ problem behaviors. The reason for this is that the bond between a parent and an adolescent (e.g., closeness, connectedness, attachment) can be an essential facet of the relationship that explains adolescents’ adjustment (Clark and Ladd, 2000; Collins and Laursen, 2004; Pinquart, 2014). The quality of parenting behaviors and parent-adolescent relationships have consistently been found to be strong predictors of adolescent problem behaviors (Soenens et al., 2006; Johnson and Greenberg, 2013). Specifically, the closeness between a parent and an adolescent is an important relationship factor that is often measured by indicators such as trust, intimacy, and communication (Collins and Laursen, 2004; Branje et al., 2012). Closeness between a parent and an adolescent is often measured by indicators such as trust, intimacy, and communication (Collins and Laursen, 2004; Branje et al., 2012). Lower levels of mother-adolescent closeness, mother-adolescent communication, affection, and care are associated with higher levels of externalizing and internalizing problems among adolescents (Barrett and Turner, 2005; King et al., 2018; Coates et al., 2019). Adolescents’ weak sense of belonging and low levels of trust and attentive listening between mothers and adolescents are mechanisms explaining the link between closeness with parents and problem behaviors (Smetana et al., 2002; King et al., 2018).
In addition to the possibility that single mothers’ economic hardship is linked to adolescent problem behaviors through mothers’ mental health and the mother-adolescent relationship, a few studies also indicate that mothers’ depression may be directly associated with adolescent problem behaviors, even after accounting for the mediating role of parent-adolescent relationships. Emotional contagion among family members and genetic vulnerability to depression are a few mechanisms potentially explaining parents’ mental health and children’s negative adjustment (Goodman and Gotlib, 1999; Wolford et al., 2019).
Adolescent school connectedness as a moderator
There have been few studies examining potential risk or protective factors that moderate family stress processes (Masarik and Conger, 2017). Previous studies have indicated that the level of poverty (Ponnet, 2014), mothers’ personality and values (Taylor et al., 2010; Gonzales et al., 2014; White et al., 2015), and coping strategies and social support (Wadsworth et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2014) play significant moderating roles, exacerbating or mitigating stress processes. Specifically, in studies examining how stress processes are linked to problem behaviors, the moderating role of neighborhood characteristics was reported, including collective efficacy in the relationship between harsh parenting and behavioral difficulties (Krishnakumar et al., 2014), as well as neighborhood adversity in the relationship between harsh parenting and adolescents’ internalizing problems (White et al., 2015).
Although school is a significant institution in which adolescents spend most of their time outside of family, providing multiple resources for resilience development (Masten, 2014), adolescents’ relationship with school has seldom been examined in studies applying the FSM. Research shows that adolescents report better well-being when they feel like part of their school and are cared for by people in school (Eccles et al., 1997). There is also a wealth of studies reporting the relationship between stronger school connectedness and reduced externalizing and internalizing problems (Gonzales et al., 2014; Marraccini and Brier, 2017; Olivier et al., 2020). Adolescents’ superior behavioral outcomes are explained by diverse resources in schools such as the opportunity to develop secure relationships that are the basis for social and emotional development, as well chances to build psychological skills in a warm and supportive atmosphere, observing positive adult and peer role models, learning important values in life, and participating in intervention programs aimed at enhancing socioemotional development (Catalano et al., 2004; Masten and Cicchetti, 2016). Many studies have examined the effect of school connectedness on adolescents’ problem behaviors, focusing on variables related to school context (Wilson, 2004; Loukas and Pasch, 2013), with several reporting that both positive parent characteristics and school connectedness significantly decrease adolescent problem behaviors (Mrug and Windle, 2009; Duggins et al., 2016). Considering that few studies have tested the moderating effect of school connectedness in the relationship between parent characteristics/parent-adolescent relationship characteristics and problem behaviors (Loukas et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2019), this study focused on the moderating role of school connectedness in the relationships between mothers’ depression and adolescent problem behaviors as well as between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescent problem behaviors. Material hardship can negatively impact mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness, but the buffering hypothesis posits that a strong social support system mitigates the negative effects of stressful events (Cohen and Wills, 1985; Landers-Potts et al., 2015; Berry et al., 2016). In short, previous studies indicate that more studies are needed to understand how parental characteristics and adolescent school connectedness may interact to influence adolescents’ adjustment in diverse contexts.
The present study
Based on the FSM and the findings from previous research, we hypothesize that (1) single mothers’ material hardship is indirectly associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors through sequential mediations of mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness, (2) single mothers’ material hardship is indirectly associated with adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors through mothers’ depression, and (3) school connectedness moderates the association between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescent problem behaviors and the association between mothers’ depression and adolescent problem behaviors. Figure 1 shows our research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Materials and methods
Data and sample
This study analyzed data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), a longitudinal study that follows children born in the US between 1998 and 2000. The original sample was a stratified random sample of 4,898 children born in 20 cities (Wave 1) that was nationally representative, and these individuals were followed beginning at ages one (Wave 2), three (Wave 3), five (Wave 4), nine (Wave 5), and 15 (Wave 6), approximately. We analyzed data only from Wave 6 (when individuals were about age 15). The FFCWS includes both children and their primary caregivers’ interviews regarding their cognitive and behavioral development, health, parenting behaviors, neighborhoods, and other important life variables. We restricted the analysis to single mothers whose primary caregiver (PCG) report of the relationship to the adolescent was biological, representing 1,384 adolescents and their mothers. We excluded cohabiting mothers because single mothers living alone are more likely to face economic difficulties.
Table 1 displays the descriptive characteristics of the analyzed sample. Among the sample’s adolescents, 50% were female, and 9% were White, 58% were Black, 17% were Hispanic, and 6% reported the “other” racial category. Adolescents’ average age was 15.63 years (SD = 0.76). For mothers, the average age was 40.48 years (SD = 6.01). Approximately 14% of mothers had graduated from college, and 44% were living in poverty.
Table 1. Summary statistics (N = 1,384).
Measures
Internalizing and externalizing behaviors
Adolescent behavioral development was assessed using self-report questionnaires based on the 34 items of the behavioral, emotional, and social problems scales of the Child Behavior Checklists (CBCL)/6–18 (Achenbach and Rescorla, 2001). The subscales included were aggressive behavior, anxious/depressed behavior, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior, social problems, thought problems, and withdrawal.
We calculated a score of internalizing behaviors by summing responses to six items regarding anxious/depressed behavior and two items regarding withdrawal, each measured on a 3-point Likert scale: 0 (not true), 1 (sometimes true), or 2 (often true). The composite score ranged from 0 to 15. For externalizing behaviors, we summed responses to 11 items regarding aggressive behaviors and nine items in rule-breaking behaviors, each measured on a 3-point Likert scale: 0 (not true), 1 (sometimes true), or 2 (often true). The composite score ranged from 0 to 36. The Cronbach’s alpha was.58 for the internalizing behaviors score and.89 for the externalizing behaviors score. The average scores of internalizing behaviors was 2.11 (SD = 2.52) and externalizing behaviors was 4.97 (SD = 5.39).
Material hardship
We assessed material hardship using the 11 items from PCG’s questionnaire, which was originally adapted from the survey on Income and Program Participation (SIPP), New York City Social Indicators Survey (SIS), and the Study of Work, Welfare, and Family Well-Being of Iowa families on FIP (Iowa’s assistance program). Each questionnaire contained yes/no questions on the extent to which respondents experienced hunger, homelessness, utility shut-offs, and forgone medical care due to insufficient financial resources. We summed responses on items to generate a composite score, with higher scores indicating greater material hardship. The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was.74. The average score of material hardship was 1.61 (SD = 1.92).
Mothers’ depression
The major depressive episode PCG questionnaires were derived from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF) Section A (Kessler et al., 1998), whose criteria are consistent with those of the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Respondents indicated whether they have had feelings of depression or a general lack of pleasure in the past year that lasted for two or more weeks. If those symptoms lasted most of the day or occurred every day within the two-week period, respondents were asked more specifically about whether they had lost interest, felt tired, experienced changes in weight, had trouble sleeping, had trouble concentrating, felt worthless, or thought about death. We then calculated the major depressive score as the sum of the positive responses to each item, which ranged from 0 to 8. The average score of mothers’ depression was 1.35 (SD = 2.44).
Mother-adolescent closeness
We assessed mother-adolescent closeness using two self-report questionnaires asking adolescents to rate the extent to which they (1) talk and (2) exchange ideas with their mothers. Each item utilized a 4-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (extremely close) to 4 (not very close). This study recoded responses on a 0–3 scale and averaged the two items’ responses to create a composite score [Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC), 2018]. The average mother-adolescent closeness score was 2.26 (SD = 0.77), and the scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was.49.
School connectedness
We assessed school connectedness using self-report questionnaires completed by adolescents, which were used in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics Child Development Supplement. The measure comprises four items assessing inclusiveness, closeness, happiness, and safety experienced at school. Items utilized a 4-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher levels of school connectedness. We averaged responses to the items to create a composite score of school connectedness. The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was.72 and the average score of school connectedness was 2.38 (SD = 0.61).
Covariates
This study also assessed the following adolescent and family characteristics: adolescents’ gender (male = 0, female = 1), adolescents’ age, adolescents’ race (each category dummy-coded for White, Black, Hispanic, other racial category), mothers’ age, mothers’ college graduation status (did not graduate from college = 0, graduated from college = 1), and family poverty status (family not in poverty = 0, family in poverty = 1).
Analytic strategies
This study used path analysis, a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach, to examine the associations among material hardship, mothers’ depression, mother-adolescent closeness, and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors. SEM considers associations among multiple pathways simultaneously and provides standardized regression coefficient for each pathway. We used bootstrapping to compute bias-corrected standard errors (MacKinnon, 2008), then we decomposed the direct, indirect, and total effects by using the nonlinear combination-of-estimators function to test for mediations. Nonlinear combination-of-estimators computes standard errors based on the delta method (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). Missing data rates for the study variables ranged from 0 to 9.68%. We used the full-information maximum likelihood estimation to retain as many observations as possible and to mitigate missing data bias. With respect to school connectedness’s moderating effect, we included interaction terms between mother-adolescent closeness and school connectedness and between mothers’ depression and school connectedness in the regression models. Then, we created a margins plot to illustrate the prediction of adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors by (1) mother-adolescent closeness and school connectedness and (2) mothers’ depression and school connectedness. We performed all analyses using Stata 14.0 (StataCorp, 2015, College Station, TX, United States).
Results
Correlational analysis
Table 2 shows Pearson correlations for the primary variables. Adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors, mother-adolescent closeness, mothers’ depression, material hardship, and school connectedness all were statistically significantly associated, with correlations ranging from −0.20 to.53. Adolescents’ age was associated with school connectedness, and mothers’ age was associated with adolescent externalizing behaviors, material hardship, and adolescents’ age.
Table 2. Correlations of primary variables (N = 1,384).
Associations among material hardship, mothers’ depression, mother-adolescent closeness, and adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors
All variables were observed variables and all models demonstrated good overall fit to the data. Our first SEM model predicting the path from material hardship to adolescent internalizing behavior (Table 3; Figure 2) suggested statistically significant paths via mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness. Increases in material hardship were associated with increases in mothers’ depression (b = 0.30, p < 0.001), and increases in mothers’ depression were associated with decreases in mother-adolescent closeness (b = −0.07, p = 0.01), which in turn decreased adolescents’ internalizing behaviors (b = −0.08, p = 0.00). Mothers’ depression was directly associated with increases in adolescents’ internalizing behaviors (b = 0.20, p < 0.001).
Table 3. SEM Standardized coefficient estimates (N = 1,384).
Figure 2. SEM path model from material hardship to adolescents’ internalizing behaviors (standardized).
The results for adolescents’ externalizing behaviors (Table 3; Figure 3) were similar to those for internalizing behaviors. Mothers’ depression was associated with increases in mother-adolescent closeness (b = −0.07, p = 0.01), which in turn decreased adolescents’ externalizing behaviors (b = −0.16, p < 0.001). Mothers’ depression was also directly associated with adolescents’ externalizing behaviors (b = 0.17, p < 0.001).
Figure 3. SEM path model from material hardship to adolescents’ externalizing behaviors (standardized).
Table 4 displays the indirect effects via mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness. Results indicated statistically significant effects for all indirect pathways. Material hardship was indirectly associated with adolescents’ internalizing (b = 0.08, p < 0.001) and externalizing (b = 0.17, p < 0.001) behaviors via mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness. Additionally, material hardship was indirectly associated with adolescents’ internalizing (b = 0.08, p < 0.001) and externalizing (b = 0.14, p < 0.001) behaviors via mothers’ depression.
Table 4. Indirect effects (N = 1,384).
For supplementary analyses, this study tested the alternative models switching mother-adolescent closeness and mother’s depression (shown in Supplementary Table A1 and Supplementary Figures A1, A2). The results were consistent in that material hardship was indirectly associated with adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors sequentially via mother-adolescent closeness and mothers’ depression. This study also tested an SEM path model including both adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors within the same model since these behaviors are closely related. The findings were similar to those analyzed in separate models. In addition, the original models had smaller Akaike Information Criteria (AIC; Akaike, 1979) and Bayes Information Criteria (BIC; Raftery, 1993) values than the alternative models, indicating better model fit (Kuha, 2004) (model comparisons shown in Supplementary Tables A2, A5).
In terms of the covariates (Table 3), female adolescents had mothers who were less depressed compared to male adolescents (b = −0.05, p = 0.05), and Black adolescents (b = −0.16, p < 0.001), Hispanic adolescents (b = −0.15, p < 0.001), and adolescents reporting “other” as their race (b = −0.08, p = 0.02) had mothers who were less depressed compared to White adolescents. Living in poverty was positively associated with mothers’ depression (b = 0.10, p < 0.001). However, adolescents’ age and mothers’ age were not significantly associated with mothers’ depression. Regarding mother-adolescent closeness, female adolescents were less close with their mothers than were male adolescents (b = −0.06, p = 0.03). However, adolescents’ age, adolescents’ race, mothers’ age, mothers’ educational attainment, families’ living in poverty were not significantly associated with mother-adolescent closeness. Additionally, Black (b = −0.29, p < 0.001), Hispanic (b = −0.19, p < 0.001), and other race adolescents (b = −0.04, p = 0.03) exhibited fewer internalizing behaviors than did White adolescents. Adolescents living with poor families were more likely to exhibit internalizing behaviors (b = 0.06, p = 0.03). However, adolescents’ gender, age, mothers’ age, and mothers’ educational attainment were not associated with adolescents’ internalizing behaviors. In terms of externalizing behaviors, female adolescents were less likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors than were male adolescents (b = −0.08, p = 0.00). Hispanic adolescents were less likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors than were White adolescents (b = −0.10, p = 0.02). Mothers’ age was negatively associated with adolescents’ externalizing behaviors (b = −0.11, p < 0.001). Adolescents living with poor families were more likely to exhibit externalizing behaviors (b = 0.08, p = 0.00). However, adolescents’ age, the dummy variables for the Black and other racial categories, and mothers’ educational attainment were not significantly associated with adolescents’ externalizing behaviors.
Moderating effect of school connectedness
Table 5 shows the results regarding the moderating role of school connectedness in the SEM model. Mother-adolescent closeness positively predicted adolescents’ internalizing behaviors (b = 0.62, p = 0.05), and this effect was moderated by school connectedness (b = −0.32, p = 0.01). In other words, the association between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ internalizing problem behavior was weaker for adolescents with high levels of school connectedness. Figure 4 also shows that school connectedness moderated the association between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors. These findings suggest that mother-adolescent closeness effectively reduces adolescents’ internalizing behaviors when levels of school connectedness are high.
Table 5. Moderating effect of school connectedness (N = 1,384).
Figure 4. Interaction between school connectedness and mother-adolescent closeness in the prediction of adolescents’ internalizing behaviors.
Mothers’ depression positively predicted adolescents’ internalizing behaviors (b = 0.22, p = 0.04), but this effect was not moderated by school connectedness. Additionally, school connectedness did not significantly moderate the relationship between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors or that between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors.
Discussion
Although many studies indicate that adolescents in single-parent households are at heightened risk for problem behaviors, few studies have explored family processes leading to adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Applying the FSM, this study examined the processes in single-mother families that link material hardship to adolescents’ problem behaviors—namely, single mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness. Specifically, with little research examining moderators in the FSM (Masarik and Conger, 2017), this study explored the moderating roles of adolescent school connectedness in the paths that link mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness to adolescents’ problem behaviors.
The results supported our first hypothesis, indicating the sequential mediating roles of mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness in the relationship between material hardship and adolescents’ problem behaviors. This aligns with previous research demonstrating single mothers’ psychological functioning and parenting as important sequential mediators in the relationship between family risk factors and African American adolescents’ adjustment (Kim and Brody, 2005). It is also similar to the results from previous studies investigating adolescents raised in two-parent families or targeting adolescents and their parents regardless of parents’ gender or family structure (Benner and Kim, 2010; Landers-Potts et al., 2015; Diggs and Neppl, 2018). This study indicates that economic strain is a significant extrafamilial stressor that exacerbates single mothers’ mental health and relationships with adolescents, ultimately leading to both internalizing and externalizing problems. Although many studies have focused on adjustment of younger children in single-mother families to understand the impact of single mothers’ diverse stressors (Mistry et al., 2002; Scaramella et al., 2008), this study confirms that family is still an important contributor to adjustment during adolescence during which peers, friends, and other extrafamilial networks take on more important roles.
Specifically, mother-adolescent closeness played a significant partial mediating role in the relationship between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ problem behaviors. Research indicates that warm, close relationships with parents fulfill adolescents’ basic psychological needs and contribute to secure attachment, which lead to adolescents’ behavioral and emotional adjustment (Soenens et al., 2019). On the other hand, poor communication and negative parent–child relationships do not significantly change as children develop into adolescents, and even worse interactions occur over time in single-parent families (Loeber et al., 2000). Based on the FSM, this study showed that the mother-adolescent relationship in single-mother families is significantly indirectly associated with material hardship through mothers’ depression. Specifically, previous studies have reported less frequent interactions and higher negativity in parent-adolescent relationships among single-mother or single-parent families compared to two-parent families (Baer, 1999; Laursen, 2005). By applying FSM, this study showed how material hardship and single mothers’ depression are associated with an important facet of the mother-adolescent relationship, which eventually led to problem behaviors. This result also supported the second hypothesis positing the role of mothers’ depression as a single mediator between material hardship and adolescents’ problem behaviors. As previous studies suggest, although parenting and the parent–child relationship are the primary mechanisms that explain the relationship between parents’ and children’s mental health, other elements such as emotion contagion and genetic vulnerability may also be important (Goodman and Gotlib, 1999; Goodman et al., 2020). Additionally, because this study focused on mother-adolescent closeness, potentially significant mediating roles of other facets of parenting, such as monitoring and autonomy granting, should also be considered in further research (Soenens et al., 2019).
Taken together, this study highlights the importance of interventions that address the deleterious effects of economic strain and depression in single-mother families. Above all, although parents’ extrafamilial stress (e.g., economic hardship) is an important factor that explains their children’s behavioral problems (Östberg and Hagekull, 2013), as Crnic and Coburn (2019) note, only a few interventions have been developed to address such material hardship. Additionally, most intervention programs for single mothers have focused on parents of younger children (e.g., Brown and Bhavnagri, 1996; Lipman and Boyle, 2005), notwithstanding many single mothers’ challenges in providing financial and educational support for adolescent children and difficulties in dealing with new parenting roles required for raising adolescents (Elliott et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2019).
Moreover, this study examined the moderating role of school connectedness in the associations of mother-adolescent closeness and mothers’ depression with adolescents’ problem behaviors. As expected, we found that school connectedness significantly moderated the relationship between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ internalizing behaviors. Although little attention has been paid to this moderating variable, several studies have reported a significant association between school connectedness and adolescents’ problem behaviors (Gonzales et al., 2014; Marraccini and Brier, 2017; Olivier et al., 2020), aligning with our study findings. Specifically, considering that experiencing connection with others is an important psychological need linked to adolescents’ well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2000), it is likely that adolescents’ feelings of connectedness with friends, teachers, and school itself buffered the negative effect of distance from mothers on internalizing problem behaviors. Research has indicated that school can play an important role in nurturing resilience, the capacity to successfully adapt to challenges that threaten normal functioning or healthy development (Masten and Cicchetti, 2016; Masten and Barnes, 2018). Particularly, as this study found that school can protect against internalizing behaviors when adolescents in single-mother households experience negative family processes that originate from material hardship, enhancing school connectedness, which can provide multiple relationship opportunities for adolescents, should be highlighted in reducing internalizing behaviors.
However, unexpectedly, school connectedness moderated neither the relationship between mothers’ depression and adolescent internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors nor that between mother-adolescent closeness and adolescents’ externalizing behaviors. Because few studies have explored school connectedness’s moderating role in the FSM, we cautiously suggest a few possible explanations of our results. Above all, regarding the lack of significant moderation of school connectedness in the relationship between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ problem behaviors, the diverse pathways through which the former can affect the latter offer one explanation. That is, school connectedness may have a significant indirect effect on adolescents’ problem behaviors through aspects of familial relationships (as found in this study), rather than there being a direct association between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ problem behaviors, which can be explained by various potential mechanisms such as emotional contagion, genetic vulnerability, and ineffective discipline (Goodman and Gotlib, 1999). Additionally, this study produced inconsistent results on adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors in terms of the interactive effect of mother-adolescent closeness and school connectedness. A large body of research indicates co-occurrence and co-development of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. However, some studies also indicate that the antecedents and contexts of the two problem behaviors can differ. For example, depending on adolescents’ peer networks and school activity types, more engagement in school social networks can be associated with increased delinquency (Eccles and Barber, 1999). Despite the direct and significant association between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors, this study found no moderating effect of school connectedness in the association between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors. It is possible that school connectedness’s moderating effect on adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors was offset due to the strong association between mothers’ depression and adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors. Several studies have reported mothers’ depression as one of the strongest predictors of adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors (Weissman et al., 1997; Goodman and Gotlib, 1999; Wolford et al., 2019). As school connectedness itself was significantly associated with adolescents’ internalizing problem behaviors, it may be possible that the influence of mothers’ depression offset this moderating effect.
Similarly, our findings contrast with previous evidence on the protective effects of school connectedness on adolescents’ problem behaviors. Because the adolescents of our sample were approximately 15 years of age, prospective studies need to explore whether the protective role of school connectedness is more evident among older adolescents. As previous studies have found stronger association between school connectedness and externalizing problem behaviors for older high school students (Resnick et al., 1997; Crosnoe et al., 2002), future studies should focus on later adolescents and examine whether school connectedness mitigates externalizing problem behaviors.
Limitations
Although this study has many strengths, a few limitations must be noted. First, although this study used both mother-reported and teen-reported measures, there is a methodological limitation due to the use of a mono-method self-reported design, which may have led to inflated statistical associations and biased estimates. Future studies may consider including observational methods to measure constructs of interest, such as parent-adolescent closeness. Second, based on the FSM, this study investigated material hardship as an important stressor that may directly or indirectly affect mothers’ mental health, mothers’ relationships with their adolescent children, and adolescents’ problem behaviors. However, future studies should also consider diverse known risk factors in single-mother households that may influence family processes. That is, single mothers’ challenges should be addressed comprehensively to understand the complex family processes that explain adolescents’ problem behaviors (Weinraub and Kaufman, 2019). For example, insufficient social support, lack of coparenting, and adolescents’ childhood stressors and chronic problem behaviors could majorly affect family processes and adolescents’ life outcomes (Cairney et al., 2003; Sterrett et al., 2009; Daryanani et al., 2017). Third, this study’s cross-sectional design precludes making causal inferences. Although the directionality of our research model was guided theoretically by the FSM, the increasing effect of children on their parents during adolescence should also be considered. For example, the influence of adolescents’ problem behaviors on mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent relationships could be examined in the future. Additionally, as adolescents’ problem behaviors may have been influenced by their childhood development, future research may consider using a longitudinal design to clarify the directionality and causality of the complex mechanisms. Lastly, although our study focused on single-mother families, further research should consider diverse and complex family structures, including single-father families, and how their family processes influence adolescents’ healthy development.
Conclusion
Despite some limitations, this study contributes to the literature as one of the few studies examining specific family processes in single-mother families to explain adolescents’ problem behaviors. Specifically, previous studies have indicated that adolescents in single-parent households are at a heightened risk for adjustment problems (Barrett and Turner, 2005; Amato, 2010; Daryanani et al., 2016). Although many studies suggest various risk factors for adolescent problem behaviors, investigating the processes associated with the behaviors is necessary (Childs et al., 2020). Specifically, although not all single parents live in poverty, single mothers are more likely to suffer from economic hardship compared to single fathers (United States Census Bureau, 2022). Accordingly, using samples in which households under the poverty threshold are overrepresented, this study revealed the significant indirect effect of material hardship on adolescents’ problem behaviors through mothers’ depression and the quality of mothers’ relationships with adolescents, which was guided by the FSM. Furthermore, with few studies investigating moderating effects in the FSM (Masarik and Conger, 2017), this study investigated the moderating role of school connectedness in the paths leading to problem behaviors. Although the moderating effect of school connectedness was significant only in the relationship between mother-adolescent closeness and internalizing problem behaviors, this study provides valuable initial findings regarding protective/risk factors in adolescents’ environments within the family stress process. Research should continue to elucidate the risk/protective factors that ultimately determine adolescents’ developmental outcomes. Additionally, considering that single mothers’ depression and mother-adolescent closeness are significant elements that explain the relationship between single mothers’ material hardship and adolescent problem behaviors, interventions that address emotional and relational problems associated with economic hardship in single-mother families should be devised.
Data availability statement
Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found at: https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/.
Ethics statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
Author contributions
WL: conceptualization, methodology, writing — original draft, writing — review and editing, and supervision. YJ: software, formal analysis, data curation, writing — original draft, writing-review and editing, and project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by the Ewha Womans University Research Grant of 2021.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937698/full#supplementary-material
References
Achenbach, T. M., and Rescorla, L. A. l. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & Families.
Akaike, H. (1979). A Bayesian extension of the minimum AIC procedure of autoregressive model fitting. Biometrika 66, 237–242. doi: 10.1093/biomet/66.2.237
Amato, P. R. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. J. Marriage Fam. 62, 1269–1287. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.01269.x
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: continuing trends and new developments. J. Marriage Fam. 72, 650–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.201000723.x
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baer, J. (1999). The effects of family structure and SES on family processes in early adolescence. J. Adolesc. 22, 341–354. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0226
Barrett, A. E., and Turner, R. J. (2005). Family structure and mental health: the mediating effects of socioeconomic status family process, and social stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 46, 156–169. doi: 10.1177/002214650504600203
Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (CRCW) and Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC) (2018). User’s guide for the fragile families and child wellbeing study public data, year 15. Available at: https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/sites/fragilefamilies/files/year_15_guide.pdf
Benner, A. D., and Kim, S. Y. (2010). Understanding Chinese American adolescents’ developmental outcomes: insights from the family stress model. J. Res. Adolesc. 20, 1–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00629.x
Berry, D., Blair, C., Willoughby, M., Garrett-Peters, P., Vernon-Feagans, L., Mills-Koonce, W. R., et al. (2016). Household chaos and children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development in early childhood: does childcare play a buffering role? Early Child. Res. Q. 34, 115–127. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.09.003
Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., et al. (2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. J. Adolesc. Health 40, 357.e9–357.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013
Branje, S., Laursen, B., and Collins, W. A. (2012). “Parent-child communication during adolescence” in The Routledge hand-book of family communication. ed. A. Vangelisti 2nd ed (New York, NY: Routledge), 271–286.
Brody, G. H., and Flor, D. L. (1997). Maternal psychological functioning, family processes, and child adjustment in rural, single-parent. Af. Am. Fam. Dev. Psychol. 33, 1000–1011. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1000
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). The ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Dev. Psychol. 22, 723–742. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. (2006). “The bioecological model of human development” in Handbook of Child Psychology. Theoretical Models of Human Development. eds. W. Daman, R. M. Lerner, and R. M. Lerner (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons), 793–828.
Brown, N. L., and Bhavnagri, N. (1996). Effects of an Early intervention program on stress and teaching ability of single mothers of young multiply impaired children. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, educational resources information center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 398678), Michigan.
Brown, G. W., and Moran, P. M. (1997). Single mothers, poverty and depression. Psychol. Med. 27, 21–33. doi: 10.1017/S0033291796004060
Cairney, J., Boyle, M., Offord, D. R., and Racine, Y. (2003). Stress, social support and depression in single and married mothers. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 38, 442–449. doi: 10.1007/s00127-003-0661-0
Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., and Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: findings from the social development research group. J. Sch. Health 74, 252–261. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08281.x
Childs, K. K., Brady, C. M., Cameron, A. L., and Kaukinen, C. (2020). The role of family structure and family processes on adolescent problem behavior. Deviant Behav. 43, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2020.1771128
Clark, K. E., and Ladd, G. W. (2000). Connectedness and autonomy support in parent–child relationships: links to children’s socioemotional orientation and peer relationships. Dev. Psychol. 36, 485–498. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.4.485
Coates, E. E., Tran, Q., Le, Y., and Phares, V. (2019). Parenting, coparenting, and adolescent adjustment in African American single-mother families: an actor-partner interdependence mediation model. J. Fam. Psychol. 33, 649–660. doi: 10.1037/fam0000552
Cohen, P. N., Hartman, H., Hayes, J., and Childers, C. (2015). Moynihan’s half century: Have we gone to hell in a hand basket? Council on Contemporary Families Family Structure Symposium. Available at: https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/cohen-iwpr-moynihan-3-5-2015-2.pdf
Cohen, S., and Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 98, 310–357. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Collins, W. A., and Laursen, B. (2004). “Parent-adolescent relationships and influences” in Handbook of adolescent psychology. eds. R. M. Lerner and L. Stenberg (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons), 331–394. doi: 10.1002/9780471726746.ch11
Compas, B. E., and Williams, R. A. (1990). Stress, coping, and adjustment in mothers and young adolescents in single-and two-parent families. Am. J. Community Psychol. 18, 525–545. doi: 10.1007/bf00938058
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., and Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. J. Marriage Fam. 72, 685–704. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x
Conger, R. D., and Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 175–199. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551
Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., and Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Dev. 65, 541–561. doi: 10.2307/1131401
Crnic, K. A., and Coburn, S. S. (2019). “Stress and parenting” in Handbook of parenting. ed. M. H. Bornstein, vol. 4. 3rd ed (New York: Routledge: Special conditions and applied parenting), 421–448. doi: 10.4324/9780429398995-14
Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K. G., and Dornbusch, S. M. (2002). Protective functions of family relationships and school factors on the deviant behavior of adolescent boys and girls: reducing the impact of risky friendships. Youth Soc. 33, 515–544. doi: 10.1177/0044118X02033004002
Cummings, E. M., and Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 35, 73–122. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01133.x
Daryanani, I., Hamilton, J. L., Abramson, L. Y., and Alloy, L. B. (2016). Single mother parenting and adolescent psychopathology. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 44, 1411–1423. doi: 10.1007/s10802-016-0128-x
Daryanani, I., Hamilton, J. L., McArthur, B. A., Steinberg, L., Abramson, L. Y., and Alloy, L. B. (2017). Cognitive vulnerabilities to depression for adolescents in single-mother and two-parent families. J. Youth Adolesc. 46, 213–227. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0607-y
Diggs, O. N., and Neppl, T. K. (2018). The influence of economic pressure on emerging adult binge drinking: testing the family stress model over time. J. Youth Adolesc. 47, 2481–2495. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0923-5
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociol. Educ. 78, 233–249. doi: 10.1177/003804070507800303
Donovan, J. E., and Molina, B. S. G. (2011). Childhood risk factors for earlyonset drinking. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 72, 741–751. doi: 10.1037/t06334-000
Dornbusch, S. J., Carlsmith, S., Bushwall, P., Ritter, H., Leiderman, A. H., and Gross, R. (1985). Single parents, extended households, and the control of adolescents. Child Dev. 56, 326–341. doi: 10.2307/1129723
Duggins, S. D., Kuperminc, G. P., Henrich, C. C., Smalls-Glover, C., and Perilla, J. L. (2016). Aggression among adolescent victims of school bullying: protective roles of family and school connectedness. Psychol. Viol. 6, 205–212. doi: 10.1037/a0039439
Eamon, M. K., and Zuehl, R. M. (2001). Maternal depression and physical punishment as mediators of the effect of poverty on socioemotional problems of children in single-mother families. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 71, 218–226. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.71.2.218
Eccles, J. S., and Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: what kind of extracurricular involvement matters? J. Adolesc. Resh 14, 10–43. doi: 10.1177/0743558499141003
Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Fraser, K., Belansky, E., and McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents' functioning. J. Adolesc. Res. 12, 263–286. doi: 10.1177/0743554897122007
Elliott, S., Powell, R., and Brenton, J. (2015). Being a good mom: low-income, black single mothers negotiate intensive mothering. J. Fam. Issues 36, 351–370. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13490279
Gonzales, N. A., Wong, J. J., Toomey, R. B., Millsap, R., Dumka, L. E., and Mauricio, A. M. (2014). School engagement mediates long-term prevention effects for Mexican American adolescents. Prev. Sci. 15, 929–939. doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0454-y
Goodman, S. H., and Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in the children of depressed mothers: A developmental model for understanding mechanisms of transmission. Psychol. Rev. 106, 458–490. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.3.458
Goodman, S. H., Simon, H. F., Shamblaw, A. L., and Kim, C. Y. (2020). Parenting as a mediator of associations between depression in mothers and children’s functioning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Child. Fam. Psychol. Rev. 23, 427–460. doi: 10.1007/s10567-020-00322-4
Johnson, L. E., and Greenberg, M. T. (2013). Parenting and early adolescent internalizing: the importance of teasing apart anxiety and depressive symptoms. J. Early Adolesc. 33, 201–226. doi: 10.1177/0272431611435261
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Mroczek, D., Ustun, T. B., and Wittchen, H. U. (1998). The world health organization composite international diagnostic interview short-form (CIDI-SF). Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 7, 171–185. doi: 10.1002/mpr.47
Kim, S., and Brody, G. H. (2005). Longitudinal pathways to psychological adjustment among black youth living in single-parent households. J. Fam. Psychol. 19, 305–313. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.305
Kim, G. E., Choi, H. Y., and Kim, E. J. (2018). Impact of economic problems on depression in single mothers: a comparative study with married women. PLoS One 13:e0203004. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203004
King, V., Boyd, L. M., and Pragg, B. (2018). Parent-adolescent closeness, family belonging, and adolescent well-being across family structures. J. Fam. Issues 39, 2007–2036. doi: 10.1177/0192513X17739048
Kotwal, N., and Prabhakar, B. (2009). Problems faced by single mothers. J. Soc. Sci. 21, 197–204. doi: 10.1080/09718923.2009.11892771
Krishnakumar, A., Narine, L., Roopnarine, J. L., and Logie, C. (2014). Multilevel and cross-level effects of neighborhood and family influences on children’s behavioral outcomes in Trinidad and Tobago: the intervening role of parental control. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 42, 1057–1068. doi: 10.1007/s10802-014-9852-2
Kuha, J. (2004). AIC and BIC: comparisons of assumptions and performance. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 188–229. doi: 10.1177/0049124103262065
Landers-Potts, M. A., Wickrama, K. A. S., Simons, L. G., Cutrona, C., Gibbons, F. X., Simons, R. L., et al. (2015). An extension and moderational analysis of the family stress model focusing on African American adolescents. Fam. Relat. 64, 233–248. doi: 10.1111/fare.12117
Laursen, B. (2005). Conflict between mothers and adolescents in single-mother, blended, and two-biological-parent families. Parent. Sci. Pract. 5, 347–370. doi: 10.1207/s15327922par0504_3
Lee, W. K., Kim, M., Kim, T., and Kim, H. Y. (2019). A qualitative study on the parental role experiences of low-income single mothers raising adolescents. Korean J. Fam. Welf. 24, 315–351. doi: 10.13049/kfwa.2019.24.3.3
Leinonen, J. A., Solantaus, T. S., and Punamäki, R. L. (2002). The specific mediating paths between economic hardship and the quality of parenting. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 26, 423–435. doi: 10.1080/01650250143000364
Linver, M. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Kohen, D. E. (2002). Family processes as pathways from income to young children's development. Dev. Psychol. 38, 719–734. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.719
Lipman, E. L., and Boyle, M. H. (2005). Social support and education groups for single mothers: a randomized controlled trial of a community-based program. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 173, 1451–1456. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050655
Loeber, R., and Burke, J. D. (2011). Developmental pathways in juvenile externalizing and internalizing problems. J. Res. Adolesc. 21, 34–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00713.x
Loeber, R., Drinkwater, M., Yin, Y., Anderson, S. J., Schmidt, L. C., and Crawford, A. (2000). Stability of family interaction from ages 6 to 18. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 28, 353–369. doi: 10.1023/A:1005169026208
Loukas, A., and Pasch, K. E. (2013). Does school connectedness buffer the impact of peer victimization on early adolescents’ subsequent adjustment problems? J. Early Adolesc. 33, 245–266. doi: 10.1177/0272431611435117
Loukas, A., Roalson, L. A., and Herrera, D. E. (2010). School connectedness buffers the effects of negative family relations and poor effortful control on early adolescent conduct problems. J. Res. Adolesc. 20, 13–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00632.x
Marraccini, M. E., and Brier, Z. M. F. (2017). School connectedness and suicidal thoughts and behaviors: a systematic meta-analysis. Sch. Psychol. Q. 32, 5–21. doi: 10.1037/spq0000192
Masarik, A. S., and Conger, R. D. (2017). Stress and child development: a review of the family stress model. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 13, 85–90. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.008
Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Dev. 85, 6–20. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12205
Masten, A. S., and Barnes, A. (2018). Resilience in children: developmental perspectives. Children 5:98. doi: 10.3390/children5070098
Masten, A., and Cicchetti, D. (2016). “Resilience in development: Progress and transformation” in Developmental psychopathology. ed. D. Cicchetti 3rd ed (New York, NY: Wiley), 271–333. doi: 10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy406
Mistry, R. S., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., and McLoyd, V. C. (2002). Economic well-being and children’s social adjustment: the role of family process in an ethnically diverse low-income sample. Child Dev. 73, 935–951. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00448
Monahan, K. C., Oesterle, S., and Hawkins, J. D. (2010). Predictors and consequences of school connectedness: the case for prevention. Prev. Res. 17, 3–7.
Mrug, S., and Windle, M. (2009). Moderators of negative peer influence on early adolescent externalizing behaviors: individual behavior, parenting, and school connectedness. J. Early Adolesc. 29, 518–540. doi: 10.1177/0272431608324473
Neppl, T. K., Senia, J. M., and Donnellan, M. B. (2016). Effects of economic hardship: testing the family stress model over time. J. Fam. Psychol. 30, 12–21. doi: 10.1037/fam0000168
Olivier, E., Morin, A. J., Langlois, J., Tardif-Grenier, K., and Archambault, I. (2020). Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and student engagement in elementary and secondary school students. J. Youth Adolesc. 49, 2327–2346. doi: 10.1007/s10964-020-01295-x
Östberg, M., and Hagekull, B. (2013). Parenting stress and external stressors as predictors of maternal ratings of child adjustment. Scand. J. Psychol. 54, 213–221. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12045
Parcel, T. L., Dufur, M. J., and Cornell Zito, R. (2010). Capital at home and at school: a review and synthesis. J. Marriage Fam. 72, 828–846. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00733.x
Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J., et al. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European American families. Child Dev. 75, 1632–1656. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00807.x
Pew Research Center (2019). U.S. has world’s highest rate of children living in single-parent households. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/12/u-s-children-more-likely-than-children-in-other-countries-to-live-with-just-one-parent/
Pinquart, M. (2014). Associations of general parenting and parent-child relationship with pediatric obesity: a meta-analysis. J. Pediatr. Psychol. 39, 381–393. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jst144
Ponnet, K. (2014). Financial stress, parent functioning and adolescent problem behavior: an actor–partner interdependence approach to family stress processes in low-, middle-, and high-income families. J. Youth Adolesc. 43, 1752–1769. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0159-y
Ponnet, K., Wouters, E., Goedemé, T., and Mortelmans, D. (2016). Family financial stress, parenting and problem behavior in adolescents: an actor-partner interdependence approach. J. Fam. Issues 37, 574–597. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13514409
Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Raftery, A. E. (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models. Sage Focus Editions 154:163
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm. findings from the National Longitudinal Study on adolescent health. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 278, 823–831. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03550100049038
Restifo, K., and Bögels, S. (2009). Family processes in the development of youth depression: translating the evidence to treatment. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 29, 294–316. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.02.005
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Scaramella, L. V., Sohr-Preston, S. L., Callahan, K. L., and Mirabile, S. P. (2008). A test of the family stress model on toddler-aged children's adjustment among hurricane Katrina impacted and nonimpacted low-income families. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 37, 530–541. doi: 10.1080/15374410802148202
Simons, L. G., Wickrama, K. A. S., Lee, T. K., Landers-Potts, M., Cutrona, C., and Conger, R. D. (2016). Testing family stress and family investment explanations for conduct problems among African American adolescents. J. Marriage Fam. 78, 498–515. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12278
Smetana, J. G., Crean, H. F., and Daddis, C. (2002). Family processes and problem behaviors in middle-class African American adolescents. J. Res. Adolesc. 12, 275–304. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795.00034
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., and Beyers, W. (2019). “Parenting adolescents” in Handbook of parenting. ed. M. Bornstein, vol. 1. 3rd ed (New York, NY: Routledge: Children and parenting), 101–167. doi: 10.4324/9780429440847-4
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., and Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: an integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Dev. Psychol. 42, 305–318. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.305
Solantaus, T., Leinonen, J., and Punamäki, R. L. (2004). Children's mental health in times of economic recession: replication and extension of the family economic stress model in Finland. Dev. Psychol. 40, 412–429. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.40.3.412
Solomon-Fears, C. (2014). Nonmarital births: An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service
Sosu, E. M., and Schmidt, P. (2017). Economic deprivation and its effects on childhood conduct problems: the mediating role of family stress and investment factors. Front. Psychol. 8:1580. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01580
Sterrett, E. M., Jones, D. J., and Kincaid, C. (2009). Psychological adjustment of low-income African American youth from single mother homes: the role of the youth-coparent relationship. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 38, 427–438. doi: 10.1080/15374410902851663
Sun, W., Li, D., Zhang, W., Bao, Z., and Wang, Y. (2015). Family material hardship and Chinese adolescents’ problem behaviors: a moderated mediation analysis. PLoS One 10:e0128024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128024
Taylor, R. D., Budescu, M., Gebre, A., and Hodzic, I. (2014). Family financial pressure and maternal and adolescent socioemotional adjustment: moderating effects of kin social support in low income African American families. J. Child Fam. Stud. 23, 242–254. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9688-8
Taylor, Z. E., and Conger, R. D. (2017). Promoting strengths and resilience in single-mother families. Child Dev. 88, 350–358. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12741
Taylor, Z. E., Larsen-Rife, D., Conger, R. D., Widaman, K. F., and Cutrona, C. E. (2010). Life stress, maternal optimism, and adolescent competence in single mother, African American families. J. Fam. Psychol. 24, 468–477. doi: 10.1037/a0019870
Thomas, G., Farrell, M. P., and Barnes, G. M. (1996). The effects of single-mother families and nonresident fathers on delinquency and substance abuse in black and White adolescents. J. Marriage Fam. 58, 884–889. doi: 10.2307/353977
Tian, Y., Yu, C., Lin, S., Lu, J., Liu, Y., and Zhang, W. (2019). Parental psychological control and adolescent aggressive behavior: deviant peer affiliation as a mediator and school connectedness as a moderator. Front. Psychol. 10:358. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00358
Turner, H. A., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S. L., and Shattuck, A. (2013). Family structure, victimization, and child mental health in a nationally representative sample. Soc. Sci. Med. 87, 39–51. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.034
Turner, R. A., Irwin, C. E. Jr., and Millstein, S. G. (1991). Family structure, family processes, and experimenting with substances during adolescence. J. Adolesc. 1, 93–106.
United States Census Bureau (2022). Families and living arrangements. Available at: https://www.census.gov/topics/families.html
Valido, A., Ingram, K., Espelage, D. L., Torgal, C., Merrin, G. J., and Davis, J. P. (2021). Intra-familial violence and peer aggression among early adolescents: moderating role of school sense of belonging. J. Fam. Violence 36, 87–98. doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00142-8
Wadsworth, M. E., Rindlaub, L., Hurwich-Reiss, E., Rienks, S., Bianco, H., and Markman, H. J. (2013). A longitudinal examination of the adaptation to poverty-related stress model: predicting child and adolescent adjustment over time. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 42, 713–725. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2012.755926
Weinraub, M., and Kaufman, R. (2019). “Single parenthood” in Handbook of parenting. ed. M. H. Bornstein, vol. 3. 3rd ed (New York: Routledge: Being and becoming a parent), 271–310. doi: 10.4324/9780429433214-8
Weissman, M. M., Warner, V., Wickramaratne, P., Moreau, D., and Olfson, M. (1997). Offspring of depressed parents: 10 years later. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 54, 932–940. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830220054009
White, R., Liu, Y., Nair, R. L., and Tein, J. Y. (2015). Longitudinal and integrative tests of family stress model effects on Mexican origin adolescents. Dev. Psychol. 51, 649–662. doi: 10.1037/a0038993
Wilson, D. (2004). The interface of school climate and school connectedness and relationships with aggression and victimization. J. Sch. Health 74, 293–299. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08286.x
Wolford, S. N., Cooper, A. N., and McWey, L. M. (2019). Maternal depression, maltreatment history, and child outcomes: the role of harsh parenting. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 89, 181–191. doi: 10.1037/ort0000365
Keywords: single mother, adolescent, internalizing problems, externalizing problems, school connectedness
Citation: Lee WK and Joo YS (2022) Examining family processes linked to adolescent problem behaviors in single-mother families: The moderating role of school connectedness. Front. Psychol. 13:937698. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937698
Edited by:
Fanli Jia, Seton Hall University, United StatesReviewed by:
Xiaozi Gao, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, ChinaMengguo Jing, Boston College, United States
Copyright © 2022 Lee and Joo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Young Sun Joo, ysjoo@mju.ac.kr