Further, Thus, most participants believed their ex-partners should have worked harder, but at the couple level, there were more couples in which both partners agreed that the wife did not need to work harder than there were couples in which both partners agreed the husband did not need to work harder. When asked who filed for the divorce, Next, we provide the findings on the most commonly cited qualitative feedback reported by participants regarding how to improve premarital education.
The following results and percentages refer to counts of qualitative codes created by the research team based on common themes in the interviews.
Results show that Indeed, Twenty-five percent Example constraints included having become engaged, set a wedding date, sent out invitations, or purchased a dress, which made it difficult for participants to objectively reconsider if they were marrying the right person through the educational experience.
Thus, a large portion of participants expressed that receiving PREP just before marriage made it difficult for them to seriously considered delaying their wedding plans in order to make more objective decisions about the relationship.
We already have all the people. Everything is already set up and we bought the house. The churches have been booked. The invitations have gone out. Thirty-one percent Other participants simply expressed that it was hard to remember and perfect their skills after the program ended because they did not practice them regularly.
I just think it mattered if you were going to apply the principles or not. These comments included surprise that their partners changed over the course of the marriage, as well as trouble facing new problems when they emerged e. That after the wedding day, and the build up to the wedding day, real life is going to kick in and you have to really have some tools to deal with it.
Thus, among individuals who received PREP premaritally and later divorced, this study addressed reasons for divorce as well as ideas for what else would have been helpful in relationship education.
Given the small sample and qualitative nature of the reports, the implications discussed below ought to be considered preliminary. We asked about reasons for divorce to know whether PREP addressed the kinds of problems that couples who went on to divorce tended to experience. The most commonly cited reason for divorce was lack of commitment, followed by infidelity and too much conflict and arguing. These top rated major reasons for divorce noted here are similar to those found in large random surveys of divorced participants cf.
Overall, these findings support the importance of covering communication and commitment in premarital education programs to help foster successful marriages; however, in light of participant feedback on PREP, the program may have been able to cover these and other topics more effectively. Research indicates that commitment and conflict management are related in that commitment helps partners inhibit negative behaviors and engage in more positive behaviors at critical moments Slotter et al.
One solution could be to increase the time couples spend in premarital education in order for them to master essential skills and to help them become more likely to constructively derail negative processes as they emerge. Longer curricula do not seem to lead to stronger effects Hawkins, Stanley et al. With most premarital education services, including PREP, couples are not provided opportunities to practice new skills or receive coaching while they are upset or experiencing a difficult disagreement.
A group or workshop format likely inhibits such real-world discussions. It could be that couples would benefit from new program content that helps them practice their skills better when they are having trouble. Couples may also benefit from additional opportunities to perfect the use of program strategies after the intervention has ended, such as through booster classes or individual meetings with coaches.
New technologies now offer innovative ways to deliver such boosters, such as through online training or smart phone applications. Introducing new content on the issues that participants identified as final straws in their marriages may also be beneficial.
These issues were infidelity, aggression or emotional abuse, and substance use. Addressing these behaviors directly in relationship education raises some questions regarding which couples relationship education providers might seek to help stay together as opposed to help break-up.
We believe premarital education should serve as a prevention effort to help healthy and happy couples stay that way and that keeping distressed, abusive, or otherwise unhealthy couples together would not be a positive outcome. A limitation of the current study is that the pre-intervention assessment did not include the kinds of measures necessary to determine the extent to which couples in this study presented with these problems before marriage.
If providers or programs choose to address infidelity explicitly, Markman provides useful guidelines for covering the topic. These recommendations include informing participants that there are specific situations and developmental time periods within relationships with increased risks for engaging in extramarital relationships e.
Furthermore, participants could be informed that the risk for extramarital relationships may increase during stressful times—such as when partners are separated for long periods by work demands or experiencing low marital satisfaction—and this information could be shared with participants.
Partners could also be given structure to talk with each other about expectations for fidelity, management of relationships with friends or co-workers who could be attractive alternatives, and boundaries for their relationship. Substance abuse also appeared to be a prevalent problem at least for half of divorced couples in this sample.
Overall, reports indicate that although substance abuse problems may have developed gradually throughout these relationships, this issue constituted the final straw to end the relationship for a number of individuals once the situation was perceived as insurmountable. Substance abuse is not currently addressed in PREP except that all couples attending PREP are provided with information on how to get more help for a range of problems, including substance abuse. Premarital programs may benefit from educating participants on how substance abuse is not uncommon as a reason for divorce in an effort to encourage participants to address substance abuse problems as early as possible.
Such program additions could also include how to recognize and get help for substance abuse and could encourage partners to discuss their expectations for substance use in the relationship. Partners may also benefit from discussing how to support each other in seeking help, should the need ever arise.
Domestic violence was cited by over a quarter of couples as a reason for divorce. When asked to elaborate, some described verbal abuse, while others described physical aggression.
Often participants explained that they initially believed they could work through the problem, but later found it unbearable, as some participants considered an act of physical aggression as the final straw in their relationship. In current models of PREP, all participants learn that aggression is unacceptable and they all receive basic information on ways to get help e. Still, more could be done.
The field continues to debate how to best address this issue, as different types of violence and couples of varying risk may warrant different approaches. Johnson distinguishes between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. Specifically, situational couple violence tends to be much more common and represents aggression that comes out of conflict. It is typically initiated by either partner while intimate terrorism encompasses more controlling, threatening behavior, typically by the male partner.
As is done routinely in PREP, it seems necessary in relationship education that providers and program content emphasize to all participants that any aggression is unacceptable and also suggest specific, local ways to seek help for problems with aggression.
For further recommendations regarding domestic violence and relationship education, see suggestions by Derrington, Johnson, Menard, Ooms, and Stanley Financial hardship was cited as a major reason for divorce that provided stress on their relationship by over half the sample. Although PREP helps couples learn communication skills to discuss stressful topics in general, it is worth considering whether specific content on money and economic stress is warranted.
Participants could be asked to more directly share expectations about finances and learn coping skills for times of significant financial strain.
They could also be provided with appropriate community resources to improve or stabilize their financial situations or these resources could be incorporated into relationship education efforts. Almost half of interviewees commented that they did not know enough about the typical course of events in marriage. PREP typically addresses expectations by encouraging participants to recognize and discuss their own expectations for marriage Markman et al.
More content on normal marital development could be helpful. For example, information could be provided about how satisfaction typically drops and conflict tends to increase during the transition to parenthood e.
Thus, relationship education programs may benefit from providing guidelines regarding when to seek professional help and even have couples practice these difficult conversations to encourage them to seek help early and at times when changes are easiest to make.
Most participants also believed that they, personally, should not have worked harder to save their marriages. Therefore, premarital education may need to focus on encouraging help seeking behaviors in couples with the understanding that most individuals may see their partners as primarily responsible for their difficulties, and therefore, may not feel personally responsible.
In addition, the majority of couples displayed a pattern in which the women blamed their ex-husbands while their ex-husbands did not see themselves as responsible. Thus, it may be especially important that husbands and wives develop realistic expectations about seeking help together, so that they later do not disagree about what circumstances might constitute a need for help. Our findings show that a considerable number of participants wished that they had known more about their partner before marriage, saying they would have either learned how to handle differences better or left the relationship.
Many others believed they had married too young. Also, a portion of participants mentioned that they participated in PREP during a time when the constraints of wedding plans made it more likely for them to ignore factors that may have otherwise ended their relationship. These participant comments highlight the difference between when couples might ideally benefit from premarital education compared to when couples typically seek it. One of the potential benefits of relationship education is that is can help some couples on an ill-advised or premature path toward marriage to reconsider their plans see Stanley, ; however, couples typically participate in these programs close to their wedding dates, a time when ending the relationship may be especially difficult.
This study provides new information regarding the reasons for divorce and possible improvements to relationship education programs based on feedback from divorced individuals who participated in PREP premaritally.
Although the study focuses on improving the PREP model specifically, relationship education programs working with premarital populations may also find value in our findings, particularly regarding how to cover specific topics deemed important by our participants.
Other programs may also benefit from suggestions to provide relationship education earlier and to provide services to help couples master their skill development over time. This study also has several limitations that warrant discussion. First, respondent reports of their progression toward divorce and premarital education experiences were retrospective and may therefore be biased by the passing of time. Second, the sample was mostly White and only included participants in heterosexual relationships who married within mostly Christian-based religious organizations.
Therefore, future studies are needed to examine whether these findings would be replicated with other groups or cultures. A third limitation is the lack of a comparison group of couples who participated in PREP but did not divorce.
As a result, it is not clear whether or not the problems and recommendations these participants identified are specific to this divorced sample, or would translate to couples who remain married. Finally, all participants in this study received PREP when they were engaged to be married so research is needed to evaluate reasons for relationship dissolution and how to improve programs that target individuals and couples in different relationship stages e.
Nevertheless, this study provides new insight in potential improvements to the content and timing of relationship education. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shrivner National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or National Institutes of Health. Shelby B. Scott, Department of Psychology, University of Denver. Galena K. Rhoades, Department of Psychology, University of Denver.
Scott M. Stanley, Department of Psychology, University of Denver. Elizabeth S. Howard J. Markman, Department of Psychology, University of Denver. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Couple Family Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jun 1. Scott , Galena K. Rhoades , Scott M. Stanley , Elizabeth S. Allen , and Howard J. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Scott, Department of Psychology, University of Denver;. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shelby B.
Race St. Stanley and Howard J. Rhoades has co-authored curricula that are based on PREP and receives royalties on the sale of those curricula. Copyright notice. See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. Abstract The study presents findings from interviews of 52 divorced individuals who received the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program PREP while engaged to be married.
Keywords: divorce, relationship education, couples, premarital, prevention. Method Participants Data were collected from 52 individuals who received PREP premaritally but subsequently divorced at some point in the following 14 years. Measures Reasons for divorce Using items from a previous survey on reasons for divorce C.
Who should have worked harder? Qualitative feedback on PREP Participants were asked to report and elaborate on what they remembered, found difficult, or wished was different about their premarital education experience in an open-ended format. Analytic Approach Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were utilized to address our research questions. Open in a separate window.
Infidelity The next most often cited major contributing factor to divorce was infidelity , endorsed by Conflict and arguing Too much conflict and arguing was endorsed by Marrying too young Getting married too young was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by Financial problems Financial problems were cited as a major contributor to divorce by Substance abuse Substance abuse was reported as a major contributing factor to divorce by Domestic violence Domestic violence was cited as a contributing factor to divorce by Who is to Blame?
Feedback on PREP Next, we provide the findings on the most commonly cited qualitative feedback reported by participants regarding how to improve premarital education. Participating in the program before constraints to marry Twenty-five percent Improved support for ongoing implementation Thirty-one percent Content Considerations for Premarital Education Introducing new content on the issues that participants identified as final straws in their marriages may also be beneficial.
Substance abuse Substance abuse also appeared to be a prevalent problem at least for half of divorced couples in this sample. Domestic violence Domestic violence was cited by over a quarter of couples as a reason for divorce. Financial hardship Financial hardship was cited as a major reason for divorce that provided stress on their relationship by over half the sample.
Marriage expectations Almost half of interviewees commented that they did not know enough about the typical course of events in marriage.
The Timing of Premarital Education Our findings show that a considerable number of participants wished that they had known more about their partner before marriage, saying they would have either learned how to handle differences better or left the relationship.
Conclusions and Limitations This study provides new information regarding the reasons for divorce and possible improvements to relationship education programs based on feedback from divorced individuals who participated in PREP premaritally.
Contributor Information Shelby B. An analysis of divorce cases in the United Arab Emirates: A rising trend. Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of Family Issues. An evaluation of healthy relationship education to reduce intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Social Work. Sources of marital dissatisfaction among newly separated persons. Long-term prediction of marital quality following a relationship education program: Being positive in a constructive way.
Journal of Family Psychology. The effects of adding booster sessions to a prevention training program for committed couples. Making distinctions among different types of intimate partner violence: A preliminary guide. Marital therapy, retreats, and books: The who, what, when, and why of relationship help-seeking. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology.
Journal of Marriage and Family. Also, an independent-samples t-test examined hypothesized group differences for co-parenting conflicts. So, our recruitment strategy successfully resulted in the inclusion of parents involved in high-conflict divorces. The pattern of zero-order correlations in Study 2 see Table 3 for more details closely replicated the one observed in Study 1. For none of the variables did we find significant differences between participants in ex-couples and single participants.
To test the hypothesized link between perceived social network polarization and co-parenting conflict, we performed multilevel regression analyses, regressing co-parenting conflict onto perceived social network disapproval. To test whether social network disapproval was associated with forgiveness, we regressed forgiveness on social disapproval. To ensure that the results were valid above and beyond educational level, gender, relationship duration and time since separation, we conducted all analyses controlling for these variables.
Furthermore, we assessed whether forgiveness mediated the link between social network disapproval and co-parenting conflict. Significant mediation is indicated when the CI does not include zero.
Taken together, these results suggest that when parents involved in high-conflict perceive their social network to be disapproving of the ex-partner, they are less forgiving and this is related to more co-parenting conflict. The results of Study 1 were consistently replicated in Study 2. Among parents involved in high-conflict divorces, we found a positive relation between perceived social network disapproval and the number of co-parenting conflicts.
Furthermore, results confirmed our hypothesis that forgiveness between ex-partners plays a crucial role in explaining this association. By adopting a different recruitment procedure, we succeeded not only in including a high-conflict divorce sample, but also in including more fathers than in Study 1. Additionally, all effects were significant when we ruled out possible statistical interdependence among ex-partners by conducting multilevel regression analyses. All three aspects speak to the robustness of our results.
The results of Study 2 also yielded a number of new insights. First, they revealed that ex-partners showed agreement in their evaluation of co-parenting conflict and perceived social network disapproval, but not their forgiveness. Second, they revealed gender differences in the report of co-parenting conflict and social network disapproval, but not for forgiveness. The findings regarding the intraclass correlations may be attributable to the fact that co-parenting conflict and perceived social network disapproval happen between people, while forgiveness is an intra personal process with inter personal consequences.
This transformation needs to take place intrapersonally Worthington , before it can be translated into behavior toward the perpetrator McCullough et al. Consequently, there may not be agreement in forgiveness between ex-partners in high-conflict divorce couples. It is possible that there is more agreement when divorced parents manifest behavior interpersonally so that the ex-partners can become cognizant of a positive change in their attitudes towards them McCullough et al.
A core feature of interpersonal forgiveness is that it is approach-oriented, indicating a willingness to re-engage with perpetrators. For example, McCullough argues that reconciliation may be a behavioral proxy for interpersonal forgiveness. Future research examining the interpersonal manifestations of forgiveness among high-conflict couples may be particularly promising. Co-parenting conflict mostly takes place in the presence of the ex-partner, and although ex-partners may not agree on the severity or intensity of the conflict, they do agree on the fact that conflicts take place Halford and Sweeper Because parents share responsibility and care for their child ren McHale et al.
This interaction, in turn, may facilitate the accurate detection of conflict. Similarly, social network disapproval can be assumed to be felt by both partners in that their networks need to separate once the divorce has taken place Sprecher and Felmlee We will address the mean differences across gender in the general discussion.
The findings of the two studies presented here shed light on one underlying mechanism that can account for why in many divorced couples co-parenting conflicts are maintained or even escalate. The results showed that parents who perceive more disapproval toward the other parent in their social network after a divorce have more co-parenting conflicts.
Speaking to the robustness of these results, we found the hypothesized mediation across two studies, involving a convenience sample of divorced parents and a sample of high conflict divorced parents whose children were clinically referred for intervention because their wellbeing was severely compromised by the severity of parental conflicts.
These findings are in line with a growing body of research demonstrating the importance of the broader social network on relationship processes between ex partners Agnew ; Crowley and Faw ; Hogerbrugge et al. Consistent with our first hypothesis in both studies, we found that divorced parents who perceived more disapproval in their social network had more co-parenting conflicts. Extending previous work on the importance of social network influences on relationship quality in ongoing relationships Lehmiller and Ioerger , the current research demonstrated that the perception of a negative attitude toward an ex-partner is linked to more parental conflict.
Our findings are compatible with the suggestion that ex-partners mobilize social and emotional support to justify the divorce Sprecher and Felmlee , which may help the individual ex-partners to increase their sense of belonging and decrease feelings of uncertainty Eaton and Sanders In light of the important implications such insights may have for interventions, longitudinal research on these strategies and the interplay of approval of the divorce and disapproval of the co-parenting relationship would be particularly promising.
In a review, Haber et al. In line with previous research, we found support for our second hypothesis, that the level of forgiveness is positively related to the quality of the co-parenting relationship among divorced parents Bonach ; Bonach and Sales ; Reilly ; Rye et al. More research is needed to examine the role of forgiveness in intervention programs for high-conflict divorces.
Also, we confirmed the hypothesized mediation model in both studies. The results suggest that if parents perceive that friends, family members, and important others are blaming the ex-partner for transgressions and are speaking negatively about the ex-partner, it is harder for parents to forgive the other parent, which seems to be one important relational mechanism in the explanation of the maintenance and escalation of conflicts between divorced parents.
While our studies shed light on one potential mechanism underlying the link between perceived social network disapproval and co-parenting conflicts, other mechanisms seem possible. For example, parents who perceive more network disapproval may interpret this disapproval as emotional support for their feelings regarding old marital conflicts Cabrera et al.
In contrast to Study 1, in Study 2 we found gender differences in the report of co-parenting conflict and social network disapproval, but not for forgiveness. Regarding these mean differences across gender, we believe that the mean differences for social network disapproval need to be replicated. In fact, in Study 1 we did not find significant differences, whereas in Study 2 mothers reported greater social network disapproval than fathers. Regarding co-parenting conflict, in both studies fathers reported higher levels of co-parenting conflict, albeit significantly only in Study 2.
Possibly this is attributable to the fact that fathers are more often the non-custodial parent, but research would need to examine this suggestion. It is important to note several strengths and a limitation of the present work.
One limitation of the present research is the cross-sectional nature of both studies. Nevertheless, the direction of the proposed associations is consistent with longitudinal studies showing that forgiveness predicts conflict resolution e. Although plausible, other directional effects can be proposed.
To illustrate, DiDonato et al. Specifically, more forgiveness was associated with greater perceived commitment, satisfaction, and warmth. These results not only emphasize the need for more experimental and prospective studies investigating the proposed links, but also point to the possibility that parental forgiveness, co-parenting conflicts, and perceived social network dis- approval may reinforce each other in a cyclic model.
One important strength is the robustness of the results, which replicated across a convenience sample of divorced parents recruited via online forums and a clinical sample of high-conflict divorced parents. A second strength is the broader relational perspective we took in this research.
Till now, research mostly focused on the effects of social support and approval of family and friends on individual parental adjustment after divorce Kramrei et al. Our study showed that social network dis approval also affects the post-divorce relationship between ex-partners. This is important as more and more divorced parents maintain a co-parenting relationships and un forgiveness is especially impactful when divorced parents have frequent contact Kluwer Agnew, C.
Social influences on romantic relationships. Beyond the dyad. Cambridge: University Press. Book Google Scholar. Albeck, S. Divorced mothers: Their network of friends pre-and post-divorce. Article Google Scholar. Amato, P. Children of divorce in the s: An update of the Amato and Keith meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology , 15 3 , doi: PubMed Article Google Scholar.
The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children , 15 2 , 75— Anderson, S. Defining high conflict. The American Journal of Family Therapy , 39 1 , 11— Bonach, K. Factors contributing to quality coparenting: Implications for family policy. Forgiveness as a mediator between post divorce cognitive processes and coparenting quality. Bronstein, P. Family Relations , 42 3 , — Cabrera, N. Family Process , 51 3 , — Predictors of co-parenting in Mexican American families and direct effects on parenting and child social emotional development.
Infant Mental Health Journal , 30 5 , doi: Cassano, M. The inclusion of fathers in the empirical investigation of child psychopathology: An update. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 35 4 , — Cheung, I. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 43 1 , — Coleman, P.
Getting down to basics: A situated model of conflict in social relations. Negotiation Journal , 28 1 , 7— Crowley, J. Support marshaling for romantic relationships: Empirical validation of a support marshaling typology.
Personal Relationships , 21 2 , — De Smet, O. Unwanted pursuit behavior after breakup. Belgium: University of Gent. Google Scholar. DiDonato, T. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 32 4 , — Eaton, J. A little help from our friends: Informal third parties and interpersonal conflict. Personal Relationships , 19 4 , — Fincham, F.
Longitudinal relations between forgiveness and conflict resolution in marriage. Journal of Family Psychology , 21 3 , Green, J. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 3 , — Third-party forgiveness: Social influences on intimate dyads. Agnew Ed. Haber, M. The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review.
American Journal of Community Psychology , 39 , — Halford, W. Trajectories of adjustment to couple relationship separation. Family Process , 52 2 , — Hayes, A. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. Helgeson, V. Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations.
Psychological Bulletin , , — Hogerbrugge, M. Dissolving long-term romantic relationships assessing the role of the social context. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 3 , — Johnston, J. High-conflict divorce. The Future of Children , 4 1 , — Karremans, J. Forgiveness in personal relationships: Its malleability and powerful consequences. European Review of Social Psychology , 19 , — When forgiving enhances psychological well-being: The role of interpersonal commitment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 , — Katz, L. Hostility, hostile detachment, and conflict engagement in marriages: Effects on child and family functioning. Child Development , 73 2 , — Kelly, J. Family Relations , 52 4 , — Kennedy, D. The analysis of duocentric social networks: A primer. Journal of Marriage and Family , 77 1 , — Kenny, D.
Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 , — Kluwer, E. Unforgiving motivations among divorced parents: Moderation of contact intention and contact frequency. Personal Relationships , 23 , — Kramrei, E. Post-divorce adjustment and social relationships: A meta-analytic review. Lawler, K. The unique effects of forgiveness on health: An exploration of pathways.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine , 28 2 , — Le, B. Personal Relationships , 17 3 , — Lehmiller, J. Perceived marginalization and the prediction of romantic relationship stability. Journal of Marriage and Family , 69 4 , — Prejudice and stigma in intimate relationships: Implications for relational and personal health outcomes. Chapter Google Scholar. Levine, D. Journal of Human Resources , Lickel, B. Vicarious retribution: The role of collective blame in intergroup aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Review , 10 4 , — Maccoby, E. Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family , Maio, G. Unraveling the role of forgiveness in family relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 2 , — Martinson, K.
Ten key findings from responsible fatherhood initiatives. McCullough, M. Beyond revenge: The evolution of the forgiveness instinct.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations Inventory. Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the big five. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 27 5 , — Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 6 , — McDermott, R. Breaking up is hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: Social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal sample.
Social Forces , 92 2 , — McHale, J. Growing points for coparenting theory and research. Journal of Adult Development , 11 3 , — Coparenting interventions for fragile families: What do we know and where do we need to go next?
Milardo, R. Social capatalization in personal relationships. Beyond the dyad pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morrison, D. Parental conflict and marital disruption: Do children benefit when high-conflict marriages are dissolved? Journal of Marriage and the Family , 61 3 , — Nunes-Costa, R. Psychosocial adjustment and physical health in children of divorce.
Paleari, F. Marital quality, forgiveness, empathy, and rumination: A longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 3 , — Phares, V.
Are fathers involved in pediatric psychology research and treatment? Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 30 8 , — Pinquart, M. Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis.
Psychology and Aging , 15 2 , — Prevoo, T. Raudenbush, S. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
0コメント